« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Conyers: This Means War
A statement just out from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):
"The President's response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government. The executive privilege assertion is unprecedented in its breadth and scope, and even includes documents that the Adminstration previously offered to provide as part of their 'take it or leave it' proposal. This response indicates the reckless disrepect this Administration has for the rule of law. The charges alleged in this investigation are serious - including obstruction of justice and misleading Congress - and the White House should be as committed to this investigation as the Congress. At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."
Update: And this just in from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), the chairwoman of the subcommittee that's led the House's investigation:
"It's tough to get lectured on the Constitution from the same Administration that said the Vice President is his own branch of government. The fact is that the Bush Administration, which has publicly declared its commitment to getting the truth on this issue, has stonewalled from the beginning. Mr. Fielding should understand two things: that nobody in their right mind would accept a White House offer that would condone perjury, and that saying 'take-it-or-leave-it' for months is not actually negotiation."
Advertisement
Comments (57)
drp wrote on June 28, 2007 10:35 AM:Why don't they just impeach the SOB and get it over with?
Rebel wrote on June 28, 2007 10:36 AM:About time.
Last Dem In Norman wrote on June 28, 2007 10:36 AM:hang 'em high.
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 10:37 AM:Let's see some fireworks now, in time for July 4th.
dhs wrote on June 28, 2007 10:38 AM:The battle is joined. Many of us have been hoping the Democrats would stand up and fight. Good for Conyers.
BK wrote on June 28, 2007 10:38 AM:bout time.
LTO wrote on June 28, 2007 10:39 AM:Impeachment, now. Every last one of them.
LTO wrote on June 28, 2007 10:42 AM:Impeachment, now. Every last one of them.
Dave in ME wrote on June 28, 2007 10:45 AM:Hopefully Conyers and the rest of the Democrats finally realize that their abyssmal approval numbers are because they have not cracked the whip hard enough against these criminals in the White House.
nate wrote on June 28, 2007 10:47 AM:oooh...
this is heating up quickly this morning.
via wrote on June 28, 2007 10:48 AM:or at least appoint a Special Prosecutor, unless Albertoady is the one who does the appointing...
Super double dooper Security Code: Mark. As in, how this administration views the American people and Congress. Let's hope we all have the courage to stand up and prove them wrong.
jolly ranchero wrote on June 28, 2007 10:49 AM:Shorter Conyers:
F#ck you and your mother. Give us the damn docs, you lying c#cksuckers.
They need every damn Dem with a mouth and a microphone to repeat this shit today.
P J Evans wrote on June 28, 2007 10:50 AM:I have a pitchfork. Torch is on shopping list.
When's the wienie roast?
jsh26 wrote on June 28, 2007 10:52 AM:I love a good Constitutional crisis in the morning.
apeman wrote on June 28, 2007 10:53 AM:What happened to Condi's subpoenas?
Yogsoggoth wrote on June 28, 2007 10:59 AM:First Dem candidate that calls for impeachment or holdinh the White House in inherent contempt gets my vote.
On the Clock wrote on June 28, 2007 11:00 AM:Nancy Pelosi needs to correct the biggest mistake she has made in public life, and say when it comes to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, NO options are off the table.
itsbenj wrote on June 28, 2007 11:07 AM:yeah...i feel like i've heard this story about twenty or thirty times already. how about the Dems come out and talk about all of this when they get some actual results. they're still trying to put out a four alarm fire with a waterpik. now that they need the court system to back them up, I bet they're starting to wish they had actually stood up to Bush a few years ago instead of caving time and time again. the court system is stacked with federal judges who will back Bush no matter what. he can make sure the right people rule on his cases, and anything that goes to the SCOTUS will go in his favor. i sure do want subpoenas and investigations and indictments and convictions, but the Dems are also reaping some of the consequences of their weakness over the past several years. how many times now has it appeared that this or that House investigation was going somewhere, Republican appointees were found to have demonstrably lied to Congress under oath, and then...nothing? i'll get excited when something actually happens.
Dick Limbaugh wrote on June 28, 2007 11:10 AM:Wartime in Crawford... where the wives are nowhere in sight and the booze is flowing are the girls are blowing ....
cynic wrote on June 28, 2007 11:12 AM:10-1 nothing happens !!!!!
