« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Judge Sets Schedule for House Contempt Suit
We knew that the House's lawsuit against White House officials would take awhile. And it turns out that it'll be June, at the earliest, before a judge makes his first decision in the House's suit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.
That relatively rapid pace (for the courts, at least) is the result of the House pushing for quicker resolution of some of the White House's more expansive claims of executive privilege. The court will decide first whether administration lawyers are right when they say that Miers didn't even need to show up in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena and that both Bolten and Miers didn't even need to indicate what sort of documents the White House were claiming privilege for. Thornier issues (e.g. whether certain conversations that do not involve the president are covered by executive privilege, etc.) would be dealt with later. The House has sought this speedier resolution with the hope that it would mean they'd actually get to hear from Miers and see some documents from Bolten before the close of the Bush administration.
Last Friday, the judge set a schedule for both sides to submit motions and set a hearing for June 23rd when the House's general counsel and Justice Department lawyers will argue before the judge. But whichever way the judge eventually rules, the decision would likely be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, meaning that regardless of the House's desire for a speedy resolution, the case is bound to spend a long time in the courts before Congressional investigators see any of its fruits.
Comments (17)
If this should ever reach the Supreme Court, we can all bet Congress will lose - not because Congress is wrong, but because the Supreme Court as it is constituted does not have the ability to be neutral. It has become nothing more than just another political branch of the Bush administration.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
March 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
if it goes to scotus i think kennedy would be the swing (surprise!). he'd do a lot of phony hand-wringing but i don't see him siding with bush's expansive interpretation of executive privilege in this instance.
March 25, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's recall that the Democrats let these charges sit for 6 months before they took action.
The manipulation of justice for political purposes continues.
Under Pelosi we've seen Bush granted total immunity from prosecution under impeachment.
So let us notice the scope of the players that have impeded justice.
Most of us here hope every day that the law once again functions and that justice will be served.... we'll see...
March 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
not so.
March 25, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I can see the desire for a rapid response from the courts and all, but do they really need to hear from Miers/Bolton before the close of the Bush admin?
I thought they'd still be able to investigate after Bush leaves office, no? I'm ready for some serious foot-dragging in this thing, either way.
March 25, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I sound like a broken record, but Impeaching Mukasey for failing to send this to the Grand Jury is sufficient grounds to impeach him. Impeachment of anyone but the President, does NOT have to go before the Supreme Court.
He's acting just like Gonzalez. Clamming up. Lying. And protecting the President. The DOJ is just as politicized under Mukasey as it was under Gonzalez.
ITMFA
March 25, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait till President Obama or Hillary start taking for themselves the power and authority that Bush set the precedent for.....the Repugs will be squealing like a pig under a gate.
As to the Supreme Court, the Dems need to take Bush's power grab there before Bush leaves office as the Repugs will do so if President Hillary or Obama try for the same power grab.
Imagine if Bill Clinton used Bush's tactics during the years they hunted him.
March 25, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to "impeach" Mukasey or even remove him from office would cause the usual cry of partisan politics from the Republicans. In the meantime, in my viewpoint, he has implicated himself in the overall criminal coverups of the Bush administration. There is no other way to interpret Mukasey's behavior.
This will all fade away after Bush is gone from office. The reason(s) being that the country needs to "put this behind us and move forward; we have to restore our reputation with the rest of the world; it would drain our energy and divide the country (as if we aren't already divided).
Thus, our war criminals will again go free as they did with Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and other Vietnam war lies - by both Democrat and Republican presidents and their cohorts.
The Supreme Court isn't going to let anything happen to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their supporting ilk.
March 25, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough of these excuses to explain away the GOP's alleged recklessness. We need some straight answers from the US Attys to explain why they have not prosecuted these actions, regardless the action or inaction of Congress. These are issues of international criminal law which the US Attys and Members of Congress have a sworn oath to enforce. Inaction isn't justified, but evidence of malfeasance in re Geneva violations.
As to the point, last time I checked, the GOP was in the minority. That the GOP might whine about something isn't a risk, but meaningless drivel expected of alleged war crimes defendants:
Trying to "impeach" Mukasey or even remove him from office would cause the usual cry of partisan politics from the Republicans.
The Nazis also said it was "unfair" for the allies to try them for war crimes. Indeed, it doesn't make sense to be concerned with the minority's "view" when the issue is alleged war crimes, and other illegal activity. These are not partisan politics, but issues of international criminal law. Even if the GOP were the majority, the legal issues would not be trumped by partisan loyalty: The oath does not permit politics to trump the obligations of the Members of Congress to enforce, preserve, and protect from domestic enemies the Constitution and Treaties as the Supreme Law.
Impeachment proceedings, regardless the outcome of the Senate trial, would prohibit the President from issuing pardons. Pelosi has yet to explain her contradiction supporting the Executive Branch, not the Executive:
If you want to read more about this, go here.
March 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 25, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress could set its own schedule, and block an appeal if it impeached.
March 25, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Invoke inherent contempt! Arrest them now! Lock them up in the Capitol basement! That'll get Chimpy's attention.
March 25, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comment.
March 25, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have more than enough probable cause to throw Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon cabal, about 33 of them, into a military brig. No wrangling with fascist Federalist Society lawyers over long months and years: As a matter of national security, we can hold them without charge as long as it takes to get to the bottom of their numerous crimes.
Let's see how much they want to drag it out under those circumstances. The 33 will face the death penalty. That's the penalty for the Crime Against Peace and treason.
We might as well keep them alive long enough to be charged and prosecuted for the other crimes, though, because we need history to record just how dangerous the fascist movement is, so that when our descendants look back, they'll understand why we needed to amend the constitution to deal with the threat to the republic posed by anti-republican corporate power.
March 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
After all's said and done, here's how it'll go: pardon me, pardon me, beg your pardon, pardon me, pardon me, beg your pardon, pardon me, ad infinitum. This administration has certainly figured something out, that playing by the rules is not only unnecessary, but stupid.
March 26, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution excludes impeachment from presidential pardon.
March 26, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since WHEN has the constitution mattered? And as if impeachment were something even remotely probable. For a cynic, you appear pretty faithful. Remember Diogenes, now that was a cynic, a real dog alright.
March 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink