« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
What's Next for Karl Rove?
For those in a quandary about what the House Judiciary Committee's contempt citation of Karl Rove means, we refer you to the currently pending House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers, et al.
Following the path of Miers, we see that after the committee votes on contempt, the resolution is then passed to the entire House. If the House approves the contempt of Congress resolutions, it goes to the DOJ for action.
But since Rove is claiming executive privilege, it is unlikely the DOJ will take any action -- at least they certainly didn't for Miers.
After the predicted DOJ demurring occurs, the House has passed a resolution that allows the HJC to file suit against the parties held in contempt-- which brings us back around to where we started: HJC v. Miers.
Act II where Nancy Pelosi again slow walks the decision to do nothing hoping no one will notice her brick wall of obstruction of any justice against anyone in the Bush cabal.
The only thing more disgusting than Rove going free is the head Democrat protecting him.
New lingo of the week... when an administration official commits a felony, you say you are "disappointed" in them.
Who would have guessed - Democrats, sadly helping Bush make the rule of law a total joke.
July 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, you got that one right. But, what I wouldn't give, to see that fat dweeb chained to Ted Stevenson, as they go out to clean highways in Louisiana!
July 30, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Stevens, you mean.
But yes, let the frogmarching commence!
July 30, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the sound of the men working on the chain gang!!!!
July 30, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
July 31, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contempt of congress citations are exceedingly rare and Pelosi has overseen the passage of two of them by the full House, and referred them to the US Attorney as allowed by law. It's not her fault or that of any other person in Congress that we have to wait a couple months for the decision to come down on whether the unitary theory of the executive is officially declared bullshit or not.
July 30, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, zach, for finally making the points that need to be made in this respect. Because the process takes time does not mean it isn't moving forward.
July 30, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right to point out that the delay along this course of action lies with the courts, not with Congress or Ms. Pelosi.
However (and I can only speak for myself, but I believe others here are also frustrated because of this), there are two other OBVIOUS options not pursued.
These are inherent contempt and impeachment.
I would argue that it is not accurate to say:
Because I believe these other options available to Congress could settle the matter more quickly. Impeachment is the remedy provided by the Founders for an Executive run amok. (And the "theory of the Unitary Executive" is the very definition of that. IMHO.)
-- ARG
July 30, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress has nationwide arrest authority, but the authority to hold expires with each Congress. If they really want to make a point, bring him in the day after the next Congress begins. That would take real political courage, and this group doesn't have it.
July 30, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I've posted this before, but maybe it bears repeating. The denoument scene at the end of The Maltese Falcon captures the situation perfectly.
SPADE If you kill me, how are you gonna get the bird? If I know you can't afford to kill me, how'll you scare me into giving it to you?
GUTMAN Sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
SPADE Yes, that's... That's true. But none of them are any good unless the threat of death is behind them.
The Framers understood that there is really no way to rein in an Executive absolutely determined to ride roughshod over the other branches. Ultimately there's only impeachment. As the Bushists have shown with respect to subpoenas and contempt citations and "the other means of persuasion," none of them are any good unless the threat of impeachment is behind them.
July 30, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And Nancy Pelosi took "impeachment off the table" the very minute she stepped up to the podium, thus giving the Bush Abomination a total walk for the rest of their time in office, to do anything they want to the detriment of the American people in that amount of time. And they are doing it. She should be impeached. Hopefully, when the next Congress convenes, she will be voted out as Speaker; don't look for the oozy invertebrate Dems to do it though. They just don't have the 'nads.
July 31, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the "theory of the Unitary Executive" is a total crock, and its aggressive pursuit by ANY "president" - even an intellectually competent, morally uncorrupted, legitimately elected one - would represent a contemptible affront to the balance of powers intrinsic in our system. The notion, though, of allocating any such power to a loathesome little cretin like Bush makes the "theory" more than a mere crock; it's a despicable effort at concentrating power against which the most powerful counterbalancing efforts should be brought to bear. Having said that, I understand fully the objections to impeachment frequently and intelligently raised on this blog. However, I say we turn back to that, and other vindicating remedies, full force in '09, when President Obama is presiding over an effective majority in Congress whose will cannot be obstructed.