It sees to me the quickest way to handle this is through the budget and not the courts. Yes, I mean cut the white house budget by 10%. this should work with the so called conservative small government
itsbenj wrote on June 28, 2007 11:13 AM:yeah, i feel like i've heard the beginning of this story just a few too many times to get excited. Bush will ignore congress, and they'll do nothing about it. people will testify, be found to be lying to congress, and nothing will happen. i hate to say it, but the Dems are reaping the rewards of their weakness over the past several years. never attempting to filibuster bad appointments like gonzales, allowing the justice dept. to be gutted under their noses, no serious effort to hold up the alito or roberts nominations. just nothing, they did nothing to oppose bush in any significant way for years. and now he can just ignore them and know that nothing will happen. i'll be very happy if something does happen, but i fully expect this to go nowhere.
Chris C wrote on June 28, 2007 11:27 AM:Does it surprise anyone with an inkling of historical context that Fred Fielding would concoct the Bush Administration's response to the subpoenas? For anyone who endured the Watergate nightmare, this is so much deja vu. I am screaming mad that America is being dragged into this muck again, and by elements of that same slime that brought this country Ehrlichman and Haldemann. It's time that those Republicans who have not bartered their souls to this administration to show how true patriotism works: to toss out on their sorry behinds anyone who desecrates the Constitution, party be damned...
Chris C wrote on June 28, 2007 11:27 AM:Does it surprise anyone with an inkling of historical context that Fred Fielding would concoct the Bush Administration's response to the subpoenas? For anyone who endured the Watergate nightmare, this is so much deja vu. I am screaming mad that America is being dragged into this muck again, and by elements of that same slime that brought this country Ehrlichman and Haldemann. It's time that those Republicans who have not bartered their souls to this administration to show how true patriotism works: to toss out on their sorry behinds anyone who desecrates the Constitution, party be damned...
Tom wrote on June 28, 2007 11:40 AM:Impeachment, now. Every last one of them.
Legalize wrote on June 28, 2007 11:43 AM:...and then nothing happened.
Nadja S wrote on June 28, 2007 11:44 AM:Oh, Conyers can make threats to follow through with some action after Bush has invoked his "executive privelige." However, Conyers really has no recourse and nothing will happen. In a few days, another scandal will break, and this subpoena showdown will fall by the wayside. We're inured to scandal now, and the subpoenas don't have enough teeth in them to really scare the Bush Administration into cooperating.
Henry S wrote on June 28, 2007 12:02 PM:I love the smell of constitutional crisis in the morning!!!
aquart wrote on June 28, 2007 12:22 PM:I am beginning to pay attention to this Linda Sanchez.
RL wrote on June 28, 2007 12:26 PM:Finally! I can say I'm a Democrat proudly again.
Kory McFarland wrote on June 28, 2007 1:17 PM:They are robber's and Mass Murder's. They have stolen Billions from the People and have illegally Murdered hundreds of thousand's of innocent Iraqi's. They deserve a Prison Cell for Life.
modmom wrote on June 28, 2007 1:21 PM:Seriously, can they send in the federal marshals?
Ferruge wrote on June 28, 2007 1:41 PM:Very well, NOW can we start the impeachment proceedings? I mean seriously, if we have to wait until Bush gets a blowjob before that can start we'll have to wait a bloody long time to do what has needed doing since, oh, July 2001.
JC wrote on June 28, 2007 1:43 PM:Congress should use it's inherent contempt power and forget about the Bush "Justice" Department. A little time in the congressional dungeon might open up some mouths. Then it's on to impeachment !
Gt wrote on June 28, 2007 1:48 PM:IMPEACH NOW!!!
linda b wrote on June 28, 2007 1:50 PM:the . any sheriff's out there up to the job?
chimpeach wrote on June 28, 2007 1:51 PM:I am right behind ya.
Unleash Hell.
SPENCER ADAMS wrote on June 28, 2007 2:26 PM:I like the arguments against Addington's surreal defense made by Steven Aftergood here in his Secrecy Blog:
ADDINGTON AND THE QUESTION OF INTENT
Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington defended Dick Cheney's
refusal to submit to oversight by the Information Security Oversight
Office in a June 26 letter to Sen. John Kerry.
"The executive order on classified national security information --
Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 -- makes it clear that the
Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two
of them from 'agencies'," he wrote.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2007/06/ovp062607.pdf
Mr. Addington's claim is demonstrably false.
By presidential order dated October 13, 1995, the President delegated
original classification authority to the Vice President under Executive
Order 12958, along with other officials in the executive office of the
President and various agency heads.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/oca.html
When the executive order was amended in 2003, that delegation of
classification authority to the Vice President was not rescinded or
modified. It remains in effect. Consequently, the Vice President's
authority is comparable to that of the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of State.
Furthermore, as ISOO director J. William Leonard explained in his
January 9, 2007 letter to the Attorney General, a "plain text reading"
of the order indicates that the Office of the Vice President is subject
to the order's requirements. He noted that the OVP is granted one
particular exemption, concerning the order's mandatory declassification
review provisions.
"This sole explicit reference for the purpose of exempting the OVP from
a provision of the Order supports an interpretation that the rest of the
Order does apply.... otherwise there would be no need for an exemption,"
Mr. Leonard flawlessly argued.
By contrast, reported Michael Abramowitz in the Washington Post (June
27), "Addington did not cite specific language in the executive order
supporting [his] view, and a Cheney spokeswoman could not point to such
language last night. But spokeswoman Lee Anne McBride said the intent of
the order, as expressed by White House officials in recent days, was
'not for the VP to be separated from the president on this reporting
requirement'."
The President could amend the executive order at a moment's notice to
exempt the Vice President from oversight. Or the Attorney General
could render an interpretation of the order that favors the Vice
President's position. But neither action has been taken.
Instead, the White House simply insists that the executive order does
nellieh wrote on June 28, 2007 2:28 PM:not mean what a "plain text reading" says that it means. By doing so,
it degrades the machinery of government.
The WH and DOJ are strutting the Constitution before Congress now, but when they were arguing about either NSA, torture or something else illegal didn't the President refer to is as "just a F'n piece of paper?" Now it becomes so sancrosanct and important. Code word; bent. As to their thinking is bent.
dixiegrl wrote on June 28, 2007 3:05 PM:writ of mandamus..
don'tcha think?
and lots of letters too Pelosi and Conyers, and esp. any Repub targets...
hell, even my dog sends the e-mails to the Gov't.
( he gets offended easily)
Unfortunately MY Senator is Jeff Beauregard Sessions ..the third yet.
But I did send a short note to the State GOP sharing my attack of the vapors and telling them "this southerner can no longer bear to think of voting Republican at any time in the future"
Didn't mention I had Never voted Repub...
kenga wrote on June 28, 2007 4:21 PM:Ah, due diligence.
Nice guy, Rep. Conyers is; every time the WH decides to paint themselves into a corner, there he is, helpfully offering a paintbrush.
Eventually Speaker Pelosi won't have much choice but to make a statement similar to this:
Ken wrote on June 28, 2007 5:15 PM:"It is with deep regret and sadness, that now, having exhausted ALL legally permissible means of seeking the information essential to fulfilling the Constitutional mandate of Congressional oversight, I must now instruct this august body to prepare Articles of Impeachment. This session of the U.S. House of Representatives is hereby called to order."
At the next debate, both Repub and Dem, ask what each candidate thinks should be done. I'd like to see what the Repubs say.
TwinInClouds wrote on June 28, 2007 5:26 PM:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1202616&mesg_id=1202858
__
Jonathan Turley told Keith Olbermann last night that Impeachment is the only option if the Democrats don't want this stuck in the courts. A crime was committed.
____
Land that blow? Someone just started a thread saying that Obama isn't interested in Impeachment. My comment..any member of Congress who does not pursue Impeachment should be held for aiding and abetting. They are not upholding their oath to the Constitution.
______
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1203352
This is HUGE, and I wanted a thread with a focus on overcoming Executive privilege.
Alguien wrote on June 28, 2007 5:50 PM:Let's see if this first display of "cojones" leads to something other than helpless whining on the part of the DEMS....
interested litigant wrote on June 28, 2007 5:56 PM:I, for one, am really enjoying the show but can't help being skeptical!
What good prefix can we add to -gate to convert this scandal into an impeachable offense?
PRIVILEGEGATE?
I wonder how much vodka will W be consuming during the weekend, while he is entertaining "Vladimir" in Kennebunkport...
NAZDAROVIA, George!
Good grief peoples: why hasn't someone simply asked 'why'? Why will the WH not disclose documents? And don't just throw the monkey to the wolves. Stop the 'cause they have no respect for the law', line, just for a moment. What could the REAL reason be???? Hmmmmmmm??????? Any guesses???
JHil wrote on June 28, 2007 7:47 PM:Is failure to comply with a subpoena a criminal offense? If so, what's the penalty?
JNagarya wrote on June 28, 2007 10:36 PM:Why don't they just impeach the SOB and get it over with?
Posted by: drp
Date: June 28, 2007 10:35 AM
Because, ass, they don't (yet) have the votes. Why? Because of foot-dragging Republicans.
Get that fact through your head, or continue the gratutous bashing.
JNagarya wrote on June 28, 2007 10:40 PM:Hopefully Conyers and the rest of the Democrats finally realize that their abyssmal approval numbers are because they have not cracked the whip hard enough against these criminals in the White House.
Posted by: Dave in ME
Date: June 28, 2007 10:45 AM
Hopefully those who are too damned stupid to realize that Congress is not comprised only of Democrats will wake up and cease the gratuitous bashing. Or bash the foot-dragging Republicans.
The "abysmal" poll numbers are the result of assholes who don't know thing one about politics -- it is the art of the possible, not the art of "I want it my why and I want it immediately" -- or the numbers it takes to "crack the whip".
Well, gee, let's not even ask if "cracking the whip" is some sort of legitimate application of the due process of law. Such a question might risk an awakening of mature thought and reason.
JNagarya wrote on June 28, 2007 10:45 PM:Nancy Pelosi needs to correct the biggest mistake she has made in public life, and say when it comes to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, NO options are off the table.
Posted by: On the Clock
Date: June 28, 2007 11:00 AM
When will you finally get it!?
Third in line for the presidency is the Speaker of the House. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.
THE _L-A-S-T_ PERSON WHO SHOULD BE SEEKING IMPEACHMENT IS THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE!
It is the opposite of a mistake for Pelosi to not initiate -- especially prematurely -- impeachment. Is that too complicated for you to grasp? Or are you as ethically-challenged as the REpublicans?
JNagarya wrote on June 28, 2007 10:58 PM:Oh, Conyers can make threats to follow through with some action after Bush has invoked his "executive privelige." However, Conyers really has no recourse and nothing will happen. In a few days, another scandal will break, and this subpoena showdown will fall by the wayside. We're inured to scandal now, and the subpoenas don't have enough teeth in them to really scare the Bush Administration into cooperating.
Posted by: Nadja S
Date: June 28, 2007 11:44 AM
Conyers is not Congress. Congress has no recourse? You're one of those attention-challenged, are you?
Both Pelosi and Waxman said it's only a matter of time. And on the Senate side, 21 Republicans are facing re-election. By September, Republicans will be falling all over themselves and each other to be on the correct side of the law -- opposite that of Bushit, et al.
Congress is co-equal with the Executive. It has as much power, and an array of tools which can be used. How about watching what it does, instead of asserting the nonsense that it can't do anything?
Bob Hayden wrote on June 29, 2007 1:04 AM:But go right ahead: continue to stupidly bash the Democrats as if Congress is comprised only of Democrats.
Congress? Oversight?
leycrtwobb wrote on June 29, 2007 9:51 AM:L'etat, c'est moi.
And people say Bush isn't in accord with the French. Piffle.
naked wild sex fucking awesome boobs
qatxfitzbp wrote on June 29, 2007 9:52 AM:9 test submit
brighid wrote on June 29, 2007 10:15 AM:If this is war, then let us launch a pre-emptive attack: Impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Barbara wrote on June 29, 2007 10:28 AM:Hurray for JNagarya! I have this argument with my husband on a DAILY basis. I've been screaming IMPEACH as long as anyone, but the fact is in order to do so Republicans need a converstion experience and they don't seem to be having one. I constantly write to my Republican representatives (I have the extremely bad luck of having THREE of them), but I get nowhere.
If all of the people giving Dems low marks stop voting for Dems we will be where we are now for another 4-8 years. I join JNagarya is saying WAKE UP.
RicK wrote on June 29, 2007 4:15 PM:Impeachment is but one remedy in handling the crooks in the Executive and Judicial branch. Another way to handle all three branches, including the Legislative, of course, is by the people and the states calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention.
It's an alternative to introducing constitutional amendments that has never been used - but it's legal, constitutional, and bypasses the current three branches.They can do nothing to stop it - no vetoes, no court decisions, no legislation. But you can expect every form of political interference, since it is a direct challenge to the status quo.
A super majority of states can call for it and it will happen. New amendments can be proposed, ones that will cure the ills that have crept in over the years. That same majority can adopt any amendments purposed -- and they become law, just as though Congress had proposed them.
I noticed today that 37 states were against our conservative activist 5-4 Supreme Court's decision to go against a 100 year old anti-trust provision. Those 37 states could propose the Convention, introduce and adopt an amendment to rein in the SCOTUS on this issue -- and potentially many others.
We could also put the fear of the People into the Executors and the Legislators, even in merely proposing such a convention -- because it is possible now, with the rapid communication available to We the People to be able to pull this together.
parrot wrote on June 30, 2007 1:55 AM:Oh, the summer just got a little hotter...and a little longer.
foiwjrvbs tladiys wrote on August 31, 2007 6:19 PM:ublmr acwvdfbp wgyu ndhjupbrs yukj abvr bcsph