Just two days after the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to seek Contempt of Congress charges against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for refusing to testify on their involvement in the firing and replacing of 9 U.S. Attorney's by partisan shill's... the DOJ has announced that it will not enforce the law.
"As it considers the contempt resolutions, we think it is important that the Committee appreciate fully the longstanding Department of Justice position, articulated during Administrations of both parties, that "the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."
As occured during the 1980's in the case of EPA Administratior Ann Gorsuch, where the DOJ refused to persue a Contempt Citation against an Administration Official where the President had exerted executive priviledge, history is repeating itself.
the Office of Legal Counsel issued an Opinion concluding that the statute is unconstitutional to the extent it requires a U.S. Attorney to prosecute a contempt action where the noncompliance is based on the President's assertion of executive privilege: In OLC's view, a U.S. Attorney thus "is not required to refer a contempt citation in these circumstances to a grand jury or otherwise to prosecute an Executive Branch official who is carrying out the President's instruction." 8 Op. O.L.C. 101, 102.
From current reports the vote by the full house on Contempt will not occur until after the August recess - which means this issue has some time to simmer fully before it boils over.
Once that vote occurs there are two primary courses of action which can be taken by the House, one is to go to the courts and seek to force the President to prove the legitimacy of his Executive Priviledge claims.
The other option, rather than allowing the Administration to continue to run out the clock is for the House to invoke Inherent Contempt, and have Miers and Bolten brought by in their Sargeant at Arm to either testify or rot in the Houses own detention until deciding to do so.
Some would argue that jurisdiction would limit the ability of the House Sargeant at Arms from bringing Meirs and Bolten into custody - "They could stand across the street from the Capitol and still be safe" - but history has shown that not to be the case.
The Supreme Court has affirmed Congressional power to frog-march witnesses before the bar of Congress. In McGrain v. Daugherty, a recusant witness (the AG's brother) refused to comply with issued subpoenas. The Senate issued a warrant authorizing its sergeant at arms to take custody of the witness and bring him before the bar of the Senate to answer questions. The deputy sergeant at arms went to Cincinnati, Ohio to pick up the uncooperative witness to place him in custody. The witness objected by filing habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court upheld Congressional legal authority to use its own process to compel persons to appear and testify on issues needed to enable Congress to exercise its Constitutional legislative function.
If the House can have the Attorney General's brother arrested in Cincinnati, they can go get Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in Virginia. Oh, and irony of having Meirs or Bolten file Habeaus Motions against their detention would be most delicious.
Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000
If the Bush Administration is looking to repeat the path followed by Reagan, when he attempted to hide abuse of the Superfund program and they ended up the losing side of established case law, he's headed down a road that they aren't likely to survive.
Vyan
http://www.truth2powerproject.com
Born and Bred in South Central LA. I spent 12 years working in the IT Dept. for federal contractor Northrop-Grumman on classified and high security projects such as the B2 Bomber. After Northrop I became an IT consultant with the state of California in Sacramento and worked on projects with the Dept of Consumer Affairs and CalTrans, as well as projects for Kaiser Permanente in Oakland. Now living in Los Angeles with my own independant web design company where I operate the Truth 2 Power Online Radio Station.
Now the Congress only has "inherent contempt" left to bring these people to testify. That may be more than they can stomach. This is getting very frustrating.
It will be time for Congress to hold the Justice Department in Contempt of Congress if they do not prosecute Bush's people. They are already after Gonzales, what will 2 more hurt. It is definitely time to remove the entire Bush administration, have a full investigation, Indict, and then convict.
by
Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 471 comments)
on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 3:52:16 PM
Why am I not surprised. The Bushites had put in the fix before they ever instructed Meiers and Bolton not to testify. They are truly a cabal, and they're holding all the cards. Impeachment better be on Pelosi's menu for dinner tonight!!!!!
by
Lynn Beckman (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 4:13:08 PM
Why do we keep expecting the government to save us?
Look, the people could gain back control tomorrow and force the government to represent the people, without firing a shoot.
Gandhi perfected it, a General Strike (GS).
I don't know the number, but if I were to guess if all the members, of all the progressive sites, co-ordinated a GS to impeach, that perhaps world-wide we could get 6 to 15 million to stay home for one day, or to boycott GE products until Iraq ends.
A General Strike just brought the entire government of Argentina to a standstill overnight. If you look at some of the recent successful use of General Strikes as a potent force for change one has to ask with our technology and ability to call for General Strikes in all areas, International, National, Regional and Local why no one has picked up this torch and run with it?
What say you Daily Kos, Bush Watch, BussFlash, Brad Blog, HuffingtonPost, DU and all the many other progressive sites? I can't imagine that any of your readers wouldn't relish the chance to participate in a benign protest requiring little effort that can change the course of history? Call it the GSClearingHouse. Take up causes from around the world and post what GS will be taking place, their time, place or any other actions needed. Be a true catalyst for change!
What if just 3 million stayed home this Monday and made a call to their representatives calling for impeachment? Would it have an effect? There would be an economic impact. For us, it would be hopefully minor, but that is the small sacrifice we'd be committing to. Which isn't too much to ask if it saves just one life. For the corporations a loose of that magnitude that can mushroom into full-blown General Strikes is something that would have an effect on policy.
It might work. It has in the past and it's working right now in countries around the world. So why not here?
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1442 comments)
on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 5:52:02 PM
I suggested that last summer. A 5,000,000 wo/man strike for one week! And during that week, buy nothing unless the thing is an absolute necessity. Strike and Boycott, and cancel your cable (I all ready did that in protest, had an antenna installed in my attic and only watch the local channels and bought or rented films and only that on occasion.
You gotta wonder what it takes 4 Pelosi to take a hint
..... when the Congress has no power against White House abuses then i'd say that the proverbial "table" that impeachment should have been placed upon ...is already gone.
by
chariotdrvr14 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 125 comments)
on Friday, July 27, 2007 at 8:31:50 PM
What really drives me nuts about this whole affair is that all of these people are asserting executive privilege which would suggest (to me, at least) that they are protecting a position or policy that is supported by the president. They can't assert executive privilege for matters that the president is unaware of or disagrees with... i.e the president's guilty! What makes this whole matter even worse is that we have idiots in Congress who really don't want to deal with this mess because they're too busy focusing on the post-Bush years, which we may never get to see if Imperial Bush has his way. Congress needs to wake up and concentrate on the game that they're in, not the game that's coming up.
by
Rondog (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 10:05:03 AM
What really drives me nuts about this whole affair is that all of these people are asserting executive privilege which would suggest (to me, at least) that they are protecting a position or policy that is supported by the president. They can't assert executive privilege for matters that the president is unaware of or disagrees with... i.e the president's guilty!
So I'm repeating it! Yes -- this is clearly Bush endorsing the actions of members of the administration, so he can't rationally assert that he is letting others decide -- it's direct involvement on his part. The whole idea of 'executive privilege' is dicey, but for some low level member of the Department of housing and urban development, for instance, to refuse to answer to congress, in an inquiry about corruption, for instance, on the grounds of separation/balance of powers (itself something which needs to be interpreted) as a member of the executive branch, without explicit authorization from up the line, is absurd: it is to say that any member of the executive branch is immune from congressional oversite -- in itself a violation of separation/balance of powers. One might as well argue that because the judiciary is a separate branch that no laws or judicial judgements can apply to any member of the execuitive branch as well.
Extending that abusrd logic, since congress and the courts are different branches, then no member of congress could be brought before the courts either. Nor could a judge ever be arrested by a member of the FBI or a federal officer -- or kept in prison, which is also part of the executive branch. Separation of powers would have to go both ways -- and the raid on Congressman Jefferson's office would have been a violation too (although the Republicans were all for THAT).
But then, also, Bush explicitly and publicly said he would not permit Taylor Miers to testify, so 'the vuck stops there', with the president.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 12:46:15 PM
11 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
