It's Official : DOJ will not enforce House Contempt Charges

[Vyan]

Just two days after the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to seek Contempt of Congress charges against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for refusing to testify on their involvement in the firing and replacing of 9 U.S. Attorney's by partisan shill's... the DOJ has announced that it will not enforce the law.

"As it considers the contempt resolutions, we think it is important that the Committee appreciate fully the longstanding Department of Justice position, articulated during Administrations of both parties, that "the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

As occured during the 1980's in the case of EPA Administratior Ann Gorsuch, where the DOJ refused to persue a Contempt Citation against an Administration Official where the President had exerted executive priviledge.

the Office of Legal Counsel issued an Opinion concluding that the statute is unconstitutional to the extent it requires a U.S. Attorney to prosecute a contempt action where the noncompliance is based on the President's assertion of executive privilege: In OLC's view, a U.S. Attorney thus "is not required to refer a contempt citation in these circumstances to a grand jury or otherwise to prosecute an Executive Branch official who is carrying out the President's instruction." 8 Op. O.L.C. 101, 102.

From current reports the vote by the full house on Contempt will not occur until after the August recess - which means this issue has some time to simmer fully before it boils over.

Once that vote occurs there are two primary courses of action which can be taken by the House, once is to go to the courts and seek to force the President to prove the legitimacy of his Executive Priviledge claims.

The other option, rather than allowing the Administration to continue to run out the clock is for the House to invoke Inherent Contempt, and have Miers and Bolten brought by in their Sargeant at Arm to either testify or rot in the Houses own detention until deciding to do so.

Some would argue that jurisdiction would limit the abilty of the House Sargeant at Arms from bringing Meirs and Bolten into custody - "They could stand across the street from the Capitol and still be safe" - but history has shown that not to be the case.

The Supreme Court has affirmed Congressional power to frog-march witnesses before the bar of Congress. In McGrain v. Daugherty, a recusant witness (the AG's brother) refused to comply with issued subpoenas. The Senate issued a warrant authorizing its sergeant at arms to take custody of the witness and bring him before the bar of the Senate to answer questions. The deputy sergeant at arms went to Cincinnati, Ohio to pick up the uncooperative witness to place him in custody. The witness objected by filing habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court upheld Congressional legal authority to use its own process to compel persons to appear and testify on issues needed to enable Congress to exercise its Constitutional legislative function.

If the House can have the Attorney General's brother arrested in Cincinnati, they can go get Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in Virgina. Oh, and irony of having Meirs or Bolten file Habeaus Motions against their detention would be most delicious.

One other matter which shouldn't be ignored concerning the Gorsuch case - she eventually did provide the information Congress was looking for.

After legal cases and a Court dismissal of the Executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents.

Not only that EPA Official Rita Lavelle served jail time.

Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000

If the Bush Administration is looking to repeat the path followed by Reagan, when he attempted to hide abuse of the Superfund program and they ended up the losing side of established case law, he's headed down a road that they aren't likely to survive.

Vyan

[Bullet1987]

1. What else is there left to do but impeach? I mean really?

[GregD]

4. We the people march on DC and enforce the rule of law ourselves

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

13. that's what it will take

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Like that's going to make any difference?

[MUAD_DIB]

24. If as your moniker suggests you are proud2Blib then

yes it would.


I'd join you and others to do what's right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Have you been to DC to march lately?

Our media ignores it.

[MUAD_DIB]

29. I wasn't talking about just a march.

There's just one march in particular that we all need to make.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. Well come join us

That march has been ongoing for some time now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. We are supposed to wait and trust John Conyers to do the right thing.

St John will save the day. :patriot:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. will the Senate's Sergeant in Arms frogmarch Rove?

that would be interesting

[Demeter]

16. Better Take an Assistant

and a forklift.

[stillcool]

3. Sometimes I wonder...

about the choice to replace Harriet Miers with Fred Fielding. After all...it didn't work out so well for Nixon...but then again there's always lessons learned. This habit of dusting off players of past criminal actions is spooky.
White House Counsel (2007-)
9-11 Commission (2002-04)
White House Counsel (1981-86)
White House Staff Deputy White House Counsel (1972-74)
White House Staff Associate White House Counsel (1970-72)
Blackwater USA Counsel (c. 2005)
American Bar Association
District of Columbia Bar
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Eisenhower Institute Chair, Board of Directors (1999-)
National Legal Center for the Public Interest Chairman, Board of Directors (2002-)
Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity
Watergate Scandal of Watergate fame
http://www.nndb.com/people/226/000043097/

[AtomicKitten]

5. shit - there is no recourse if the Solicitor General declines

to appoint a special prosecutor.

The only remedy is IMPEACH THE MO-FOS ALREADY!!!!

[MessiahRp]

9. Yep and he's a loyal Bushie who will not pursue perjury charges against Gonzales

So Impeachment is the only recourse.

Rp

[truedelphi]

6. It is official: Somewhere in an unmarked grave inside a cemetery of shame

John Mitchell is spinning and cannot stop.

"To think that our Administration, which occasionally got a few things right, was put
out of town on a tinselly train track of tar for one rotten small time burglary, yet here you have men who have lied a country into war, outed a CIA agent, spied on their citizens (I mean we did take a peek into Ellsberg and what not - but hardly the WHOLE ENTIRE NATION!), bungled a military operation that should have been a cakewalk, let the citizens of New Orleans drown in their own feces, and turned the Constitution into toilet paper, yet, where is the drumbeat for impeachment?"

[MessiahRp]

7. Congress should just label Bolten/Miers possible terrorists. Habeus Corpus would no longer be viable

It takes quite the gall to refuse a fair trial to regular Americans while refusing to stand trial from criminals in this Administration.

Impeachment is the only answer.

Rp

[struggle4progress]

8. " ... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ..." says

Article II, Section III of the document King George swore to "preserve, protect and defend"

[MilesColtrane]

10. The House Sergeant at Arms is a former Secret Service man.

I would hope that he would recognize his duties now lie with enforcing the will of Congress, and that he wouldn't have any misplaced loyalty to the Executive.


We can only hope that the other members of the Capitol Police Board make it clear to their officers that they must act if inherent contempt is cited.

I wonder if Bush will surround the White House with Blackwater mercs when they come for Josh Bolton.

[AlGore-08.com]

11. I repeat, the Smirk Admin wants this before the Alito Court

Because the Alito Court has not hesitated to change established case law. Team Smirk wants them to rule that Congress has extremely limited powers of oversight over the Executive, even that the Congress is merely an advisory body to the Unitary Executive.

I know it.

[Demeter]

17. Supremes Have No Jurisdiction, Methinks n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. And you would be correct

I have been just sick about this all week. And I will say it again - John Conyers is no hero. He has the evidence and he needs to start impeachment hearings - YESTERDAY!!

[Blue_In_AK]

12. They're begging to be impeached... n/t

[IndianaGreen]

14. Bush has called the Democrats' bluff, and he has reduced us to barking dogs!

As long as impeachment is "off the table," Bush has nothing to fear from the Democrats.

[Perry Logan]

15. Spoken like a loser.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. We already lost when they took impeachment off the table

[IndianaGreen]

39. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, and so has John Conyers

They have surrendered to a tyrant just as it happened at Munich 1938.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Remember? It's off the table.

I am at the point now where I am ready to impeach the Democrats.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Oh yeah, we should be proud of those Dems; they are so TOUGH!

They are going to send more PAPER to these evil people in the bush administration. In a month! And bushco is soooo scared.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Wake the fuck up you sheeple! IMPEACH

[Time for change]

23. Isn't that bad news?

that the USSC ruled in Reagan's favor in the Ann Gorsuch case?

Our USSC is a lot more conservative -- and corrupt -- now. What are the chances that they would rule against Bush?

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. Zilch

We're screwn.

[LWolf]

28. Please attempt to explain again why this was a reasonable

alternative to impeachment.

[Pachamama]

30. Am I missing something here?? Isn't the job of the DOJ to uphold the law???

Just asking :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. I think the important question is what now?

Since the DOJ is refusing to uphold the law, what can the Dems so now? But more importantly, what WILL they be brave enough to do?

[Pachamama]

33. I agree....what will the Dems be brave enough to do? The Republic is literally at stake...

We live in a land with no rule of law currently....very scary...and if nothing is done, we are moving toward a police state with the only rules being the one that the "Unitary Dictator" sets....

[John Q. Citizen]

34. This may bode well for impeachment. It may be they want to argue that they

are forced into it, no matter how much they would prefer another route.

One of the biggest mistakes the Repos made in the impeachment of Clinton was their obvious pleasure and glee in undertaking the process. Americans saw this and weren't convinced it was done as a last resort to right the country. They saw it as a political hatchet job and nothing more.

It could be the dem leadership are playing rope a dope here. One can dream.

Anybody who lives in a blue dog district would be well advised to contact your house congress critter and press the case for impeachment.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. I have been calling my blue dog Dem

It's pretty much a hopeless cause though. This is a very republican district and he is fortunate to be in office.

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Can you meet with him during the recess? Maybe put together a small group

to meet with him.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. Done

We already made the appointment.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Very cool. I was looking at the website of the Blue Dogs. Their whip is a

woman from S. Dakota. Comes from a long line of S. Dakota politicians.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00024773

She's got a lot of Union backing, and pro-choice groups.

She's also into Veterns Issues and AG.

She sqeaked in in a special election in 04 then won the 04 general by a greater margin. She tromped her Repo opponant in 06. So she's pretty safe.

She seems like a good target because of her influence among Blue Dogs/New Dems. If we could get her on board, even quietly on board, she might be able to drag along a lot of others with her.

I'm posting this, then going to check out the S Dakota forum and see if there is anybody there who might want to speak with her.

[defendandprotect]

41. Why wouldn't all progressive/liberal grousp come together 4 IMPEACHMENT . . .?

Certainly Family Planning and feminists understand that we're facing fascism in America -- ?
How about lesbian and gay groups-- they certainly know -- ?

African-Americans . . . Hispanics --
NAACP -- all minority groups understand the undermining of democracy and that they're getting screwed when they vote?


Labor -- ????
They surely know -- !!!!

Congress, itself, is under threat by this administration hell bent on putting it out of business!!!

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Have you seen that there is now an impeachment activists forum here?

Come on over and check it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=401

[defendandprotect]

40. They can't waste any more time with this -- Independent Prosecutor and IMPEACH --