« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
House Dems to Finally Vote on Contempt for White House Officials
From The Washington Post:
In its first couple of weeks after it returns tomorrow, the House is likely to take up contempt-of-Congress resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for their refusal to appear before Congress for questioning about the 2006 removal of nine U.S. attorneys, Democratic leadership aides said.
For those keeping track at home, it's been nearly six months since the House Judiciary Committee initially approved the contempt citations. As for what the timing might be on the Senate side, where the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved contempt citations for Karl Rove and Bolten, it's not yet clear.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
Fantastic.
However they would have to work around the Justice department to get any real results.
January 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great news.
If this goes through we get to see congress assert one of its essential constitutional powers.
A serious issue : is the congress powerless against an over-aggressive president ?
Let us encourage the congress to take this all the way.
If congress gives away its power to oversee the executive we take another step towards mere despotism.
January 14, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It remains to be seen if the Dems received any spine implants during their recent recess.
January 14, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you enforce the subpoenas and contempt charges? First, the Dems should merely attempt to impeach those officials who are amenable to the process. Other methods,such as refusing to pass appropriations for specific departments where personnel have refused to submit to the process should also be taken. Make the president veto and entire defense approp because the Dems refuse to include appropriations for a specific office in DoD or DoJ because an official will not testify. Who will really look worse to the public? Follow up with plenty of publicity about the officials part in alleged illegalities or improprieties. Start painting the President as a common criminal. Make the Republican members of Congress either stand with him as a member of the mafia or stand up to him.
January 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something very wrong here... this process is being slow walked. Cheeny and Bush laugh at attempts to enforce subpoenas. Key members of congress are making up phony excuses why this is going on and on and on.
Congress already has another method to enforces these subpoenas but no effort is taken to use it.
Watch the next few weeks closely. This whole thing stinks of a fixed system.
Remember Watergate? The President tried to use powers to keep people quiet and it was in the Supreme court within days.
Now we are looking the other way for six months...
The fix is in... watch for key members of Congress to make delaying moves, to push it off on some other procedure - those members have been comprimised - Cheeny or somebody has something on them to keep them quiet.
Watch Spector, Leahy, Feinstien, Pelosi... watch how they talk a different show than they act...
Let us hope justice will prevail, but the signs are not good - something is very wrong here - this is more than laziness...
January 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the MAJOR issues in all of this, as has been pointed out, is the assertion of Congressional powers. No matter who is in office this is critical to our way of government.
Unfortunately, over the last two decades, the political scene has become so polarized that leaders of both parties are unwilling to compromise on just about anything.
At this juncture, the Democrats would need to get the Republicans on board to reinforce this concept. Unfortunately, I can't see the Republicans supporting the Democrats on any issue that might make the President, or the Republicans look bad.
Remember. The reason that Nixon left office was when the Republicans started moving to the side of the Democrats on the issue of impeachment.
January 14, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
electricphoto makes a good point.
The contempt procedure is being slow-walked - the key players of congress may be subject to some type of extortion.
This saturnine Vice President wanted wire-taps for eavesdropping on political opponents.
Wire-taps are ALWAYS first and foremost for eavesdropping on political opponents.
All the stories told by this White House are lies. They were not trying to 'catch terrorists'. They were just snooping.
January 14, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where were Pelosi and her friends a year ago when there was fairly universal horror and indignation about the Bush administration's hijinks? Congressional Democrats now have to work really, really, really hard to be perceived as just something less than pathetic in their oversight responsibilities and in reining in the all-powerful unitary executive. Meanwhile, the country is focusing on the economy and the elections. Has anyone in Congress actually been paying attention?
January 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Congress has proven the need for term limits.
I have always been against term limits because there are people who are good public servants, but this executive power grab while a few Representatives and Senators worry about appearing too weak on terror before their next election leaves the US with no choice but to force our Congresspeople to work TODAY by taking away their ability to serve additional terms.
January 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, like this is going to go anywhere. Not.
January 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contempt citations: I'll believe it when I see it. Pelosi appears reluctant to start punishing those she's alleged, in secret, to have cooperated with in re FISA violations, prisoner abuse, and breaches of the US Constitution. It appears Pelosi only wants to go only "so far," but stop short at looking at the activity she's allegedly complicit: FISA violations, prisoner abuse, illegal warfare, and continued funding for Geneva violations. Pelosi is alleged to have been well involved with the discussions with Cheney in re prisoner treatment and planned surveillance.
Indeed, a contempt citation without an impeachment investigation is meaningless: Pelosi isn't permitting the natural consequence of the investigation to occur -- impeachment -- seems pointless to enforce the law or Congressional will against those surrounding the President.
Contempt citations are needed; but they are absurd if impeachment is not on the table: These staffers are acting in contempt of Congress to assist the President.
