Comments (126)

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:03 PM:

WOO HOO!!!

Mike Conwell wrote on July 25, 2007 5:06 PM:

For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.

Anna S. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:06 PM:

Congress needs to pass *laws* about executive privilege. A lot of what's being argued over are DoJ opinions, which have never been adjudicated in actual courts, and are issued by a Department which, according to this line of thinking, exists only to exercise the President's perogative. That's a dangerous combination, but it can be reined in with a few choice amendments to the next appropriations bill or something. This business of letting the DoJ protect the President from Congress under the auspices of not allowing the enforcement of proceedings is dishonest and needs to stop, I don't care which party is in office.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:07 PM:

The idea of "rule of law" is to have an enforcement mechanism. If the President refuses to prosecute, the Congress may impeach.

If Cngress asserts something must be done, but is not willing to back that claim with impeachment, then Congress is irrelevant, not just a rubber stamp.

Tell Congress to go home until 2008, and maybe We the People will notice.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:09 PM:

When there is no enforcement of the law, the State AGs may prosecute the President and VP ouside impeachment for denying the States' their guarantee to a Republican form of government.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:09 PM:

All the more reason to send the contempt citation to the full House before the recess. Then, when the DoJ wipes its ass with it, they can take up an inherent contempt citation after the recess. We all know it's going to come to that anyway, so why diddle around?

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:09 PM:

Anna S.:

Would you also want a couple Executive Orders rescinding the Congressional "Speech and Debate" clause? I'm sure we could expand Gitmo to house a few VIPs.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:13 PM:

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 5:09 PM

Executive Orders are not relevant to Congress. POTUS Cannot have it both ways: Arguing Congress has no oversight power (which it does); but then impose rulse on the Congress.

No, Constitution delegates rule making powers only to the Congressional bodies themselves, not to the President; and all other EOs are contingent upon their being consitsent with laws passed per Article I SEction 8: The rule making power of Congress to define when the Courts shall or shall not recognize Executive Privildge claims.

jsep wrote on July 25, 2007 5:13 PM:

Congress has the ability to enact change. There is currently a bill before the house titled the Global Poverty Act (H.R. 1302) which would help bring an end to global poverty. Issues such as this need to be a focus of congressional leaders. Non-profit organizations such as the Borgen Project are working to bring this type of political recognition to the issue of global poverty. The U.S. is the number one agenda setter and needs to act as a role model in the arena of global poverty.

Mehitabel wrote on July 25, 2007 5:14 PM:

Has anyone ever changed their mind because of something Jake D. said? For me, his sibilant ramblings have only served to reinforce what I know to be true.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:17 PM:

"no name" at 5:09 PM:

State Attorneys General cannot indict sitting Presidents (arguably Vice Presidents as well) either. Federal law trumps -- sorry.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:19 PM:

Jake, how on earth is the Little Shrub going to override the Constitution by Executive Order? Does he really think he alone determines what's in the Constitution?

d

Crust wrote on July 25, 2007 5:21 PM:

Re the quote:

"the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

But that doesn't apply to Miers, who is not a presidential subordinate, but rather a former presidential subordinate.

And can she really be said merely to have asserted executive privilege? She didn't decline to answer certain questions on the grounds of executive privilege. She didn't even show up, in effect asserting privilege for all possible questions.

bobh wrote on July 25, 2007 5:23 PM:

How can the courts even contemplate disregarding the citation of contempt against someone that didn't show up pursuant to a served subpoena?

Miers didn't show. The contempt has nothing to do with what she did or did not say. Can a lawyer clear this up for me?

On its face the validity of the ocntempt charge is proven without a need for any case presentation in court.

TheraP wrote on July 25, 2007 5:27 PM:

Presence of Troll. Infallible evidence that the topic is important.

Practice mindfulness.

pacr wrote on July 25, 2007 5:28 PM:

Jake D and all his ilk are clearly looking forward to the reign of Queen Hillary. Why else would they want to trash our system of government?

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:29 PM:

The issue changes from whether the President will or will not enforce the laws; to whether he is blocking US Atty's from enforcing the laws.
["a U.S. attorney will not enforce a citation of contempt, should it pass the House. "]
- Did the President understand that such an order contradicted his oath of office requirement to ensure that all laws are enforced?
- Does the President understand that by refusing to enforce the law, and obstructing the US ttys from enforcing the law, the State AGs may prosecute this sitting President outside impeachment?
- Does the President understand that blocking the US Attys from fully assert their oath of office is an actionable item?
- Do DoJ-OVP-EOP Staff counsel understand that in asserting the President will not enforce the law, and block US Attys from enforcing the statutes and standards that the legal counsel are complicit with unlawful activity; and have illegally permitted their legal services to be used for an unlawful purpose?
- Does legal counsel understand that refusing to enforce the law can subject them to disbarment proceedings?
- Does legal counsel understand efforts to dissuade enforcement of the law can be entered into evidence as corrupt practices related to allegations why the RNC-WH e-mails have been destroyed?
- Does legal counsel, and Executive Branch personnel understand that refusing to enforce the law can be entered into evidence for the Grand Jury to review who has or ha snot fully asserted their oath of office, 5 USC 3331?
- Do all US government officials understand that by blocking enforcement of the statute for non-lawful purposes this raises in the mind of the grand jury doubts whether officials have or do not have "mental reservations" or a "purpose of evasion"?
- Do US Federal government officials understand that there are 50 State AGs that may lawfully prosecute US government officials for the refusal to enforce the States' right-guarantee to a Republican Form of Government?

Once the above are reviewed, the US government officials in DoJ-EOP-OVP will have knowingly agreed to engaged in unlawful conduct; and have recklessly defied their oaths of office, fully enforceable by the State AGs, outside impeachment, outside the US Atty Control, and outside Congressional-Presidential influence. We the People, in concert with the 10th Amendment and assertion of all non-delegated powers, reserve the right to conclude, declare, and adjudicate through he Grand Juries:
- Violation of Oath of office
- Illegal rebellion
- Conspiracy
- Assent to illegal orders
- Conduct unbecoming military officers
- Conduct warranting disbarment investigation
- Malfeasance
- Obstruction
- Illegal contracts; unlawful reliance

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:32 PM:

d and "no name":

Read Anna S.'s post claiming to support the same by Congress against the President. I simply asked the question. I'm not the one advocating that position.

Mark Richards wrote on July 25, 2007 5:32 PM:

Too important.

No recess.

Inherent contempt.

DO IT NOW.

EH wrote on July 25, 2007 5:34 PM:

Criminal contempt is surely applicable to Presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege, especially when they do not possess the privilege and when they don't show up to assert it.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 25, 2007 5:34 PM:

[I am cross-commenting this to the 3778 post.]

This is all I need to know about Jake D, from here:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003746.php

Jake D., at July 23, 2007 4:20 PM, wrote:

"Since I don't think Bush has done anything worth impeachment (let alone Miers and Bolten following the directions of Bush in not producing documents / testimony), yes, I think Congress is going about it all wrong. Certainly, Feingold's censure resolution (again) is incorrect and even if I believed grounds for impeachment exist, I wouldn't go for censure. I also don't think there's any Constitutional Amendment I would propose [in response to my question, "Do you think our Constitution is broken and that there's no way to force the President's hand in anything except to pass a Constitutional amendment that would close whatever loopholes you believe exist?"]. Obviously, if I thought Bush had done something that he should be held accountable for, the election in 2004 was that moment. Short of convincing him to resign, the only way to legally get him is impeachment...."

It's up to all of you to decide if you feel a need, but I feel no need to argue details of Congress's fight with Bush anymore with someone who feels this way. (If any of you care, see my response 4 comments down, at July 23, 2007 5:26 PM.)

Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 5:36 PM:

"All the more reason to send the contempt citation to the full House before the recess. Then, when the DoJ wipes its ass with it, they can take up an inherent contempt citation after the recess. We all know it's going to come to that anyway, so why diddle around?
Posted by:
Date: July 25, 2007 5:09 PM"

I don't think it needs to go to a full House vote, since the DoJ has preempted the need. The House now has all the foundation a reasonable person should expect to move on to inherent contempt.

I sometimes try to figure out what the Admin's thinking with a move like this, but other than giving me a headache, I can't see the plus for them. They have to know that someone guilty of inherent contempt cannot have an executive pardon fix it and make it better.

In addition, won't Miers and Bolten ultimately be compelled to cough up what the committee wants to know? Can the Admin really believe that with this level of disrespect they've shown Congress a vote on inherent contempt couldn't pass?

It's the third time I've suggested this today, but we all must write to our representatives and tell them we support the next step: Inherent Contempt. It's only if they think their constituency supports it that some of the more-nervous of our reps can take a step like this.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:36 PM:

"Infallible" evidence, TheraP? It could be just some "textbook psychopath" is on the loose ; )

John wrote on July 25, 2007 5:38 PM:

"to... who assert executive privilege". But there's a procedure for that, and it hasn't been followed.

The privilege hasn't been invoked.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:41 PM:

I still have not seen any explanation why "inherent contempt" of Congress is not pardonable by the President?

Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 5:46 PM:

Geez, I wish the Extreme Right could find someone else to post for them. I'd love to read some really subversive, thoughtful arguments to give me reason to consider their point of view instead of the juvenile, "fart-in-your-general-direction" posts we all must endure. I like the dialectic process, and I want to discover if there really are holes in my opinions and leanings. I'm not afraid to learn, and my ego isn't based on being correct.

Ah, well. No help here from he-who-just-wants-to-annoy.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:46 PM:

PROSECUTION OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS

Here is the legal argument for why State AG have standing to prosecute a sitting President outside Congress outside impeachment.
Jonathan Turley; American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 37, 2000. From Pillar to Post: the Prosecution of American Presidents

This assertion is without regard to the above:
- - - - -
"no name" at 5:09 PM: State Attorneys General cannot indict sitting Presidents (arguably Vice Presidents as well) either. Federal law trumps -- sorry.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 5:17 PM
--------------------------

The Law Review Article, as it relates to the above "denial" can be best summarized this way:

1. Eat dirt: "federal law does not expressly preempt the states' laws" [Court Opinion, Judge Vaughn Walker, 2007]
2. There is no law that says it cannot happen.
3. The State AGs have just been given authority to litigate the NSA issues; the motion to dismiss was DENIED opening the door for other state AG action against the President and VP.
4. You make no allowances for the 10th Amendment which reserves to the States the power to prosecute a sitting President; the Constitution only mentions impeachment; and that is only delegated to the House.
5. Cite one law that says that this cannot happen. It doesn't exist.
6. Judge Vaughn Walker just ruled that assertions of "what is" are meaningless: The Federal Government does not command deference by anyone: "does not . . .oblige special treatment."
7. You cite nothing to suggest this cannot happen. You're wrong. NO court has ever said this is impossible.
8. There is no "Higher enforcement action that the US Attys have" to prosecute the President; so there's no merit to any assertion that the States are "meddling" in something the US Government refuses to confront: This President's illegal activity. Once Conyers and Pelosi have said we will not impeach, that opens the doors for prosecutions.
9. The President's AG even said, as a Senator, that there are two ways to prosecute a President: One with criminal indictments; or one with impeachment. Impeachment is preferred, but when not possible, prosecutions remain on the table.

You "argument" fails.

CONCLUSION

A sitting President and VP may be prosecuted today outside Congress, outside impeachment. There is no legal authority which prevents this from proceeding now.

Please contact your State AG and ask them to support the indictments against this sitting President and VP, outside Congress, outside impeachment.

bobh wrote on July 25, 2007 5:47 PM:

Its in the constitution Jake. Read it why don't you. Its just not pardonable jake.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:47 PM:

John:

You're claiming the President of the United State personally has to say some kind of magic words? Let me guess, you also think there's no "war" in Iraq because Congress has not declared one?

bobh wrote on July 25, 2007 5:49 PM:

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), a lawyer who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, William P. MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. [1]

MacCracken had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). [2][3]

Presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures like the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or an offense against "the dignity of public authority." [4]

And yes, jake, the president actually has to FOLLOW A PROCEDURE TO CLAIM EXEC PRIV. Its the LAW. Sorry ...I know its hard for repugs to wrap their lips around it.

EH wrote on July 25, 2007 5:51 PM:

Anybody who replies to Jake is an idiot. He is not interested in your opinion of his posts and will not engage you in dialog.

pacr wrote on July 25, 2007 5:53 PM:

How low can a country fall from the ideals it once fought to defend?

We now have a king. Apparently he can say and do whatever he wants safe behind a shroud of "privilege" without ever having to explain his actions or his motivations. When I left England to live here I thought I left this kind of nonsense behind. Apparently not. Back there the Queen is severely restricted by the vehemence of Parliament which had to fight long and hard to gain the upper hand. Who knew the reverse was to happen here?

Clearly there is a gaping flaw in the American system if the will of the people, as expressed by its most recently elected representatives is so easily and contemptuously swept aside by presidential [monarchical?] fiat.

King George is a fitting title. How apt. And how tragic for the world that its leading beacon of freedom for decades is now under the yolk of such an oppressive regime, with apparently no democratic recourse.

It is not Congress who Bush and Cheney show contempt for: it is we the people.

bobh wrote on July 25, 2007 5:57 PM:

Until they give me a delete jakes post button ill do as i please eh.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:57 PM:

"no name":

Just because Pelosi say's impeachment is "off the table" does not make that "impossible". You could always vote her out of office -- see Cindy Sheehan. If there's some stellar court opinion on point by Judge Vaughn Walker, can you link to it or provide the case cite?

Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 6:01 PM:

For those of you who are new to or aren't clear about inherent contempt and its particularities (or for whose powers of retention aren't very good), I'll reiterate information I provided TPM readers last week:

Wikipedia's article on Contempt of Congress explains the process and its differences from statutory contempt. It's at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
"Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.) ... Presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures like the above, since it is not an 'offense against the United States' or an offense against 'the dignity of public authority.'"

This last sentence refers the reader to this article by Frank Askin, director of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001802.html

Askin closes with this:
"So, far from being defenseless against the president's refusal to prosecute or the threat of presidential pardon, Congress could take into its own custody defiant administration officials who refuse to cooperate with legitimate inquiries into executive malfeasance. Those targets would have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus from the federal courts, but as long as Congress could show a legitimate need for the information it was seeking pursuant to its legislative oversight functions, it would be standing on solid legal ground."

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:01 PM:

I will revise my question:

I still have not seen any COHERENT explanation of why "inherent contempt" of Congress is not pardonable by the President?

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:02 PM:

I still have not seen any explanation why "inherent contempt" of Congress is not pardonable by the President?
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 5:41 PM
------------------------
1. The President may pardon "offenses against the United States" which are _crimes_. [Article II: he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States]
2. "Inherent contempt" is not a crime _against the United States_, but Congress.
3. The President has no power to pardon offenses against _Congress_, only offenses against the _United States_ [From 1]
4. Congress is not the same as the United States; the President has no power to trump Congress. [From 2 and 3]
5. Congress, for it to remain a viable branch of government, has to have the power to enforce its powers and laws it passes through Article 1 Section 8: It has broad powers to investigate the President's sole Article II power: Executive.

6. This President has no power to make rules regulating how the Congress conducts its business, or enforces its rules. [Article I: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings"] Hence, any assertion the President makes that he can define "new rules" for "privilege" are meaningless: These are judicial decisions that the Courts may or may not respect; and are exclusive authority of the Court to enforce, ignore, recognize; not for the President to compel assent blindly.

7. The President may not create rules to enforce as an offense against the United States; Article 1 Section 8 delegates this rule making power only to Congress; the President cannot change, expand, or modify these rules on his own. Hence, the claim that he can ignore, not enforce, or breach FISA and Geneva are without merit. [Article 1 Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"]

8. Not allowing Congress to enforce its rules would leave Congress powerless to ensure it gets a response. That is impermissible. The framers did not intend for Congress to be powerless, but to have the tools to bring teeth to the Body as it challenged the Executive.

CONCLUSION

Because the Framers intended for Congress to pass rules, and have a means to enforce those rules, the Framers only delegated to the President to narrowly pardon criminal offences against the United States. The President has no power to provide pardons for contempt of Court, or other offences which are only offences against a branch of government.

For the reasons above, and many others, the President has only the power to pardon offences against the United States; and has no power to pardon offences against We the People, the States, Congress, or the Courts. We the People are not the same as the United States: We have powers through the 10th Amendment that, when breached, the President cannot pardon, but we may through the Grand Jury enforce. We the People are the source of all power, and we did not delegate to the President the power to pardon offences against We the People.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:05 PM:

YEEEEEEEEEEEHAH

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:06 PM:

If there's some stellar court opinion on point by Judge Vaughn Walker, can you link to it or provide the case cite?

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 5:57 PM

------------------------------

No. Look it up yourself. You have the quote from the case. If you do not agree with the quote, find it yourself.

Start digging.

LLG wrote on July 25, 2007 6:06 PM:

One thing that Schroeder did not mention is that if Bush prevents a court/US Attorney from moving forward, Bush is setting himself up for interfering in a legal process which is an Impeachable offense under the rules that set forth in Article II.

Bush if he instructs the US Attorney's NOT to process with the contempt charges, Bush is interfering with Judicial process which in the end is holding him self in contempt which is an impeachable offense.

urbino wrote on July 25, 2007 6:07 PM:

I agree with Mr. Dellinger about the importance of maintaining the separation of powers between making the laws and enforcing the laws. Thus, Congress can't decide who DoJ will prosecute

However, when the "case or controversy" at issue is the separation of powers itself, as it is here, ISTM enforcement of that separation cannot logically be left to the discretion of a single branch. It invites situations such as we have here, where the enforcement branch acts illegally to the injury of one or more other branches, and the injury cannot be redressed because the enforcement branch will not enforce the law on itself.

Moreover, impeachment is a very blunt and politically unwieldy tool. There should be remedies available short of that. For instance, Congress should have its own 'Office of Legal Counsel' that has the power to bring charges (criminal or civil) against offices or actors in the other branches who flout Congress' constitutional powers.

Courts would have to work out doctrines of standing, justiciability, and jurisdiction for such cases, but that's fine. Courts do that kind of thing all the time.

Upshot: it is inherently contradictory to have the enforcement of separation of powers left to the discretion of a single branch.

LLG wrote on July 25, 2007 6:07 PM:

One thing that Schroeder did not mention is that if Bush prevents a court/US Attorney from moving forward, Bush is setting himself up for interfering in a legal process which is an Impeachable offense under the rules that set forth in Article II.

Bush if he instructs the US Attorney's NOT to process with the contempt charges, Bush is interfering with Judicial process which in the end is holding him self in contempt which is an impeachable offense.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:14 PM:

Thank you, Roberta. My 6:01 PM comment was not directed at your 6:01 PM post, as you have finally provided something I can use. I will fully agree that "Presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures" but there is no definitive statement of law on that (Ex Parte Grossman, for instance, stated dicta to that effect but actually upheld the pardon power as to criminal contempt orders). I also agree with Askin that Congress is not powerless (they could defund or impeach the President), but if Harriet Miers or Josh Bolten are ever physically taken into custody, the President has several tools at his disposal as well. Thank you for your post.

AngryAmerican wrote on July 25, 2007 6:15 PM:

I appreciate that you are a thinking person looking to put your ideas and thoughts to the test. Keep it up.

Also, I don't think the next step is inherent contempt, I mean that may be what Congress will do, but to me the only option left, and the one I have been advocating for well over three years now is impeachment. Any discussion of anything else is futile. There will be no meaningful legislation passed with shrub and darth in control and a bunch of repigs protecting themselves by protecting the administration. There will be no end to the war in Iraq, no avoiding a war with Iran, no phased withdrawal, no attention to the environment, no attention to health care, no attention to the American worker, no attention to our democracy, habeas corpus restoration, or any accountablility of any kind without impeachment. How any sane person could look at what this administration has done, and is doing and not move directly to the only tool left, impeachment, is beyond me.

By the way, it is nice to see trolls of any kind on a site, it always means that the right wing is feeling a little nervous.

bobh wrote on July 25, 2007 6:17 PM:

So its a giant trap for bush.

And he stuck his head in it already.

Ouchie.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:18 PM:

LOL!! "Holding himself in contempt" is an impeachable offense? How about if he holds himself on one foot, is that an impeachable offense too? Please, keep the laughs coming.

AngryAmerican wrote on July 25, 2007 6:18 PM:

Sorry,

post above was directed to Roberta

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:21 PM:

Posted by: pacr
Date: July 25, 2007 5:53 PM

I understand your frustration. However, look at it this way: We have a _President_; his _behavior_ is not consistent with his Article II power.
Rather, the benefit of him "thinking" and "pretending" he is a king is that his _behavior_ becomes _evidence_ of criminal conduct. He can either be prosecuted or impeached; whether Congress chooses to do nothing does not mean that her is a King, merely he has a longer road to hoe when prosecuted.
The US is based, in part on the Magna Carta: Where even a King Shall Assent to the Rule of Law. We are not in 1214, the year before the Charter was signed. It is 2007, and the Runnymede document of 1215 is the standard that even "someone who thinks he is a King" shall assent.

Do not be afraid: This President is way over his head. He's led an illegal rebellion. There are lawful ways to legally confront, engage, defeat, and remind him of his sole Article II power: That of a clerk, not a King.

Thank you for your concern, and I trust you rest soundly knowing there are many who support your concern; and stand ready to put themselves between this clerk and the Constitution. He is losing, not just at home, but abroad.
The CIA has rallied, and they are working with foreign Powers to prosecute this President for war crimes. They have discussed evidence of Geneva violations with prosecutors abroad who are willing to rally their nations to confront this President. The "all powerful clerk" is powerless to stop the CIA from putting the Constitution before him. They have acted according to their oath: To defend the Constitution against domestic enemies in Congress, the White House, DoJ, and OVP. He has no hope. With your hope, faith, and confidence, he will have that much more evidence against him. He has no hope, neither do his legal counsel, and there is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Best wishes.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:23 PM:

Wow, it's nice to know that I can get the attention denied during my infinite childhood right here.
Maybe Mom's basement is not so bad since I can get attention here at TPM.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:23 PM:

Even though it's a foregone conclusion that the DoJ is going to wipe its ass with the contempt citation, it's worth the effort to go through the exercise. In directing the DoJ to do so, Bush is guilty of obstruction of justice. Remember, it wasn't the Watergate break-in that did Nixon in, it was the cover-up and related obstruction of justice.

Bush wouldn't be going to this much effort if there wasn't some seriously incriminating evidence involved. Once that is forced out, impeachment is inevitable.

db wrote on July 25, 2007 6:27 PM:

Long live the King! Long live the king!

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:28 PM:

"no name":

All the evidence to date point to the fact that Bush was not even personally involved in the replacement of these U.S. Attorneys -- there are other explanations of why Bush is going to this much effort -- it would be much easier to trash the principle of Executive Privilege for future Presidents and just hang Gonzales out to dry.

OhSnap! wrote on July 25, 2007 6:29 PM:

Excellent summary, Roberta. I was just looking up the same information. There is not a lot of information available. Most relates to KagroX / The Next Hurrah's post on dKos or own blog.

I do disagree with AngryAmerican, though. In this case, hold Miers and Bolten for inherent contempt. They have the choice whether or not to appear in Congress. The scope of their answers may be up for debate (citing EP), but I have yet to hear a valid argument for why they do not have to even show up to assert said privilege.

As another poster said (Susan?) - makes one long for the days of Nixon... He just facilitated the break-in of the DNC for dirt. Clinton had sex / heavy petting (depends on definition).

Petulant Boy King and his Soulless VP (cue Star Wars empire music) have committed numerous offenses in the name of America, in the face of the US Constitution and have denigrated the principles upon which this nation should stand for. And that is the short list...

Again, though, the votes are not there for impeachment. How do you compel tow-the-line Republicans to vote for America instead of their party? That a vote for impeachment would actually empower some Republicans?

The Republican candidates are running as far away from Bush as possible in terms of Clusterf*@k to the White House 2008. To stand up and say, it is time for new leadership could be a boon to them.

But unlike a certain film line, they don't "see dead people."

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:31 PM:

db:

I have no king but Jesus.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:32 PM:

there are other explanations of why Bush is going to this much effort

Sure there are, dude, like he does not want to go to jail, or have his brain go to jail.

Long live the king!!!

jackrabbit wrote on July 25, 2007 6:33 PM:

I've got two words for you, "clinton lawyers" Inherent contempt. So, suck it.

db wrote on July 25, 2007 6:33 PM:

there are other explanations of why Bush is going to this much effort

Sure there are, dude, like he does not want to go to jail, or have his brain go to jail, and he thinks he is king of America.

Long live the king!!!

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:42 PM:

"Upshot: it is inherently contradictory to have the enforcement of separation of powers left to the discretion of a single branch."
Posted by: urbino
Date: July 25, 2007 6:07 PM
- - - --
You raise an important point, to which the Framers intended a clash of factions. Ideally, the enforcement of separation of powers is up to all branches: To clash with the other two, the Judiciary being the weakest, but Co-Equal.

However, you point is well taken: What shall enforce the separation of powers:
A. Would it be a separate branch of government?
B. Are we seeing the limits of checks and balances?
C. What if one branch refuses to assert power, leaving another branch unchecked?
D. When does the Constitution, as it is practised, fall into such disrepair that it no longer binds us?
E. Would creation of a 4th Branch of government -- with the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute, outside control of either party/faction/branch -- be a solution?
F. What reforms are needed within Congress: Should there be a third chamber, one that would verify the bills are Constitutional and lawful before they are debated or voted on?
G. What is the means by which partisanship and party loyalty can be forever below the oath to the Constitution?
H. What is the means by which the Constitution can be strengthened, ensuring that the oath remains above party loyalty; and that the functions of government -- as they are checked -- are not subjected to non-Constitutional forces or illegal influences?
- - - - -

Perhaps, to discuss a solution, we need to consider: What type of direct appointment-vote by WE the People -- outside party affiliation -- would be required in a New Branch that would have loyalty to no party or person, but only to the Constitution?
Perhaps the Bi_Cameral system of governance needs to be revisited, with a third Chamber in Congress.
Perhaps the Executive needs to be split into a domestic, foreign affairs, and military leadership, each separate
Perhaps each department under the Executive -- consistent with the separation of powers -- should have three heads: One from each of the branches, where all three see what is going on
Perhaps the Congress needs an NSA-like capability to monitor whether the President is or is not retaining information as required; and permit the Congress -- instantly -- to audit whether the President has or has not destroyed evidence, leaving it up to the Court to decide what information is privileged.
Perhaps what is needed is a review of what has gone wrong, and what should be done to modernize this Constitution. perhaps you are suggesting an impeachment inquiry, then a review of the problems, then a discussion of the viable solutions.
Perhaps you are talking about better oversight, auditing, and "legal sticks" to be beaten against the heads of lazy legal counsel who appear to have put loyalty to man above loyalty to law.
Perhaps you are asking for Federal rules governing legal counsel, and more effective public oversight of legal counsel who appear, as with Watergate and the Holocaust, been complicit with illegal activity.

- - - -
Once we discuss the problem, we can explore the options. Yet, this Congress -- by the bait of this arrogant President -- has been inducted to pass "more" legislation, only for him to block it or not enforce it; while the best approach might be for Congress to stop passing new legislation, but find out what's getting in the way of enforcing the Existing legislation: This President.

Impeachment hearings are needed: IT will force the Congress to stop; silence the Senate; and compel the GOP to assent to the House filibuster in the Senate Chamber. When we hear what is wrong, We the People can make an informed decision: WHO do we trust; what is the problem; who has the plan; and what will we support.

The candidates to day are talking non-sense; but these Candidates will have to be part of the solution which this President's problems require. Without impeachment, we will have more of the non-sense. Time for the focus to go where it belongs: To the Constitution, and this reckless US Governments' failure to check power; and to the collective throats of the legal community which has impersmissibly let this President wander. They remain complicity.

Good points. Whether you are interested in answers is a separate issue. Without impeachment, the country is not ready to face the problem; it would be premature to impose a solution to a problem the Country will not face. Those plans have been written. When you are ready, you will know where to ask.

db wrote on July 25, 2007 6:46 PM:

Jesus a king? I'm sure he's beg to differ.

But whatever. I will be polite and tailor my message to you as a member of the 15% of Americans who strongly support the most unpopular president in modern history:

Long live the authoritarian cult figure!

p.s. why aren't you down at the recruitment office signing up for a tour in iraq? Too good for that or something?

starwheel wrote on July 25, 2007 6:54 PM:

Well, we can cut and run or we can bring these bastards down.

This administration has nothing but contempt for our system of government and for the people of America our representatives were elected to represent.

Can someone explain the difference between them and Al-Quaeda?

SC: poison

Mark Richards wrote on July 25, 2007 7:10 PM:

Jake: I have no king but Jesus.

Me: Well let's impeach that one, too. It's high time.

1oldlady wrote on July 25, 2007 7:11 PM:

"the administration's position official: a U.S. attorney will not enforce a citation of contempt, should it pass the House.."

If this is so, and the President is interfering in a legal matter he, himself is obstructing justice which is an impeachable offense.

End of story!

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 7:22 PM:

"All the evidence to date point to the fact that Bush was not even personally involved in the replacement of these U.S. Attorneys -- there are other explanations of why Bush is going to this much effort -- it would be much easier to trash the principle of Executive Privilege for future Presidents and just hang Gonzales out to dry."
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 6:28 PM
----------------------

Let's take your assertion -- rightly or wrongly -- as true. You claim, "Bush was not even personally involved in the replacement of these U.S. Attorneys". _If_ this is true, then why is the President -- or any of his legal counsel -- claiming "executive" privilege? That defies reason. If the President "wasn't" involved, there is on legal basis for him or anyone to suggest there is executive privilege.

Yet, the facts belie this assertion: Privilege applies only to what is hidden, not what the President -- himself! -- has disclosed, admitted, commented on. He has not denied that he concurred.

Yet, look at the things Gonzalez says: He claims he was "not aware" or "can't recall" despite his name being on the orders directing this list. Yet, Goodling says she wasn't the final decision maker.
Indeed, we continue to hear that the US Attys service at the "pleasure of the President". Clearly this suggests the President, when not pleased, can fire them. Why would legal counsel, in the made rush to explain away the firings say that they serve at the "pleasure" of the man who "wasn't involved" with deciding whether he was pleased, happy, upset, confused, or very annoyed.
Is there no record with this man's name on it outlining his satisfaction? Because if, as we are led to believe, the President can fire anyone he wants, but the President was _not_ involved, would you not like to know who _did_ fire, make the decision?

The Wizard of Oz is in a single location. He is either the President; or he is not. This leadership, depending on the shifting winds, cannot decide whether the Wizard exists, is real, should be hidden, or is somewhere else. That is no how governance works: There is something called accountability.

You may be correct that there is "no evidence" of wrong doing: But, in the absence of evidence, but many questions about what was done, surely an enlightened people deserve an answer, not more of the "trust me, I made the right decision -- but it wasn't me who made the decision."

Fine, "someone" made the "right" decision: If it was "right" why is that person not standing up ad saying, "I want to take credit for this rightness." Surely, if someone in the GOP has an answer, they would throw their hat into the ring, and get the "big support" for their "right decision."

Alas, the only support the GOP has is for something else: "Undecided." Quite fitting. The leadership is Undecided. Small problem: We the People decided in 1216 and 1776 and 1789 -- There is one decider: He is the Leader; and there is one method to decide: The Rule of law, which relies on evidence.
There may be smoke, and there may be no fire; but surely, if privilege is claimed the President must be involved. The issue before us is: If the President was not involved, what could justify confidence that the claim of privilege has been invoked? The House Rules that it has not.
----------

As to the claim that "All the evidence to date point to the fact. . ." is the first problem: The evidence does not support a benign inference of anything, but concern. If this is true-- "that Bush was not even personally involved in the replacement of these U.S. Attorneys" == then Privilege cannot be invoked.
This might be true --- "there are other explanations of why Bush is going to this much effort" -- but that contradicts the first assertion: That he was _not_ involved: How can someone go through this "effort" to do something that he's "not doing". . . .

As to your final point [-- "it would be much easier to trash the principle of Executive Privilege for future Presidents and just hang Gonzales out to dry" -- ] I fail to see where that came from. IT does not follow from your argument. Indeed, "privilege" could be one that Congress through Article 1 Section 8 clarifies, but that misses the pint: ORCON rules well establish that illegal activity cannot be protected.

The issues with the US Atty firings are not just the firings, but whether people _under oath_ have lied to Congress about it; or whether they have _unlawfully_ refused to respond to a subpoena.

Again, your final point admirably suggests the President out to let Gonzalez "hang out to dry" -- which perhaps is the reason he's not: Why hang someone when Congress cannot or will not do it? The President doesn't need to do the work of Congress: He can throw Gonzalez to the Congress, and they appear to have no inclination to cut any budget, but continue asking more questions that they'll not do anything about. Bush, from this standard, doesn't need to do anything other than continue letting Gonzalez make Congress look what it is: Weak, incompetent, foolish, ineffectual, unresponsive to the voters, and powerless.

Gonzalez is doing a fine job for the president: Well communicating to the Voters: Your Mandate means nothing. The Law means nothing. The Constitution Means Nothing. Congress Means Nothing. You mean nothing.

And the voters cheered, being treated like nothing. Perhaps if Ancient warriors had written of the festivals and dancing that was done -- where an Actor was a General; or a witch were a saint -- we might have an explanation why a sword unsheathed is meaningless; while a sword hidden remains more threatening: Is it one blade; two blade; or something else?

This President has no responded to the idiocy in Congress. He has thrown his pawns and the Congress has tripped over itself. It is July 2007. The President was first challenged in 2001 on illegal activity, but he's almost spent 8 years showing Americans how lazy, stupid, and foolish they are when confronted: He has no reason to believe Americans are going to awaken to anything, hold him to account.

Onto Tehran; into your homes; more interrogations; more executive orders; more obedience; more funding; and more crimes. He refuses to believe he will be stopped. Indeed, this Congress will not stop him; and his own GOP can blame him: "It wasn't me, it was the President -- Congress didn't do their job. Vote for me. I'll give you more rubber stamps for your contractors. You can compel American civilians to support war crimes, get them to actively support illegal activity, and pay them: They will be silent. They are the Good American. Docile, weak, manipulated, and inherently stupid."

On the table is the decision: Whether you will take a payment to support tyranny and illegal activity; or whether you will refuse. Accepting money for illegal things is not lawful. What is not sustainable will fail. Abroad, in lands where there was no terrorism, this Tyrant has inspired in the souls of the weak the desire to refuse. Yet, the best Americans will offer is, "I'm too lazy to care." Enjoy your tyranny. The CIA has voted against you: And they have reported the war crimes you're involved in to foreign powers. The CIA has access to the NSA intelligence; and this President uses the NSA to invade your homes.
The CIA has chosen to defy this President. The question is whether the Americans will listen to the CIA's evidence of war crimes; or whether they will embrace the lies of a tyrant. The CIA brought down the Iranian government; they decapitated the Vietnamese Government. All they do today is share evidence, and this President is powerless. The CIA chose the Constitution over this Tyrant. Choose: Tyranny; or We the People, the CIA and the Constitution.

Your argument is not compelling. The Role of Congress is to find out; and the President is doing his job to show how weak Congress is. He's doing this for one reason: He can, and Congress isn't stopping him. They could, but refuse; Congress prefers to rubber stamp war crimes and illegal activity, then claim "it's all secret, we can't talk about that. Shocked shocked." The GOP and DNC are complicit with this tyranny. They can either do their jobs; or they can be destroyed by the tyrant; or the voters will; or the Grand Jury will decimate them under the Rule of Law. Members of Congress have a hard time thinking lately because they have not thought much lately, until they realized what they had on their heads: An unchecked Tyrant, with a Paper Tiger Congress rolling over and showing its belly hoping the Tyrant wouldn't kick it. Too late. We the People kicked this Congress in November 2006; and we'll continue to kick it until it gets it right. This Congress will have wished it had been kicked earlier by this Tyrant. WE the People have yet to show the full power of what We are capable of doing when waking up Congress: New leaders, new people, new principles, and the same oath: To the Law.

Each of you reading this can be that Member of Congress: With one loyalty -- to the Constitution, and to nothing else. Defy your party; defy your peers; and fully assert your oath to ensure the Rule of Law prevails. If you refuse, We the people and the CIA will not support you. And you will not have the full support of the Constitution. Dare to do what is right. The time is now. It is always the right time to do what is right. Right now.

Dan wrote on July 25, 2007 7:30 PM:

Stop giving little Jakey attention! I too have responded to him up until now, but he is here for no other purpose than to distract and annoy. In this way, he is like most children. Look at his activity over the last week -- he's only getting worse as we intellectually honest people have felt compelled to defend obvious truth, decency, and respect in government and elsewhere. Ignore him!

Dan wrote on July 25, 2007 7:40 PM:

Not that I think you're wrong in your opposition to him. I just don't want to feed the troll with our time and energy.

Steve5117 wrote on July 25, 2007 8:02 PM:

The troll who visits this site is Jake
He is a rightwing, asshole flake
He will ask who what or why
But please don't bother to reply
And soon he will be Jake the late

EarBucket wrote on July 25, 2007 8:08 PM:

It strikes me as hypocritical that the same lawmakers who are indignant about the Iraqi parliament taking the month of August off don't see anything wrong with doing it themselves. It's so nice to know that our looming constitutional crisis won't get in the way of their having a nice, long vacation.

It'd be nice to see the Democrats put the business of running the country ahead of their own interests, but I guess that's a little too much to ask.

rwgate wrote on July 25, 2007 8:15 PM:

Has anybody wondered if Jake D. is actually more than one person? I read (and sometimes comment) approximately 30-35 blogs a day. On any given day, I will follow comments on particularly intriguing arguments. In almost every case I see Jake D. not only making comments, but following the thread for hours. How do you do that on so many different sites and only be one person?

If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Perhaps we have, not just a professional troll, but a group of professional trolls who exist to derail intelligent conversation on these threads.

paul lukasiak wrote on July 25, 2007 8:17 PM:

"I still have not seen any explanation why "inherent contempt" of Congress is not pardonable by the President?"

while "inherent contempt" may or may not be pardonable by a president, the question is moot.

The Seargent at Arms of House is not an Executive Branch official, and Congress is specifically empowered in the Constitution to create its own rules and procedures. So while the president may be able to "remove the stain of guilt" from someone being held by Congress under inherent contempt, he cannot compel the release of that person.

Helzapoppin wrote on July 25, 2007 8:29 PM:

I think what is being missed most of the time in this issue is that the President has not, in fact, asserted Executive Privilege. There is an established process to asserting the privilege that Bush has refused to conform with. Thus, without the privilege having been officially asserted, all those who have refused to answer Congress' questions are indeed subject to contempt, and this ridiculous argument from the DOJ and the Bush Administration that US Attorneys may not prosecute contempt charges arising from the assertion of Executive Privilege are moot and totally inapplicable even if they were remotely valid in the first place. Conyers is well aware of this which is why he is undeterred in pushing forward - and rightfully so.

starwheel wrote on July 25, 2007 8:35 PM:

Earbucket, I hear you.

But until Americans have had enough with this "constitutional crisis", I don't expect our Democratic leaders to do much about it.

How many people in your sphere of influence are even aware, let alone care, that Alberto Gonzales lied in front of the Senate (again!) yesterday?

How many people in your sphere of influence are even aware, let alone care, that Harriet Miers snubbed her nose at a congressional subpoena last week?

As Sam Seder put it when he was filling in for Randi Rhodes yesterday - not one Sunday morning news show even MENTIONED the fact that a private citizen refused to show up before Congress. NOT ONE!

You know it. And I know it. But how many Americans really genuinely give a shit?

The people in the news media don't even give a shit.

Lindsay Lohan, now THAT's news!

db wrote on July 25, 2007 8:38 PM:

"the President has not, in fact, asserted Executive Privilege. There is an established process to asserting the privilege that Bush has refused to conform with..."

Kings don't follow procedures enacted by his subjects. That would be to admit weakness and would undercut the king's authority. Are you crazy?

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 8:49 PM:

Yea, do you think Congress is going to let the Execrative Branch tell anyone in it's Branch to release the prisoners form the basement of the Capitol?

Hell no! Your King will have to kiss off.

Fozzetti wrote on July 25, 2007 8:52 PM:

I skip any message from anyone called Jake. As for whether the DOJ can prosecute contempt citations, just because a couple of former employees say not, doesn' make it so.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 8:58 PM:

"Yea, do you think Congress is going to let the Execrative Branch tell anyone in it's Branch to release the prisoners form the basement of the Capitol?"

No. The people's congress is too weak and timid to jail a stray dog. All the king's men and all the king's scribes will yell "Boo!" and the people's congress will scurry away, too terrified to even bring charges.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 9:01 PM:

And skip messages that have no name.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 9:02 PM:

I seriously doubt that. Congress created each branch of government from it's own powers.

History is plain to those who wipe the excrement out of their faces.

rblackbird wrote on July 25, 2007 9:07 PM:

1. I don't give a damn about Jake D.

2. I just discovered this site, and learned something new: the concept of inherent contempt. Very interesting.

3. Could the president lawfully interfere with the Sergeant-at-Arms's arrest of Miers, e.g., surrounding her with the FBI or Secret Service? Under this theory, it appears that he could not.

4. Although an attempt to pursue seriously this dramatic remedy would probably cause a loosening of the bowels of some members of the House, it would put Bush in a bad place. Should he continue to resist, his flaunting of the law may result in impeachment, perhaps by acclamation.

5. On the other hand, the public may feel that this is all a big waste of time and say, "Enough of this crap. When are you going to defund the war and get us out of Iraq?

rblackbird wrote on July 25, 2007 9:07 PM:

1. I don't give a damn about Jake D.

2. I just discovered this site, and learned something new: the concept of inherent contempt. Very interesting.

3. Could the president lawfully interfere with the Sergeant-at-Arms's arrest of Miers, e.g., surrounding her with the FBI or Secret Service? Under this theory, it appears that he could not.

4. Although an attempt to pursue seriously this dramatic remedy would probably cause a loosening of the bowels of some members of the House, it would put Bush in a bad place. Should he continue to resist, his flaunting of the law may result in impeachment, perhaps by acclamation.

5. On the other hand, the public may feel that this is all a big waste of time and say, "Enough of this crap. When are you going to defund the war and get us out of Iraq?

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 9:31 PM:

Posted by: Helzapoppin
Date: July 25, 2007 8:29 PM

Spot on. Nice summary.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 10:04 PM:

rwgate:

I'm only one person -- maybe it seems like more because I'm the only one giving the other side of the story -- sorry to disappoint.

paul lukasiak:

I'm not talking about resorting to the judiciary or Congress itself to "compel" release should they "arrest" Miers or Bolten.

rblackbird:

If the Secret Service were lawfully protecting Josh Bolten and/or Harriet Miers, which "law" takes precedence?

P.S. will the person who posted: "Congress created each branch of government from it's own powers" please stand up?

Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 10:28 PM:

Re:
Posted by:
Date: July 25, 2007 7:22 PM

You wonder "Why would legal counsel, in the made rush to explain away the firings say that they serve at the "pleasure" of the man who "wasn't involved" with deciding whether he was pleased, happy, upset, confused, or very annoyed.
Is there no record with this man's name on it outlining his satisfaction? Because if, as we are led to believe, the President can fire anyone he wants, but the President was _not_ involved, would you not like to know who _did_ fire, make the decision?"

Think about what Whitehead brought out with Gonzales yesterday. Think about all those people who--unlike in any other Admin--are allowed access to and decision-making authority on, in some cases, all the cases and workings of the DoJ. Is it reasonable to believe that this is the only department under the Executive for which this is the case? HUD? Not such a big deal. But how about Defense?

It's one thing for citizens to speculate about who is actually making decisions in the Executive, but its another, very chilling, thing to KNOW that Cheney, his counsel, various aides, and sundry advisors not only have access to information that is supposed to be held in the greatest secret but also to be part of the decision-making process for these issues. I don't think even the staunchest Bush supporters are comfortable with this.

For the truth to come out about how the list of USAs to get rid of was compiled, who talked strategy about getting them out, and who signed off on the action of sacking them opens up the inevitable questions about who's really in charge in so many areas of the government.

Remember how Gonzales outright wouldn't answer who sent him to Ashcroft's bedside? Schumer asked if it was Bush and if it was Cheney. All Gonzales would say is that he went at the behest of the president. He didn't say he didn't remember or do any of his other usual dances. He simply wouldn't answer.

And if it was Cheney? From what I know of the constitutional definition of the powers and responsibilities of the vice president, he does not have that authority. Can he legally be handed it?

The Senate now has documents that show how many people Bush has granted unprecedented authority, and I have no doubt that Congressional staffers and lawyers are burning up serious electricity looking into what the constitution allows Bush to do with his power. For Bush to give away that authority might be interpreted as treason.

Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 10:31 PM:

Sorry--Whitehouse. I was clearly thinking about Alfred North.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 10:39 PM:

I want to thank most of you here for your input and analysis on this thread. ( sorry Jake, couldn't find a shred of thought of value in what you said)
Thanks, (no moniker) for keeping my hopes alive that our Constitution will survive this assault.
I have had my doubts lately but your words truly hit me "right there" and reminded me that as a member of We the People we must keep the faith, the Republic will survive even this. I will be there with you ( and so many others) to fight for our Constitution against this enemy within.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 10:41 PM:

What this really is threatening is that the Executive will actively oppose a visit from the Congresses Sargent-at-Arms. They're throwing down the gauntlet now...and all America does is watch sitcoms? Perhaps the People's House has suffered so badly that it is afraid, afraid as the People's elected representatives to the People's deliberative legal formulator, too afraid to take on an Executive branch out of control and unchecked...for how long? For how long can our country's Beloved Documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, survive this refusal to abide by any legal or rational norm of conduct? How long can people simply ignore their oaths, sworn oaths to uphold the laws and the Constitution, as ratified by the People and the States?

Where is the threat to the nation that would require a former legal counsel from testifying before Congress? What is the pressing need not to have an open hearing about the U.S. Attorney scandal? The simple matter is that these are friends of the President (or is it simply now that open contempt for the very title has begun and we may be hearing some other, more title reminiscent of the very titles that so many Americans have given their blood, so willingly in the past, to prevent ever sitting at the American table again?) who may very likely have violated their sworn oaths, violated the very fabric of our legal system...and done it because the President promised to protect them? Promised to ignore his own oath so his friends could do whatever they wanted, without oversight, without consideration to the laws, and above all, without consideration to the Bill of Rights, nor consideration for the Beloved Document.

Clearly, yesterday, there was a glimmer of this contempt for us "weaklings" who hold to our Document. Contempt that we would be so stupid to do so? That we would assume that others should play by those rules...is it we who are foolish? Is it really us who are weak? Because, until someone actually stands up to these outrageous claims of undeserved deference to the President and the thugs that surround him, the kowtowing to the raw power of our national executive, the fawning over His perfection...and by extension, all those who seek to gain some sort of glamour by supporting Him above our Constitution! He is not God! He is not Almighty!

And He is just a he, just like you are just a human being. He is not perfect, yet those around him seek to make themselves somehow unaccountable, not needing any oversight because...they are so much more perfect than the rest of us?!Such an outrage against us, the People, the fallen, the Founders and Framers ideas, cannot and should not stand!

Things must be done to right this insanity, this raw grab for the reins of our government...for it is ours, not theirs...although they may control large portions of it, they do not yet control us! So, be ready to uphold the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and its other Amendments. Be ready.

Hoppy wrote on July 25, 2007 10:42 PM:

I just finished writing an email to my congresswoman, my two senators, Speaker Pelosi and Majority leader Reid, begging them not to take the month of August as a vacation. I pointed out that the war on our constitution, led by Bush, is a much graver threat to all of us than the "war" in Iraq, and that this is not the time to take a vacation. I asked that congress at least begin impeachment hearings immediately, not take a vacation.

I hope all of you reading this will do the same.

Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 10:45 PM:

Re:
As Sam Seder put it when he was filling in for Randi Rhodes yesterday - not one Sunday morning news show even MENTIONED the fact that a private citizen refused to show up before Congress. NOT ONE!

Posted by: starwheel
Date: July 25, 2007 8:35 PM

Did you hear Tony Snow's report today on what Congress has accomplished? It was a laundry list of how many investigations, hearings, and so on it's held, compared to how much legislation it has passed.

Not even addressing the reason that so many pieces of legislation have not been able to reach a vote, Snow's litany--meant to show how badly Congress is performing--actually impressed me with how much has been done.

These investigations and hearings have been a long time in coming. And knowing how punditry will pick and choose what they'll discuss (always make the Right look good!), it's up to us to talk up everything Congress is doing to reclaim this country from an overreaching, overweening Executive.

Jackson wrote on July 25, 2007 11:19 PM:

Thanks for chiming in, Jake. Every edifice has its lightning rod and goodness knows you've gotten a bolt or two from this throng.

But having scrolled through the dozens of comments here, one thing that strikes me about your contributions is that they manifest the sort of delaying, defensive tactic the current administration is following -- run out the clock. It's not a matter of justice or honesty or truthfulness or adherence to the law; it's simply a matter of principle that they that our most bedearest leaders should not be held accountable, and that's why there's this executive privilege thing.

Personally, I have a vision of W and Cheney flying off to the Cayman Islands on Inauguration Day to avoid extradition. Of course, Plan B -- the first one they've ever put in place -- finds them in Russia, where the "rule of law" is as quaint as the Geneva Conventions, and they don't hold no truck with extradition, either.

I guess, Jake D., what I'm trying to figure out is what you get out of your participation here. I try to imagine you as the guy in Tiannemen Square facing down the tanks, but what I keep seeing is a clown blowing up phone booths just for the pleasure of annoying people.

If we weren't in the 21st century, I would say you're hankering after the Sal Mineo character in Rebel Without a Cause -- and we all know the tuck on the sleeve of his leather jacket got caught on the door thingee at a very bad moment in a game of chicken.

So, all kidding aside, Jake, why are you spending so much time with the wrong crowd?

Squeeky wrote on July 25, 2007 11:37 PM:

Professor Schroeder is simply wrong. The bureaucracy is not merely the creature of the Executive. It must also respond the the legislature. A simple, but effective solution for this problem... ONE THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION MADE QUITE CLEAR... is to cut off all funding the the Department of Justice until the DoJ does what Congress wants. If congress had balls, they would already have the amendment attached to urgent legislation.

DMG wrote on July 26, 2007 12:04 AM:

Finally for all to see:

A GOVERNMENT OF MEN NOT LAWS.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 12:20 AM:

"no name" at 5:09 PM:

State Attorneys General cannot indict sitting Presidents (arguably Vice Presidents as well) either. Federal law trumps -- sorry.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 5:17 PM

State AGs can sue in Federal court under Federal law, liar. The idea that they could sue on such vague ground as "denial of Republican form of gov't" -- which clause applies to state gov'ts, not US -- is nonsense.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 12:25 AM:

Anna S.:

Would you also want a couple Executive Orders rescinding the Congressional "Speech and Debate" clause? I'm sure we could expand Gitmo to house a few VIPs.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 5:09 PM

There goes your lie that you're a lawyer --

For one, an Executive Order cannot trump a Constitutional provision, such as the "speech and debate" clause (which latter concerns Congress, not the Executive). For another, Executive Orders by definition -- see the word "Executive"? -- apply to the Executive.

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 12:30 AM:

Re the quote:

"the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

But that doesn't apply to Miers, who is not a presidential subordinate, but rather a former presidential subordinate.

And can she really be said merely to have asserted executive privilege? She didn't decline to answer certain questions on the grounds of executive privilege. She didn't even show up, in effect asserting privilege for all possible questions.

Posted by: Crust
Date: July 25, 2007 5:21 PM

The assertion is being made from the Executive side of the issue, by those who were on that side under Clinton. As such a pwoer is not absolute, there is equally legitimate argument on the Congressional side -- which is not presented. Thus the opinion is one-sided, not objective.

I note, also, that there is no assertion that that position was ruled on by a court; thus it is untested.

RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 5:21 AM:

I've posted this on another thread, but its evidently applicable here, too:

Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.

Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).

Enough is enough.

If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.

Could others who feel the same way pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?

Thanks.

(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )

RBS

JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 7:51 AM:

Does the President understand that by refusing to enforce the law, and obstructing the US ttys from enforcing the law, the State AGs may prosecute this sitting President outside impeachment?

For violating what? Laws within state jurisdiction?

When will you either STFU, or substitute actual law for your BS speculations?

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 8:34 AM:

We need more hearings. I find myself quite attracted to Alberto.

Baldrick wrote on July 26, 2007 8:53 AM:

"Would creation of a 4th Branch of government ... be a solution?"

Dude, we already have a 4th Branch: Darth Cheney. Perhaps a 5th Branch would solve the problem.

Dave wrote on July 26, 2007 9:18 AM:

I find it amusing that Jake D. relishes the fact that the Bush administration has cornered our justice system and is essentially taking a dictatorial role until his term is over. That's definitely something all neo-cons should be proud of. Actually, it's the only thing you have to be proud of from this administration.

Mr. Obvious wrote on July 26, 2007 9:49 AM:

does animal farm ring a bell to anyone these days?

Mr. Obvious wrote on July 26, 2007 9:50 AM:

does animal farm ring a bell to anyone these days?

Bill wrote on July 26, 2007 11:05 AM:

"Anybody who replies to Jake is an idiot. He is not interested in your opinion of his posts and will not engage you in dialog.
Posted by: EH
Date: July 25, 2007 5:51 PM.."

Then why not just get rid of him? He is clearly not adding anything to your site.. so WHY NOT block him off of your server (or something). His retardation is noticeably contagious and he makes people like me (left-leaning people, people who want to bludgeon people like Jake with a baseball bat) not want to return, quite frankly. (in other words mission accomplished, Jake'ster).

This idea that we liberals must blithely tolerate (complete morons like Jake) people with opposing viewpoints (to this degree anyway) seems to me an absolute absurdity. I have to deal with these ass-clowns enough at family parties and work functions, thank you. If we showed up in a conservative forum wasted people's time like Jake does and generally acted like total clown/s as Jake has done.. we would be shown the door -- you can bet. And for good reason I think. Jake comments are all counter-productive and intentionally so, I think. He is only trying to annoy. Why we seem to welcome these sub-humans with open arms over on our left-leaning websites as some sort of badge of liberal honor or something is a mystery to me. Jake doesn't help you to hone your arguments (as Roberta rightly laments) - but he does successfully drive other liberals (like me) off of and away from your website by annoying the cr*p out of them.
I quote (a noted liberal) William Burroughs, in his 'advice to young people' to wit - "If when exposed to another person's presence you feel as though you have lost a quart of plasma -- avoid that presence - you need it like you need pernicious anemia." Remember - Jakey-boy doesn't have to stand up to your arguments successfully (he clearly does not and is like one of those toy punching bags intellectually) -- he only has to stink up the room with his presence to offend people and he knows it!

So kick him out then (or at least ignore him) and/ or stop bitching about him! He is a troll -- He feeds on the attention that you give him. I am not a regular here, and don't plan to return so I don't care that I am actually giving Jake here more time that he deserves.. blah, blah, blah, here.. (me being a hypocrite here) myself.. but you people should seriously consider finding something better to do with your time than responding to Jake's idiocies.. seriously.. :(

Greg wrote on July 26, 2007 11:22 AM:

The thing is that Harriet Miers did not properly invoke executive privilege. Arguably, therefore, a decision not to prosecute a contempt citation would be an arbitrary and capricious decision by the Justice Department. Since she didn't invoke properly, they don't have the ability to judge her claim of privilege and therefore cannot decide whether it was proper to invoke and improper to prosecute.

So, the Congressional lawyers can argue, as a fall-back position, that even if it is improper for the DOJ to prosecute someone for properly claiming executive privilege, it cannot be proper for them to refuse to prosecute someone who failed to appear subject to a subpoena and properly invoke privilege.

Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 11:46 AM:

jackson:

I simply enjoy posting here. Is that not a good enough reason?

Greg:

It is not up to Harriet Miers (as a private citizen no less) to "properly" invoke Executive Privilege regardless.

nikolai wrote on July 26, 2007 1:19 PM:

LARRY: So now bush, cheney, and their stooges can do whatever they want and get away with it?

MOE: YOU NUMBSKULL!! They've been doing that all along!!

CURLY: WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP!!!

Corey wrote on July 26, 2007 1:20 PM:

For those saying let's just go to inherent contempt...think about this...

Everyone who refuses to uphold the contempt citation is also in Contempt of Congress. Once the DC USA refuses, the House needs to hold a vote to him in Inherent Contempt as well and arrest his ass.

m wrote on July 26, 2007 1:29 PM:

So heres the thing....executive privilege....I understood that the president had no knowledge of the fired US attorneys? The president was not involved at all.So on what basis does the WH have the right to invoke executive privilege?

Covering GWB's ars again?

nikolai wrote on July 26, 2007 1:33 PM:

BUT Corey, the DCA will do NOTHING, the House will do NOTHING, and the 50 states will do NOTHING. So far what this administration has done is pretty damn bad, why wouldn't they be able to continue to do just as they please? Checks and balances my a$$!!!

anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 2:14 PM:

JakeD: "All the evidence to date point to the fact that Bush was not even personally involved in the replacement of these U.S. Attorneys . . ."

Then there is no executive privilege for the witnesses being called to testify.

The privilege covers the substance of any advice given to the president, not advice given to subordinates, or that advice was given or not given on a matter.

Additionally, the claim that the USAs serve at the pleasure of the president is without any application in this case.

xargaw wrote on July 26, 2007 3:33 PM:

Isn't this the moment when the entire DOJ should rise up and resign? If the DOJ ignores Congress, what do we need a DOJ for? Are they simply the personal attorneys of the President? It's time to see if there is any integrity left in this country.

xargaw wrote on July 26, 2007 3:34 PM:

Isn't this the moment when the entire DOJ should rise up and resign? If the DOJ ignores Congress, what do we need a DOJ for? Are they simply the personal attorneys of the President? It's time to see if there is any integrity left in this country.

obiwan wrote on July 26, 2007 4:16 PM:

Jake D:

What color IS the sky on YOUR planet?

Patrick: Husband, Father, Liberal wrote on July 26, 2007 4:22 PM:

Will the justice department supply the rope when the president and vice president have been found guilty on grounds of treason.

actually let me answer that - no.

probably good in the end - since they'd just pay halliburton $50,000 a foot when I know I can get it at the Home Depot for $1.50 a foot.

A dooooobity doooo.

mike wrote on July 26, 2007 4:28 PM:

welcome to the real America ... thugs, criminals, lawless thieves.

Ann Coulter wrote on July 26, 2007 4:42 PM:

Revolution.

richard wrote on July 26, 2007 4:46 PM:

I actually don't mind trolls like Jake. They are generally civil at least, and when others repeatedly explain to them why they are incorrect it just reinforces, rather than detracts from, the narrative.

Willful ignorance is imperative to the wingers, else all would be lost.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 4:52 PM:

the echoing sound of goosestepping boots grows louder every day in amerika.

Mark wrote on July 26, 2007 4:55 PM:

I like the idea of mass resignation at the DOJ.

Unfortunately, as unsatisfying as it will be, redress here will probably have to come at the ballot box next year.

Clearly the republicans are well on their way to being swept from power in unprecedented fashion. We should be asking ourselves how far the administration would go to prevent that.

richard young wrote on July 26, 2007 5:08 PM:

My 45+ years as a federal court litigator and professor of constitutional law tell me that neither criminal contempt nor inherent contempt provides an effective remedy for the current President's defiance of Congress as well as the Constitution and laws he has sworn under oath "to faithfully execute." The President's lawyers can obviously defeat any criminal contempt proceeding by stringing out the litigation in trial and appellate proceedings long beyond the January 2009 end of his Administration; and although inherent contempt presents slightly more difficult problems, the President's lawyers are certainly skilled enough to utilize habeas corpus and other available judicial remedies to avoid or delay effective "inherent contempt" sanctions until after January of 2009. On the other hand, it is indisputable that Congress has in its hands two constitutionally granted, political remedies which the Constitution immunizes from Executive or Judicial interference: (1) Congress can limit or cut off appropriations for any Executive Branch department or activity it sees fit not to fund; and (2) Congress can impeach the President and any other federal official whom Congress deems guilty of an impeachable offense (and Congress's decisions as to what is impeachable and who has committed an impeachable offense are unreviewable political questions which the Constitution has committed exclusively to Congress). Congress has the power to resolve the subject "constitutional crisis" quickly and effectively; the only thing lacking is the will of members of Congress to utilize the political remedies that our Founding Fathers advisedly inserted in Article I of the Constitution. My own view is that President Bush has plainly provided Congress with several impeachable offense, the most blatant of which are his boasted 30+ (felonious) orders to subordinate federal officials to violate FISA's express criminal prohibition of federal electronic surveillance without a FISA court order, as well as his written instruction to present and former federal officials not to comply with Congressional subpoenas duly issued in the exercise of the constitutional investigatory and oversight powers of Congress. The only important question for me is whether Congress will take effective action through its Article I appropriations and/or impeachment powers, or will continue the essentially meaningless word games which comprise the only "action" by Congress thus far.

Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 5:27 PM:

TIME FOR INHERENT CONTEMPT, not Contempt of Congress. Inherent Contempt can be enforced w/o the AG and gw's cronies.

JayHawk Phrenzie wrote on July 26, 2007 7:13 PM:

I find the current congress to be the most deserving of contempt.

They are not even trying to govern. They are using the tools and powers of government to try to secure their own power by kissing the ass of the KOSsacks and other Nutroots.

No sane American would ever vote for a Democrat if they understood the left's real agenda.

PQuincy wrote on July 26, 2007 7:55 PM:

Someone mentioned monarchy and Magna Carta, but the deposition of Charles I is a much more recent and relevant historical precedent -- not without echoes in the present. Remember, first of all, that Charles I was prosecuted and convicted of treason against the Crown, by Parliament. (Naturally, his son upon the Restoration tried to negate the legality of the proceeding, and the court was far from perfect in fact, but still, it's interesting to contemplate: the king can perform treason against the crown, just as the President can be in contempt of the United States.)

Impeachment, too, was an important part of the run up to the Civil War of the 1640s and Charles's execution: Parliament used it, over vociferous objections from Charles, to try and execute some of his closest advisors. (Yeah, impeachment could be a death penalty matter, back in those days...perhaps the Republican supporters of the death penalty would support it now?)

But the underlying conflict was between the King's power to rule without Parliament, and Parliament's necessary role to create law with the King, and to fund the state. These powers are retained in almost exactly the same way in the modern US government.

The other point is that the revolutionaries of the 1770s and 1780s KNEW about the English civil war, and worked rather hard to avoid the dangers of royal usurpation (after 1628 and again, less dangerously, in 1685) by providing a clear mechanism to remove a king (i.e. President) who simply refused to accept the role of the other branches.

I'm with Josh Marshall: even a few months ago, I saw impeachment as futile, even if deserved. But now I really think that Bush and his handlers have gone over the edge -- not because of the _substance_ of the US attorney debate and other issues, but because of their absolute refusal to accept their dependence on the other branches (as the other branches depend on the Presidency). It is probably partly a result of Bush's "FU" style and personality (never back up, never compromise), and partly the result of the authoritarian personalities who have collected around him, using him as part of their own conviction that only authoritarian government is tenable. The reasons don't matter, but pushing back does.

aquart wrote on July 27, 2007 12:17 AM:

End executive privilege. If we don't, the next president will be more corrupt than Bush. Yeah, that's the Democrat coming into unbelievable, unreasonable power...are any of us naive enough to believe that an ambitious Democrat will NOT be corrupted by absolute power? ANYONE would be.

It's only the insanely shortsighted Republicans who don't understand what happens next. Or are foolish enough to think there would be an advantage in it.

Shadur wrote on July 27, 2007 7:07 AM:

It's only the insanely shortsighted Republicans who don't understand what happens next. Or are foolish enough to think there would be an advantage in it.

Three words and a literal quote, Quincy:

Permanent. Republican. Majority.

They've repeatedly come out and said it's what they're after. Don't tell me you didn't expect them to start laying the groundwork to take advantage of it the moment it came in sight.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 1:58 PM:

@Nikolai

That's the point. If the DC-USA doesn't initiate contempt proceedings as per the citation then he's in contempt as well. COngress then cites him for Inherent Contempt and dumps his ass in the Hill's jail. I'd also say that place Inherent Contempt on anyone who ordered the DC USA to ignore the statutory citation as well, including the Pretzelnit.

@richard young

I'm not a lawyer, but last time I checked there are two forms of contempt: criminal and civil. For the latter, there is no habeas corpus relief. The question is: Is Inherent Contempt a civil or criminal violation? If the former, then there's nothing anyone can do, short of violence, to extricate a contemnor from jail. I'm also pretty sure the contempt resolution could be worded to reflect a civil violation.

tarazan wrote on July 28, 2007 8:18 AM:

Does this mean that the President's staff are 'immuned' from questioning by the Congress,under the guise of 'Executive Privilege'? They can refuse to appear when asked before the Congress unless they wish to do so themselves?.
Justice Department works under the President,therefore a third party opinion on this must decide the matter. The President was not involved in the cases the Congress is questioning,so why the 'executive privilege' is invoked?
Also Mr. Bolten who was asked to testify is no longer working for the President.
Does Bolten still enjoy the 'Executive Privilige' while he is no longer a President's staff member?
The Congress cannot lose this one,because if Congress let the 'power of supboeana' die,then this Congress and future Congresses will be indeed powerless dealing with this Administration and future ones.

Nelly Bly wrote on July 29, 2007 9:44 AM:

Testing.