July 31, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have high hopes for HJC v. Miers.
The judge, John D. Bates, is a Bush appointee who served as an assistant U.S. Attorney under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton. Also, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to the FISA court. And you know they aren't putting anyone on the hyper-secret FISA court who isn't a reliable rubber stamp for the administration. Here are a couple of Judge Bates' decisions of distinction:
- in 2003 he dismissed the GAO's lawsuit seeking to learn who Cheney's energy task force met with;
- in 2007 he dismissed Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage.
The Plame lawsuit dismissal is sort of understandable since it was a long shot to begin with.
The energy task force decision seems less justifiable.
July 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot one more nice little Judge Bates tidbit: he served as Deputy Independent Counsel to the Whitewater investigation. A real truth seeker I'm sure.
July 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You liberals make me sick. All you want to do is uphold the Constitution and return decency, honesty and competence to Congress and the White House. You should be more like Me, self-righteous and impossibly corrupt.
With Love,
Traitor Joe Lieberman
July 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody ready for a change? How's this... we all make our politicians pledge to introduce and pass laws which will STOP these types of behaviors next time...
Oops, DeJa Vu just hit me...
Imagine... our OWN crooks won't even listen to us anymore... what has this nation come to?
July 30, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh... So pigs won't fly...
and Unkle Karl will never be brought to justice...
July 30, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um..ACTUALLY, Bush did NOT invoke Executive Privilege for Rove. KKKarl's attorney is just claiming "absolute immunity" for the Turdblossom.
Here's a timeline of the back and forth between Rove's attorneys and the HJC, and an explanation of WHY the White House has yet to claim "executive privilege":
http://tinyurl.com/6hushg
(For more, plug "Karl Rove" into the search engine at the top.)
July 30, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There'll be a very strongly worded letter, I'm sure.
July 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who would have guessed - Democrats, "sadly" helping Bush make the rule of law a total joke.
Hmmmmmm...who would have guessed.
Possibly anyone with the equivalent of the brains of a sea-anemone? I dunno?
July 30, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes ~!~!
there are mnay problem in this !~!`
i saw this news in web 〓BIGBISEXUAL.C O M〓 also `1~!
in their blog they have many ideas!~!~
July 30, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, for simpler times when Enemies of The State like Rove would simply be marched out to the town square and shot for treason.
Funny. I used to be pacifistic, but I have to hand it to Turd Blossom. He and his kind certainly brought out the old-school American patriot in me.
July 30, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens next? I'm going with "nothing." Well, there might be a Stern Letter of Protest. But that's nothing.
July 30, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arrest him on the authority of the Congress. Hold him in an undisclosed location. Waterboard him until he confesses the plans about the next October surprise.
Then bring him to trial for conspiracy subvert the Constitution using his confession as evidence.
Who could object to that?
July 31, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Contempt citations were introduced before in this gutless Dem controlled Congress. Pelosi and Conyers have sat on their asses and have done nothing. Despite the most corrupt president in the country's history, no impeachment proceedings have occurred. They are trying to run out the clock while Pelosi continues receiving more botox treatments. Its a disgrace. What I found really pathetic is Conyers big bad talk about impeachment hearings and investigations into the WH before Democratic domination ion 06', and has basically sat on his ass. Noone has gone to jail and noone has been hauled in by the Master seargent of arms for contempt, like pugsly prick Rove.
July 31, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would love for congress to remove Bush & Cheney from office through impeachment.
HOWEVER, WHAT YOU IMPEACHMENT NUTS FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT PELOSI & CONYERS DO NOT HAVE THE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY REQUIRED TO MAKE IMPEACHMENT AN ACTUAL THREAT.
