U.S. lawmakers vote to hold Bolten and Rove in contempt

[jtrockville]

Source: Reuters (UK)

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors.

On a largely party-line vote of 11-7, the Democratic-led panel sent contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to the full Senate for consideration.

As with many of Bush's battles with the Democratic-led Senate, the president may ultimately prevail since his fellow Republicans may be able to block the citations with a procedural hurdle.

Bush has claimed executive privilege to protect aides from complying with congressional subpoenas demanding documents or testimony in an investigation into the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys. The committee has rejected his privilege claim as unfounded.


Read more: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN1322295820071213

---

Does anyone know what the penalty is, if the contempt citations pass the full Senate?

[Newsjock]

1. Like this will matter

Does anyone know what the penalty is, if the contempt citations pass the full Senate?

A strongly worded letter. That'll show 'em!

[maddezmom]

4. I agree with this professor

~snip~

For these reasons, I believe the White House can be shocked into taking the law seriously only if Congress stands ready, willing and able to use its inherent political powers as aggressively as the Bush Administration. In a recent Roll Call column I argued that, until the White House complies with the Judiciary Committee subpoenas, Congress should refuse any further appropriations to pay senior advisers in the Executive Office of the President who are not serving in advice-and-consent positions. As I there stated, “Congress decided under President Franklin Roosevelt to fund a generous staff of senior confidential advisers to the president to help him conduct the affairs of state. It is fair to tell his successors that they may not use these resources to deprive Congress of information genuinely relevant to a good-faith investigation of possible executive branch wrongdoing.”

We have been brought to the current impasse because the Bush White House ignores the reality that a successful separation of powers system depends upon interbranch norms of mutual accommodation, as well as each branch’s principled assertion of its constitutional prerogatives. The past seven years have escalated the assault on those norms that has become all too routine since the Reagan Administration. As a result, and paradoxical though it may seem, any successful return to a “rule of law” ethos between the elected branches now requires Congress to back its legal arguments with political muscle.

more:http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/12/senator-leahy-executive-power-and-rule.php

but don't see it happening, I hope they shock me.

[parkerll]

28. Wow

Great suggestion. Would be nice if we had a Congress that would actually do it.

[tridim]

5. So I take it you're not happy with this news?

Damned if they do, damned if they don't huh.

[Changenow]

12. They confirmed Michael Mukasey

This is crumbs, they know perfectly well that there will be no result. The only possible substantive step they could have taken would have been inherent contempt, impeachment of the actors (despite their resignations there could still be a trial if the House impeached).

This is too little, to late, and not intended to do anything but give them something to say to the folks at home over Christmas vacation.

[MilesColtrane]

17. Much easier to bitch about those goddammned do-nothing Democrats.

complicit war mongering traitors

:sarcasm:

[Toots]

39. What is to be happy about?

It is like their vote on bringing troops home. They know it will never pass a fillibuster or that Bush* will veto it yet they think we should be happy about their useless motions. They have the ACTUAL power to both stop funding the Iraq War and to send inherent contempt citations out. They don't do either and yet you think we should be happy with them..

[jtrockville]

6. According to Columbia Professor Michael Dorf ...

...

I said that one possibility would be for Congress to hold Rove in contempt. By statute, contempt of Congress can result in up to a year in prison, but Congress does not itself bring the prosecution. Instead, it refers the matter to the . . . wait for it . . . Justice Department. Ouch!

...
http://michaeldorf.org/2007/03/executive-privilege-contempt-of.html

I don't know which would be more lenient... your proposed "strongly worded letter", or an investigation led by Mukasey.

[FREEWILL56]

30. It seems to me that even in the case of getting a year in prison

that bush will pardon them stating the punishment is too harsh.:eyes:
You know on 2nd thought about the DOJ that why can't congress declare a conflict of interest due to DOJ involvement and just have congress try handle it all? Bush seems to create new avenues for himself and his cronies and there's no reason why congress can't do this too to stop him in the interest in justice.

[jtrockville]

34. Conflict of interest seems obvious:

From James Oliphant at the Baltimore Sun:

...all a Senate vote does is refer the matter to the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. His name is Jeffrey Taylor. And his last job before this one was as a senior adviser to former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, whose machinations involving the eight fired U.S. attorneys started this whole business in the first place. Who says Washington is an irony-free zone?
...
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/rove_held_in_contempt_now_what.html

[Solly Mack]

2. I've held them both in contempt for years

[jtrockville]

3. Ditto... my contempt extends to a long list of other administration officials too

[orleans]

14. HA-haah! so have i. n/t

[harmonicon]

18. *rim shot!*

[NMDemDist2]

7. why is this from the UK?

well at least they did *something*

we'll see if they follow up with some teeth or not....

[jtrockville]

8. That one came up first on a google search... here's a few others:

Reuters (Canada)
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-12-13T155952Z_01_N13222958_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-USA-CONGRESS-CONTEMPT-COL.XML&archived=False

Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1322295820071213

They're all essentially the same article, but they show up at various times in a news.google.com search.

[dmosh42]

10. Go right to vote on 'inherent contempt'!

From what I have read, the House can vote for a 'in-house' trial, and if found guilty, enforce a prison sentence to last until the end of the administration. At least do something, instead of letting them drag the constitution through the mud. The Democrats from the seventies would never put up with this crap!

[Changenow]

13. They've got to keep their powder dry. nt

[jtrockville]

9. And one from IHT saying vote was 12-7 (Reuters says 11-7)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/13/america/Congress-Contempt.php

[Triana]

11. bu$hit has his cronies planted in every branch of this gov't...all the way

up to the USURPING crap court.

NOTHING, NOBODY, NOWHERE is going to stop him. Because he has politicized EVERY BRANCH of our government in order to cover his crimes and to give himself and his fellow corprats totally free lawless reign. There is NOTHING they cannot get away with.

N O T H I N G

THE USUAL procedures WILL NOT WORK. They will just hit a wall of cronyism and go nowhere. Watch. Just watch. HOW MANY YEARS now has this been happening over and over and over?

ONE thing will STOP him:

I M P E A C H M E N T

And THAT is the ONE thing DEMOCRATS WON'T DO.

[pnwmom]

32. How will impeachment stop him? It won't.

Not with all the power he has, including all those Rethug Senators who will vote AGAINST his conviction.

So he'll be impeached. But he'll still be President, laughing at us.

[raging_moderate]

15. response? impeach

this is one of the big reasons why impeachment is in order. I believe it trumps any claim of executive privelage, opening up the administration to real investigation.

[pnwmom]

33. And so he'll be impeached, but still in office. A lot of good that will do. n/t

[Botany]

16. Good first step .... Now follow it up.

Long story short bush/Rove/& company were using the DoJ for
Political Hits and the U.S. Attorneys were the button men.

The NSA was used to spy on the opposition too.

Force the republicans to defend the indefensible and get all the
dirt out on the table .... then impeachment will be the people's
business.

Gov. Don Seigleman of Alabama is sitting in jail because of Rove & Company

[rodeodance]

19. good ---now onward to have Repugs in senate block it

[bonito]

20. K&R!

[LSK]

21. the HOUSE needs to do the same because it cannot be blocked there

Unless Pelosi and Hoyer get in the way.

[acmavm]

22. I actually think that this is a STEP in the right direction. But I also

am going to wait to break out the champagne until I see something actually happen. But if they actually do follow up on this and draw that line in the sand, if they do actually hold Bolton and KKKarl to account, I'll be overjoyed.

[sonias]

23. I held them in contempt a long time ago

But it's time the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to hold them in contempt too.

Sonia

[Lint Head]

24. Until the handcuffs come out I will not get my hopes up.

:dem:

[Gonnuts]

25. A Dog and Pony Show

Only with no dog, no pony and very little to show.

Can you say "circle-jerk"?

I knew you could.

[ooglymoogly]

26. Does anybody...anybody believe Yosemite sam and mushroom Rove is shivering in their boots?

sharks against invertebrates. Don't make me laugh.

[Demeter]

27. K&R

Hey, if they can melt all the glaciers, maybe they can thaw Congress!

[rodeodance]

29. CHECK THE SITE--MORE TO STORY NOW

[happygoluckytoyou]

31. IS THERE A REASON THE LOCKSTEP GOP FORGOT THE DEFINITION OF CONTEMPT

[maddezmom]

35. more: Harry Reid will consider whether to bring it to the floor next year

~snip~

The 12-7 vote sent the citation against the two to the full Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters afterward that he will consider whether to bring it to the floor next year.

~snip~

The Senate Judiciary Committee vote means that contempt citations against Bush administration officials await floor action in both chambers of Congress.

It's not clear they will advance any further.

Even if the citations receive floor votes, the issue likely would land in federal courts in a drawn-out constitutional showdown over what White House information should be made available for congressional oversight.

Any court proceedings would almost certainly survive the Bush administration.

more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-13-contempt_N.htm?csp=34

[Fredda Weinberg]

36. Rove, Bolten recommended for contempt

Source: MSNBC

The U.S. Senate's Judiciary committee voted today to recommend that Joshua Bolten, White House chief of staff, and former top aid Karl Rove be found in contempt of Congress.

The committee voted 12-7 to send the contempt issue to the full Senate. The votes follow refusals by Bolten and Rove to comply with committee subpoenas for documents and testimony about the fired US attorneys. The White House has asserted executive privilege for both of them.


Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/13/515070.aspx

[SlowDownFast]

37. Nothing will come of this.

Sorry, but it won't.

Democracy and rule of law/accountability in the United States of America is dead.

[rocktivity]

38. It's the right thing to do.

And that's all I'll ever ask of them.

:headbang:
rocknation