Comments (104)

Cranky Observer wrote on May 21, 2007 12:09 PM:

Many vices have teeth. Some (although not all) vises have no teeth however.

Did Yglesias Spelling(tm) infect TPMMedia prior to his departure? ;-)

Cranky

PJ White wrote on May 21, 2007 12:13 PM:

In other words, there will never be an accountability moment for these snakes.

sc: snake

Thucydides Jr. wrote on May 21, 2007 12:17 PM:

So, short of impeachment, an administation can just say bugger off, and ignore congress?

IF that is the case, then this administration will. And it sets a horrible precedent, and shows a very real weakness in our structures of our democracy.

I know Rep. Whitehouse was looking at inherent contempt. How does this figure in? I take it that is the court route?

vox clamantis in red state wrote on May 21, 2007 12:18 PM:

Supeona of anything in this maladministration sounds... so superfluous. Something for lawyers to occupy their time with, blogs and folks like us to spec about, while the killing continues unabated in IRack.

Bearpaw wrote on May 21, 2007 12:18 PM:

The Bush Admin will try to run out the clock, whatever that takes. Bet on it. They spent 6 years without meaningful oversight and they clearly see no reason to care about the Dems' attempts to bring it back. They'll just spin everything as partisan attacks (ignoring the few principled Repubs left), and continue to break the law until they leave on January 20th, 2009.

r€nato wrote on May 21, 2007 12:18 PM:

How about we just Impeach The Mother Fucker, Already?

security code: attack. Heh.

NCBlueneck wrote on May 21, 2007 12:19 PM:

Some vices -- like meth -- will make you lose your teeth.

sean wrote on May 21, 2007 12:19 PM:

A back and forth will lead to a negotiated outcome -- or a permanent stand off.

And, pray tell, what does dithering standoff suggest regarding the near perfect governmental system of checks and balances we were taught about in grade school???
Can America afford aimless dithering?
In 2000 certain parties didn't seem so bound by the system...
Has the liberty tree completely crisped in its pot or will a little watering save it???

Puffy wrote on May 21, 2007 12:20 PM:

I have a question about the argument that Bush could contest the subpoena through the courts until his term ends. Can't the matter still be pursued after Bush's term is over? If criminal conduct is found, couldn't Rove, for example, still be indicted, tried and even convicted? I would love the truth to come out sooner rather than later, but I hope the misconduct will not just be dropped because Bush is no longer in office.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 12:23 PM:

So, in reality, Congress does not really have subpoena power at all. It's subpoena powers are entirely notional --a theoretical fiction

...except, of course, when it comes to subpoenaing ordinary citizens.

Nate Roberts wrote on May 21, 2007 12:23 PM:

So, in reality, Congress does not really have subpoena power at all. It's subpoena powers are entirely notional --a theoretical fiction

...except, of course, when it comes to subpoenaing ordinary citizens.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 12:26 PM:

All the more reason for the public to provide cover for Congress by demanding action from senators and representatives.

I would suggest that the next course of action SHOULD be citizens in the streets, but we Americans are apparently too in thrall with normalcy to protect our own liberties.

So I guess we deserve what we're getting.

JohnW1141 wrote on May 21, 2007 12:27 PM:

My recurring theme is this; if the Congress doesn't make this administration pay somehow for thoer disdain for the Constitution, the rule of law and tradition, then Bush sets a precedent for the next President to be just as irresponsible and arrogant as he is.

To the right wingnuts who support Bush in everything; imagine President Hillary using Bush as a role midel for her Presidency.

ice weasel wrote on May 21, 2007 12:29 PM:

While I would not question Mr. Tiefer's credentials or legal experience I think the one we're overlooking here is the outright, well, balls of this administration. They've decided to brazen out just about everything they've been caught on. They'll play out the clock, destroy evidence, stonewall the committee or, see the committee and outright lie.

That's the problem. Every time Mr. Tiefer used the word or the form of the word, "negotiate" I cringed. This administratio negotiates with no one.

photophosphor wrote on May 21, 2007 12:34 PM:

Could the Senate Judiciary Committee make Mrs. Gonzales testify under oath as to who made that call from the White House? If it is not she who would be incriminated by her reply, would she be able to invoke the fifth?

litigatormom wrote on May 21, 2007 12:34 PM:

Negotiated resolution? Even when Bush needs something from Congress, like funding for the war, he "meets" with Congressional leaders, but does not negotiate. If the WH is convinced they don't have to turn over the e-mails, they'll never even meet on it, let alone negotiate.

As for public outrage, letter writing campaigns, etc. -- when has this Administration ever been responsive to that?

The ONLY thing that might move the WH is if Republican Senators and Representatives tell Bush that his stance is hurting their re-election chances. But so far that one hasn't worked on the war funding issue either.

Dave from the Lake Effect Zone wrote on May 21, 2007 12:34 PM:

It should also be noted that 2001 was the last time anyone asked Bush for anything more consequential than the White House lunch menu. Just you all wait and see how many times Bush tries to invoke exec privilege between now and Jan. 2009.

grayslady wrote on May 21, 2007 12:36 PM:

According to Bruce Fein (on a recent radio interview, along with Glenn Greenwald and Laurence Tribe), during Watergate, Congress did receive court backing of its subpoena for records, and received it within a matter of weeks from going to court. So the whole idea that the courts will not act promptly just doesn't make sense. Fein also reminded listeners that one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was failure to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Both Tribe and Fein believe that Congress should go to court for enforcement of the subpoenas, and I'd say that they are two pretty savvy guys. The SJC, in particular, owes it to us, the American people, to push harder.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 12:37 PM:

should be spelled vise, not vice.
this is an extremely disheartening analysis. which doesn't mean it's wrong.
it just means these crooks are going to get away with it.

security code: where, as in where will it all end?

Via wrote on May 21, 2007 12:40 PM:

This absolutely sucks. Impeachment is the only avenue, it would seem, to reach accountability with this administration.

A. Scott wrote on May 21, 2007 12:41 PM:

Is it then the idea to subpoena the terminus of the Email chain rather then the origin ? If you want to know what Karl Wrote , don't ask Karl , he's in the White House. Ask the recipients. While RNC swine do act like another branch of the gov, they aren't, and so might they not be more susceptible to real legal threat ?
The President and the Actual President Cheney can claim privilege for any reason and will , including denying the people the video tape of Exxon writing the next decade of energy policy , oddly slanting toward fossil fuel, but I seriously doubt they can extend that umbrella all the way to the RNC , which is I believe no more an organ of the government than the local 4-H is .
I would nominaly suggest the RNC don't want the publicity of pugnatious protracted legal wrangling to avoid coughing up Karl'd Doom , but then I remember they couldn't care less about public perception, thus the polls.
Is there precedent for asking for the letter from the person who got it in the mail rather than from the note pad of the person who wrote it ? As I understand it , that's what current subpoenas are asking , for Rove emails from recipients to avoid exactly this tangle . Any experts still around?
Security word flag , as in flag anything from " KR@RNC/littleattwater.crook"

cervantes wrote on May 21, 2007 12:42 PM:

Well, it seems to me that the bottom line is, they don't give a FFOARD about public opinion, or appearances, or even the Congressional Repulicans at this point. They'll just tell Congress to go Cheney itself, refuse to hand over documents or submit to sworn testimony, and then it will be January 2009. And until then, A. Gonzales will still be AG, unless the Dems have the cojones to impeach him. Which, clearly, they do not.

tubino wrote on May 21, 2007 12:43 PM:

I agree that their plan is to wait out the clock. So it seems to me the right response is us to bother the MSM about covering the stonewall/contempt of Congress, and add those to the reasons for impeachment.

I don't care if a (successful) impeachment vote is held weeks or even DAYS before the transfer of power in January 2009 -- it is one important step for the US to show it is not completely irresponsible politically.

Impeachment is a show of accountability. Not sufficient, but necessary.

Security code = soap, as in time to CLEAN THIS PLACE UP.

miasmo wrote on May 21, 2007 12:43 PM:

Please read this post by Kagro X on inherent contempt. It is a completely different strategy for enforcing subpoenas. Laura McGann (and almost everyone for that matter) seems to be completely unaware of this obscure but constitutional method.

Austin Cooper wrote on May 21, 2007 12:44 PM:

To repeat what Josh already noted (and while the idea isn't original to TPM, that's where *I* read it first), The White House will stall, delay, and flat-out ignore any reality it doesn't like.

This is their game plan -- to run out the clock. The media runs on the sound bite, the shallow, two-sentence pronouncement, and the Bobblehead or Puddinhead pundits -- so, when the manufactured hoopla of the Presidential Election begins, it will tend to down out any (including the faux) analysis -- on the airwaves, at least.

This assumes that the Democratic leadership in the Congress keeps playing the Repub's game -- and it doesn't appear that any paradigim-busting actions are on the horizon. It's politics as usual, with the Democrats often acting as if they were still the minority party.

The country wants a strong response ... not an over-the-top response; a strong one. If someone would only stand *up* to these creatures, articulate what we all know to be true, and do so in a clear, forceful voice -- then the walls would come a-tumbling down. Believe it.

If the best we can do is offer Senator Reid's head-shaking disappointment and pursed-lipped disapproval, as he did last week, as our response to the monstrous crimes committed against the American People and against civilization by this pack of animals, then we're well and truly screwed.

If that's the best to offer the American people, then we should all just get it over with. We should just finish what Bush and his cronies have started -- the destruction of the United States Of America -- and elect another cretinous figurehead. Romney's grasp of reality seems to be equal to our current Sainted Leader's.

miasmo wrote on May 21, 2007 12:46 PM:

The link was edited out for some reason. Here it is:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/27/113945/241

miasmo wrote on May 21, 2007 12:49 PM:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/27/113945/241

This is an article about "inherent contempt." (Please see my previous comment above.)

Other Michael wrote on May 21, 2007 12:49 PM:

What were once vises are now hobbits

powkat wrote on May 21, 2007 12:50 PM:

I agree with Puffy - pursue them through the courts if necessary. If they have commited high crimes they can still be prosecuted. Or at least be exposed to the world as the liars, cheats and criminals they are.

A. Scott wrote on May 21, 2007 12:50 PM:

Has the liberty tree completely crisped in its pot or will a little watering save it???

Posted by: sean

Possible answer: Sunlight. Not only a terrific disinfectant, also revives dying foliage.
Hows that for the congressional slogan? " Let the Light Shine In!"
I can already see the little Liberty Tree graphic .
Code Regret: Oh man, too loaded to even approach.

upsidedown80 wrote on May 21, 2007 12:51 PM:

I know this has been said many times before. If these subpoenas issued by the Dems can't really generate anything meaningful like accountability, then the Dems look even more "gutless" !!! An important question for the 2008 election,why should I knock myself out to elect more Dems? How can they really effect anything?

Joe Buck wrote on May 21, 2007 12:52 PM:

Two hundred and thirty years ago, a bunch of highly principled men signed their names to a document that could have been their death sentence (yes, a "suicide pact") because they could no longer accept rule by a king, even a constitutionally limited king whose power was restrained by the need to consult Parliament and by British common law.

The king they rebelled against was George III. Our current president is also the third George to hold the office he now holds, and he's a hereditary ruler at that.

It's time to initiate impeachment proceedings. The first target should be Gonzales, and proceedings should begin after the no-confidence vote. The Democrats in the Senate should do what's necessary to get a 2/3 majority to sign it, to make clear to Gonzales that impeachment followed by conviction is a serious possibility.

Dennis wrote on May 21, 2007 12:53 PM:

Forget Gonzales, it's time for a "no confidence" vote for Bush. And no damned delays and threatnings, either. Just DO IT!!!

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 21, 2007 12:55 PM:

Impeachment is the one tooth the United Stated of America has left to guard our country from the constitutional nightmare of the Bush administration.

It is not unrealistic to compare him to Hitler.

I pray that Nancy and the Democrats use it and so I sent her an e mail to that affect.

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 12:56 PM:

So the answer goes something like this: In the past, the White House and Congress have contended on these issues until they finally reach some sort of compromise, so judging by the past, we should expect some compromises to be reached.

I am not reassured in the least. I don't believe for a minute that the past should be any indicator of what this lawless White House will do to protect turdblossom. There will be no compromises. Subpoenas will not be honored. Congress will continue to be told to f___-off. Short of impeachment or immediate appointment of a special prosecutor who finds criminal wrongdoing with all due speed, tb and W will never answer for what they have done.

WVprog wrote on May 21, 2007 12:59 PM:

In answer to Puffy: Bush is the only one who could be held accountable after he's out of office. I'd bet a huge pile of money that Bush will issue Presidential Pardons for Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, etc etc before a new President is inaugurated.

Security Code: still, as in still waiting for justice.

bjobotts wrote on May 21, 2007 12:59 PM:

All of these experts expect business as usual and blind themselves to the reality around them. When the Executive branch (who control all the troops, including the guard) joins forces with the Judicial department(who controls the FBI and all the police) it leaves the Legislative branch powerless with no one to even enforce subpoenas. Has this administration taken control of the Judicial branch? It depends on when push comes to shove. Consider this:
With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”
Under this control subpoenas are pointless. Rice and Rove and the DoJ etc. now see the Legislative branch as powerless. They laugh at impeachment, or any oversight from congress knowing they are powerless to stop Bush or subpoena any of the players. Ask your "experts" to address the issue of unregulated power coming from this administration. Everything else is just "gumming it to death"

Skippy Jones wrote on May 21, 2007 1:00 PM:

I don't think this explanation answered the question at all. The question was not how have past subpoenas played out, but rather how subpoenas will play out with THIS administration, for which there is no precedent. I don't want stretched metaphors about teeth and vises. I want to know what the procedures and law are, and just because they things have never gone there before does NOT mean they won't this time. How loud does the bell have to ring for some folks to realize that this is NOT business as usual. I want to know what my Congress can do to stop this runaway Imperial Presidency. Both pragmatically (media outreach yadda yadda yadda) and by the letter of the law and constitution. John Dean provides a fuller answer in his column at FindLaw - which is that Congress has a whole heck of a lot of power to enforce subpoenas, and if they played the kind of hardball Gonzales did in sending twenty FBI agents to raid the Rayburn House Office Building (unprecedented in 200+ years - so much for 'convention') then Congress could send the Capitol Police to throw Gonzales' ass in jail until the end of that Congress. Constitutional crisis? Of course, but then, the point is, we are already in one. Now what the hell can my Congress do beyond 'business as usual'?

Mike Valentine wrote on May 21, 2007 1:01 PM:

Even if Bush puts off the investigation until he leaves office, he must be pursued. The law must prevail.

Besides the Republicans will not let him drag the party down. They will join the chorus for impeachment before the end of the summer.

A. Scott wrote on May 21, 2007 1:02 PM:

I read somewhere that in articles of Impeachment against appointees there includes a Ban on holding office ever again . One might easily whittle away at the worst of the Bushites and leave the Grand Clown and his reanimated sociopath Vice Beast at the humiliating tip of a very shaky column.
We know the Rethugs love to through underlings and former friends under buses and trains etc. so let them . Dig , expose and terminate . Reveal to the nation an administration without decency, without regard to law and in contempt of all the values they yell about so loudly. Show the people that while the tip may be untouchable , it's a tip giving hard workin Mercans the finger.
Expose the crooks and let anyone tied to them enjoy the light . And watch the fakes run far and fast ( Predicting McCain sets land speed records...)
CODE : False . Heh.

tgr wrote on May 21, 2007 1:04 PM:

We've got to go to court, though Senator Whitehouse's assertion may well prove true.

Not to do so is to put The Constitution in the proverbial shredder.

Security Code: White -- sheesh, ain't that irony.

fuzz wrote on May 21, 2007 1:10 PM:

If our current laws allow them to get away with this, we need new laws.

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 1:11 PM:

The question everyone should be asking themselves now is: Why are the Republicans in Congress such lily-livered sycophants? What is it that the WH has on them...compromising photos with House interns? e-mails from Abramoff? This administration could NEVER have gotten away with gutting the Constitution and turning the DOJ into a political arm of the RNC without the complicity of the Vichy GOP. There is not a single backbone among them. Dems can't get anywhere with subpoenas or any other approach to WH accountability without the support of at least some of the Republicans. They need to be warned out loud in no uncertain terms that we will hold THEM accountable if the Dems fail. We will turn out against them in 2008, 2010, 2012 and make them pay, and pay, and pay.

JamesRobert wrote on May 21, 2007 1:14 PM:

Question: Does congress have the power to undo the appointments of USAs like Tim Griffin and Rachel Paulose?

johnnydoughey wrote on May 21, 2007 1:17 PM:

More and more, our leaders are morphing into the pigs of "Animal Farm". We are seeing the accountability and consequences amongst those in charge diminishing to zero, as the accountability and consequences for the rest of us in the farm grows. Isn't it ironic that we, as a nation, are actually losing our democracy as we attempt to form democracies elsewhere. Our actions seem to show that we are giving our Constitution to other countries because... well... we aren't really using it anymore.
Sad fact is... the democrat controlled house doesn't appear to be attempting to do anything to change the rules. Their actions seem to show that their only goal is to make sure that they will be the ruling pigs.

rlogan wrote on May 21, 2007 1:18 PM:

The Congressional Research Sevice did a report on this here:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf

It sets out which things are not subject to subpoena and which are. Oversight of actions and criminal matters are. Policy advice isn't.

Fortunately, most of Congress is busy pretending that you need a conviction of the crime before you even start the investigatuon.

I'm looking forward to the new criminal gangster police state.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 1:18 PM:

Bushco may well stonewall this to doomsday, but that doesn't mean there will be no consequences. They have to rely on Republican solidarity, and every time they stonewall they make it harder on the R's to hang tough, especially as the election season gets closer. The cracks are already showing and by fall there will be mass defections (if not sooner). This affects anything the WH wants to get through Congress, including further war funding.

Also, even if they never get a single one of Rove's emails, he sent them to someone - they can subpoena those emails. The vise, like thumbscrews, is best tightened S-L-O-W-L-Y.

MLS wrote on May 21, 2007 1:23 PM:

Tiefer is exactly right in describing how the congressional subpoena/contempt process works vis a vis the executive branch. (Although, at the risk of sounding cranky, I must point out that I have explained the same thing on this website before).

For completeness sake, it should be noted that 10 executive branch officials have been cited for contempt by congressional committees or subcommittees under the statutory procedure but none has ever been prosecuted, much less convicted. They are Kissinger (1975), Sec of Commerce Morton (1975), Sec of HEW Califano (1978), Sec of Energy Duncan (1980), Sec of Energy Edwards (1981), Watt (1982), EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford (1983), AG Smith (1983), White House Counsel Quinn (1996) and Reno (1998).

The term "inherent contempt" is used to refer to a different procedure, where a recalcitrant witness is brought before the bar of the House or Senate and, if a majority votes to hold the witness in contempt, is imprisoned by the Sergeant at Arms. This procedure has never been used against an executive branch official who has asserted an official right to withhold information. Leaving the legal nicities aside, there are obvious practical problems with attempting to arrest an official who is physically protected by the executive branch.

This leaves the option of civil enforcement in court (ie, going to court and seeking a declaration that the witness must comply with the congressional subpoena). This also has never been successfully used against the executive branch. In the Watergate case, the Senate Select Committee attempted to do so, but ultimately lost, first on jurisdictional grounds and then on the merits. However, because the ultimate resolution of that case was fact specific (the court held that the Senate did not need the Watergate tapes because the House had already obtained them), there is no clear legal precedent on whether the courts would enforce a congressional subpoena against the executive and, if so, under what circumstances.

Steve5117 wrote on May 21, 2007 1:25 PM:

I have lived through numerous congressional investigations in my 62+ years. The striking difference between what we are now witnessing is that we ARE witnessing it.

Newspapers have been a part of the political landscape since our Repiblic began. They were the primary source of news and events. The telegraph hastenen the spread of news next, with radio soon following. Television only came on the scene in the late 1940's and had a major impact in the deliverly of news and information. Politics and politicians had to addapt to each new medium

These technological advances, ave now been overshadowed by the internet. Obviously, we are a part of something different that has yet to be fully understood or utilized.

Instead of a scholarly paper on the subject let me give you an example: I watched Comey testify on the internet, every word. Did you miss it? Go to C-SPAN and watch it. Later I saw a FOX (unfair and off-balanced) edited clip. It completely distorted the impact of the testimony. The point is, I saw something that I couldn't have seen if this was the 1970's AND I have the ability to show what I have seen to others.

Many of you, I suppose, might think things are moving slow right now, in regards to wanting the President and his minions brought to justice. You can help, especially if you have computer skills...

These dumb bastard republicans have done so many illegal things and told so many lies that there is no way they can eliminate all traces of their evildoing. You've got the skills to find out things to share not just with the rest of us, but the whole wide world!

I asked my Christian Conservative friend's wife if she watck O'Riley's Talking Points segment and when she said yes I told her to check out the TMP website. LOL

We're ahead of the repugs (this I love because my CC friends have 6 pugs) in use of this technology, let's keep the process going and growing.

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 1:28 PM:

bjobots says:
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.” Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

Let me make a wild guess on the timing of Dubya's invocation of this rather obscure authority. How about late September of 2008. You have to expect there to be some sort of "catastrophic emergency" at that point, even if Fox News is the only media outlet reporting it. At that point we should rest assured that Dubya will ensure constitutional government continues even though he will of course have to suspend national elections until such time as things can be brought under control, you know, sort of the same timetable that he has described for Iraq. In the meantime he will remain in office as our Commander-in-Chief, saving us from the costly burden of those nasty Presidential campaigns for the foreseeable future.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 1:29 PM:

I appreciate the optimism that things will be resolved without court.

However, we're in a different era: This Bush adminstiration has committed war crimes, and ignored Geneva; and ignored the FISA court. To think that it would bother to listen to Congress or the courts seems a stretch.

I take issue with this: "But to think that will actually happen 'is a naive way' of looking at Congressional investigations. No top government official has ever been indicted for failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena." I think it is reasonable to assume the President will do something unprecedented, but that the country and Congress will not do anything about it -- short of impeachment.

Again, I appreciate the optimism of "what should not happen," and "what the President will most likely do," but this President continues to ignore the Constution, laws, and precedent and Congress does nothing. I fully expect this President to do the unprecedented, and would not be surprised if he directs -- as he has the power to do -- for Congress to go into recess.

By taking all impeachment options off the table, the Congress is pretending the President is going to recirpcoate. No, he's going to take advantage of that pre-decision to tie Congress' hands, and further abuse his power.

Nitnorth wrote on May 21, 2007 1:30 PM:

Thucydides Jr. wanted to know:

"So, short of impeachment, an administation can just say bugger off, and ignore congress?"

Yes. Nixon did exactly that in 1973 with tapes that were subpoenaed by Congress. That dragged out until his negotiated resignation (and subsequent pardon by Gerald Ford), at which time the tapes were "owned" jointly by him and by Congress, with the proviso that he had sole control over their disposition.

...In fact, the current turgid drama has oh so many distressing parallels to Nixon's 1973 - '74 years. It's almost as though the same gang of criminal clowns were back in town ... oh, wait, some of them _are_.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 1:34 PM:

As a side note, I appreciate that some lawyers are specuating of what will never happen, yet again this president defies that.

Time to wake up the legal community: This President isn't going to necessarily cooperate; and it's not prudent to rely on precedent to say what the President will or will not do by way of response.

Rather than waiting for the President and Congress to take this to the brink, I would prefer a direct confrontation with the legal community: "OK, if you think Congressional pressure is going to work -- as it may have done int he past -- give us a good reason why the public should believe the legal community's forecast in light of the President's continued defiance of precedent."

Bluntly, I'm not confident the legal community's statements about what is most likely going to happen -- based on precedent -- is relevant given this President's decisions to ignore precedent and the law.

I ask the public and media to re-engage with the legal community and ask why we should believe the legal community's forecasts of what is most likely going to happen. I am not convinced their assertions of what is most likely are reasonable, especially given the much larger legal issues confronting this President: war crimes, FISA violations, illegal prisoner abuse, rendition. Defying Congress is meaningless when compared to the larger legal issues.

cervantes wrote on May 21, 2007 1:34 PM:

Not only do the Dems lack the cojones to impeach, they lack the cojones for the no confidence vote -- or so it appears to Ken Strickland, here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx

"While there was much discussion over the weekend about Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D) proposal of a "no confidence" vote this week on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it's "unlikely" to happen, according to a senior Democratic aide. On paper, having such a vote would appear to be a no-brainer for Democrats because it would likely get some Republican support. But in the Senate, there's no such thing as taking a clean shot on an issue. If a vote did come to the floor, GOP leaders have procedural tools to either stop it or require a vote on on another resolution that would be problematic for Democrats to support. ("How about a vote on if the war is lost," a Republican aide suggested.)"

Sure, the war is lost. Why not say so? But we can't. Just telling the truth is off limits in this country.

GKAM wrote on May 21, 2007 1:38 PM:

People in this thread seems to believe that these crooks, swindlers, and power-hungry politicians will just quit and retire to the Bush cattle ranch in Uraguay, out of reach of extradition. Not me.

Their crimes - corruption of the government, looting of the treasury, torture, kidnappings, naked aggression against another country, and other crimes against humanity are too great to ignore. They can't take the chance that a succeeding administration can act against them.

I think we are in danger of enduring another mass-casualty event, followed by martial law, and complete loss of individual rights.

Our experiment in democracy will be over.

Buck wrote on May 21, 2007 1:40 PM:

The best bargaining tool that we have is that Bush can't pardon himself. If he can't be stopped now, he can be made an example of later.

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 1:41 PM:

Posted by fuzz:
If our current laws allow them to get away with this, we need new laws.

Wrong answer. Our laws are only as effective as the authorities who enforce them and the judges who rule on them. Congress can pass a hundred new and better laws. Guess who has to sign them? And even when he signs one he attaches a signing statement that says the law is what he interprets it to be. And guess what packed court has final say on interpretation? Fact is we are in serious trouble. And laws are not going to bail us out.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 1:46 PM:

The lawyers might be right of what might happen with the "civil contempt" forecasts, however, let's consider the basic legal reality: This President ignores the law and FISA court. To have us beleive that he's going to care about civil contempt would ask that we believe he's going to suddenly start doign somethign that he says he's not required to do: respect the rule of law, obey precedent.

he didn't do it with FISA; and there's no reason to expect he's going to start listening to the law now. This is disturbing that -- despite the lessons of the illegal activity since 2001 -- we have a legal community that is actually expecting the President in 2007 to start doing what he's refused to do since 2001. Get real.

As with the Patriot Act and US Attorney firings, this President will find a way to ignore the law. I hate to think that despite the lessons since 2001, the legal community going forward from 2007 will have to go through the same lessons, and realize -- "oh, my it's 2008 and election time; we've run out of time to do anything."

My view: We've sat around and watches this president defy the FISA court and legal procedures of NSLs and NSA since 2001; what use is it to defer to the legal community and believe the legal community has got it right, or that the President will suddenly start doing what he's refused?

For example: With Iraq, the President won't listen despite information of what was most likely going to happen. Same with the US courts -- this President and the GOP have made a decision to put themselves above the law. Why should anyone put up with the new timeline given by the legal community when they say, "Oh, but this time it's going to work, and the President is going to respond."

no way. I say throw it back at the legal community and say, "Why should we wait around for another line of evidence that the President is going to ignore yet _another_ legal requirement?" It's a BS process when the same President consistently shows he's ignoring the law, but the legal community "gives him one more chance, then another." This President is not a person, he's a political creature of the Constution. Stop treating him like a person with rights; he's the President with duties to respond to the law. I say stop giving him more chances and focuse on what he's done since 2001: There is no reason to believe the fairy-tale forecasts of the legal community about what "should" make this President respond to Congress.

My forecast: This President is going to ignore the law, and show the legal community -- as it was done with Iraq -- is not capable of accepting this President has no intention of ever responding. Even if he does change, he's find a way to keep abusing power until he is lawfully removed from office.

In my view, it's time to stop waiting for the legal community to say, "Wow, he's done it again," and for the public to openly challenge the legal community: "Time for you to choose -- between the COnstution or this President. Stop Delaying and get this man prosecuted outside the impeachment process." Until then, the legal community's assertions about what this President "should respond to" seem no more credible than the fairy tales this President inspires within the hearts of the GOP.

Oh, wait . . .the legal community's been complicity with this illegal activity and done nothing; why expect them to be honest or give a real view: "The President will continue to ignore the law and precedent, and we as lawyers are not going to tell you what we really think because we want the public to believe that there is law and order in America." What a load.

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 1:56 PM:

I will say one thing about precedent working and the notion that in the past, compromises have always been worked out. I believe this notion so far has held sway over Congressional Dems. They keep wanting to believe that all parties are reasonable men and women and so eventually something will be worked out. I believe this is the same mindset that lost Kerry the 2004 election. He thought he had to appear reasonable in the face of the thuggery that is Republican politics. We should have learned that lesson then. Seems it is taking some time for it to register one more time that these guys don't play by any rules. They are not reasonable people. Period. With that as the first principle a lot of the current dithering can be dispensed with and steps taken to actually deal with the current Constitutional crisis. And anyone who still believes we are not in the middle of a Constitutional crisis needs to review the past six years quickly.

anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 1:58 PM:

Time for a no-confidence vote in the president and vice-president. Why stop at Gonzales?

buck turgidson wrote on May 21, 2007 2:01 PM:

"The current Bush administration has only officially claimed executive privilege once (seriously) in December of 2001, Tiefer said."

WHOA! That's a sweeping statement! It may be true that the Idiot-in-Chief has invoked EP only once when documents were demanded by Congress, but there have been plenty of times when they did this in other venues, even under court order (obviously it would have been superseded by another court). So Tiefer is being awfully lawyerly in his comment--the statement is true, but only in the very narrow context, which may or may not have been made clear with the rest of his comment (quoting out of context, as usual?)

JoyceH wrote on May 21, 2007 2:02 PM:

Someone needs to remind the Bush administration that one of the articles of impeachment approved by the judiciary committee in 1974 was for obstruction of justice by stonewalling Congressional investigations, and specifically mentioned failing to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

It's starting to look like impeachment IS the only option, and there is precedent. Nixon's resignation prevented the House from voting for impeachment, but the articles are there for anyone to read. And they sound eerily similar to what we're seeing today.

714Day wrote on May 21, 2007 2:10 PM:

Disgusting. Will the people allow it?
Seven years and counting... Seems so...
The ticking clock, indeed. How many kids will die as that yawns on?

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 2:10 PM:

You can't say the war is lost. You can't cast a no-confidence vote. You can't say our system of government is broken. You can't say the emperor has no clothes. These things are simply not said in the polite company of the chambers of Congress. To do so would be to admit that we are in crisis. If everyone isn't generally playing by the rules, be it sandlot baseball or the NBA playoffs or the interplay of our three branches of Federal government, then the system breaks down. I believe that is the danger the Dems see. That by calling the crisis what it is, they open themselves up to blame for causing panic.

zoid the roid wrote on May 21, 2007 2:14 PM:

Security Code = inbred . . .

Like all the folk whose mothers are their sisters AND/OR whose fathers are their brothers . . . Going back fifteen generations causing them to believe that any relationship that can be P.O.T.A. between the topic/subject or their post and the 'Security Code' word stack will be of any interest to any sapient creature.

StillHopingForRICO wrote on May 21, 2007 2:15 PM:

I'm more interested in seeing Bush in jail than just not in the White House, and but for the damage he does every additional day he's in office, I'd be perfectly happy to wait til impeachment is no longer an option and then see him treated like the common criminal he is.

It looks to me like we could be headed that way.

Which makes me wonder: Does he grasp that that is a very likely outcome of his course of conduct? Or does he trust that he has so subverted justice (literally) in this country that the court system will never convict him of anything either?

Also, I believe that if he pardons everyone in his administration, that would only excuse them for federal offenses. Anyone up for the task of compiling a list of state crimes for which various Administration officials could still be culpable after a Bush pardon (granting that the jurisdictional hook might be extremely difficult to establish, and that pre-emption may be a valid defense in almost all cases)?

A. Scott wrote on May 21, 2007 2:18 PM:

Another flaw in our reasoning is our crystal clear grasp of the obvious and the fact we all agree with each other . That's the grand flaw in the Dem congress, the continued assumption that they are still operating in their Grand-Dad's America when there was the assumption that Law trumped all else - those days are long gone and the Dems are still coming to grips with it .
Also , the national character is demented past recognition. The viral impact of the Bush Cult mania post 911 is still not worn off in many constituencies , Bush still inspires devotion in some vocal circles and his proponents are in many respects multiplied in number due to their prevalence in the public discourse. The nation is run by a brutal minority of right wing radicals who don't tolerate discussion or dissent. Step One of Totalitarian Rule Successfully Completed
When the Dems take action to offer a measure of humanity to the illegal immigrant , the opposition doesn't respond in measured tones , but dominates the airwaves in a shriek of hysteria . I recently took a road trip from Niagara to Manhattan and along the interstate, it's as if the state has a no-bid contract that all rest stop lobby televisions be devoted to Fox .It's the only station I've ever seen on a TV , turned loud . The perception of the traveling innocent is that Those are the people , and That's what they believe . Were I entirely without politics I would see Bush as still very popular and the Democrats as sadly , anachronistically decent and naive. I would be intimidated from stating my real feelings about Bush in public in as I sense around me a pervasive perception in direct opposition to the facts, and those supporting said misperceptions ready to make violence in place of admission of dreadful miscalculation. Keep in mind , an awful lot of people still think even if it's illegal , it's ok in This Specific Instance , since our Enemy is genuinely That Evil . Step Two of Totalitarian Rule Successfully Completed
The Bush follower , even 25 people in 100 , are a violent and vocal beast, and easily dominate the room by virtue of a handy set of pre-packaged insults engineered to denigrate and marginalize the dissenter , even if the dissent is the will of the majority, backed up by the media roar of the complicit and misinformed . Old School Democrats are still employing the outmoded , attempting to engage on facts and patiently expecting this Administration to snap out of it and respect the rule of law and the founding documents of the USA. The didn't get the memo, there are new rules and unless they get up to date , there won't be a government to share.

JNagarya wrote on May 21, 2007 2:32 PM:

". . . . Is there precedent for asking for the letter from the person who got it in the mail rather than from the note pad of the person who wrote it?"

That' is an interesting question. The law has been that the letter belongs to the recipient, not to the person who wrote and sent it. When copyright is implicated, the letter belongs to the recipient, but the copyright in its contents belongs to the writer of it.

Confused? Analogy: the physical medial record is the property of the medical institution which generated it. But the contents of it belong to the patient.

(I don't know of any case in which the medical institution, as example, got to keep the record, but had to scrape off the contents and give them to the patient.)

"As I understand it , that's what current subpoenas are asking , for Rove emails from recipients to avoid exactly this tangle."

Seem the easiest route to go. RNC hasn't executive privilege, and is outside the scope of that Bushit would assert. 'Course, the RNC would probably rather be destroyed than turn in Rove.

Because they have family values, and are sane, ya see.

"Posted by: A. Scott
Date: May 21, 2007 12:41 PM"

SC = seem. As in, The law is _seem_s. (Or, in the alternative, _appears_.)

bill wrote on May 21, 2007 2:35 PM:

The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty (and related cases) sure seems to indicate that Congress has the teeth if it wants to bare them. So what that it has been recent practice to reach a negotiated resolution? This White Hhouse doesn't play that way, they think they can escalate and the congress won't match in order to not appear extreme, thus they will win. Congress needs to be just as tough as the White House, and make it clear that it is the White House that chose to play rough:

The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where, in a landmark decision,
McGrain v. Daugherty,8 the Court upheld the Senate’s authority to investigate these charges
concerning the Department:
[T]he subject to be investigated was the administration of the
Department of Justice - whether its functions were being properly
discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and particularly
whether the Attorney General and his assistants were performing or
neglecting their duties in respect of the institution and prosecution of
proceedings to punish crimes and enforce appropriate remedies against
the wrongdoers - specific instances of alleged neglect being recited.
Plainly the subject was one on which legislation could be had and would
be materially aided by the information which the investigation was
calculated to elicit. This becomes manifest when it is reflected that the
functions of the Department of Justice, the powers and duties of the
Attorney General and the duties of his assistants, are all subject to
congressional legislation, and that the department is maintained and its
activities are carried on under such appropriations as in the judgment of
Congress are needed from year to year.9
The Court thus underlined that the Department of Justice, like all other executive
departments and agencies, is a creature of the Congress and subject to its plenary legislative
and oversight authority.

http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2006/071820061.pdf

Richard L. Adlof wrote on May 21, 2007 2:36 PM:

It remains my firm belief that Congress (while keeping up the oversight pressure) should start the wholeale passing of the most populace-oriented legislation they can possibly dream of and send it to Bush daily.

Bush's legacy NEEDS to be either the single most progressive President of all time OR the single most Veto happy anti-people President of all time.

We should all help. Call your Represenative and both Senators and enroll them in our happy pursuit. What is your favorite piece of potential legistlation?

bill wrote on May 21, 2007 2:41 PM:

I probably should have included this introductory material for the above:

The breadth of a jurisdictional committee’s investigative authority may be seen in the
two seminal Supreme Court decisions emanating from the Teapot Dome inquiries of the mid-
1920’s. As part of its investigation, the Senate select committee issued a subpoena for the
testimony of Mally S. Daugherty, the brother of the Attorney General. After Daugherty failed
to respond to the subpoena, the Senate sent its Deputy Sergeant at Arms to take him into
custody and bring him before the Senate. Daugherty petitioned in federal court for a writ of
habeas corpus arguing that the Senate in its investigation had exceeded its constitutional
powers

lestatdelc wrote on May 21, 2007 2:45 PM:

phil james, exactly. To use the logic of this piece, Nixon was never forced to resign because it had never happened before.

Carl from L.A. wrote on May 21, 2007 2:47 PM:

My prediction:

The White House will stonewall on this, as on everything, as long as possible.

If it totally loses the fight, it will just destroy the evidence, as it has with the famous five million e-mails. Then, if Congress tries to hold anyone responsible, we will hear the cries of "no underlying crime" ring loud and strong.

Soon, the Bush administration will be over and the whole sickening thing will be decried by the Tim Russerts and Chris Matthewses of this world as ancient history, and anyone who tries to pursue the truth will just be a sore loser.

I'd guess that the odds of the above scenario coming to pass are about 90%.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 21, 2007 2:48 PM:

Richard L Adlof

"What is your favorite piece of potential legistlation?"

For starters, pass legislation that prohibits the insertion of special provisions into bills after debate has ended. It could be called the Anti-Specter Act.

oldtree wrote on May 21, 2007 2:52 PM:

let me see if I get this right, please correct my math as well...
oversight equals 42
42 when properly applied via reticent savings and disbensures rectified to the turn of the last century actually equals 0.

we get d00dley squat, that's we, the people.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 3:04 PM:

This administration figures not enough of the American public is paying attention to the outrageous shit they've pulled. And up until now that's been a safe bet. But with gas over three bucks a gallon people will accept whatever evil you tell them about Bush. As far as "negotiating" with Bush- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! The negotiations have gotten us nowhere. Past time for a showdown. Unfortunately I doubt the Dems are up to it.

Kevin wrote on May 21, 2007 3:06 PM:

The Dems have an obvious remedy for the supoena problem: impeach Gonzales in the House and then try him in the Senate. I'm no expert, but wouldn't this change the legal landscape completely? (eg. Rove would have to testify or take the 5th in public). The White House couldn't run out the clock.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 21, 2007 3:16 PM:

Here's an outcome clearly not in the Rove/Bush playbook.

Dems Outraising GOP -- In the South!

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/21/dems_outraising_gop_in_the_south

With the Rethugs preoccupied with war crimes, FISA violations, voter disenfranchisment, and the other various and sundry assaults on civilization, it looks like they're getting blind-sided on the one front they considered themselves invincible -- raising money.

A. Scott wrote on May 21, 2007 3:20 PM:

I think it's also far past time for the Dems to innoculate the situation against the "No Underlying crime " Mantra and start one in the inverse
"It's obvious to these comittees that crimes have been committed and it up to us to find out the origins of them "
Crimes of Been Comitted . The President has Admitted to breaking the law .

In a law abiding society , the articles of Impeachment would have already been delivered.

So far as I understand , a guilty plea avoids trial . I can think of several instances wherein the Clown has made public admission of guilt . Were I to admit to the same infractions live on CNN, how long would I have to wait for the boots to take out my door ?

A. Scott wrote on May 21, 2007 3:20 PM:

I think it's also far past time for the Dems to innoculate the situation against the "No Underlying crime " Mantra and start one in the inverse
"It's obvious to these comittees that crimes have been committed and it up to us to find out the origins of them "
Crimes of Been Comitted . The President has Admitted to breaking the law .

In a law abiding society , the articles of Impeachment would have already been delivered.

So far as I understand , a guilty plea avoids trial . I can think of several instances wherein the Clown has made public admission of guilt . Were I to admit to the same infractions live on CNN, how long would I have to wait for the boots to take out my door ?

budfox wrote on May 21, 2007 3:21 PM:

Our system of checks and balances no longer functions. When a rogue, criminal regime has control of the WhiteHouse, there really is very little that can be done, outside of impeachment.

The crimes of Bush Rove Cheney et al, will liklely never become known by the citizens.

A. Scott wrote on May 21, 2007 3:23 PM:

sorry for the double post and the spelling errors. Distracted by phones, stop typing ....

Bugboy wrote on May 21, 2007 3:28 PM:

Wow, they are going to pull out the staples next. And the postage stamps. Now that the rate has gone up, they are REALLY in trouble.

Charles Bowman wrote on May 21, 2007 3:30 PM:

My greatest fear of this administration is that it might commit an even greater horror in an effort to cover up its previous miscalculations. These tinhorns have pulled the levers of power to their own demise. They pulled the "God"lever in Iraq and it came up "curse." They surrounded themselves with idiots of their own choosing and those idiots have kept them in boiling oil for six corruption plagued years. They have secretly politicized the DOJ and the American people are now knowlegeable of it and angrily at their throats. They have tried to ram their mighty ship of state into the trembling shore only to find that the shore is better anchored and more steadfast in calamity. They might to our horror, try to make a comeback, but knowing the negatives of politics, they are more likely to just try to run out the clock if they can before dying of fatigue.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 3:34 PM:

"Our system of checks and balances no longer functions. When a rogue, criminal regime has control of the WhiteHouse, there really is very little that can be done, outside of impeachment."

I agree with the first part of what you said. This is an imperial presidency. You cannot negotiate with a president who feels he has absolute power and has done his damndest to destroy our system of checks and balances. Any Dems who think the Bush presidency can be dealt with like other presidencies is way off base IMO. On the other hand- there is ZERO chance of impeachment being successful and I think it may badly backfire.

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 3:56 PM:

OK. I'll bite. How would impeachment backfire? Are we talking impeachment of Bush or of Gonzo? I guess a Gonzo impeachment might backfire if, say, 4 days before the Senate trial begins, everyone who has testified to date retracts everything they swore to previously. I guess a Bush impeachment would backfire if, 4 days before his Senate trial begins, all Sunnis and Shiites declare a permanent cease fire, Iraq hostilities come to an abrupt halt, and the Iraqi government begins a peaceful reign. Slim odds on both. So how would they backfire? Perhaps Hannity and O'Reilly will express some anger? Perhaps the stupified Republican base will vote against Democrats in the 2008 election?

bordersmuggler wrote on May 21, 2007 4:07 PM:

Impeachment will not backfire if it is driven from below, as it was with Nixon. From the fundraising numbers showing the Dems outstripping the Rethugs in both the presidential and congressional categories, it is becoming very clear where the sentiment below is heading.

Congress does not need to take the lead on the impeachment of Bush. It simple needs to prepare the Articles, to be delivered when the people give the signal to proceed.

raoul wrote on May 21, 2007 4:08 PM:

Why don't they just cut through the freakin chase and impeach all the s.o.b.s? I am sick and tired of seeing the rules having to be followed down to the nth degree. This criminal bastard is going to wait us out until he can flee from his office. I'm sick of them all. When's the revolution begin?

phil james wrote on May 21, 2007 4:30 PM:

The problem with preparing the Articles of impeachment as I understand it (and by the way, I believe those articles have already been drawn up by at least one Democratic congressperson based primarily on the Iraq debacle and Katrina) is that it is very hard to keep them all current because revelations are a daily matter. We're now talking about a Scroll of Impeachment.

brodix wrote on May 21, 2007 5:14 PM:

The pendulum is swinging the other way. Just keeping the pressure on and 2008 will give the Democrats large majorities in the house and senate, as well as the presidency. By this time next year, we will know who the Democratic nominee is and they will be running more of a shadow government then campaign, with foreign governments opening back channels and the current administration in terminal psychotic meltdown. Of course the liquidity bubble may have started to deflate and it will be the least of our problems.

Steve Elliott wrote on May 21, 2007 5:34 PM:

Go ask Yoo for an opinion. Heh Yoo!

Bindarra wrote on May 21, 2007 5:44 PM:

I remain convinced that everyone in this adminstration will go unscathed, because Bush will pardon them all -- and force whomever succeeds him to do the same for him. He won't be held accountable until he -- surprise! -- finds himself at the gates of Hell.

big brother wrote on May 21, 2007 5:59 PM:

Impeach in parralel with criminal charges the conspiring crew. Get an independent counsel now.

Anonymous wrote on May 21, 2007 6:26 PM:

Impeachment backfiring: Consider this

If Impeachment is a "slam dunk backfire," why isn't the GOP pushign for it so it can blame the DNC?

I do not buy the argument that impeachment will backfire: If it is expected to backfire, the failure of the GOP to push for it means they GOP is not taking advantage of a "sure thing". The GOP wouldn't do that.

Thus, any assertion that impeachment "will" backfire is not matched by the GOP inaction to press for what would supposedly be "good" for the GOP.

Conclusion: "Impeachment will backfire" is contrary to reason.

Impeach!

SqueakyRat wrote on May 21, 2007 6:29 PM:

The President can't pardon impeached officials.

tbhull wrote on May 21, 2007 9:33 PM:

Simply impeach all that do not comply with subpoenas and/or cut off ALL funding to the DOJ. Congress' power is that of the purse. Shut down all prosecutions and the salaries of highly paid career bureaucrats and you will see people starting to squeal like stuck pigs.

UnEasyOne wrote on May 21, 2007 10:12 PM:

One point that nobody is mentioning in reference to contempt cases and so forth is that these cases will be ultitmatly be decided by the same (except for two new "loyal Bushies") Supreme Court that tossed out the constitution in 2000 and appointed this jerk.

The faith expressed in that lawless body (by people who should know better) is scary to me. I hope and pray that bloodshed will not be required to take back our democracy. That there was a successful transition of congressional power recently is a hopeful sign but I won't breathe easily until a Democrat takes the presidency and actually assumes the office.

Impeachment and removal from office of Bush/Cheney just ain't gonna happen. It's no sure thing that the Gonzolez resolution can even be brought up for a vote in the Senate. I favor impeaching him if he won't resign and by the time it comes up for a vote (in the Senate)it's possible (but by no means assured) that 67 votes can be mustered to convict and remove him from office.

Another factor to consider is history. When Agnew resigned, Nixon got to appoint his replacement! Even assuming (and it's really a leap) that impeachment proceeings could be conducted in a timely manner with all the inevitable stonewalling and court cases that would ensue, Bush would get to appoint his successor! That is the only way John McCain will ever become president!

People have responded to this argument by saying that the Dems wouldn't confirm. This displays no understanding of how Congress works. McCain is a sitting Senator. He would have no more trouble with confirmation than Gerald Ford did.

darby1936 wrote on May 21, 2007 10:37 PM:

It's hard to see how the Dems lose in this issue. The public sides with congress in this matter. It will just stay inh the news and become another slow drip.

John David Galt wrote on May 22, 2007 2:17 AM:

This is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The fact is, a President answers to no one, and it's been that way since Andrew Jackson defied John Marshall. What we need is a constitutional amendment allowing the Supreme Court to remove a President who defies one of its orders.

Evan wrote on May 22, 2007 5:41 AM:

I've read that Congress is empowered to send a sargent at arms to the person who fails to answer a subpoena and bring that person to the Capitol.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch Rove served a subpoena and then frog marched to a waiting Capitol police car for a trip to the Hill?

Nathanael Nerode wrote on May 22, 2007 5:48 AM:

Inherent contempt hearings, with the sergeant-at-arms enforcing them, or impeachment. Seriously, that's what a Congress with a backbone would do.

I am tired of having a dictator in the White House.

jack l wrote on May 22, 2007 12:13 PM:

a lot to think about

Pbabe52 in TX wrote on May 22, 2007 12:20 PM:

"For starters, pass legislation that prohibits the insertion of special provisions into bills after debate has ended. . . ."

I can't think of a single thing (unless it were, perhaps,the impeachment of Herr Bush, et al)that could make a significant, and long-overdue, to the way Congress does its business.

Security Code: basin (As in, "Time to flush the . . ."

Pbabe52 in TX wrote on May 22, 2007 12:29 PM:

I meant to say, " . . .a single MORE IMPORTANT thing . . ." Sorry!

Security Code: black (As in, "These are indeed black days")