« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
A Congressional subpoena: to the Bush administration, it's just a piece of paper.
The administration will not permit a U.S. attorney to enforce a citation of contempt against Congress, as federal law instructs. That may shock you, but it's all old news, "a senior administration official" tells The Washington Post:
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case.... And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen...."It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
Of course, the expert on executive privilege quoted by the Post doesn't think it's such a settled question (the president's is a "breathtakingly broad assertion"). The administration points to an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan years as support -- of course, that's just an opinion, which remains untested by the courts. The logic is that a U.S. attorney, as a subordinate of the executive branch and thus a representative of the president, would be prosecuting another presidential subordinate for asserting executive privilege. And you just can't have that. Or as an expert puts it to the Post: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."
So what now? Certainly with the outright contempt being shown for Congress by the administration, it won't be long before they send the contempt right back. Harriet Miers will likely be first up, for her refusal to testify about the U.S. attorney firings, followed closely by White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who, on behalf of the White House, has refused to turn over documents. The Chair of the Republican National Committee might also be cited with contempt for refusing to turn over White House emails on RNC accounts. Also under subpoena and the likely subject of an executive privilege battle are the documents related to the president's warrantless wiretapping program
But if the U.S. attorney is unwilling to enforce a criminal citation of contempt, all those matters would end there unless Congress took other steps.
There is the option of inherent contempt, where the House or Senate Sergeant-at-Arms would seize the offending witness. A kind of Congressional trial would follow. If found guilty, the person could be detained until compliance with the subpoena or until the session of Congress ends. As the Post notes, that hasn't happened since the 1930's and (much to the chagrin of many TPM readers) seems unlikely to happen now.
As Marty Lederman points out, another option remains: "Congress could file a civil action in federal court seeking declaratory relief, or an injunction requiring enforcement of its subpoena." No doubt the Bush administration would seek somehow to quash that option, too. That would start a likely long process through the courts of motions, counter-motions, and appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Yep. As we said before, a president with nothing left to lose makes for a formidable stonewaller.
Comments (186)
Squeeky wrote on July 20, 2007 9:59 AM:There is the option of inherent contempt, where the House or Senate Sergeant-at-Arms would seize the offending witness. A kind of Congressional trial would follow. If found guilty, the person could be detained until compliance with the subpoena or until the session of Congress ends. As the Post notes, that hasn't happened since the 1930's and (much to the chagrin of many TPM readers) seems unlikely to happen now.
Sieze 'em and toss 'em in the third closet on the second floor.
ColoradoDem wrote on July 20, 2007 10:06 AM:It's not clear what really makes the 'inherent contempt' option unlikely. If true, that is unfortunate; nothing comes closer to describing members of this administration than 'inherently contemptuous'.
ColoradoDem wrote on July 20, 2007 10:07 AM:It's not clear what really makes the 'inherent contempt' option unlikely. If true, that is unfortunate; nothing comes closer to describing members of this administration than 'inherently contemptuous'. Okay. Maybe, 'venal'.
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 10:08 AM:Beware the cornered beast...
FedUP wrote on July 20, 2007 10:09 AM:There is another option: IMPEACHMENT! Impeach Cheney, Impeach Gonzo, IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!
paul wrote on July 20, 2007 10:10 AM:Or you could call it what it really is: treason. Since "executive privilege" now means "whatever the executive branch damn well pleases", this assertion is in fact the most visible part of a conspiracy to overthrow the lawful government of the United States.
Anyone with a sense of honor in the Department of Justice should have their resignation letters signed by this point.
FedUP wrote on July 20, 2007 10:10 AM:There is another option: IMPEACHMENT! Impeach Cheney, Impeach Gonzo, IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!
yellowdogD wrote on July 20, 2007 10:12 AM:The option of inherent contempt is the ONLY thing congress can do. We are in a constitutional crisis right now, and civil action through the courts is a non-starter due to time constraints. Get a couple of these people behind bars and they'll start singing.
Steve W. wrote on July 20, 2007 10:13 AM:Or.....If I were Reid and Pelosi, I would just adjourn Congress and tell the president that if he wants to run the country without Congress, then he can do it. Send everyone home, let government grind to a halt, and leave Bush there all alone to deal with things. Good thing I'm not in charge, huh?
jeffgee wrote on July 20, 2007 10:14 AM:President Bush: just a piece of shit
Busta wrote on July 20, 2007 10:14 AM:Nothing short of impeachment will stop these criminals
Strikes me as terribly ironic that this admin and its supporters shriek so often about communism when, with every step they take, they behave more and more like a Soviet authoritarian. When will enough be enough? When will the general public start taking notice of the fact that our so-called Democracy has become an authoritarian dictatorship?
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 10:17 AM:So, just why does Congress hesitate to use it's own "inherent contempt" powers?
If there was ever a time to use whatever tools are legally available, it is NOW!
Seriously, what possible motive would they have for NOT using those powers?
Although it is becoming ever more clear, impeachment may be the only opiton left, because there is no executive privilege "get out of jail free card" in impeachment proceedings.
King George?
I bet he likes the sound of it...
bullsmith wrote on July 20, 2007 10:21 AM:Kiss your rule of law goodbye. According to this precedent, the entire executive branch is free to commit crimes at the whim of the President.
josh wrote on July 20, 2007 10:22 AM:And they will.
I hate to say it but the threat of liberal "turn off, tune out" might be a realistic outcome of Democratic frustration with this Admin. Not to fault the Dems - in this case. There hasn't been justice in this country in many years. It's too bad that moderate people aren't tuned to it until the offender is someone so offensive. (and egregious)
I think it's time to bring in the Republicans. Their help is needed. They are patriotic and this should not be a partisan issue. It's clearly more dangerous than that.
Ann wrote on July 20, 2007 10:23 AM:Or Congress could issue a statement that the refusal of Bush to allow government employees to testify is a clear indication that the White House has something to hide about things the American people are entitled to know.
jawbone wrote on July 20, 2007 10:23 AM:Under BushCo's declaration, is there any crime committed by a member of the executive branch which could be prosecuted, without the executive's express permission that the Department of Justice can go ahead with the prosecution?
Under this logic, there should have been no investigation or prosecution of Scooter Libby, since he was a member of the executive branch, especially as he was, per Judge Bates (?), leaking as part of his job (sounds like grounds for impeaching Cheney right there). I believe some other executive branch members have been investigated, prosecuted, and found guilty.
Would they now have grounds for appeal?
This is a far cry from the Republican howl that this is a nation of laws and no man is above the law, even the president.
This is breathtaking.
Code: step, as in one more step toward dissolution of rule of law
Emel wrote on July 20, 2007 10:23 AM:
Ann wrote on July 20, 2007 10:25 AM:People, it's time to go get the pitchforks ...
Or Congress could issue a statement that the refusal of Bush to allow government employees to testify is a clear indication that the White House has something to hide about things the American people are entitled to know.
Squeeky wrote on July 20, 2007 10:32 AM:Refer the issue to the DCAG. When he doesn't pursue it, IMPEACH HIM, Gonzo and BUSH for clear violation of statutory law.
Kyle wrote on July 20, 2007 10:32 AM:Maye the Constitution just isn't as strong as we all thought it was...
I need to stop reading TPM, it just makes me sad nowadays.
Mellifluous wrote on July 20, 2007 10:32 AM:Where's my V mask?
Closing up Congress and going home is pretty much what we have now, in terms of effectiveness. And of course, if that happens, it gives the traitors complete control.
The MSM would probably cheer. No one to challenge their stenography.
BostonTom wrote on July 20, 2007 10:36 AM:this is the point at which impeachment becomes a serious option. This is prima facie obstruction of justice/obstruction of execution of the Constitutionally granted duties of what the Founders saw as the first-among-equals branch of government. The President is wilfully preventing the legislature from doing its job: (from Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution) "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
I never thought I'd become one of those crazies wondering around the streets complaining that the Federal government had become a conspiracy to void the Constitution. This administration is impressive in that respect, at least -- it has damn near deranged its citizenry.
Jane wrote on July 20, 2007 10:36 AM:Yes, Josh at 10:22!!!
This is NOT a partisan issue, PLENTY of Republicans would be eager to impeach these criminals, and only Republican voters would have any influence with Republican Senators, 17 (18?)of which are needed to convict.
John Trask wrote on July 20, 2007 10:37 AM:As was quite forcefully argued on last weeks Bill Moyer Journal by Constitutional scholar John Nichols and author Bruce Fein, is time to call the Bush Administration to task by undertaking impeachment proceedings against both the President and the Vice President. Their over reaching must not go unchallenged any longer.
Michael wrote on July 20, 2007 10:37 AM:Cut off funds. That is the only power Congress has now. Cut off funds for the DOJ, shut it down. It is acting like a wing of the republican party anyway. The only thing the administration understands is a sledge hammer approach. Impeachment would never happen, the shrub and his cronies would never get convicted in the Senate, so we can forget about impeachment. Just cut off funds until they cooperate.
Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 10:38 AM:As a reasonable step at ratcheting up the pressure, going after the chair of the RNC seems like an obvious first step: he's not part of the Executive Branch, so even if you accept the Admin's argument (and I don't), it doesn't apply to him.
As a less reasonable, but more desirable and attractive option, how about some concept of the unitary legislative: Congress unquestionably controls the purse, and can cut funding for these SOB's one at a time until the Admin gives in.
And yes, I'm all in favor of impeaching them also, but it still seems like a ways off.
SocraticGadfly wrote on July 20, 2007 10:38 AM:ColoradoDem:
Chickenshit leaders like Pelosi, or Obama, is what makes inherent contempt unlikely.
Johann wrote on July 20, 2007 10:39 AM:I have notified both my senators that it is time for inherent contempt proceedings against Harriet Meirs.
How many others have done this?
CJ wrote on July 20, 2007 10:42 AM:When can we begin talking about this President and administration being the most UnAmerican President and administration ever?
conniptionfit wrote on July 20, 2007 10:43 AM:Um, 'scuse me Paul...but I believe you didn't mean to write that the administration would not permit the US ATTY to enforce a contempt citation AGAINST CONGRESS. Don't you mean ISSUED by Congress?
gregor wrote on July 20, 2007 10:43 AM:At what point will Congress start doing it's constitutionally mandated DUTY and using the powers it was granted by the Constitution to rein in this imperial administration? I keep expecting Bush to start using the Royal We any minute now. Doesn't ANYONE in the House have the balls to demand Impeachment proceedings?