Additionally, if you recall recent history, impeachment proceedings have completley backfired on their proponents. Clinton came out of his unsuccessfull impeachment proceedings with increased popularity NOT less...
It is very easy to unfairly attack Pelosi & Conyers. It is a lot harder to actually do the hard work of defeating the Republican/Facist Party
July 31, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention there is no chance that the Senate would convict with the current numbers.
Symbolically it may provide some needed airing of dirty laundry but realistically it would go nowhere and risk the Dems chances at a supermajority this fall.
July 31, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
To pittsburgh123:
Point One:
Whenever you denigrate others for being ignorant,
you should try especially hard not to show that you, yourself, are ignorant.
Passing an impeachment resolution in the House does not require a "TWO THIRDS MAJORITY." A simple majority is all that's needed there.
When an impeachment in the House is referred to the Senate for trial, conviction in the Senate does require a two-thirds majority.
Point Two:
If you are going to call other people NUTS, you you should try show that you are not a nut too.
You wrote "I would love for congress to remove Bush & Cheney from office through impeachment."
You mean, you're just like the rest of us "IMPEACHMENT NUTS."
Take (more) care.
July 31, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, again I cry, What of the Jail Cell in the basement of the capitol building, used throughout the 1800's to hold anyone congress found to be in contempt. The judiciary can thus be consulted AFTER THE FACT for confirmation of the solemn and proper nature of this citation of contempt. If Judges in their proper course find Congress' justifications lacking, of course the person(s) may be released. However, the burden is then on the defendant to be prompt and proper in their defense, deliberations, and legal ponderings.
On behalf of the good citizens of these United States of America, I cry, Havoc! Let slip the dogs, let us take the debate to the higher plane of prompt action. I pray thee Congress, take by your assemblage that confidence that befits the just representatives of the People. Assert thee your relevance and assuage this wrong. These contemptible scoundrels trodding heavily your constitutional duties and sauntering off, noses in the air. The time to act is at hand, Congress! Let your oath-sworn duties of oversight return to you a sense of dignity and forthright action !
All the country cries out for action... Shall we be waiting forevermore?
We the people demand: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
July 31, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would submit for your attention:
2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194:
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either
House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under
inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or
concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either
House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to
answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than [$100,000] nor
less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month
nor more than twelve months.
Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to
appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, records, or documents, as
required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question
pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee
established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or
any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such
failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or
when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is
reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the
House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of
facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the
appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter
before the grand jury for its action.
July 31, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said an impeachment resolution in the House requires a two thirds majority.
I would urge Pelosi & Conyers to support impeachment if,IF they had the two thirds majority required for removal.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE PELOSI & CONYERS DO NOT HAVE THE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY REQUIRED FOR REMOVAL; IMPEACHMENT BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY WOULD BE A MEANINGLESS GESTURE & IS AN EMPTY THREAT TO THE BUSH ADMIMISTRATION.
Consequently, I think it is a little nutty for people to viciously attack Pelosi & Conyers for being reluctant to perform the hollow show that impeachment hearings would be...
July 31, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee whiz, who would have thought that those tough talking, highly moral, rule of law supporting, sufferers of righteous indignation, demanding Democrats serving in Congress when the Republicans controlled both Houses, would, after 18 months of Democrat control, be running and hiding from Impeachment, and seem to be stalling any action that might seem controversial so as to not jeopordize the obviously sunny outcome of the next election.
DAMN THE CONSTITUTION, SLOW SPEED AHEAD!
July 31, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
At most? One-sided hearings with claims of executive privilege. It would be interesting to get cheney on the stand since he has publicly declared he's not part of the executive branch.
July 31, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could not find anywhere the Roll Call for the HJC vote on Contempt for Rove. I posted it below. Interesting the 6 members who chose NOT be present for this vote!
http://voa2008.blogspot.com/2008/07/judiciary-committee-roll-call-on-karl.html
July 31, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink