Comments (111)

Bushie wrote on July 13, 2007 5:04 PM:

The Dems continue to play softball while the administration and its acolytes play hardball with hand grenades. Start contempt proceedings immediately against anyone who's a no show or plays semantics during their testimony.

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 13, 2007 5:04 PM:

Why must we continue with the games? Has the White House taken any of Conyers threats seriously? Stop with the silly threats and get on with it- find these creepy looking Bushie in contempt- and quick!

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 5:14 PM:

Ah, if only we had entrusted the Constitution to this woman and allowed her onto the Supreme Court. What a wonderful world it would be.

Nope. Instead she's hiding from the rule of law. Interesting bedfellows, no?

Hanging Judge wrote on July 13, 2007 5:14 PM:

Some things come to mind. Rove ALWAYS plays offense, never defense. My constitutional law professor always said, "The Constitution is whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says it is." This may sound over simplistic, but I believe Cheney, who believes wholeheartedly in the "Unitary Executive" and Rove, who believes his charge is to create a permanent Republican majority, both believe the new 5-4 conservative (I hate that word) majority will find a way to approve and uphold whatever the WH does. They don't plan to roll over in '08, either.

Samsara wrote on July 13, 2007 5:16 PM:

This is working out well. The experienced prosecutors on the Senate Judiciary Committee got to grill Sara Taylor. Now Myer’s refusal to testify keeps the heat on Fielding, and we are spared watching another sophomoric attempt at questioning by the House Judiciary Committee. Congratulations to the Democratic staffer who got this right.

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 13, 2007 5:16 PM:

Contempt of Congress is where they are headed, but an integrity free Department of Justice and courts full of Heritage Foundation miscreants are going to be obstacles.

drew wrote on July 13, 2007 5:17 PM:

Is it inherent contempt we're hoping for? Maybe they're just working up the proceedings for when they try to drag her in. More importantly, what happens when the ruling junta tries to intervene if/when the Sargent at Arms comes to arrest her?

sc: please

Please arrest these criminals!!

georgia wrote on July 13, 2007 5:21 PM:

Inherent contempt - If Congress has oversight responsibility, it needs oversight authority. Don't toss the ball to the Judiciary.

Katie wrote on July 13, 2007 5:21 PM:

Slap the cuffs on her and haul her in...

jt wrote on July 13, 2007 5:26 PM:

ok....now we really mean it this time!

Thinkerton wrote on July 13, 2007 5:30 PM:

How can Miers' testimony by considered privileged now, when the White House was offering to make her available for a private interview? (It's a rhetorical question. I know the answer.)

If the info is privileged, then they shouldn't even be offering that. I wish somebody would call them on this...

jt wrote on July 13, 2007 5:33 PM:

Come On!! This is starting to get rediculous. How many chances are the Democrats going to give these people who refuse to obey laws. That is why the Dems are getting such low ratings from the American people. They bluster and say they will go to the next step of enforcing the stonewalling, contempt of court, etc. That is, right after they give the Repugs one more chance to come clean.
They need to set it straight from the beginning. One (two tops) chance to give what they are asking for or they should go to the next step. Do you think that the White House is scared when they get the next mean letter from Waxman, Conyers, and the rest of the bunch? Not a chance.

Uncle Don wrote on July 13, 2007 5:34 PM:

INHERENT CONTEMPT!

N O W !

melior wrote on July 13, 2007 5:37 PM:

If Harriet goes to jail, who will fetch the coffee?!

JR wrote on July 13, 2007 5:39 PM:

Maybe they are waiting for the Dems to back down again. Looks like they won't have to wait long.

*SIGH*

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 5:41 PM:

Dear Mr. Conyers:

This post is to formally inform you that I must insist that you blow me!

Sincerely,

electricphoto wrote on July 13, 2007 5:45 PM:

Failure to enforce the law concerning subpoenas is just as much of a crime as defying them....

When in HELL will Democrats quit saying "pretty please"?

Is everybody in Congress gone mad? Barf!!!

M. Stratas wrote on July 13, 2007 5:53 PM:

Conyers and Sanchez should haul Miers' behind as soon as possible. Show some spine people.

lestatdelc wrote on July 13, 2007 5:56 PM:

Oh for F*cks sake... they are NOT going to comply. "insist" all you want... be "disappointed" in letter after letter while Rome burns. Vote for inherent contempt or stop wasting our time and yours Conyers.

LRinCO wrote on July 13, 2007 6:01 PM:

Good one, electricphoto! Heartily agreed!

I emailed the Judiciary yesterday saying "We've all raised toddlers and we know that threats don't work! Action is necessary!" On this site, tho, I'll just call that a tip for Josh for the future. Heh heh.

Righteous Bubba wrote on July 13, 2007 6:03 PM:

will risk contempt proceedings

As someone who is - cough - fit to be considered for a supreme court seat I figure she knows the deal and any warnings should be bypassed.

Righteous Bubba wrote on July 13, 2007 6:05 PM:

Italics tags would be nice.

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 6:08 PM:

The terrorists are winning by seeing an impotent Congress.

mbbsdphil wrote on July 13, 2007 6:10 PM:

Exactly what Congressional, legal or public policy process are these Democrats promoting by their slow-walk? In what drama are they enthralling the public? Apparently, none; they are putting everyone to sleep.

Ms. Miers, her lawyers and the White House knew exactly what the issues are and where they are going. They need no further time to consider their position; all signs are that they have no incentive whatsoever to change it. Miers illegally refused to comply with this Congressional subpoena. Congress' delay is not promoting justice, or allowing a perp time to reconsider their crime - unless a helluva lot more behind-the-scenes dickering is taking place than the rumor mill is diclosing. I hope Congress is using it simply to figure out what it will do; they should have known that before they issued the subpoena.

Congress better get a move on; Rove still seems to have it round his little finger.

A Georgia Democrat wrote on July 13, 2007 6:33 PM:

I am not so sure Democrats would do themselves a favor by hauling Myers in front of cameras on contempt charges. She is (or wants to be perceived as) a rather fragile old lady and it would not look good to have her in the fetal position with her clumpy mascara running down her face having a nervous breakdown.

To bad Sara Taylor was all lawyered up. She could have easily been motivated to spill the beans. She wants everyone to know how important she is and what all she knows.

Steve5117 wrote on July 13, 2007 6:40 PM:

Anyone wanting a blow job needs to go to Titusville, Florida and visit with John McCain's co-chair for Florida, Repuplican State Representative Bob Allen. Eariler this week Rep. Allen was arrester after offering to pay 20 dollars to a man in a public restroom, if the man would let Allen suck him off!

I wonder if McCain's campaign was losing money in Florida because Bob was busy trying to help releive all the Viagra taking seniors living in Florida!

tgrdug wrote on July 13, 2007 6:47 PM:

Can someone help me understand how once a subpoena is defied, in this case by Miers, why the committee still has to "insist" she comply? What are the legal recourses to enforce the subpoena and why wouldn't the committee simply follow through with this process automatically?

Signed,
Baffled

Ferruge wrote on July 13, 2007 6:54 PM:

Hey Dems on the HJC, I've got an idea for you.

There's another way to make clear your 'insistence' that people show up for their subpoenas, that doesn't require you to embarrass yourself in the media by saying that you insist that they come.

You START THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.

That is, instead of saying you insist, you do an action that shows that you insist, and that hopefully there won't be a next time when you have to repeat this ridiculous spectacle.

Again, just an idea. Good luck with the 'raising your voice and using angry words' approach.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 6:59 PM:

From the Espy case:

"Since executive privilege exists to aid the governmental decisionmaking process, a waiver should not be lightly inferred." SCM Corp. v. United States, 473 F. Supp. 791, 796 (Cust. Ct. 1979); see also Nixon v. Sirica (Sirica), 487 F.2d 700, 717 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (explicit statement by President Nixon that "[e]xecutive privilege will not be invoked" considered one factor in assessing need to preserve confidentiality of subpoenaed materials, but NOT held to constitute a waiver). The press statement was not an official response to the subpoena, and it is clear from the record that the OIC was well aware the White House would be asserting privileges in regard to certain documents. Shortly after the statement was issued the White House Counsel informed the OIC that it believed some of the material was privileged, provoking lengthy negotiations between the two over the status of the withheld documents. There is nought to indicate that the press statement misled the OIC.

Nor did the White House have an obligation to formally invoke its privileges in advance of the motion to compel. In its response to the subpoena, the White House informed the OIC that it believed the withheld documents were privileged, thus satisfying Rule 45(c)(2)(B) and Rule 45(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which together require that "a party objecting to a subpoena on the basis of privilege must both (1) object to the subpoena and (2) state the claim of privilege within [the stipulated period] of service." Tuite, 98 F.2d at 1416; see also In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 272 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (where government's claim of privilege is well taken, remedy for any delay is not waiver but fees and sanctions). The motion to compel was the first event which could have forced disclosure of the documents. Cf. 3 Weinstein's Federal Evidence 503.09[4] at 503-44 (failure to assert attorney-client privilege at a hearing at which privileged information is sought may result in waiver of the privilege). Since the OIC was clearly aware in advance of the motion to compel that the White House likely would be asserting privilege, it was not prejudiced by any alleged delay in the White House's formally invoking its privileges.

The White House's release of the White House Counsel's final report also does not constitute waiver of any privileges attaching to the documents generated in the course of producing the report. It is true that voluntary disclosure of privileged material subject to the attorney-client privilege to unnecessary third parties in the attorney-client privilege context "waives the privilege, not only as to the specific communication disclosed but often as to all other communications relating to the same subject matter." In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1982); accord In re Sealed Case, 29
F.3d 715, 719-20 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see generally 3 Weinstein's Federal Evidence 511. But this all-or-nothing approach has not been adopted with regard to executive privileges generally, or to the deliberative process privilege in particular. Instead, courts have said that release of a document only waives these privileges for the document or information specifically released, and not for related materials. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. EPA, 879 F.2d 698, 700-02, 703 (9th Cir. 1989); Mehl v. EPA, 797 F. Supp. 43, 47-48 D.D.C. 1992); Larkin, supra, 5.05 at 5-114.7 to 5-114.14; see also Russell v. Department of the Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (although not addressing waiver directly, holding that deliberative process privilege applies to early drafts of Air Force report on use of herbicides in Vietnam despite public release of the final report). This limited approach to waiver in the executive privilege context is designed to ensure that agencies do not forego voluntarily disclosing some privileged material out of the fear that by doing so they are exposing other, more sensitive documents. See Assembly of the State of California v. Department of Commerce, 968 F.2d 916, 922 n.5 (9th Cir. 1992); Mobil Oil Corp., 879 F.2d at 701; Mehl, 797 F. Supp. at 47-48.

On that basis, we find that the White House's release of the final report does not waive the privilege in regard to the documents the White House generated in producing the ultimate version."

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 7:04 PM:

Privilege does nto apply to disclosed information within the e-mails; nor to the _post decision_ actions of Miers; nor to Mier's information on the documents referenced in the e-mails.

Besides: Bush is a liar:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/164544/792

Why would anyone believe the word of a liar over the law?

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 7:09 PM:

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 13, 2007 6:59 PM

The case you've cited is inapposite. Rhenquists' opinion in no way shild's _actions_ which have been _disclosed_. Cannot invoke privildge to put the horses back in the barn.

Also, the claim of provildge is dubious on teh grunds [a] President was not opposed to the testimony, only to the _means of recording_; and b[b] if privldge were valid as a shield, there was no reason to have destroyed the RNC e-mails.

DoJ OLC "opinion" is irrelevant. Whether Congress does anything about it is secondary, and unrelated.

Even if Privildge were to apply to the deliberations, it does not apply to the _post decision_ actions which Miers self-reported in the e-mails.

Miers does not have "aboslute Immunity to appear" on issues which have been disclosed in the e-mails; and are related to the _basis_ for the Congressional subpeona: Allegations of illegal, improper conduct.

ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 13, 2007 7:12 PM:

For that matter, what is it about swearing to tell the truth that scares the bushis so?

Oh. Never mind.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 7:15 PM:

Well, good luck then, Congress, "prosecuting" Miers on these trumped up charges. BTW: the Espy opinion was not written by Rehnquist.

JGabriel wrote on July 13, 2007 7:21 PM:

Drew @ 7/13,5:17 pm: "Is it inherent contempt we're hoping for? ... More importantly, what happens when the ruling junta tries to intervene if/when the Sargent at Arms comes to arrest her?"

Good questions. Yes, it's inherent contempt we're 'hoping' for, or more accurately, expecting and urging the House to pursue. What we're actually *hoping* for is that Miers show up with the requested documents and answer all questions honestly. Unlikely, I know, but that's what hope is for.

As for the Sargeant-at-Arms being opposed by someone from the Executive branch, I don't know what would happen. We're still pretty far from that point. The WH may compromise before it gets that far, or Miers may be permitted to remain free while pursuing a habeus corpus filing if convicted, which she will do.

During the Schiavo fiasco, there was a similiar showdown between Jeb Bush's state police who were odered to take possession of Schiavo and local police, who were following the judges orders to not permit that. In that case the officers worked it out between themselves, and the state police backed down, recognizing the authority of the Judiciary over that of Gov. Bush. Apparently, it was pretty tense for a couple of hours though.

HipHopLawyer wrote on July 13, 2007 7:21 PM:

Lawyer: I object.

Judge: Overruled.

Lawyer: I STRENUOUSLY object!

Mayfly wrote on July 13, 2007 7:24 PM:

Posters above are correct: this isn't a well-intentioned difference of opinion about the boundaries between the 3 Branches.

This is Sociopaths determined to seize all the power.

Mayfly wrote on July 13, 2007 7:24 PM:

Posters above are correct: this isn't a well-intentioned difference of opinion about the boundaries between the 3 Branches.

This is Sociopaths determined to seize all the power.

Mayfly wrote on July 13, 2007 7:25 PM:

Posters above are correct: this isn't a well-intentioned difference of opinion about the boundaries between the 3 Branches.

This is Sociopaths determined to seize all the power.

Mayfly wrote on July 13, 2007 7:27 PM:

Sorry about that. Didn't know it would multiply. Will try to get better at posting.

Xenos wrote on July 13, 2007 7:34 PM:

I keep trying to imagine scenarios where this bizarre and infuriating foot-dragging is part of a cunning plan. My latest fantasy is that Congress will issue subpoenas to all these jokers in the WH, DIJ, and RNC, will be stood up, and then will hold thier fire until 30 or more crooks are all in one place and can be scooped up.

Hey, they are likely to show up at the State of the Union address, right? Vote to issue the contempts via voice vote while waiting for the President to start his address, then lock the doors, and let the Sargeant at Arms take them into custody right then and there.

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 7:37 PM:

In honor of someone who is no stranger to "Executive Privilege" disputes, Richard L. Thornburgh will finally turn 75 years old on July 16, 1932 -- HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Jake D. wrote on July 13, 2007 7:44 PM:

Whoopsie daisies! Obviously, Thornburgh was BORN on July 16, 1932 -- he will turn 75 years old on July 16, 2007!!!

della Rovere wrote on July 13, 2007 8:08 PM:

Conyers "insists"!!! What hot air. Conyers is full of shit. He will not do anything except mouth empty threats ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What a do-nothing Democratic blowhard; i can't wait for his next email solicitation.

della Rovere wrote on July 13, 2007 8:13 PM:

Conyers insists!!!!What a hot-air blowhard. He is so full of shit. Either issue contempt of Congress or shut up and lick Bush's ass like you've been busy doing all along. But spare us your histrionics. Hearing you threaten contempt of Congress for the hundredth time only emboldens the Bush bastards and makes the situation worse not better.

Roberta wrote on July 13, 2007 8:22 PM:

Look, I know many TPM readers are frustrated by what seems to be the House Committee's weak response to Miers's skipping the hearing. But the language they use in these letters is a ritualized form of writing required by the procedure. As with any field or business, they have their own argot.

Here's what you should do: Take every verb in Conyers's letter and amp it up a couple of notches. Do the same with every adjective and adverb.

So "We were very disappointed that your client Harriet Miers disobeyed the subpoena served on her and did not even appear -- much less testify or produce documents as required ..." becomes:

"We are royally pissed that this pruney old bag blew off the subpoena slapped on her ass and flipped us the bird by skipping out on us -- not even coming clean with her own shit and bringing us the goods on her boss, after we so nicely made her an offer she shouldn't have refused ..."

We can say that kind of stuff (here, at least), but they can't. Even the mob uses euphemisms for what they really mean. The thing is that the Administration knows what they really mean and that they are royally pissed off.

Rep. Sanchez reaches the close of her very thorough, well-researched, and, I believe, bulletproof, five-point ruling against Bush's executive privilege assertion by saying: "For all the foregoing reasons, I hereby rule that Ms. Miers’s refusal to comply with the subpoena and appear at this hearing, and to answer questions and provide relevant documents regarding these concerns, cannot be properly justified on executive privilege or related immunity grounds."

Translation? "Get the fuck in here or your ass is grass, beeotch."

VJB wrote on July 13, 2007 8:44 PM:

Would it be impolite to shout, 'Hang the bastards!'

As I stated elsewhere in a gentler mood,'You bring the feather bolsters; I'll bring the tar; we'll hit up Home Depot or Lowes for a rail, or two, or three!'

No, it's not Giuliani time; it's torch and pitchfork parade time. Y'all come on down!

MLS wrote on July 13, 2007 9:17 PM:

Conyers' letter makes explicit reference to the possibility of inherent contempt proceedings. Given the fact that (a) inherent contempt has never in history been used against a witness asserting executive privilege, and b)inherent contempt has not been used against anyone since 1935, this is a very radical step. During the Clinton Administration, Republican committee chairman (Dan Burton, eg) wrote hundreds of letters complaining about failure to provide information or respond to subpoenas, but to my knowledge not one ever made reference to the possiblity of inherent contempt. Once or twice there was some discussion of the idea behind closed doors, but it never got to the point of even serious consideration.

Just some food for thought for those who are outraged at how "wimpy" and meek the Congress is being.

Al in Austex wrote on July 13, 2007 9:36 PM:

Okay- I still believe that the Committees & staffers are keeping their respective powder dry - ie the Hill Staffers know a whole lot more then they are letting out in public.If you listened carefully to the questions asked Ms Taylor -you would almost wonder if Leahy did not already have hard documents from the ShareFile System that Rover set up to handle the RNC e-mails. (Brad Blog's actually has done some really good reporting on what forensic evidence the Hill Staffers have acquired "off the Internets")
Be advised that two seasoned prosectors -Sen Leahy & Sen Specter rarely ask questions that they do not already know the answers . And finally Sen Grassely said that he has known Sara since she was six years old -and that she should understand that even he- Sen Grassley could not necessarily protect her from whats fixing to happen to Team Dubya -(ie Impeachments for one & all !)
Jakester please try to refrain from getting too personal your comments about Chairman Conyers really are beneath you. You know for a Troll you usually are at least civil .

Steve5117 wrote on July 13, 2007 9:49 PM:

I'm watching the Bill Moyers' Journal show on impeachment right now. You've got to see it. Impeachment is a cure for the problem we have.

poggy wrote on July 13, 2007 9:52 PM:

More useless polite words. She's already violated the subpoena. As far as I understand, that's a violation of the law, and she should be arrested.
To the contrary, we just have these mild little complaints from congress. They are useless and Cheney/Rove know it.

Samsara wrote on July 13, 2007 10:22 PM:

Harris Wofford turned 81 in April. Seems like everyone has a birthday this year. :)

Anonymous wrote on July 13, 2007 10:23 PM:

People, Conyers is proceeding exactly according to the process. Yesterday they voted to enforce the subpoena, which means Miers has five days to show cause for not appearing. If (when) she fails to do so, the next step is issuing a citation for contempt.

I know we all want action yesterday, but Conyers is doing everything by the book, which will serve justice more effectively in the long run.

georgia wrote on July 13, 2007 10:38 PM:

MLS,

- The former Political Director at the White House is stonewalling
- The former White House Counsel is stonewalling
- The Secretary of State is stonewalling
- The Vice President is stonewalling
- The Deputy Chief of Staff to the President is stonewalling
- The former Chief of Staff to the Vice President is stonewalling

...and they're all hiding CRIMES.

Throughout his administration, all Bush has done is stall. A judicial resolution of a contempt charge would just result in more stalling.

It is imperative for Congress to exert its authority in oversight and use inherent contempt. It has suffered too many encroachments upon its power. We've had enough of this imperial presidency. It needs to end now.

-

georgia wrote on July 13, 2007 11:06 PM:

- DOD is withholding Tilman documents
- DOT is withholding lobbying documents
- VP is withholding docs from National Archives
- WH is withholding CEQ documents

farmhouselady wrote on July 13, 2007 11:17 PM:

Would someone please point me to the explanation of what inherent contempt means? It sounds pretty serious but if I've come across exactly what it is in these posts, it must have leaked out my ears or my premature decrepitude has erased it from my dwindling brain cells already. What's the diff between contempt and inherent contempt? Did I miss it?

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 12:11 AM:

INHERENT CONTEMPT allows the house to bypass the courts and take power on the issue!

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070321095439-26038.pdf

the link above is an overview of the process that the house has, not the senate...Which is a good thing since they DO have the majority in! Meyers would have to come before them and be held accountable for her actions, the House is the judge, jury in this case! end of story! They do have some power left! They better use it

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 12:17 AM:

Steve5117- Oh you bet I'm watching it, I TVioed it!!!

He is the best! He was on the dark side, but he found the light.

georgia wrote on July 14, 2007 12:21 AM:

From the congressional Oversight Manual:

"Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate. Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents. The inherent contempt power has not been excercised by either House in over 70 years. This appears to be because it has been considered too cumbersome and time-consuming to hold contempt trials at the bar of the offended chamber. Morever, some have argued that the procedure is ineffective because punishment can not extend beyond Congress’s adjournment date."
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

see discussion at: http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=115206&hl=#

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 12:28 AM:

georgia....

THANK YOU for the links and outline! We are all so sick of this crap...I called every rep. in the House Judicial today and was in tears letting them know that I would support Impeachment process!!!! This whole thing of ling is just overwhelming and I am physically getting sick because of it!

MLS wrote on July 14, 2007 12:34 AM:

The term "inherent contempt" is used to describe the power of each House of Congress to "punish" (or more technically, coerce) those who defy its rightful authority without relying on the other branches. The argument in favor of such a power is essentially two-fold: (1)the power was exercised by the English Parliament and thus, even though it is not specified in the Constitution, it should be recognized as inherent in the legislative power granted to the House and Senate by Article I and (2)without such power, the House and Senate would be exposed to indignity, insult, etc.

The inherent contempt power includes, but is not limited to, the power to imprison witnesses who refuse to testify before either House until they do so. The power was first recognized by the Supreme Court in the early 19th Century case of Anderson v. Dunn, where the House had imprisoned Anderson (I think it was Anderson) for attempting to bribe a member. The power has also been used against persons accused of libeling or defaming Congress or individual members (see Marshall v. Gordon) so many people who post here have a vested interest in making sure it is not too vigorously revived.

The term "contempt" or "statutory contempt" is used to refer to a statutory procedure first enacted into law in the mid-19th century (codified at 2 USC 192, 194) which allows either House to refer witnesses who refuse to testify (or produce documents) to the US attorney for prosecution. This procedure gradually came to supplant inherent contempt, which was last used in 1935.

It should be understood that historically attempts by Congress to obtain information from the executive branch were treated quite differently than attempts to obtain information from private persons. Prior to WW II, subpoenas were rarely if ever directed at executive branch officials. The traditional method of demanding information from the executive in the House, for example, was the resolution of inquiry, which was considered a serious political step, but not a legally enforceable one.

For example, during the Cleveland Administration the Senate demanded that the Department of Justice produce all papers relating to the removal of a U.S. attorney. The Attorney General refused, which led the Senate Judiciary Committee to issue a report to the effect that where papers were "unconditionally demanded" of the President or heads of departments "they were under a constitutional duty and obligation to furnish to either House the papers called for." The Senate ultimately adopted a resolution condemning the Attorney General, but it didn't go to court and it didn't get the papers (no doubt to the outrage of 19th Century bloggers everywhere).

In more recent times, particularly since Watergate, it has become much more common for congressional committees to issue subpoenas to executive branch officers and, on rare (10 to be precise) occasions, to cite them for contempt under the statutory contempt procedure if they refuse to comply. As has by now been exhaustively discussed, this has never resulted in an actual prosecution for the obvious reason that the executive branch controls the prosecutorial mechanism.

Despite this drawback of the statutory contempt procedure,there has never been an attempt to invoke inherent contempt as a means of compelling the executive branch to provide information (which is why the fact that Conyers even refers to it is so extraordinary). There is thus no precedent one way or the other regarding its availability for that purpose.

Personally, I lean toward the view that inherent contempt should be available as a means to coerce the executive branch to provide information under very extraordinary circumstances (although the House or Senate should first be required to exhaust all other alternatives, probably including an attempt to seek civil relief or declaratory judgment.) However, the contrary argument would be that the Congress has plenty of other ways of getting information from the executive if it feels strongly enough about the issue (defunding programs or agencies, refusing to confirm nominees) and that if the matter is serious enough, the Constitution provides impeachment as the ulimate remedy.

Duckman GR wrote on July 14, 2007 12:36 AM:

The reason Inherent Contempt hasn't been used since 1935 is that every government we've had since then, including Nixon's and Reagans, knew that, a) crossing the line that would bring those charges was utterly counter-productive to their cause, and, b) that the Congress would take that action if need be.

Since the Bush Administration views tearing the government apart as a worthy goal a) doesn't apply, and since, to date, the Democrats have not DEMONSTRATED any inclination for b), the Bushies will continue to go about their business violating our rights, the laws, the teachings of the bible, killing people and stealing from citizens all over the globe.

I've said it oodles of time, the only way the Democrats can get anything from Bush is to force it on him. That means taking actions that force them to stop and that can't be filibustered by Bushes butcher baby enablers in the Senate. Like reject his nominees, defund his operations, prosecute Miers for inherent contempt, impeach somebody, anybody, and have a Senate Trial, hell, have a Senate Trial once a week, ending on Friday Afternoon just before any document dumps.

Impeach some judge, or a US Attorney from Minnesota, or a Cabinet Official, and let the Republicans defend each and every one of them.

Talk is fine, but it means nothing to the Bushies. Action is the only thing that will work.

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 1:14 AM:

Duckman....You are so right, they fly the birdy at congress and us daily...talk is cheap, actions speaks volumes, and that is something they would respond to! Maybe or maybe not! they are so unpredictable.

georgia wrote on July 14, 2007 8:13 AM:

Something to consider - Inherent contempt can be used as a punitive measure. Miers can be locked up for her failure to appear even if she gives in by Tuesday. She should be persuaded to cooperate fully or face the charge.

PJ White wrote on July 14, 2007 8:23 AM:

And what will the House do about Miers spitting in their faces? Not one damned thing! They should send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest her, but they will wring their hands and say, "Oh no!"

gchaucer2 wrote on July 14, 2007 8:43 AM:

Re: perceived "foot-dragging" by Conyers. At the end of the hearing, Sanchez said that Miers has five days to respond -- which is standard whether you show or don't. That's the procedure. So, we can start complaining if nothing happens after Tuesday.

Re: inherent contempt powers. It may be a cumbersome process but it is necessary because there is no other viable route. Conyers already knows a referral to DOJ is useless.

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 9:35 AM:

to: gchaucer2- "Re: perceived "foot-dragging" by Conyers. At the end of the hearing, Sanchez said that Miers has five days to respond -- which is standard whether you show or don't. That's the procedure. So, we can start complaining if nothing happens after Tuesday."

Now is that 5 business days or 5 real calender days?

Because in banking and some business' the term is different..

Thanks

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 9:47 AM:

MLS- Your break down on the process is Wonderful! Thank you. I can tell you either 1)a practicing attorney, or 2)a law student or 3) a legal geek!

LOL ;) anyways, thanks

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 9:54 AM:

MLS- question, you stated this in your statement "Constitution, it should be recognized as inherent in the legislative power granted to the House and Senate by Article I and (2)without such power, the House and Senate would be exposed to indignity, insult, etc."

The question is... does this apply "in-conjunction" with the house/senate? or does this apply to "either" the house/senate?
Thank you! need clarification!

LLG

Jake D. wrote on July 14, 2007 10:17 AM:

MLS:

You state there is no precedent for "inherent contempt" to be used to gain information from the Executive branch. Last time I checked, the Postmaster-General was part of the Executive branch, and indeed the inherent contempt process has been used by the Senate to do exactly that. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935).

lendmeadime wrote on July 14, 2007 10:58 AM:

It’s time for the Dem’s to take off their gloves. This continued business of “turn the other cheek” has got to go. I believe the time for “forgive, forget but get even” is now. They exposed Valerie Plame to teach other potential do-gooders that they will pay a price if anyone is inclined to buck this administration. I say arrest Miers, cuff her, have her do a perp walk and let’s see how many more people will dis the congressional committees.

Jake D. wrote on July 14, 2007 11:04 AM:

Then, I say GITMO anytime Senate and House Democrats leave the Capitol building.

MLS wrote on July 14, 2007 11:54 AM:

LLG

The contempt power is exercised by either House, acting independently.

Jake D.

Apparently I am not as much of a legal geek as LLG (or someone) gave me credit for. I have to admit I did not recall (and frankly still do not recall) that Jurney v. MacCracken involved a Postmaster General. My recollection is that the case involved an issue of attorney-client privilege, but that is the most I can remember at the moment.

I will have to look at the case, but my understanding is that Jurney did not involve a claim of executive privilege or some other claim of official governmental privilege. And it certainly did not involve a claim of privilege authorized by the President. (And if you are wondering how I can be so sure when I can't remember the case, it is simply because that would have made the case much more important than anyone has ever considered it to be).

My point was not that inherent contempt has never been used against an individual employed by the executive branch who was asserting a personal privilege. I recall, for example, that inherent contempt was employed in the 19th century against a US diplomat stationed in China who was asserting the Fifth Amendment. My point is that it has never been used as a means of forcing the executive branch itself (meaning the President or someone acting with his authority or approval) to produce information.

I will take a look at Jurney and see if it changes the analysis.

JEP wrote on July 14, 2007 12:01 PM:

Here's a snarky version of the new House and Senate Republican's version of the swearing-in ceremonies, for one of their own.

Call it Cannon's canon...

"Do you swear NOT to tell the truth, but just the half-truth, and nothing but half-truth, and if that is too revealing, to lie outright, so help you Karl?"

PS; Davis, Cannon and some others should be investigated and removed from office for their part in the quite-publicly-broadcast cover-up of the Doan, Goodling and Griffin conspiracies.

regular lurker wrote on July 14, 2007 12:32 PM:

I much prefer the photo of Miers as an empty chair.

Shame wrote on July 14, 2007 12:42 PM:

How about an empty suit?

Jake D. wrote on July 14, 2007 12:42 PM:

MLS:

The case doesn't say whether it was a claim of privilege "authorized" by the President (in fact, Democrats are already complaining that the CURRENT claim has not been made personally by Bush either). Let me know what else you find.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 14, 2007 12:43 PM:

Hmmmm

ThomasG wrote on July 14, 2007 2:15 PM:

Why George W. Bush and Dick Cheney MUST Be IMPEACHED NOW.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney MUST Be IMPEACHED NOW.

If the U.S. Congress does not IMPEACH George W. Bush and Dick Cheney together with the Bush administration for their “culture of criminal behavior”, false claims to and use of "unitary power", and violations of the Constitution and laws against the American people as a whole, the U.S. Congress will cede the powers claimed and used by Bush and the Bush administration, not only to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as President and Vice President of the United States, but to ALL other Presidents and Vice Presidents that follow George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

It is of the utmost importance that both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney be IMPEACHED as a remedy for the false power that Bush and Cheney have both claimed and used during the Bush/Cheney Administration, so that the power Bush and Cheney have falsely claimed and used is not 1st ceded to Bush and Cheney, and thereafter to all future presidents and vice presidents that follow Bush and Cheney as a precedent that went UNCHALLANGED by the Congress of the United States.

If the American people allow a “do nothing” U.S. Congress to cede “unitary executive power”, the power of a KING, to George W. Bush by NOT IMPEACHING Bush and Cheney, the American people in allowing the U.S. Congress to do so will also be allowing DEMOCRACY in the United States to go quietly into the night without a fight, and thereby, enable government powers falsely claimed and used by Bush and Cheney as a precedent for RULE by ALL presidents and vice presidents that succeed Bush and Cheney.

By way of the IMPEACHMENT of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the American people MUST set a precedent that “unitary presidential powers” that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have falsely claimed and used are an illegal attempt at usurpation of Democracy in the United States and the U.S. Constitution, in the name of “autocracy” by Bush and Cheney.

The false powers for the President that Bush and Cheney have falsely claimed and used constitute HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, and MUST NOT BE PASSED DOWN AS PRECEDENTS FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS, but rather, as attempted criminal conduct against the citizens of the United States.

WE, ALL of the AMERICAN PEOPLE, must not allow FALSE CLAIMS TO POWER and THE USE OF POWER FALSELY CLAIMED that is NOT CHALLENGED by a “do nothing” U.S. Congress to empower a “unitary executive” as President of the United States, KING GEORGE I.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney MUST Be IMPEACHED NOW

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Tough Talk on Impeachment -- PBS
July 13, 2007

A public opinion poll from the American Research Group recently reported that more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.

Unhappiness about the war in Iraq isn't the only cause of the unsettled feelings of the electorate. Recent events like President Bush's pardoning of Scooter Libby, the refusal of Vice President Cheney's office to surrender emails under subpoena to Congress and the President's prohibition of testimony of former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers in front of the House Judiciary Committee have caused unease over claims of "executive privilege."

In addition, many of the White House anti-terror initiatives and procedures — from the status of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo to warrantless wiretapping — have come under legal scrutiny in Congress and the courts.

Bill Moyers gets perspective on the role of impeachment in American political life from Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and THE NATION's John Nichols, author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT.

"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein

"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols

Bruce Fein

Bruce Fein is a nationally and internationally recognized expert on Constitutional law. Bruce Fein, photo by Robin Holland Graduating from Harvard Law School in 1972, Fein became the assistant director of the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice. Shortly after that, Fein became the associate deputy attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan.
His political law career would take him to various outlets, including general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, followed by an appointment as research director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran.

Mr. Fein has been an adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a lecturer at the Bookings Institute, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University.

Fein has also penned a number of volumes on United States Constitution, Supreme Court, and international law, as well as assisted three dozen countries in constitutional revision, including Russia, Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Cyprus, and Mozambique.

Fein currently writes weekly columns for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and CAPITOL LEADER, and a bi-weekly column for the LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER devoted to legal and international affairs.

Recently, Fein has been in the national spotlight after his editorial in the online news magazine SLATE called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, in which he outlines the various cases against the Vice President. Fein also testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2007 about President Bush's use of "signing statement."

* According to Fein, Cheney has:

*Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.

* Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President's say-so alone.

* Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.

* Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.

* Engineered the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

* Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.

* Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.

* Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration's evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq. (Read Fein's SLATE article)

John Nichols

John Nichols, author and political journalist has been writing the "Online Beat" for THE NATION magazine since 1999. Nichols also serves as Washington correspondent for THE NATION, as well as the associate editor of the CAPITAL TIMES, the daily newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin and a contributing writer for THE PROGRESSIVE and IN THESE TIMES.

Along with fellow author Robert McChesney, Nichols co-founded the media-reform group Free Press. Nichols has also authored several books, including JEWS FOR BUCHANAN, which analyzed the recount vote of 2000, and DICK: THE MAN WHO IS PRESIDENT, his best-selling biography of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Nichols most recent book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT, argues that impeachment is an essential instrument of America's democratic system. Nichols' argument also bases the power of impeachment in the hands of the people, rather than the congress. In his recent article, "In Praise of Impeachment," Nichols argues "While the Constitution handed Congress the power to officially check such despotism, Jefferson and his colleagues fully expected the American people to be the champions of the application of the rule of law to an errant executive."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

jonerik wrote on July 14, 2007 2:24 PM:

I say impeach Bush for contempt of Congress by "commanding or counseling" Miers and Taylor to commit contempt of Congress. By "counseling or commanding" a violation of 2 USC sec. 192 governing contempts of Congress, Bush and his counsel have themselves become "principals" under 18 USC sec. 2 as if they committed the misdemeanor themselves: 18 USC sec. 2:

"(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."

2 USC sec. 192, contempt of Congress says:

"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 $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

Miers and Taylor should both be indicted, yes, assuming the US Attorney for DC will do his/her duty. But the Constitution say the President may be impeached for any "high crime or misdemeanor" and contempt of Congress should count for that.

dgrptr wrote on July 14, 2007 2:25 PM:

Harriet Miers has got until Tuesday to respond.

jcricket's boy toy wrote on July 14, 2007 2:35 PM:

I can't believe the dems.
Frau Blucher should have slapped with contempt immediately. followed by taylor... bush and cheney are smirking in an undisclosed location. cheney says 'i told you so, all you gotta do is tell them to fuck themselves and they will.' these guys have gone this far not giving a damn, and they have a year and a half to go. we are doomed with these nonchordated being the 'loyal opposition.'

TheraP wrote on July 14, 2007 3:02 PM:

Thomas, one caveat:

Mr. Fein also gave the idiotic advice that if bush and cheney, in the course of impeachment proceedings, apologize and promise to follow the Law, then: "impeachment proceedings ought to stop" and "They could stay in office."

PIECE OF ADVICE: Never, ever trust the apology of a sociopath!

If impeachment starts, it must go all the way to the end. And in my view, the end should be JAIL.

Anonymous wrote on July 14, 2007 4:10 PM:

This is from the REAL deal
The Congressional Over site Manuel On Contempt power! I think the more WE the people know, the stronger we become, and this form of weapon is the strongest we have, our mind!
----------------------------

1. The Contempt Power.

While the threat or actual issuance of a subpoena normally provides sufficient leverage to ensure compliance, it is through the contempt power, or its threat, that Congress may act with ultimate force in response to actions that obstruct the
legislative process in order to punish the contemnor and/or to remove the obstruction.
The Supreme Court early recognized the power as an inherent attribute of Congress’s legislative authority, reasoning that if it did not possess this power, it “would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it.”18

There are three different kinds of contempt proceedings. Both the House and Senate may cite a witness for contempt under their inherent contempt power or under a statutory criminal contempt procedure. The Senate also has a third option,
enforcement by means of a statutory civil contempt procedure.19

(a) Inherent Contempt

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House
Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either
punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.20

Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents.

The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years. This appears to be because it has been considered too cumbersome and timeconsuming to hold contempt trials at the bar of the offended chamber. Moreover, some have argued that the procedure is ineffective because punishment can not extend beyond Congress’s adjournment date.

Al in Austex wrote on July 14, 2007 10:50 PM:

First we should impeach the VEEP , (choose one or all charges from Fein's list ) - then give Dubya the option to resign. All the while keeping intact the evidence & testimony that will see both the VEEP & Dubya tried in the Hague for War Crimes- the abuse at Abu Gharib for starters.
The way to get the Impeachment proceedings stsrted is to throw Ms.Harriet in the Congressional Stockade for her inherent contempt of Congress-

jonerik wrote on July 15, 2007 12:01 AM:

The problem is with this contempt of Miers and Taykor business ( and Bush and Fielding and Rive etc. know this) is that you have to rely on a grand jury controlled by a potentially adversary US attorney) who could very easily make you (i.e. Congress) look weak and pathetic by not delivering the goods, i.e and indictment and arrest warrant for the confinement of the bodies of said Miers and Taylor. Getting the Seargeant at Arms into the Act and having a trial in the House is on a sea of uncertainty and probably unconstitutional. Congress cannot try people except for impeachments.

Congress's only certain response to this flip of the bird from Bush is a bill of impeachment against Bush right now on this issue. That is self enforcing and brings the matter before the Senate on trial. This does not rule out multiple bills of impeachment. this avoid also the courts whoch right now I wouldn;t trust either if I were in Congress, since the highest court is filled with Bush's cronies. There is that clear?

Jim Coughlin wrote on July 15, 2007 12:32 AM:

This will all blow over in a few days, I have lost hope that any of these Congress whores is capable of anything other than bloviating speeches and impressing the other hos in the media. After Lieberman stuck his usual knife in them, voting "no" on Webb's amendment, they all joined in to vote for his Iran censure amendment.
This cocksucker should be stripped of his chairmanship and ignored when he speaks. Throw the little fucker out after the 2008 election when hopefully a lot of repubs get their ass kicked out. We won't need him then.

LWood wrote on July 15, 2007 2:15 AM:

Congress now offers a sad but informative study of invertebrate politics. A 1974 Demo Congressman would be subpoenaing witness in Cheney's impeachment by now.

DELBERT MATHANEY wrote on July 15, 2007 3:59 AM:

...LOOKING OVER THE CLIFF. The NSA spying has given the Bush crime family ALL the dirt on the democrats. The democrats CAN NOT afford to have their own dirt come to light. So, we watch the mud wrestling from here, while the 'paperless voting' results for 2008 are being put in DIEBOLD, ESS ETC... In short, I think we've been collectively intercoursed.

MLS wrote on July 15, 2007 7:03 AM:

Jake D

I have now re-read the Jurney v. MacCracken case. I dont know how you got the idea that the contempt in that case was against the Postmaster General. The underlying Senate investigation involved certain contracts entered into by the Postmaster General, but the contempt was against a private lawyer and his clients for destroying documents that the Senate committee had subpoenaed.

In short, this case does not say anything, one way or another, about whether inherent contempt can be used to obtain information from the executive branch.

This is how a treatise summarizes the Jurney case:
"MacCracken was a lawyer. Among his clients were certain corporations which held mail contracts. In 1933 the Senate began an investigation of mail contracts and MacCracken was served with a subpoena duces tecum requiring him to produce all papers and records relating to this subject. MacCracken appeared before the comittee conducting the investigation, but refused to produce the records. He claimed that to do so would violate client privileges. MacCracken wired his clients and got permission to waive this privilege from almost all. However, officials of the Western Air Express and Northwest Airways Companies removed certain papers from MacCracken's files. The Senate passed a resolution ordering MacCracken to appear before the Senate. The Senate found him guilty of contempt. MacCracken sued for a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, but granted by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction."

Anonymous wrote on July 15, 2007 9:20 AM:

Please watch this discussion with Bill Moyers about the necessity of impeaching the two men who would be king.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Jake D. wrote on July 15, 2007 10:29 AM:

Jim Coughlin:

Please contact Harry Reid's office and urge that Lieberman be stripped of his chairmanship and ignored when he speaks:

528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3542 Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

LWood:

Conyers WAS a 1974 Congressman and is the last remaining member of the House Judiciary Committee who had voted on the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon in July 1974. Two other members then serving on the Committee are still serving in Congress in other positions: Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Senator Trent Lott (R-MS). Conyer was also on President Richard Nixon's enemies list during Nixon's 1969–1974 presidential tenure. The president's Chief Counsel described Conyers as "coming on fast" and that he was "emerging" as a "black anti-Nixon spokesman" who also had a "weakness" for white women. YMMV.

MLS:

Did you actually read the case, rather than just a treatise -- it's not that long, but it's still unclear whether MacCracken also held some position under the Postmaster General and therefore sued in that capacity and within the Executive branch -- as I said already, the case doesn't say whether it was a claim of privilege "authorized" by the President or not (did you know that Democrats are complaining that the CURRENT Executive Privilege claim has not been made personally by Bush?). As I read it yet again, the issue of privilege was also moot. Let me know what you think.

no name:

I thought Bill Moyers did a great job -- too bad Pelosi took impeachment off the table, huh?

Troll Patrol wrote on July 15, 2007 10:35 AM:

Mon Dieu!

Jake D. wrote on July 15, 2007 10:43 AM:

Troll Patrol:

It's not my fault all those people responded to me.

MLS wrote on July 15, 2007 1:05 PM:

Jake D.

Yes, I read the opinion, not just the treatise. Here is a direct quote: "MacCracken had been served, on January 31, 1934, with a subpoena duces tecum to appear 'instanter' before the committee and to bring all books of account and papers 'relating to air mail and ocean mail contracts.' The witness appeared on that day; stated that he is a lawyer, member of the firm of MacCracken & Lee, with offices in the District; that he was ready to produce all papers which he lawfully could; but that many of those in his possession were privileged communications between himself and corporations or individuals for whom he had acted as attorney; that he could not lawfully produce such papers without the client first having waived the privilege; and that, unless he secured such a waiver, he must exercise his own judgment as to what papers were within the privilege."

Apparently you are suggesting that in addition to being, as the case makes clear, a lawyer in private practice, MacCracken could also have been employed in some fashion by the Postmaster General? Well, the opinion does not say, or in any way suggest, that to be the case, and it would seem like rather a conflict of interest to be employed by the Postmaster General and also representing private corporations that are contracting with the Postmaster General.

Apart from that, not being personally acquainted with Mr. MacCracken, I have no way of knowing what other jobs he may have had. Perhaps I should have qualified my earlier posts by noting that I am not, and never have been, omniscient.

David T. wrote on July 15, 2007 3:32 PM:

What infamous republican stated...oh, a few years back, that "If we lose our freedoms, the terrorists will have won?" I remember at the time thinking the "terrorists" were some Muslim group. Now I realize they were right, except for the fact that since WWII, the U.S. Government ranks #1 in what is referred to as "state sponsored terrorism," and the current neo-con vermin who are running this theater production (foreign and domestic policy)are BY FAR the worst group yet. Worse yet, corruption via lobbying activity has ensnared nearly anyone in government (congress and the courts included), that no one dare make any serious effort at uprooting these people for fear that their own indiscretions be exposed. Got a spouse working undercover in the CIA? Watch out! Want Rove/Cheney sending a letter with U.S. Military grade anthrax to you office? Better keep quiet and play the game! And "play the game" they do indeed! I, personally, would pardon everyone in congress if they would just unify, turn their self-interest into some patriotism, band together and save us from one horrific future that is guaranteed if they do nothing but continue this pathetic "political theater for the masses."

David T. wrote on July 15, 2007 3:33 PM:

What infamous republican stated...oh, a few years back, that "If we lose our freedoms, the terrorists will have won?" I remember at the time thinking the "terrorists" were some Muslim group. Now I realize they were right, except for the fact that since WWII, the U.S. Government ranks #1 in what is referred to as "state sponsored terrorism," and the current neo-con vermin who are running this theater production (foreign and domestic policy)are BY FAR the worst group yet. Worse yet, corruption via lobbying activity has ensnared nearly anyone in government (congress and the courts included), that no one dare make any serious effort at uprooting these people for fear that their own indiscretions be exposed. Got a spouse working undercover in the CIA? Watch out! Want Rove/Cheney sending a letter with U.S. Military grade anthrax to you office? Better keep quiet and play the game! And "play the game" they do indeed! I, personally, would pardon everyone in congress if they would just unify, turn their self-interest into some patriotism, band together and save us from one horrific future that is guaranteed if they do nothing but continue this pathetic "political theater for the masses."

Anonymous wrote on July 15, 2007 4:39 PM:

The Moyers piece on Impeachment was a real good time line on the process and the guest's were valid in there field.

The Constitutional lawyer made some references to Mason and Madson with the Impeachment process, which I am going to read to understand their points of views.

I now understand why I AM so upset at Bush, my anger is more directed at the person undermining the Constitution because we are framed by laws, and not by men! Bush is metaphorically a man, and does not and will not understand what the Constitution means for and about society in a democracy.

Its my Constitution that is in need of help and thats what the Impeachment process is about, saving her/him from those such as Bush!

He swore an oath to up hold the Constitution to defend it, he has gone against that oath and Impeachment is the tool.

Every thing this administration and Republicans have done against the Constitution is a determined blast of ignorance and malice on the laws which it holds.

We are it and it is us and our framers put the guild lines in the Constitution to protect our laws which protect our liberties and result in freedom.

The Impeachment term is not a bad one, in fact it should be stated daily because it allows those in government to check and balance their own actions.

US Citizen wrote on July 15, 2007 4:55 PM:

I think asking more than once for testimony before Congress is a mistake. The House must now set up an process for expediting "Contempt of Congress" proceedings. Once that is complete they must place Harriet Miers bodily in the local jail.

This process must be executed repeatedly until they get some answers providing for the Impeachment of the President and Vice President.

US Citizen wrote on July 15, 2007 5:20 PM:

US Citizens may take some form of legal action against Pelosi for failing to defend the Constitution (impeachment of corrupt members is not optional in our system).

We must demand that they fulfill the requirements of our Constitution. It is our right to be free of tyrants.

Citizen wrote on July 15, 2007 5:37 PM:

It is not Nancy Pelosi's prerogative to take Impeachment off the table. She can be called before the Judiciary Committee to answer how a provision of the Constitution can be merely brushed aside for political purposes. This in itself is a betrayal of the public trust and Speaker of the House's oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

We can not be called a great nation if we lack the ability to hold our elected officials to our written law.

If Pelosi refuses to act now, Impeachment may reach the speaker herself, as an accomplice in an Impeachable offense.

Anonymous wrote on July 15, 2007 6:12 PM:

"It is not Nancy Pelosi's prerogative to take Impeachment off the table."

there's a real easy escape from any "off the table" comment: uncovering damning information in the process of senate/house investigations or testimony. but for that to happen, you need documents and/or testimony; and this administration has blocked both. but seriously, why would she say otherwise when the democrats didn't have subpoena power before they won the house?

[not to mention, if she says it's "on the table" back in september or october, how many more times do you hear the words "first 100 hours" or "stem cell" or "minimum wage" on any of the sunday talk shows? exactly zero.]

Anonymous wrote on July 15, 2007 7:17 PM:

Personally, N. Pelosi's response was both political and social in nature.

Political - just as the blog person stated...""first 100 hours" or "stem cell" or "minimum wage" on any of the sunday talk shows? exactly zero."

Also the media would have ran with a headline such as this:

Nancy P. not just the first Women House Speaker, she wants to be President too!

This statement is right on! The media would have just ran with her wanting power! So the focus was on "what is going to happen" and "how is going to be done"

Social - Her position is well know in liberal circles...but it is more two fold. If she never said it, the people (us) would be mad if she didn't, ok she did, because she wanted to focus on the social aspects more than politics. But she knows that over site has been zero in the last 5-6 years and maybe she needed to see where that may lead.

Bottom line, she's in a catch 22! Focus on the issue's that have gone astray, yet letting the people see it fold right before their eyes regarding scandals and lies, and stealing from the American people, thats what has unfolded.

I guess this coming week, the topic of Impeachment will become louder. I will remind us of our duty to inform our senators and Reps of their DUTY to Uphold and defend the Constitution, because thats whats at stake here! People can get power, but its another thing to take it from them when they have it!

Do you think that if a Dem is elected to the WH and the power that Bush left is given to them, that they would just "oh here you go take some of this power back" theory! NO NO they wouldn't!

So, regardless of who is in the WH the only way to restore the power as framed in the Constution is to IMPEACH!

Call every day your congress and make them restore the constitution and bring back Impeachment!

EdNSted wrote on July 15, 2007 9:32 PM:

I had also hoped by now thart a full fledged investigation of Blackwater would be under way by this point in time. There's one massive sewer under that rug. But my hopes had steadily been deflating since January. Thus far the Democrats have not been inclined to even ask the question, yet alone demand the answer.

EdNSted wrote on July 15, 2007 9:36 PM:

Also, could someone please tell me what the word "insist" means vis-a-vis the House Judiciary Committee. I suspect I'm misinterpretting the word.

EdNSted wrote on July 15, 2007 9:36 PM:

Also, could someone please tell me what the word "insist" means vis-a-vis the House Judiciary Committee. I suspect I'm misinterpretting the word.

Citizen wrote on July 15, 2007 10:19 PM:

Finally, I offer this quotation for those who like myself have hesitated to call for action:

"Go this very moment, and stand at the crossroads; bow down, and first kiss the earth which you have defiled; then bow down to the whole world, to the four points on the compass, and say aloud, for all men to hear: ..."

- Fyodor Dostoevsky, 'Crime and Punishment'

This is a call for an act of atonement for all the nation.

Al in Austex wrote on July 16, 2007 5:41 AM:

"A True Patriot Must ALways Be Prepared to Defend His Country Against His Country's Government "
Edward Abbey
We must bring Impeachment Proceedings -at the mimimum- aginst Cheney immediately -We can take Bruce Fein's outstanding work on why we should Impeach Cheney and go forth and defend our Country against this corrupt bunch.
And EdNSted the impeachment proceeding against Cheny should lead directly to not only BlackWater but other very bad actors ie Titan .Its alleged that Titan had Isreali Contractors torturing detainees at Abu Gharib-we do not now if thats true but we do know that the OVP lawyers such as Yoo & Addington had a hand in drafting the memorandum that said the Geneva Convention had become outdated & quaint (paraphrasing but that was the thrust of the memo) .
Fein worked for Reagan -he knows his stuff - he also helped Impeach Bubba - but back then lying to a grand jury about having a girlfriend was still considered an Impeachable offense- With the new normal evidently the President & VEEP can do whatever the Hell they want to do including torturing American Citizens ( ie Padilla ) ..
Meanwhile me & Bob Barr are keeping our respective NRA membership current _and yes I have reupped my contributions to Amenesty International ..

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 10:44 AM:

When did Bush lie to a grand jury about having a girlfriend?

Hardheaded Liberal wrote on July 17, 2007 6:47 AM:

I haven't had a chance to look up the cases, but my recollection is that the law of Contempt of Congress is that any privilege not asserted by the witness in the course of appearing (voluntarily or in response to a subpoena) is waived. I am virtually certain that is the rule with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege.

If Harriet Miers had ANY qualifications to be a federal judicial officer (such as s Justice of the US Supreme Court), she would never have acquiesced either in Bush's directive not to appear or in her "own" lawyer's endorsement of not appearing. As was reported, she never performed adequately at any of the "murder boards" that the White House set up to run Miers through practice questioning on matters relevant to confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.

Does anyone know any cases on waiver of an evidentiary privilege as applied to "Executive Privilege"?

Hardheaded Liberal wrote on July 17, 2007 6:49 AM:

I haven't had a chance to look up the cases, but my recollection is that the law of Contempt of Congress is that any privilege not asserted by the witness in the course of appearing (voluntarily or in response to a subpoena) is waived. I am virtually certain that is the rule with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege.

If Harriet Miers had ANY qualifications to be a federal judicial officer (such as s Justice of the US Supreme Court), she would never have acquiesced either in Bush's directive not to appear or in her "own" lawyer's endorsement of not appearing. As was reported, she never performed adequately at any of the "murder boards" that the White House set up to run Miers through practice questioning on matters relevant to confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.

Does anyone know any cases on waiver of an evidentiary privilege as applied to "Executive Privilege"?

Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 4:58 PM:

MLS:

I never accused you of being omniscient.

BTW: leftie moonbats -- the deadline "insisting" Miers respond has come and gone -- where's the contempt of Congress charge, Conyers?