Code: Soap, as in clean up this mess!
What Bush has done is to leave Congress with a small number of options, all of which have the potential of backfiring on the Democrats given the right type and amount of noise from the compliant media.
From GWB's personal point of view, it's a brilliant move. Just like a kid who commits a crime and when found out by the parents threatens to commit suicide if they call the police.
Mark wrote on July 20, 2007 10:44 AM:I think it's time to bring in the Republicans. Their help is needed. They are patriotic and this should not be a partisan issue. It's clearly more dangerous than that.
Posted by: josh
Huh? Bring them in where? The Republicans have been instrumental in enabling this sort of behavior.
Won't it be funny, if/when in 2008, there is a new party in the White House, and we get to watch the spectacle of the Republic party tripping over themselves to reverse all these new Executive powers.
fuzz wrote on July 20, 2007 10:45 AM:I've been content--not thrilled, but content--until now to be patient with the various congressional committees as they go about their business in a calm, orderly fashion. But given the Bush camp's recent astonishing executive privilege claim I do believe it is now time for Congress to assert the rights of we the people with an equally-astonishing defense.
It really is time now.
malamiyya wrote on July 20, 2007 10:45 AM:What I hear tell is that Bush has signed a secret executive order making himself king.
Cuzco wrote on July 20, 2007 10:45 AM:Steve W: "leave Bush there all alone to deal with things. Good thing I'm not in charge, huh?"
Yeah! Good thing! The only people who leave would be Democrats (who could then be rightfully described as quitters and pussies) leaving the heroic Goopers back in charge, rubber stamps inked and ready, to implement every moronic idea that starts buzzing around the idiot king's bonnet.
Bush is playing hardball it's about time that Congress returned the favor. Bush wants a Constitutional crisis. He honestly seems to be under the delusion that no power in the country has athority to hold him in check. Unless Congress does something about this twerp's arrogance, he may end up being right.
chris wrote on July 20, 2007 10:46 AM:slowly but surely it is looking more and more like bush and this administration are not planning on leaving when their time is up. we, the people, need to rise up and be in the streets of Washington not by the thousands but by the millions. civil disobedience on the order of Ghandi and Martin Luther King is needed. If we come together we can force Congress to act on getting rid of these bastards.
ohthehumanity wrote on July 20, 2007 10:48 AM:"I think it's time to bring in the Republicans. Their help is needed. They are patriotic and this should not be a partisan issue. It's clearly more dangerous than that."
Josh - haven't the last 6 1/2 years taught you better? Read Digby. Republicans cannot be trusted.
jrw wrote on July 20, 2007 10:50 AM:I don't know about anybody else, but I'm really uneasy about where we're headed. I'm nearly 60 and I've seen nothing like this, which seems to be the crisis point of a slow-motion coup d'etat. I agree with BostonTom; I've never been a conspiracy nut, but now I'm truly worried that our system lacks the tools, and our representatives the perspective, to take counter-action when an administration simply refuses to play by the rules.
joe wrote on July 20, 2007 10:53 AM:If I stay optimistic, I can believe Republicans will finally realize that claims by this administration can be applied by a future Democratic president, and that realization will force them to reluctantly take action. Or maybe it will be the administration's repeated dissing of Congress that will make Republican legislators wake up.
On pessimistic days, I can see Congress continuing to flail away in futility while the administration runs out the clock on it's crimes. Or worse, the packed courts give their blessings to a new understanding of presidential power and the separation of powers.
These are dark times...
I suggest that everyone send multiple E-mails every day to the office of Speaker Pelosi (http://www.speaker.gov/contact/) demanding that she do her job and begin impeachment hearings immediately.
bill175 wrote on July 20, 2007 10:54 AM:This was excellent:
"...Or you could call it what it really is: treason. Since "executive privilege" now means "whatever the executive branch damn well pleases", this assertion is in fact the most visible part of a conspiracy to overthrow the lawful government of the United States."
If there is no mechanism to bring these outlaws under control, then the United States experiment is a failure.
jj wrote on July 20, 2007 10:55 AM:Isn't it getting awfully late in the day for Congress to actually do something about all this blatant stonewalling?
If all the Congress has left is the ability to make a stink, start screaming and don't stop. Block any administration proposals until this is sorted out.
Throw your contempt right back in their faces.
cheesehead wrote on July 20, 2007 10:59 AM:We do need - some - of the Republicans on board. If there are any honorable ones left.
Just ask them the question - do you want President (Hillary) Clinton? Obama? Edwards? to be just as unanswerable?
pin wrote on July 20, 2007 10:59 AM:Can Schumer fly an Apache?
lilybart wrote on July 20, 2007 11:00 AM:Can Waxman drive a tank?
There is nothing left but impeachment.
IIMPEACH
thegolux wrote on July 20, 2007 11:00 AM:I'm afraid that inherent contempt might not work, either, precisely because these are lawless people with no respect for anything. If the Sergent at Arms were to show up at the gates of the White House to arrest, say, Josh Bolton, he would not get in. The White House security would not allow it. Similarly, if they issued an arrest warrant for Harriet Miers, the White House would probably provide armed protection for her. Remember that this president's brother very nearly had State Police forces attack local police over the Terri Schiavo standoff.
And don't think that we can wait until we have another occupant of the White House to prosecute contempt citations. Bush will pardon them all.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on July 20, 2007 11:01 AM:I am in agreement with jrw. We have bush on his throne of self-righteousness, declaring, "Because I said so."
Remember that bush is the only politician who has ever publicly joked that "things would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator."
Sometimes I think the entire pre-election scenario is a farce, that November 2008 will arrive and bush and cheney will assert the most egregious power grab ever witnessed.
tbhull wrote on July 20, 2007 11:06 AM:The ineffective dandies in Congress need to quit messing around with these goddamn subpoenas and the enforcement of the same. Once the president chose to ignore the subpoenas and chose to completely obstruct legitimate Congressional inquiries, along with the heaping bag of lies perpetrated to date, Congress must counter this flagrant "F^&*#@k You!" with an immediate commencement of impeachment proceedings, unless they are in bed with BushCo.
Congress is in the midst of power politics pissing match of the highest order with a hopelessly corrupt executive. Given this and given all the corrupt acts of BushCo Congress merely and exclusively focusing enforcing these subpoenas is akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The dems inaction indicates to me that they are waiting in '08 so that their president has an open door to abuse power so recklessly and so easily as BushCo has done. If this is the case, then inactive time will bite the dems in the ass
Pelosi, Reid and Conyers are just going to have to change their way of thinking on impeachment or get rolled.
Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 11:06 AM:BUSTA, DO YOU REALLY THINK" Strikes me as terribly ironic that this admin and its supporters shriek so often about communism
To them, communism was only bad because rich people could not keep all the money. abuse of power was not a problem
douglas wrote on July 20, 2007 11:07 AM:Excuse me, but how about reporting the ENTIRE story, such as just who headed the Office of Legal Counsel when that opinion that you talk about was written. I mean, its right there in the Post article:
"In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004."
That's right, our old friend Ted (Stop the Florida Vote) Olsen, who was ALSO solicitor general for W during the early war years. What a prominent unbiased opinion to rely on.
jeffgee wrote on July 20, 2007 11:07 AM:Can Bush drive a bulldozer? Remember the Caterpillar incident in January?
douglas wrote on July 20, 2007 11:08 AM:Bush IS the bulldozer
Excuse me, but how about reporting the ENTIRE story, such as just who headed the Office of Legal Counsel when that opinion that you talk about was written. I mean, its right there in the Post article:
"In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004."
That's right, our old friend Ted (Stop the Florida Vote) Olsen, who was ALSO solicitor general for W during the early war years. What a prominent unbiased opinion to rely on.
douglas wrote on July 20, 2007 11:10 AM:Excuse me, but how about reporting the ENTIRE story, such as just who headed the Office of Legal Counsel when that opinion that you talk about was written. I mean, its right there in the Post article:
"In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004."
That's right, our old friend Ted (Stop the Florida Vote) Olsen, who was ALSO solicitor general for W during the early war years. What a prominent unbiased opinion to rely on.
nwmuse wrote on July 20, 2007 11:10 AM:People really need to watch Bill Moyers Journal interview with Bruce Fein on the need for impeaching Bush AND cheney NOW! Before they leave office:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
Bruce Fein and John Nichols lay it out clear and straightforward. Fein is a staunch Republican who wrote the Articles of Impeachment for Bill Clinton.
AmIDreaming wrote on July 20, 2007 11:12 AM:If you haven't seen it yet, watch it!
"...claims by this administration can be applied by a future Democratic president, and that realization will force them to reluctantly take action..."
Here's the problem. As of this morning, it becomes a possibility that there will *be* no election in 2008. Or else we will be in the middle of attacking Iran and Pakistan both, and the country will be reeling and disabled from domestic terrorist attacks. Nothing that's supposed to be happening, will be happening.
Until yesterday I thought such a scenario was possible but vanishingly small. As of today, the probability is still fairly small, but the likelihood has taken a huge jump in the positive direction.
Mark F. wrote on July 20, 2007 11:17 AM:"As Marty Lederman points out, another option remains: 'Congress could file a civil action in federal court seeking declaratory relief, or an injunction requiring enforcement of its subpoena.'"
Yeah. And then we can watch some judge throw it out on the basis of lack of standing. The ONLY way to get control of the situation and get our government working again--the ONLY way--is for our obstructionist Speaker, Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table. Bush thinks he has nothing to lose because he has nothing to lose.
Joshua wrote on July 20, 2007 11:17 AM:Could anyone imagine what would have happened if Clinton tried this?
conniptionfit wrote on July 20, 2007 11:17 AM:Jeez, Steve W! Bush would wet his pants with glee, were Congress to follow your advise! Bush is a black hole, gathering power unto himself, we don't have to hand it to him on a silver platter!
Louise wrote on July 20, 2007 11:20 AM:It is time for all thinking citizens to write their Representative and plead that they bring Impeachment proceedings immediately. With every free breath they take, and every new proclaimation they make, Bushco creates PRECEDENT. For the sake of all that is lawful and constitutional someone MUST FREE US FROM THIS TYRANT!
Impeach. Impeach. IMPEACH.
They obviously intend to NEVER leave the White House willingly. Every argument they make regarding Presidential powers shows that they regard Bush as a Dictator.
Only impeachment can get rid of them, and then it may take the Sergeant-at-Arms to actually physically budge them.
(How many Blackwater and Wackenhut "security consultants" are there on the ground in the US, anyway?)
TheraP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:23 AM:I too concur with jrw. I am 62 and worried as hell for the very same reasons.
Like Kyle, I also feel truly saddened. But I certainly won't blame it on tpm. I'd rather know the truth and suspect the worst, no matter how depressing, than put blinders on and become a fool as the nation goes down the tubes. (Kyle, no intent at all to assume that about you - I think you were just underscoring your point)
I believe this current "badministration" is a criminal conspiracy, that nothing whatsoever that comes from them can be trusted, and that every word, action, and notification should be scrutinized for further perfidy.
It's time to be suspicious. And "paranoia" should become second nature - even though it can only really be called that if it's irrational fear - and here I think our fears are more than justified by everything that has gone before.
My only ray of hope: our troops are trapped in Iraq. So if it's a coup they're after, who could enforce it?
I think we all need to go back and reread the Declaration of Independence, which suggests that from time to time the people have a duty to rise up and confront tyranny. Has this time come now? I fear that it has!
I think of Gandhi and his call for civil disobedience - and of his certainty that once you fill all the jails, when there are others still demonstrating, there is ultimately no way to go against the unshakable will of huge numbers - particularly when the whole world would be against these tyrannical leaders.
douglas wrote on July 20, 2007 11:23 AM:I just want to say that I didn't post my comment three times. Someone needs to call the IT guy folks.
phil wrote on July 20, 2007 11:24 AM:I've emailed my reps, Alexander, Corker, and Marsha Blackburn (in the house) and requested their position on the Doj situation and Libby commutation. Blackburn was the only one to send a non-response and thanked me for my opiion when I gave none. I emailed her again and respectfully repeated my questions, and so far....crickets. Does this sound like a patriotic set of republicans to you? They are enablers and will remain so. Jesus, I hate the thought of moving again. Tennessee is lost to the radical evangelistas, kinda like Colorado, Kansas.......
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:26 AM:"I've never been a conspiracy nut, but now I'm truly worried that our system lacks the tools,"
well, maybe us conspiracy nuts aren't nuts at all, huh?
Look up the word conspoiracy in the Wikki; it only takes two to tango. Considering there are hundreds of gui8lty co-conspirators, at manylevels of egregiousness, I think it is time to conclude there is a malignancy of conspiracy of monumantal and historic proportions. Like a cancer it has metasticized to all parts of the Republican body.
And now that Bush has decided to abandon his co-conspiring Republican fellows to the hungry wolves of electoral fate, their future looks terminal.
I agree, the Republicans, especially the Lungrens, Cannons, the Inhoffes (etc ad infinitum) have been not only co-conspirators, they have been virtually instrumental in handing overtheir authority to this executive branch singularity. But many of them now recognize their political futures are at stake, if they continue enabling these lawless rogues.
If the Republicans don't turn on Bush, and help impeach him, they are history. And many of them already know it, they are just in denial.
Needles wrote on July 20, 2007 11:26 AM:Each action that Bush takes is more "breathtaking" than the last. I really am beginning to think that he has no intention of giving up power willingly. How can he? He has passed the point of no return. Once he's out of power he will be unable to prevent documents from seeing the light of day and individuals being forced to testify before Congress. He cannot let that happen.
Scott L wrote on July 20, 2007 11:32 AM:This transends a two or even one party system. We have now entered the one man system. For the Republic the Democrates and Republicans need to band together on this issue and pull the teeth of the president. If they let this stand they might as well disband Congress. Most everything is in place for a open dictatorship - open wiretaping - national police force - DOJ corrupted - appointed justices - THE PERFECT STORM.
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:34 AM:"He cannot let that happen."
And why is that? Because the Republican majority from 2001 until 2006, allowed him and his neocon pals to create one of the most corrupt administrations in our history.
And in that chaotic lawlessness, they forgot about the turning of the worm, and felt like it would go on forever.
But, the worm has turned, and those enablers are feeling the public heat for their misdeeds. It translated in 2006 into a decisive vistory for the Dems, and what with all the obstructionism the Republicans have performed since then, 2008 looks like it may be the second act in the ongoing stage play, called
"The Demise of the Republican Party."
Just don't expect us "conspiracy nuts" to mourn at that demise.
Ken wrote on July 20, 2007 11:35 AM:I have long resisted calls for impeachment, but this is the last straw. Impeach them now, followed by criminal proceedings. If members of the House refuse to go along, push at the local level to have them recalled. If a Democratic administration had attempted even half these abuses, we would have already seen violent rebellions here in the United States.
Paul wrote on July 20, 2007 11:35 AM:Since they won't let any government employees testify, why don't the Dems start with the RNC chair who is refusing to hand over emails relating to the US Atty scandal? The RNC is not part of the executive branch, so no privilege can be claimed. Throw his ass in jail and get those emails. I'm sure there's plenty there to dig into.
Ken wrote on July 20, 2007 11:35 AM:Impeach the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey A. Taylor, if he fails to do his duty as required by law.
Impeach the Attorney General if he fails to order the U.S. Attorney to do his duty.
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:39 AM:"national police force"
don't forget Blackwater...
the national PRIVATE police force..
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:45 AM:I know someone has already suggested this, but do rank and file Republicans realize that these unlimited executive-branch powers may be in Hillary's hands soon?
As an Edwards supporter, I prefer another scenario, but really, an Edwards presidency would not scare these R's as much a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Do you Republicans want Hillary to have these kinds of powers?
If not, you'd better got hopping onto the impeachment bandwagon, because if you don't, Bush's accumulated superpowers will immediately transfer to your worst nightmare if Hillary wins.
Doctor Jay wrote on July 20, 2007 11:49 AM:This has come down to a political fight. There aren't enough votes in the Senate to convict him, and that's what we need: a conviction.
The last poll I saw showed 45% of the country in favor of impeachment. That's breathtaking, really. But it needs to get to maybe 60%. Then the pressure on Republican Senators (most of whom face reelection next year) will be enormous.
thomas wrote on July 20, 2007 11:49 AM:Where's Jake, Jake D or the real Snake? Is this an issue even he won't toe the line on??
Anyway, the inherent contempt issue. I don't think throwing them in a broom closet until the end of the session will get the proper level of attention. How 'bout contracting with the D.C. jails for some space. I don't think the whore house people, Harriet etc, want to take up residence there for 18 months.
TEL wrote on July 20, 2007 11:54 AM:Count me in as another who has thought impeachment would be a bad idea. Until now. The Bush administration is becoming increasingly desperate, desparate enough to do anything to hang on to power.
ursus wrote on July 20, 2007 11:54 AM:W can tell Alberto to ignore a contempt citation by the Congress and certainly Al will stonewall.
However, from the point of view of a subpoenaed witness (and they all have to consider what this means for them personally), that only protects them for another 18 months. If I was, for instance, the custodian of records for the RNC, I would worry about that. In many ways, I'd rather have a proceeding brought now by a USA under the political control of my friends.
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:56 AM:"The RNC is not part of the executive branch,"
...these days, is there ANYONE with revealing information who will not be co-opted by the White House somehow?
Harriet Meiers is no longer a White House employeee, and he still claims her under his EP umbrella.
Now they are making noises like they want to claim the head of the RNC somehow falls under that same umbrella.
If we don't do something to reverse these recent power grabs, it won't be long, and we'll ALL be under that umbrella.
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:57 AM:"The RNC is not part of the executive branch,"
...these days, is there ANYONE with revealing information who will not be co-opted by the White House somehow?
Harriet Meiers is no longer a White House employeee, and he still claims her under his EP umbrella.
Now they are making noises like they want to claim the head of the RNC somehow falls under that same umbrella.
If we don't do something to reverse these recent power grabs, it won't be long, and we'll ALL be under that umbrella.
Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 11:57 AM:Disagree that the President has nothing to lose. If he weren't allowed to exercise his power with contempt for the process and law, he'd have one heck of a lot to lose.
But, I do agree that he has no fear that there will be enforcement which means the reality is he can, and will, do whatever he pleases.
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:57 AM:"The RNC is not part of the executive branch,"
...these days, is there ANYONE with revealing information who will not be co-opted by the White House somehow?
Harriet Meiers is no longer a White House employeee, and he still claims her under his EP umbrella.
Now they are making noises like they want to claim the head of the RNC somehow falls under that same umbrella.
If we don't do something to reverse these recent power grabs, it won't be long, and we'll ALL be under that umbrella.
textaddict, Austin TX wrote on July 20, 2007 11:59 AM:Another option I've (almost) never seen discussed: The one the former soviet states followed in the 80s/90s, namely general strikes. If our leaders don't act, then everybody concerned with the situation just refuses to work (or shop) for a few days.
The puzzle to me is how you organize such a thing on a mass scale, particularly considering our Paris Hilton obsessed media. But if several hundred thousand illegal immigrants can get organized without mass media...
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 12:01 PM:Hey, that multiplepost wasn't my fault!!
Dr. Bonzo wrote on July 20, 2007 12:06 PM:So, we're back to Nixon's assertion to Frost:
Mr. Nixon: Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Mr. Frost: By definition.
Mr. Nixon: Exactly.
(H/T Balkinization
interested litigant wrote on July 20, 2007 12:07 PM:Face it. You are about to become a movement of history that failed. You have no idea what is coming down the pike.
Steve W. wrote on July 20, 2007 12:07 PM:I would think that if Congress were adjourned and all the D's went home, that nothing would happen because a quorum could not be mustered. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
fastfeat wrote on July 20, 2007 12:10 PM:Bring 'em up on treason charges. At least there the death penalty is still an option. Is there a box on my income tax form I can check to donate to the "Bullet for Bush" fund?
Davis X. Machina wrote on July 20, 2007 12:15 PM:At its base, a Presidential election is a Congressional act -- all the reporting is to Congress, all the counting and certifying is done by Congress.
And these guys are saying ‘Congress can’t make us do anything’.
A party that makes fundamental changes in the organic law of a country that would redound to its disadvantage when it inevitably returns to opposition is pretty clearly signaling that it never intends to return to opposition again.
You got a more parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon, I’d like to hear it. Until then, it’s just me and William of Ockham…
JNagarya wrote on July 20, 2007 12:19 PM:I think we are seeing the impact of the Congress' looking into the fraudulent Sieligman prosecution. Scott Horton has some interesting details on how Rove had done the same in TX, and how he views everything about gov't as simply political tools. No sense of the rule of law, except as a weapon against political opponents.
I think the latest assertion of Executive Privilege is more Cheney and Rove than Bushit. I'd like more details about the apparent changes in Cheney's personality as result of the meds he is taking. The guy is clearly a paranoid control freak -- and in touch with only the "reality" of only those who agree with and support him, and advance his thuggery.
The next 24 hours are going to be pivotal.
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 12:22 PM:Proves your point, JEP. Maybe we're already being subsumed under that umbrella. Next step - you'll post "your words" and there will be a multiple post - but your words will morph into new ones. Something like those Diebold votiing machines that change your vote or even multiply it - after changing it.
It's all part of the security under bush.
Scott L wrote on July 20, 2007 12:23 PM:Correct me if I am wrong but our forign policy for a number of years has been shoot first and impose our will on them with a gun. Now the guns are turned on the People of the United States. In 1933 Hitler went out of his way to pander to the rich and cull their support because its easyer to control 1% of the population that happens to be greedy and use their power to control everyone else. Sure sounds like whats happening here. You republicans out there take a look around and unite with the Democrates to put a stop to this naked power grab.
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 12:25 PM:Steve W:
If Congress is adjourned, then bush is free to replace anybody in the interim.
Wouldn't that be fun?
Bobs not Right wrote on July 20, 2007 12:26 PM:The window on impeacment is going to close faster than I think the powers that be can move, however their might be an even more satisfing alternative.
During the retorical build-up to invading Iraq my position was that we (United States)backed ourselves into having to invade based on the assertions as fact on WMD and imminent threats or as it was sold to us. I clearly formed the opinion that if Bush was right he would (and should) be a hero, if not he should be tried for war crimes.
I am interested in the TPM readers views on the legal theory of:
1.Making the US signatory to the world court and offering the ex president, vice president and secretary of state to stand trial on the "Bush Preemptive Doctrine" and it's failed premise.
2. The citizens of this country via United States Vs () to try all or some of them for treason and conspiricy to commit fraud.
They would be out of office with no privledge or power and tried for the damage to the United States of America and it's citizens.
Bob
Remus Shepherd wrote on July 20, 2007 12:29 PM:Inherent contempt sounds good to me. If congress has to bring out enforcement tools that they haven't used for decades, then do it. It's been decades since we've had an administration so shamelessly criminal. A 19th-century solution for a 19th-century problem.
Weaver wrote on July 20, 2007 12:29 PM:It's time America found her own Guy Fawkes.
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 12:29 PM:I know nothing of legal theory. But I like your plan, Bob. Just how do we implement that?
Rick B wrote on July 20, 2007 12:36 PM:If Congress were to "... file a civil action in federal court seeking declaratory relief, or an injunction requiring enforcement of its subpoena" is there any reason they could not file it directly in the Supreme Court?
Then if it were not acted on favorably, impeach the members of the Supreme Court who failed to act?
JTL wrote on July 20, 2007 12:37 PM:Just when you think they've stretched it to the limit, they redefine the limit.
This HAS to be the last straw. If Congress doesn't do something about this, then they may as well pack up and go home becuase they're not doing anything else useful.
This is clearly a test of wills between (let's face it) Cheney and Congress. He's figuring that he has nothing to lose. This is a blatantly dangerous situation and Congress HAS to realize this. My biggest fear is that all we see will be another round of letters and strongly worded rhetoric.
Hoppy wrote on July 20, 2007 12:40 PM:Once again, the whole reason for the impeachment procedure being in the Constitution is to handle the Bush's who somehow manage to become president. We, and the Congress, are no without power. We just refuse to use that power.
The proper course of action now is for Congress to initiate the impeachment grounds investigations, full time, halting all other congressional activities until the impeachment is completed successfully. That means no budgets, no appropriations, no activity at all other than the impeachment of our dictator and his gang.
That should attract the needed press attention, and force some accomodation by the administration.
Anna S. wrote on July 20, 2007 12:42 PM:I'm speechless.
Just speechless. Surely this will result in more Repub 'defection', though how many of those are willing to vote their convictions are debateable.
I wish that a major news source would write up a simple timeline of all the various ways that this WH has attempted to stall this inquiry, and give it the front page. I think it might stun your average voter to see the list compiled, in one place. As a whole bunch of seperate incidents, maybe it could look like a Congressional witchhunt, but as a simple timeline, there's no way not to see obstruction of justice.
One day we'll find out what they were hiding. Even if it's in 2009 (call me an optimist).
I also like the idea of making us party to the World Court, but that's probably not happening, even with a Dem in office.
Edog9 wrote on July 20, 2007 12:44 PM:An old song as we march to the end of Democracy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2I7rlmefA8
right in Der Fuehrer's Face!
Edog9 wrote on July 20, 2007 12:46 PM:An old song as we march to the end of Democracy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2I7rlmefA8
right in Der Fuehrer's Face!
Weaver wrote on July 20, 2007 12:47 PM:Bob:
How I wish either or both were possible.
No. 1: I don't believe an international tribunal would deem the actions of the Bush Admin. as rising to the level of war crimes. "War Crimes" as a charge (used against such leaders as Radic and Milosevic) contemplates genocide, summary execution, and the like. I hate Bush and his handlers as much as the next guy, but I don't think that would fly.
No. 2: To prove treason, one must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an overt act, (2) testified to by two witnesses, (3) manifesting an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from the overt act itself), (4) the act providing aid and comfort to the enemy. No dice here. And a fraud charge cannot lie constitutionally against such an elected official. Impeachment is the only real avenue; now we need some legislators with balls enough to use it.
I know this has been said countless times but it still leaves me breathless that the Republicans were able to whip up such a fervor for impeaching a man who lied about receiving fellatio, a lie which hurt no one but his wife, but the Democrats can't get the ball rolling to impeach a man who has lied compulsively for the past seven years, lies which have killed more than 3000 American soldiers and countless Iraqis, military and civilian.
JTL wrote on July 20, 2007 12:58 PM:Weaver:
I agree.
Clearly it's not just the "liberal" media that's been cowed by the right's constant pressure over the past years. It's affected the Democrats in Congress too.
James wrote on July 20, 2007 1:01 PM:Ya say ya want a revolution? Support Ron Paul for prez. His priorities are restoring the Constitution, reducing the power of the office of president, and ending American militarism.
Ron Paul Revolution 2008
tbhull wrote on July 20, 2007 1:01 PM:Posted by: Hoppy
Date: July 20, 2007 12:40 PM
100% correct! If Congress and the dems were for real we might see this. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing. At least the repubs are comfortable with the fact that they are bought and paid for whores owned by the war machine that so corrupts DC. The dems' are currently pathetically feigning that they are somehow different.
foggylady wrote on July 20, 2007 1:09 PM:Sadly, jrw is totally, terribly correct.
For the past few years we have been watching an increasingly visible slow rolling coup...
And not one Dem candidate has said a word.
ok..Kunich has...
I always wondered how and why citizens of other countries could be so passive as they fell under various forms of facisim.
Now I know....it's the slow cooking of the frog technique.
Well hell, may not do any good, but as long as we still have e-mail and telephone service, I can add my howl of outrage to the hopefully growing messages to Congress.
My generation marched in the 70's..
hope you younger guys and gals are up for it, cause I fear that may be the only way left.
Unless fate allows a legal election, and I am doubting that more and more.
tbhull wrote on July 20, 2007 1:16 PM:Posted by: Hoppy
Date: July 20, 2007 12:40 PM
That is AT&T lets your messages e-mail an phone messages through.
angryandy wrote on July 20, 2007 1:16 PM:Inherent contempt must be an option. Remember when Republicans were willing to kill the filibuster? These people have no respect for customs and traditions. The only way for Democrats to hold this administration accountable is to be as ruthless as they are.
tbhull wrote on July 20, 2007 1:22 PM:Posted by: Hoppy
Date: July 20, 2007 12:40 PM
That is if AT&T lets your messages e-mail and phone messages through.
Sorry for the repost.
anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 1:23 PM:Fourth option: impeachment
Ricardo wrote on July 20, 2007 1:29 PM:Under this kind of executive privelege assertion, how might the Watergate cover up have turned out? Would a Nixonian claim of executive privelege have made null and void all subpoenas for testimony and material, including Nixon's White House tapes?
"People have the right to know their president is not a crook."
King George is probably not a crook. He's just a fascist.
bjobotts wrote on July 20, 2007 1:34 PM:Nonsense. If the executive branch refuses to abide by the laws of the Legislative branch then the Legislative branch should refuse to fund the Presidents office until he complies with the rules of the Legislature. Is that possible?
So in essence, the president has just declared himself dictator, untouchable by the people who elected him (or is it by the courts who appointed him?).
Does this mean that he won't allow himself or Cheney to be impeached? So does this mean he refuses to step down from being president?
This proves it...all Republicans have got to go.
spooky wrote on July 20, 2007 1:36 PM:I've been calling Democrats for a good while - imploring them to impeach Bush/Cheney. I think Dems take their oath to protect the Constitution about as seriously as Bush does. I have no doubt Hillary would love to make use of the new, uber powerful presidency. I hate them all.
I think we either take this country back by force or we champion an ardent defender of the Constitution in the '08 election.
Would Ron Paul be the "Shock and Awe" attack on DC that we need?
Pompano Pete Jr wrote on July 20, 2007 1:39 PM:General strikes? Here? Not fucking likely!
Civil disobedience? Absolutely.
Passive resistance? Only until the first stupid fascist fires into the mob.... then armed rebellion. And no country in the world has a better armed citizenry.
Let's just back off and calm down. The Founders gave Congress the tools - cut off funding to those portions of the Executive branch not complying with the intent of Congress, and impeach government officials who fail to respond.
Now, will the Treasury Department stop cutting the checks? I think they would because if Congress wins this battle, and they will, every official disbursing unauthorized fund is guilty of serious felonies.
jgold wrote on July 20, 2007 1:44 PM:Clearly this problem was resolved recently in a proposal by a counsel to one Richard Chaney. If an official with responsibility to more more than one branch of government is exempt from the directives of either branch, then a U.S. attorney in acting as a l agent of the legislative branch in a contempt of congress action is exempt from any directive of the President.
TheraP wrote on July 20, 2007 1:48 PM:foggylady - you are dead on!
Austin Cooper wrote on July 20, 2007 1:49 PM:(In a related article regarding Executive power to freeze, essentially, the financial assets of whomever 'lil Boots says to -- a poster chided others for raising the spectre of a criminal dictatorship:
"You have a fundamental disconnect with the reality of the world, if you really, honestly think that Bushwhacker and Cheinous are going to declare martial law, abolish the Senate, deconstruct the bill of rights, and eat your firstborn babbies [sic]."
I'm reposting a portion of my response, here; I think it's gemane:)
It isn't necessary to break out the tinfoil.
...
I only offer one opinion: The United States has not fought a real war on its own soil since 1865. We've never been physically invaded or occupied by a foreign army since 1813.
We have never experienced a true breakdown in government in our lifetimes -- or a dictatorship a la Fascist Italy, nazi Germany; Soviet Russia or Communist China; or the worst of the Eastern Bloc.
We haven't experienced living in fear of a true Secret Police, whose purpose is to enforce laws that protect ideological or religious orthodoxy through torture, imprisonment and ultimately, murder.
Somehow, as Americans, we believe that our system of government (based, supposedly, on the Rule of Law) renders us immune from the repeating patterns of governments and history that mark the Old World. It's part of our national self-image.
Unless we actively preserve those things we feel protect us from authoritarian rule, from ending up as "just another failed experiment" in the governing of human affairs, then it's foolish to believe we *are* protected, or special -- and that It Can't Happen Here.
I don't believe that we are immune from history, or that persons like Bush and Cheney are any less faliable than the rest of us.
The real questions are whether, by continuing to assert the authority of the Executive branch as trumping all others, that Bush, Cheney and their ideological allies are convinced that they alone perceive the 'real world' and understand what America is -- and, that the current war and expansion of Executive authority are critical necessities to protect "America";
And, whether they feel that in order to protect "America", they must maintain their control of government, the military, and foreign policy -- *at any cost* -- because their concept of The State is indivisible from their persons, and their ideologies.
A nation, finding itself in the hands of leaders at this particular crossroads, isn't a new occurance in history. It is, however, a new enough occurance for us that we aren't able to recognize the dangers inherent in the situation.
(Code = when, as in, "When, Not Necessarily If"
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 1:55 PM:Thanks for your analysis, Austin Cooper. Now, could you offer a solution?
parrot wrote on July 20, 2007 2:00 PM:I'm sorry, but I don't see how this could drag out in the courts. It would be obstruction if it was dragged out by the Judicial branch. Obstruction doesn't just include if someone is guilty...it also includes if someone is not guilty...it is an obstruction of the legal system. To think that the Supreme Court does not have an opinion on this case and to think that it would be best not to resolve this quickly...would mean that the Supreme Court itself was more interested in obstruction than getting to the bottom of the rights and privileges that the Administration is suggesting.
I think that if one looks at the Bill of Rights and the equal protections clause, one can see that this isn't going to hold much water. Also, if one looks at the ordering of the first three Articles, one sees that the Congress is the first caller, not the President (nor the Courts). Finally, there is the issue of the People, the fourth Branch that is assumed to have Primacy over all other Branches...as recognized in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments and also as recognized in the Preamble. It is pretty clear, on its face, that the Bushites are reaching way beyond the original intention of the Constitution and are asking us to believe that the President is an elected King, a concept that was soundly rejected by most of the Framers and certainly was further weakend by the Bill of Rights, etc. You can't keep saying that the Constitution allows things that it doesn't say it allows--that is not a sound policy. Further, the thought that some folks are above the law, are not subject to it, is precisely what no titles of nobility, nor no forfeiture of blood, etc are about. But, for some reason, the corruption that is upon the Republic is not interested in upholding the Constitution, nor the rule of law...instead, they RNC/GOP seems to be conspiring to undermine the principles of the Constitution to further a criminal enterprise to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
In fact, based on what I've seen and heard over the past six years, the GOP pays lip service to the Bill of Rights only to allay fears that they will disregard it...and then went about disregarding it whole cloth. I'm truly waiting for some reporter to ask some hard questions of the country's so-called Administration about that very issue. Which clauses in the Constitution do they think aren't worthy of them paying attention to? So far, actions have been clear--there have been violations of signed treaties, treaties signed by the Senate. Then, there were laws broken regarding torture, legal rights, warrantless search and seizure, wire tapping, etc. We know that this has occurred and we know that the President and his "men" went along with this using obfuscatory legal and rhetorical tactics, including lying to Congress, strong arming politicians, etc. I wouldn't put it past them to have blackmailed a few folks too along the way...because, with their illegal and usurped power, they have taken the reins of a modern police state and begun applying it to our Republic like it was no one's business but their own.
Personally, I think that the whole house of cards is that under RICO, the RNC and GOP would possibly be determined to be an illegal conspiracy. That's where this is all at now...and that's what the Republicans are holding fast on now...because, really, if their whole party is a criminal enterprise, then what does that leave them with if the law is fairly and justly applied?
Bobs not Right wrote on July 20, 2007 2:07 PM:Weaver:
Thank you for your informed response.
I am posting article 6 section b for review, I believe it states "ill treatment" and Abu Gareb certainly qualifies.
Article 6 of the Charter provides:
" (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity;
I would also offer the "military necessity" up for discussion.
The treason elements are interesting..lets try this out
OVERT ACT - Invading a country that posed no threat to the United States based on incomplete and or altered intelligence
TESTIFIED - Numerous news clips of Cheney, Rummsfield, Powell and others stading without reservation Iraq had WMD and intended to use them against us.
INTENT TO BETRAY - Calculated intent to drive the unprecedented policy of preemptive war based on the altered intelligence.
AID AND COMFORT - a little more dicey but how about Increased threats of terrorist acts directly resulting from the Iraq occupation.
remember we did this without the UN and with world opinion against us and at least London and Spain took a smack in the face.
I realize that I am reaching a bit but the simple fact is that the United States of America invaded Iraq not just Bush, and all her citizens will pay the price over the coming years.
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 2:11 PM:Hear, Hear, parrot!!!
acf wrote on July 20, 2007 2:15 PM:While I hate the thought of getting caught up in the circus that impeachment would be, with all its distractions from other important business, what other options are available to put a stop to this criminal administration? This doesn't even consider the problems inherent in the thin margin the Democrats have in the House, and the even thinner one in the Senate, where Cheney's vote could be decisive. A decision to pursue it must be based on the belief that we cannot let these people run this country one more day.
Hanging Judge wrote on July 20, 2007 2:18 PM:As a 75 year old engineer turned attorney turned mortgage banker, and an avowed Josh Marshall brand of liberal, I consider myself well read, but not necessarily well educated or bright. However, having followed this presidency for some time and having read my share of Suskind (Never a Doubt) Hersh, Charlie Savage, Glenn Greenwald, John Nichols, Bruce Fein, and the like, I've concluded that Bush, whether from ignorance, stubbornness, ideology or a theological perspective, (whichever doesn't matter), will not yield to, or even acknowledge, that he has acted outside the rule of law, and by doing so, impeachment is the ONLY course which would have positive results for the nation. And the only way that impeachment will succeed (I know it takes only a majority, which the Dems have), is for the nation to approve. And that means the Dems must convince it that this is not about politics, it's about law. It's not about the president's lies (although for me that would be sufficient) but about the illegal actions he has taken, starting with FISA. The unitary executive ideology MUST be challenged, and through impeachment.
TheraP wrote on July 20, 2007 2:20 PM:Re parrot's underscoring the primary importance of the "Fourth Branch" (we the people), David Kurtz has the most wonderful long post up at Josh's blog (front page - left column) which speaks to this - and to the primary importance *for the people* of being privy to any advice the executive branch receives.
slb wrote on July 20, 2007 2:21 PM:>> At its base, a Presidential election is a Congressional act -- all the reporting is to Congress, all the counting and certifying is done by Congress. <<
Yeah; and guess who is in charge of the counting and certification process? The sitting vice-president.
Article I, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment:
The Electors . . . shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; ...
Kathy wrote on July 20, 2007 2:22 PM:Congress must DEFUND the Executive Branch IMMEDIATELY, and freeze their assets (if they have any)
Frederick wrote on July 20, 2007 2:23 PM:Bush is going to stage some kind of homeland terrorist
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 2:24 PM:attack, declare marshall law and crown himself America's dictator. There is a law that was passed to
enable this to happen. All hail King George, but watch
out for the revolution.
Hear, Hear, Hanging Judge!
(I feel like I'm sitting at the Constitutional Convention! Or could it be the Declaration of Independence?)
Frederick wrote on July 20, 2007 2:24 PM:Bush is going to stage some kind of homeland terrorist
dave callens wrote on July 20, 2007 2:29 PM:attack, declare marshall law and crown himself America's dictator. There is a law that was passed to
enable this to happen. All hail King George, but watch
out for the revolution.
Dear Speaker Pelosi
"we don't torture" wrote on July 20, 2007 2:34 PM:Please consider putting the impeachment option back on the table. Our nation is in a constitutional crisis regarding the monarchial hold GWB & Cheney have instituted. You are not being a statesman by putting your political ambitions above our republic's needs. The powers that have been grabbed up by the administration will never be given back to the congress unless you take them now. Impeachment is the cure, NOT the crisis.
bush has today, by edict of course, defined that we will not humiliate, intimidate, make fun of a prisoner's religion and, basically, "not torture."
Does that mean he wants to be sure he'll be immune from torture when the people rise up and assume their authority?
Or is it just another bunch of obfuscating words to cover the opposite of what it says?
vox clamantis in red state wrote on July 20, 2007 2:38 PM:When we need real leadership for this rudderless nation, what we get is:
Arliss wrote on July 20, 2007 2:39 PM:Muted threats of Impeachment, a dose of censure,flagrant commutations and contempt for congress, control of the courts, threatening martial law, with no transparency and guaranteed opaqueness mixed with dickhead and w, brewed over an open fire at night in a black kettle with three witches murmuring incantations calling out to the nation more mumbo jumbo-
You idiots who keep screaming Impeachment ought to know that as long as there are 49 Republicans in the senate impeachment would NEVER make it past the senate.
The ONLY way impeachment would work is if 10 Republicans abandon the president, and that will NEVER happen.
Get that through your thick skulls!
I would LOVE nothing more than impeaching the bastards, but you have to face the facts.
714Day wrote on July 20, 2007 2:44 PM:Yes, parrot and TheraP, the people SHOULD be the first and the last word.
Austin Cooper wrote on July 20, 2007 2:47 PM:We'd still be in Viet Nam if people hadn't taken to the streets by the millions in the 70's.
How many readers have been to an anti-war protest this go round?
And, as to the Russians having national work stoppage days...they are joined by the French and a multitude of others who turn their voices into exigent circumstances that politicians HAVE TO respond to.
For those who suggest that impeachment would shackle the daily functions of government, ARE YOU KIDDING? We haven't had a functioning government for 7 years! We've seen it purloined for this thing of theirs.
"Thanks for your analysis, Austin Cooper. Now, could you offer a solution?"
(Sorry; I couldn't stop laughing for a while.)
No, I can't. I'm not an analyst or a pundit, and my opinions are strictly my own. There are too many people on the Internets who believe their viewpoint or ideas are teh important. I'm just a guy, and never pretend to be so savvy.
I feel the current situation is builing towards a Constitutional crisis that can't be avoided -- in fact, I don't think it should be. We should jump into into, now.
The Executive privildge card is the last refuge behind which Bush / Cheney can hide -- and bizarrely, they keep upping the ante, pushing their tiny manhoods in the faces of the Democratic Congressional leaders, strutting and braying about their power and authority.
The problem for the 'administration' is that everything they've done since January, 2001, rests upon their assertion of Executive authority, and Executive Privilege, as their shield from accountability and scrutiny.
How much they believe in "The State Is Me!" will determine how much of the nation they'll sink in order to "save" themselves -- because they have no other fallback position from there. It's all resting on one card.
This current escalation regarding the contempt of Congress citations is a typical move for Republicans generally, and for Bush in particular. It echoes the way he's handled Iraq, Iran, the North Koreans, the Russians, and now the Congress he can't control: Just Keep Escalating. Rub your enemy's faces in their own powerlessness so it can be played and spun in the right-wing echo chamber of a compliant press.
It's Bluffer's Poker -- and it works, so long as your bluff isn't called.
The 'administration' bluff is based on a belief that they have enough support in the Senate to block anything a Democraticly-led Congress can do. They will continue to fillibuster, stall, obfuscate; run out the clock until the 2008 elections begin consuming the attention of both political parties.
What to do? Mount every legal challenge and expedite the process -- though I'm afraid Alito, and Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia have already decided how they will vote on the question of an Imperial Presidency versus the U.S. Congress and the American People, when it's appealed to the Supreme Court. But it has to be done.
Hopefully, in the drop-by-drop way the nation seems to be educated about these things, the 'administration' will become so tarred and exposed in the process that the public will support an Impeachment.
If it happened, an impeachment would have to be a full-court press, no prisoners; but the energy and logistics necessary would suck all the oxygen out of the room -- and the 'administration' has seen to it that there are so many other fires burning that all of them need attention, beginning with Iraq. And, the Thugs are betting that no one can mount a Presidential campaign for its candidates *and* press for an impeachment.
Unless ...the impeachment becomes the emblem of ridding the nation of its worst corruption and political excess in generations -- and that DEmocrats would make that cleaning process, the impeachment, the focus of the election. It could be done, but no one would accept it as a practical strategy.
The real acid test will be what happens when the next terrorist incident occurs -- how the 'administration' responds. Whether more power will be exercised by the Executive, and how. And, what our response is as a people to any further erosion of a long heritage of law.
gbheron wrote on July 20, 2007 2:54 PM:I don't know why the Administration is blocking Congress' citation of contempt. I would have thought that they would freely admit that they have nothing but contempt for Congress.
714Day wrote on July 20, 2007 2:55 PM:Arliss
Thm Jefferson wrote on July 20, 2007 2:57 PM:The Republicans want a party that will be electable.
They won't have a party at all if they keep pandering to Bush/Cheney. Everyone said the same thing during Watergate, of course. Until Goldwater threw in the towel. That was in the eleventh hour.
The clock is ticking.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Austin Cooper wrote on July 20, 2007 3:00 PM:Incidentally, parrot -- nice analysis about the Judiciary and obstruction. But, what happens when all appeals lead to the Supreme Court, with its current composition?
I keep hearing Katherine Muhlray's line at the end of 'Chinatown' -- when Jake suggests bringing the police down on her murdering, pedophile father -- "He *owns* the police!"
(Code = screw)
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 3:02 PM:In my book, Austin Cooper, you're quite "a guy!"
Thanks for your continued analysis. Your cool head and humble perspective in this dire situation is to be admired.
So, Hear, hear!!!
Austin Cooper wrote on July 20, 2007 3:08 PM:Paranoid yet? Thanks, dude.
Code = rule -- as in "No Rule of Kings were so blythe, ever, that All did not find themselves chafed, bewilder'd and abandoned, as a child in a poorhouse".
Patrick Henry wrote on July 20, 2007 3:08 PM:What would Patrick Henry do?
JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 3:41 PM:Arliss;
Do you suppose there are ten Republican senators who know if they do not support impeachment, they will not get re-elected?
Any Senator still supporting Bush's "war" will become a very threatened species when ThePeople get to vote again. And I would suggest, it you look at the signs, a lot of Senators have already realized it, and are just weighing their bully, Bush era Republican pride against their popular electability.
The longer they weigh the obvious conclusion against that vain error, the more lijkely they will bear the weight of Bush's burden at election time.
As for riots in the streets, all these tinfoil-hats a-tingling, I believe we have civilized ourselves beyond the need for mob response.
We have so little influence on the timelines of this war, that insurrection could never solve the problem. I think we are trapped in these profiteer's calendar, when it comes to the war, and only massive oil concessions from the Iraqis will satiate them. And we have no influence over that final contract, besides our opinions from afar.
But if something happens that threatens those election deadlines we all have come to trust, then I will join you all in the streets again, and we can start the civilized thing again after the election.
Fozzetti wrote on July 20, 2007 3:41 PM:The President & DOJ cannot do a whole lot WITHOUT MONEY!
Fozzetti wrote on July 20, 2007 3:43 PM:The President & DOJ cannot do a whole lot WITHOUT MONEY!
KarenJG wrote on July 20, 2007 4:23 PM:Congress & Senate: Shut the Government- ALL of it - Down!
Use your Power, the Power of the Purse!
Who will be our Boris Yeltsin?
"Soldiers, officers, generals. The clouds of terror and dictatorship are gathering over the whole country. They must not be allowed to bring eternal night."
--Boris Yeltsin
Andre wrote on July 20, 2007 4:31 PM:There is the option that no one mentions. I have this strange idea that he who controls the purse, has the power. If you have a fourteen year old son who is being a little reluctant, reminding him of how much he likes that allowance you give him each week most times does the trick. Maybe Fred Fielding would be willing to work pro bono? And to very honest, I'm sort of a bit put off that I have to help pay for nine lawyers so Bush can cover his sorry in his attempts to destroy this country. But I'm old fashion like that. And I still cannot wrap my mind around the idea that there are three thousand people working at the White House (and I'm a retired Federal employee). Has the Executive Branch done its part in helping to reduce the deficit? Maybe we should tell them it's time!!!!!
Steve5117 wrote on July 20, 2007 4:32 PM:What can we do?
Like TheraP, I'm 62 years old. I did protest Viet Nam by burning my draft card on the quad at the University of Maryland. It was Veterans Day, 1965 and I was wearing my Navy uniform.
Are the people the age I was then prepared to do the things we did then to end a war?
Do I remember monkeyboy Bush once telling Americans everything was all right, go shopping?
Well let's protest now by not shopping. What's the next big shopping weekend? It's Labor Day, come September. Can you imagine what a statement it would be if most people refrained from shopping one or two days Labor Day weekend.
Maybe it would wake up corporate America and the MSM to the WILL of the people. Bloggers could spread the word eaisly. Its not as if we won't buy the things we need on another day.
Any thoughts about a "shopping strike" to let the President, Congress and the rest of the World know who We The People really are?
Andre wrote on July 20, 2007 4:35 PM:There is the option that no one mentions. I have this strange idea that he who controls the purse, has the power. If you have a fourteen year old son who is being a little reluctant, reminding him of how much he likes that allowance you give him each week most times does the trick. Maybe Fred Fielding would be willing to work pro bono? And to very honest, I'm sort of a bit put off that I have to help pay for nine lawyers so Bush can cover his sorry in his attempts to destroy this country. But I'm old fashion like that. And I still cannot wrap my mind around the idea that there are three thousand people working at the White House (and I'm a retired Federal employee). Has the Executive Branch done its part in helping to reduce the deficit? Maybe we should tell them it's time!!!!!
Electricphoto wrote on July 20, 2007 4:50 PM:The President is clearly above the law, just ask him - what is less noticeable to Congress is their roll in putting him there.
When he broke the first 100 laws and nothing was done, when he told the first 1000 lies and got away with it, when they dismantled checks and balances and nothing was done, when he escapes impeachment by announcement of one Democrat, when Agency officials lie to congress under oath and no one is charged - what do we expect?
And yet Congress continues to act like impeachment is not advisable.
To choose to allow laws to be broken is no different than to break the laws themselves.
When you refuse to enforce the law, over and over and over, can you sit back and wonder how we got here?
This nation has been overthrown by the Bush cabal, put in office not by the voters but by the illegal work of the cabal, they have dismantled our Democracy and are showing no less than sheer arrogance in their pursuit of absolute power -- and the Congress and media continue to fiddle as Rome burns.
tbhull wrote on July 20, 2007 5:07 PM:Posted by: Electricphoto
Date: July 20, 2007 4:50 PM
The dems are just waiting for their turn and/or no difference exists between the dems and repubs.
Peter Kohan wrote on July 20, 2007 5:18 PM:I'm just shocked Bush didn't try and use this argument to say Patrick Fitzgerald couldn't try Scooter Libby due to executive privilege (not that it didn't stop him from making then entire proceeding moot by the sentence commutation).
Yet moderate, independent America is probably more tuned into the Michael Vick dog fighting case than they are to how the Bush Administration is burning the Constitution. I only wish Senator Byrd's "Barbaric!" speech on the floor of the Senate was related to the Administration's prosecution of the war rather than the Vick case.
Peter Kohan wrote on July 20, 2007 5:18 PM:I'm just shocked Bush didn't try and use this argument to say Patrick Fitzgerald couldn't try Scooter Libby due to executive privilege (not that it didn't stop him from making then entire proceeding moot by the sentence commutation).
Yet moderate, independent America is probably more tuned into the Michael Vick dog fighting case than they are to how the Bush Administration is burning the Constitution. I only wish Senator Byrd's "Barbaric!" speech on the floor of the Senate was related to the Administration's prosecution of the war rather than the Vick case.
Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 6:15 PM:There are some intelligent comments here. Please send them to your newspapers and news stations and cable news organizations.
Also... Conyers' phone #: 202-225-5126
Calling congress does work. Email box full??? Try again.
Peter Kohan wrote on July 20, 2007 6:53 PM:It is going to take our citizens to stop this group from taking over our country. ACT NOW.
thank you.
Sec. Code: right as in Act Right Now.
I'm just shocked Bush didn't try and use this argument to say Patrick Fitzgerald couldn't try Scooter Libby due to executive privilege (not that it didn't stop him from making then entire proceeding moot by the sentence commutation).
Yet moderate, independent America is probably more tuned into the Michael Vick dog fighting case than they are to how the Bush Administration is burning the Constitution. I only wish Senator Byrd's "Barbaric!" speech on the floor of the Senate was related to the Administration's prosecution of the war rather than the Vick case.
Al in Austex wrote on July 20, 2007 10:10 PM:Austin Cooper -you are concise & pragmatic in your assesment of where we are now in- this not so slow walk to Dictatorship . I offer two deltas to your analysis .First we must remember that the Conservative Movement is not monolithic. Many conservatives , re Cong Bob Barr and Alex Jones have openly denounced BushCo's assault on our Constitution & Way of Life . My faith & belief is that there are True Conservative Patriots from Yakima,Wa to Nacadogches, Tx that also love this Country. These same Patriots are just now realizing the full frontal assault that BushCo has mounted on Our Republic. I do fully expect the "Bob Barrs & Alex Jones 's" out there to come to the aid of our Country. The true conservatives do not want President Obama to have this much power either . These BushCo Brownshirts will not go unchallenged - this is a non partisan American CONSTITUTIONAL Issue now. The second delta is as the "interested litigator" alludes -that the Committes of Responsibilty up on the Hill already have the goods on these BushCo cretins - as in eletronically forensically recovered documents from the "internets" & sworn secret testimony from already convicted GOP operators- such as Griles & Abramoff.( Smart prosecutors always have the answers to questions before they are asked in depositions)
tpm devotee wrote on July 20, 2007 10:35 PM:(Hear that rumbling thats the Public Opinion Impeachment Special just hitting the hinterlands of D.C. Remember too that it was not Watergate that forced Nixon's resignation , rather it was the unending mess in Indo China- )
How about those two deltas Austin Cooper ?
And let us rejoice in the Constitution - particularly at this moment in time our Second Amendment. As we go forward we all need to be wary of BlackWater & Titan '
We & Our Constitution survived the Civil War - we will also survive BushCo.
I'm gonna hang onto your thoughts, Al in Austex. Because right now I need some hope in this darkness. Thanks for your "deltas" to Austin Cooper's comments. And thank you Austin for your clear thinking.
I will admit my ignorance here. I'm not sure what a "delta" is - but I'm gathering it means an amendment of sorts.
And thanks to tpm, both writers and readers. This site is also a bright spot in the darkness.
acf wrote on July 20, 2007 10:44 PM:Defunding may work on a tiny level, but it will never work as a threat to defund the entire executive branch. Anyone who says so is just making an emotional, political argument, with no real threat for a determined President. Congress saying that they'll take away the money shows a little lack of understanding because the Treasury, through the IRS collects the taxes which the Congress merely allocates. What is Congress going to do to shut off that source, swallow the key to the strongbox? And in case you've forgotten, the IRS and Treasury are part of the Executive Branch of government. They work for Bush. Also, the Executive Branch is a fundamental part of our government, and to defund it, would be tantamount to overthrowing the Constitution altogether. It would be the ultimate slipper slope, and a steep one at that, with no safety net, or bottom.
Steve Pordon wrote on July 20, 2007 11:21 PM:Congress: do your fucking job if you don't want to see armed Americans heading to D.C. to reclaim the country and restore the Constitution.
Inherent contempt, impeachment, or cutting off of funds. If you don't use one or more of those powers, even some of the big 26 percenters are going to remember where they came from.
nomokoolaid wrote on July 20, 2007 11:22 PM:PRESCOTT BUSH SUPPORTED A NAZI BANK AT THE START OF WWII AND HAD ONE OF HIS BANKS SHUT DOWN. NO FROG MARCH TO THE SHIT HOUSE, GEORGE HW BUSH AS VP AND THEN PRESIDENT PARDONS A WHOLE CORDON OF SHIT POKES IN IRAN CONTRA WHILE EVERY CONSERVATIVE ASS HOLE IN THE COUNTRY WAS NAMING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND AIRPORTS AFTER THE SECOND MOST CORRUPT AND SENILE PRESIDENT ON THE PLANET. THEN YOU HAVE THIS RETARDED BASTARD WHO SITS AT THE SAME DINNER TABLE AS " BANDAR BUSH" OSAMAS FATHER WHILE THEY RUN PLANES INTO THE FUCKING TRADE TOWERS AND YOUR "SURPRISED" AT ANY THING THESE ASS PUPETS DO???? YOUR THE PROBLEM. THEY WONT LISTEN UNTIL YOU STORM DC AND THROW A FEW OF THEM OFF THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT. ASK CZAR NICHOLAS ON MARIE ANTOINETTE.
nomokoolaid wrote on July 20, 2007 11:22 PM:PRESCOTT BUSH SUPPORTED A NAZI BANK AT THE START OF WWII AND HAD ONE OF HIS BANKS SHUT DOWN. NO FROG MARCH TO THE SHIT HOUSE, GEORGE HW BUSH AS VP AND THEN PRESIDENT PARDONS A WHOLE CORDON OF SHIT POKES IN IRAN CONTRA WHILE EVERY CONSERVATIVE ASS HOLE IN THE COUNTRY WAS NAMING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND AIRPORTS AFTER THE SECOND MOST CORRUPT AND SENILE PRESIDENT ON THE PLANET. THEN YOU HAVE THIS RETARDED BASTARD WHO SITS AT THE SAME DINNER TABLE AS " BANDAR BUSH" OSAMAS FATHER WHILE THEY RUN PLANES INTO THE FUCKING TRADE TOWERS AND YOUR "SURPRISED" AT ANY THING THESE ASS PUPETS DO???? YOUR THE PROBLEM. THEY WONT LISTEN UNTIL YOU STORM DC AND THROW A FEW OF THEM OFF THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT. ASK CZAR NICHOLAS ON MARIE ANTOINETTE.
nomokoolaid wrote on July 20, 2007 11:23 PM:PRESCOTT BUSH SUPPORTED A NAZI BANK AT THE START OF WWII AND HAD ONE OF HIS BANKS SHUT DOWN. NO FROG MARCH TO THE SHIT HOUSE, GEORGE HW BUSH AS VP AND THEN PRESIDENT PARDONS A WHOLE CORDON OF SHIT POKES IN IRAN CONTRA WHILE EVERY CONSERVATIVE ASS HOLE IN THE COUNTRY WAS NAMING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND AIRPORTS AFTER THE SECOND MOST CORRUPT AND SENILE PRESIDENT ON THE PLANET. THEN YOU HAVE THIS RETARDED BASTARD WHO SITS AT THE SAME DINNER TABLE AS " BANDAR BUSH" OSAMAS FATHER WHILE THEY RUN PLANES INTO THE FUCKING TRADE TOWERS AND YOUR "SURPRISED" AT ANY THING THESE ASS PUPPETS DO???? YOUR THE PROBLEM. THEY WONT LISTEN UNTIL YOU STORM DC AND THROW A FEW OF THEM OFF THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT. ASK CZAR NICHOLAS ON MARIE ANTOINETTE.
nomokoolaid wrote on July 20, 2007 11:23 PM:PRESCOTT BUSH SUPPORTED A NAZI BANK AT THE START OF WWII AND HAD ONE OF HIS BANKS SHUT DOWN. NO FROG MARCH TO THE SHIT HOUSE, GEORGE HW BUSH AS VP AND THEN PRESIDENT PARDONS A WHOLE CORDON OF SHIT POKES IN IRAN CONTRA WHILE EVERY CONSERVATIVE ASS HOLE IN THE COUNTRY WAS NAMING OFFICE BUILDINGS AND AIRPORTS AFTER THE SECOND MOST CORRUPT AND SENILE PRESIDENT ON THE PLANET. THEN YOU HAVE THIS RETARDED BASTARD WHO SITS AT THE SAME DINNER TABLE AS " BANDAR BUSH" OSAMAS FATHER WHILE THEY RUN PLANES INTO THE FUCKING TRADE TOWERS AND YOUR "SURPRISED" AT ANY THING THESE ASS PUPPETS DO???? YOUR THE PROBLEM. THEY WONT LISTEN UNTIL YOU STORM DC AND THROW A FEW OF THEM OFF THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT. ASK CZAR NICHOLAS ON MARIE ANTOINETTE.
bovlb wrote on July 20, 2007 11:26 PM:If it's the U.S. Attorney's *duty* to file for contempt, then why can't Congress apply for a Writ of Mandamus?
Stephen Taufen wrote on July 21, 2007 5:52 AM:Writ of Mandamus - "an extraordinary writ to command" filed under Habeas Corpus (produce the body - in this case, of evidence) that the Petitioner wants the Respondent to comply with existing process, law and procedure, i.e. do its duties properly, so that the official branch (the Executive) will obey the subpoena's right and turn over evidence to Congress. It just seems to lead back to the contempt charge. Can anyone confirm or deny that the Mandamus powers changed in a Homeland Security bill? That citizens lost much of these powers? (more below)
-------
Why so important (beyond this matter)? A utility business partner and I filed a pro se Writ of Mandamus in January 2003 and served it, as required, with then US AG John Ashcroft. Judge Rothstein (Western District in Seattle) dismissed it 'without prejudice', so it can be refiled - because she instructed us to try refiling by just particularizing the harm to our business (we had filed it for all US citizens).
Interesting part is that in a way it concerns one of the White House's leading henchmen in Congress also under Justice Dept. scrutiny. It was about Adak Island fisheries, where US Senator Ted Stevens' cronies committed perjury as they were trying to steal public fishing rights for themselves (Ted's son Ben Stevens held a secret option for $500,000, one that actually became worth about $25,000,000 after Ted slipped a Rider into the 2004 Consolidated Appropriations bill.) Then Senator Frank Murkowski also got in the way of things at the Senate Energy Committee, on the Adak Land Transfer Bill, purging public testimony from the record to avoid US Navy and others seeing them. (Adak is also where the National Missile Defense SBX radar platform resides, and Ted's namesake national fisheries building site in Juneau is where another component is being tested).
Again, were Writ of Mandamus powers reduced in HS bill?: can citizens still file a Writ of Mandamus on this level? (Can they still be filed by prisoners too, like even terrorist Zacharias Moussaoui did?) Can we refile the Adak one, as evidence becomes available to do so, or did that power get taken away too?
In any case, bovlb mentions a rare approach. But maybe it is the People who should file the writ, not Congress - after all, we need to force them both to behave.
CSH wrote on July 21, 2007 7:15 AM:The WaPo had another piece this morning pointing out that a Clinton administration ruling said something quite similar, and quoting a number of "Democratic" legal types who found the whole thing a little less outrageous than I do. But it contained this paragraph:
"Congress can determine what's unlawful but not determine who should be prosecuted," said Dellinger, who is now a Duke University law professor. "It's an important part of the separation of powers. . . . The real issue in this case is whether the claims of executive privilege are valid," a matter that he said would have to be adjudicated on its merits in the courts.
If you were the reporter, wouldn't you want to ask Mr. Dellinger how the heck the matter can be "adjudicated on its merits in the courts" if in fact the whole point of the administration's policy is to deny that it can go to court in the first place? What am I missing here?
weef bin had wrote on July 21, 2007 8:30 AM:Don't count on the democrats to stop Bush's abuse of power. In the next election, it will be out with the republicans and in with the democrats.
Anonymous wrote on July 21, 2007 4:36 PM:We could very easily end up with another nut job in the White House with attending suck -ups --all from a different party.
Bush's trashing of the checks and balances is something all of these birds really appreciate. If the dems can just wait it out they will inherit their own dictatorship. Bush has laid the golden egg for the democrats. The dems just want to let the wacko continue to embarass himself and the republicans. They don't want to take any responsible action.
After Bush and his ilk are gone we are still going to need way to get rid of sleazebags.
We need a quick efficient recall system where the checks and balances are returned to the voters.
The President has on power to comple any State AG from prosecuting him.
Anonymous wrote on July 21, 2007 4:40 PM:There is a soltion to this problem: "The logic is that a U.S. attorney, as a subordinate of the executive branch and thus a representative of the president, would be prosecuting another presidential subordinate for asserting executive privilege. And you just can't have that."
State Attorney Generals may prosecute a sitting President outside Congress outside impeachment. Call your state AG and encourage them to act as backup when the President blocks the US Attys from acting.
IN effect, BUsh is arguing that nobody can review him -- not Congress, not his staff, not auditors. Tell the President he's reviewable by we the problem: A sitting President may be prosecuted outside impeachment outside Congerss by the State AGs.
Please call your State AGs to issue a joint intictment of this President, VP, and others in th elegal community who are complicit with this illegal activity.
Anonymous wrote on July 21, 2007 4:40 PM:There is a soltion to this problem: "The logic is that a U.S. attorney, as a subordinate of the executive branch and thus a representative of the president, would be prosecuting another presidential subordinate for asserting executive privilege. And you just can't have that."
State Attorney Generals may prosecute a sitting President outside Congress outside impeachment. Call your state AG and encourage them to act as backup when the President blocks the US Attys from acting.
IN effect, BUsh is arguing that nobody can review him -- not Congress, not his staff, not auditors. Tell the President he's reviewable by we the people: A sitting President may be prosecuted outside impeachment outside Congerss by the State AGs.
Please call your State AGs to issue a joint intictment of this President, VP, and others in th elegal community who are complicit with this illegal activity.
The Oracle wrote on July 21, 2007 10:01 PM:The entire Bush administration is in inherent contempt of our nation's traditions and principles.
They've shown utter contempt for our Military, our Congress, our Judiciary, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights.
The only people they've not shown utter contempt for are their crony corporate pals and crazed religious fundamentalist supporters, essentially setting these two groups and their selfish interests against the rest the nation.
This Bush and Cheney neo-con cancer will be a blight on our sacred and beloved nation for decades to come, with the damage done to our military, our government, our constitutional rights, and our nation's children being not only insane and un-American, but also very, very obscene.
It's as if all the neo-con Republican strategists, from the beginning, have had a death wish for our democracy, doing everything they possibly can to cause our great nation to wither and die.
Grover Norquist and his attacks on our nation's funding, causing major budgetary disruptions and shortfalls...and a criminal degradation of our nation's infrastructure.
Karl Rove and his nefarious smear attacks. His political subterfuge and his twisting of our nation's laws for the singular purpose of establishing a permanent one-party-rule police state society.
Ralph Reed and his attacks on our nation's traditional separation of church and state, in an attempt to establish a permanent one-fundamentalist religion-ruled police state society.
George W. bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and so many other neo-con Republican anarchists, all instruments of this dastardly neo-con Republican plot to subvert our democracy, and our nation's democratic institutions, in pursuit of their utterly evil, selfish anti-American agenda. Greed. Greed. Greed. Power. Power. Power. Control. Control. Control.
It is obvious that our nation has been in a "constitutional crisis" ever since five neo-con Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court blatantly violated our constitution and overruled a lawful ruling in 2000 handed down by the constitutional "court of last resort" Florida Supreme Court, a ruling that simply said that the Florida presidential recount should continue.
Evil is as evil does, and these five neo-con Republican Supreme Court justices did something very evil, thus causing all the subsequent evil that has befallen our great nation.
Al in Austex wrote on July 21, 2007 11:37 PM:tpmdevotee:
Nancy Irving wrote on July 21, 2007 11:54 PM:We have much to be hopeful about - our Civics 101 Checks & Balances Adverserial System is getting its stride back. I drive a cab in Austin- and the BushCo abuse of power is always on my passengers minds- They will engage me,unsolicited in conversation about Iraq, voter caging etc. These conversations happen a dozen times a day. All kinds of different demographic voters are now saying this Emperor has no clothes.
To save themselves the Moderate GOP Seanators will threw Cheney under the bus - And if Cheney goes can Dubya 's demise be for behind . This will be painful , messy , and Austin Cooper is right --it will be a close quarters political hand to hand fight- but its necessary to preserve our Constitution . And if the Dems frame the confrontation that away - ie defending Our Way of Life against war criminals- then we win the whole shebang.
And before this political battle is joined -can anyone seriously doubt that its patent fantasy that all of the e-traffic from the RNC and the Rover Whitehouse was deleted from the "internets " never to be retrieved. ( Brad's Blog has done some excellent reporting on what has been recovered). Conyers, Leahy , et al know whats up. And no doubt Fitzgerald's staffers have been talking to the Hill Staffers.( Libby is commuted ,while the two ICE agents do ten years hard time ..yikes ! )
Cheney will be the first to be Impeached -& before Thanksgiving too. ( give or take two weeks ).
Wouldn't failure to enforce a subpoena be grounds for impeaching Gonzales?
tpm devotee wrote on July 22, 2007 9:02 AM:Al in Austex:
Thanks for your further hopeful comments. My work does not get me out as much as yours does. And it's good to know that people are telling a cabby they're fed up! I hope you tell them you're glad to hear this, but maybe they should be telling it to their elected reps.
I did talk to my brother, a computer expert, and he assured he that nothing that ever went through the internet is "lost" - and this too gives me hope.
But right now, honestly, I think some of us need to be extremely worried - no matter how hopeful the end result may eventually be. Without extreme caution I think we're in for a heap of trouble! Even with hope - it's going to be a big mess to clear up.
Keep listening. I suppose a cabby is a like a butler - people simply don't consider the individual is gathering information. You may be more on target than a polster! Since so many people refuse to take a poll. But many, many need a cab!
Let's hear it for cabby pollsters! I'll watch for your further reports. (thanks)
Al in Austex wrote on July 22, 2007 9:40 PM:TPM devotee,
I am very worried that BushCo will try some kind of "Seven Days in May" crap that involves another terrorist plot etc. We need to keep our wits about us & our powder dry. We need too to stay optimistic & stick togather .WE need to remember that we are at dangerous crossroads of the rule of law vs fascism ( Austin Cooper laid this out very thoughtfully - up thread a couple of days ago ) .
Most all Americans are simply fed up with the BushCo by now - not just the ones on this thread or my cab passengers- I repeat most Americans are fed up with Bushco. The building public distrust of Rover , VEEP , & Dubya will necessarily lead to many admininstration figures going through Impeachment Proceedings. Its too early to tell if we get Convictions in the Senate- But here lately there has been a lot of daylight showing between the Whitehouse & even Mitch McConnell.
And your brother the computer whiz is correct - the Committes on the Hill are holding many wild cards (recovered deleted documents & sworn depositions) & when we call the BushCo 's bluff (again referencing Austin Cooper's remarks) -thats when we will see if as Benjamin Franklin once remarked after the Constitutional Convention - "We have a Republic if we can keep it ".
I for one believe and have faith in the American People -there's more of us then there of BushCo. But yes for sure these are very dangerous
times. We should know alot more about where all this ends come Thanksgiving at the latest.
And I am sure my customers are telling their elected officials about their general unhappiness with BushCo.
BTW -the Tom DeLay criminal prosecution continues here in Aus