- If the President's actions are not going to get reviewed through an impeachment investigation, why should Congress care if his staffers lied to, misled, or did not give information about these alleged Presidential crimes to Congress?
- Is Pelosi going to take these contempt citations off the table; if not, why start holding "some" accountable, but not invetigate the President himself?
- Will Pelosi fully cooperate with the Congressional committees issuing these contempt citations?
January 14, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
brian wrote on January 14, 2008 2:59 PM
An impeachment investigation would appear to spill into Congress and onto Pelosi's lap. For Pelosi to agree to conduct an impeachment investigation, she'll have to accept the risk that the public will explore the following, to what extent:
- The courts were bypassed with full knowledge of Pelosi and the Congressional leadership;
- The Congress and Executive branches, in secret, agreed to bypass the Court and violate FISA and Geneva;
- The Congressional leadership and Executive Branch agreed to non-Constitutional options which should have had a balancing test before the court in re illegal activity, prisoner abuse, and unconstitutional conduct;
- Congress failed to modernize FISA language, and the Congress cooperated by refusing to enforce FISA through an impeachment investigation;
- Congress ratified denial of Habeas without the required _public_ act of Congress to deny Habeas;
- Youngstown precedent ignored, in effect Congress said the Court has no role, and the Congress can "approve" illegal activity during a time of war. Youngstown said this was unconstitutional.
Just because Congress and the Executive Branch agree to something in secret, it doesn't make it legal; nor has that agreement been self-ratified. Congress has no power to self-immunize itself for illegal activity in re Geneva or FISA.
To address your key word: Perhaps the word isn't "extortion," but complicity and malfeasance. Pelosi and Hastert are alleged to have been fully briefed/involved with the decisions, without needed changes in oversight or coordination with the Court, efforts to violate the FISA, and abuse prisoners. Some issues: Did Pelosi and others illegally agree to, inter alia:
- Be bound by an unlawful agreement that she knew or should have known, given her experience, was not lawful, and deprived her of information and input from counsel;
- Bypass the courts and not enact the needed changes to legislation in re FISA;
- Prisoner abuse without distancing themselves, as Harmon did with her Memoranda.
Indeed, it appears Pelosi and others were informed, and when asked, did not say that additional legislative changes were required, as should have been done. It appears Pelosi and others impermissibly agreed to secrecy agreements without fully informed inputs from counsel, as they should have done; and Pelosi and others allegedly illegally agreed to be bound by unlawful agreements to secrecy on issues of war crimes, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and unconstitutional conduct.
January 14, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If NSA wants this additional power, the lawyers need additional leashes. It is absurd to entrust a "Debate" about FISA-NSA to the same crew advised by the same legal counsel that has failed us. Post 9-11 alleged legal complicity is stunning in re FISA, prisoner abuse, interrogation, surveillance, intrusions: Lawyers were the ones leading the efforts.
In secret, it was the lawyers devising ways to bypass the law. Despite their experience, education, and testing; and the reviews by the boards; and their CPE, the lawyers could not be trusted, as they should, to, in secret, fully defend the US Constitution and all Geneva obligations. The lawyers appear to have abused our trust; their oversight appears meaningless; and, in secret, the US government lawyers do not appear to have the needed support to fully assert their legal obligations to the US Constitution.
It's a shame when lawyers, even the best ones, are sullied with a black eye because the actions of a few. Yet, it was a few that led many to do nothing about illegal activity. The legal community showed us since 2001 it required outside pressure and oversight and questions to prompt it to act. That is not an effective "self-regulating" organization. Real FISA reforms require also a discussion of the legal consequences on government counsel for permitting, and not removing themselves from the illegal activity. Debating whether they should or should not be granted more power or capability distracts needed attention from those who will continue to abuse that power: Leadership moving without credible restraint by competent counsel.
If we're going to talk about granting more power to the NSA to do this, we need to have a parallel discussion over what reforms are needed in the legal community to ensure the legal requirements are enforced, even in secret, against those "trusted" with special responsibility and access. This legal community appears to have abysmally failed. Sadly, the JAGs, experts on the laws of war were ignored; and other legal experts marginalized on issues of FISA, warrants, and surveillance. There need to be known, obvious, visible, and meaningful consequences on counsel for their making excuses or working with another branch of government to ignore the law, bypass the courts, or in secret violate basic principles of the Constitution.
January 14, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responding to Anonymous :
Good analysis - the congress was at least complicit in all the law-breaking - probably more than complicit.
National hysteria (in 2002, 2003) made everyone in the government go along with the illegalities.
Wire-taps, torture and the rest seemed like good ideas at the time.
Now is the time to urge the congress to restore the constitution to its preeminence.
January 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
brian wrote on January 15, 2008 12:36 PM
I disagree with the assertion that we need to "urge" Congress to do anything: By oath, they've promised to do that. Our "urging" through statute hasn't worked.
Prosecute them.
January 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink