11:47 It looks like it's over.
IT BEGINS
12:01 After six months and all morning, the House will now debate for 1 hour the two resolutions, one to hold Miers and Bolten in contempt, the other to authorize the Judiciary Committee to go to court in an attempt to enforce the contempt citations (without of course using the only appropriate measure available, namely impeachment of the president).
Louise Slaughter opens the debate with concern for precedent for future presidents. She makes clear this is about the president and bogus claims of executive privilege. She also addresses fear of losing in the courts by suggesting that if that occurs, Congress can pass a law to fix the process. That's actually debatable, I think, and not just because Bush would veto or signing-statement or ignore any such fix.
12:06 Rep Diaz-Balart is whining about having to leave Lantos' funeral early.
12:07 Now he's complaining that no debate is being allowed on each contempt resolution (other than the debate on the "Rule" that he is now engaged in and wasting his alloted time in). He's right that the House should debate each contempt citation. The Democrats always, ALWAYS back away from a fight.
12:09 Bizarrely Diaz-Balart argues against contempt because it could lose in court and that would shift power from Congress to the White House. (And what would refusing to try accomplish other than the same result?)
12:11 Diaz-Ballart also wants to know why this is now an emergency after 8 months, and is shifting the topic (despite his whining about not getting a chance to debate) to the urgent need to grant retroactive immunity to violators of FISA and the 4th Amendment. He's going on and on, failing to debate what he complains he has no opportunity to debate. This sort of transparent bluff ALWAYS fools the Democrats. This is bad news for today's vote.
12:14 John Conyers submits into the record today's New York Times editorial. He says he's negotiated for 8 months. He doesn't say that negotiation has been with Pelosi. He says this is about whether the American public can trust that its laws are impartially enforced by the US Justice Department. Some, Conyers says, think the stakes are so high that Congress should not risk losing. But, says Conyers, if we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be ignored, then we've already lost. (Of course that loss is assured by Conyers' refusal to begin impeachment. Conyers also encourages Republicans who claim to be concerned about the powers of Congress to contact the White House Counsel's office, which - Conyers says - only offered him a process with no on-the-record testimony.
12:20 Lamar Smith is talking about the Immunity for Illegal Spying bill, which is not the motion on the table. Who's running this show? Where's parliamentary procedure?
12:23 Brad Miller is comparing Bush's and Cheney's powers to those of the king overthrown by the American Revolution. (Where the hell is he on impeaching them?)
12:27 Nancy Pelosi is referring to the Constitution, the document from which she has stripped the right of impeachment. Today, she says, "we are honoring our oath of office." (Mmmm, I'd say more like remembering it exists but not actually reading it.) She's quoting former Republican Congress Member Mickey Edwards on the nonpartisan nature of the responsibility to defend the powers of Congress. (Does she suppose he wouldn't be moving on impeachment??) She says Bush and Cheney are engaged in hubris taken to the ultimate degree. (Why is the response then taking the form of a toothless resolution six months delayed rather than the ultimate degree of accountability?)
12:34 David Dreier is hypocritically arguing against contempt on grounds of preserving Congress's power, because he predicts a loss in the courts. This suicidal bluff is no doubt part of what has motivated the 6-month delay on this thing. Dreier says the idea that Congress is a co-equal branch of government could be lost. (Of course the Constitution does not give any other branch powers remotely approaching equality with those of the strongest branch: the Congress, which is now co-dependent, not even "co-equal").
12:36 Hoyer says that in 1885 a book was published by Woodrow Wilson that said oversight was as important as legislation or perhaps more so. Again he, Hoyer, not the 1885 book, says "the other co-equal branch". Hoyer, who almost certainly wouldn't back impeachment to save 10 million lives unless Pelosi approved, says he is interested in preserving the Constitution. I'm torn on whether all this pseudo-Constitution-defense rhetoric is a good development or not. Hoyer quotes the New York Times editorial, including the words "imperial president." Hoyer is quoting Bruce Fein but not mentioning his support for impeachment. (Makes you wonder why they aren't letting Wexler speak.)
12:43 James Sensenbrenner claims the Democrats are failing to engage in proper "bipartisanship" an are "pandering to the left." He also pushes the threat of losing in court. His whole concern (other than that crap about bipartisanship) is supposedly to maintain the power and image of Congress. He describes the proposal as "throwing the president's chief of staff in jail." (Wouldn't that be nice? It's called inherent contempt, and Congress could do it tomorrow if it chose.)
12:45 Michael Arcuri says this is about whether we have laws in this country. Is the Constitution going to be followed? he asks. Well, not if he doesn't back impeachment hearings.
