Comments (48)

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 11:32 AM:

O.K., so was today the "kind of final deadline" or is it Wednesday? Again, wake me up if it ever gets past the full House.

tekel wrote on July 23, 2007 11:42 AM:

lock `em up. Rule of Law! Rule of Law! Bushies want to play hardball? Time to start putting b*tches in prison. Conyers is saying the magic words: "deliberative [due] process," he might as well say "fifth amendment won't save you now, suckers."

Let's play a little game and see how many Bush administration stooges Conyers can lock up before Christmas. I'm betting not more than 10 or 15, but I'll give odds on the over-50, if there are any takers.

Harriet is gonna look great behind bars.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 11:48 AM:

Conyers won't even "lock up" one. What kind of odds will you give me on that?

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 23, 2007 11:58 AM:

The executive branch will need to start getting used to adult supervision.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:00 PM:

BTW: wasn't TODAY the deadline Cindy Sheehan gave Nancy Pelosi to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush or she would run against Pelosi next year?

RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

Richard wrote on July 23, 2007 12:01 PM:

""Conyers won't even "lock up" one. What kind of odds will you give me on that?""
The odds are quite good if he chooses the 'inherent contempt' option, as he should. In that case there is little Bush and you can do but comply..or set up a constitutional crisis that GOP'ers are notorious for losing.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:04 PM:

Billy Pilgrim:

If you're so sure, you won't mind giving me odds on at least ONE Bush Administration being "locked up" by Congress, right?

interested litigant wrote on July 23, 2007 12:07 PM:

ODDS: -0-

Not going to happen. Impossible. But of course you don't know why.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:12 PM:

Richard:

You willing to put your money were your mouth is? What kind of odds are you offering?

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 12:13 PM:

Does this vote in the full session require more than a majority to pass? Wikipedia does not specify in its "Contempt of Congress" article.

The Admin has actually given the House a good reason to go forward with inherent contempt charges since the DoJ won't allow the DC USA to take on any case against the Executive. With the USA, it would take much longer to get a case for contempt into court, what with dockets, preparing the case, etc.

This is apparently why the Congress came up with the inherent contempt procedure. According to Wikipedia, "Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857."

There's another advantage to the inherent contempt proceeding that I haven't seen mentioned before: "Presidential pardons appear not [to] apply to civil contempt procedures like the above, since it is not an 'offense against the United States' or an offense against 'the dignity of public authority.'" (again Wikipedia)

That's pretty cool.

Gioele wrote on July 23, 2007 12:15 PM:

Hey TPM crew,

I just got off the phone with the Judiciary committee staff, and they clarified that it will be inherent contempt they're voting on... not statutory.

I had the phone answerer go and speak with someone who actually knew, and he came back to the phone about 5 min. later confirming.

This makes a big difference, as you know, the USA in DC isn't in the loop and can't refuse to forward to a grand jury!

Please call them to confirm, but it's a go! Judiciary Committee: (202) 225-3951

Thanks for all the hard work,

Gioele

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:15 PM:

interested litigant:

My guess is because Conyers and the rest of the Democrats in Congress ain't got a set of balls between them all. The reason, however, is not relevant to the bet. If anyone is giving odds that Congress is going to "lock up" ANY former or current Bush Administration official, I'll put up $100. Takers?

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:20 PM:

Roberta:

At least two of us (see, e.g. interested litigant, above) believe it is "impossible" and Congress locking up any Bush Administration official is "Not going to happen."

That's pretty cool, too.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:24 PM:

Gioele:

I've got $100 that Congress NEVER "locks up" a single Bush Administration official. If you're so sure about all your phone calling, surely you can give me some odds and make some easy money.

jw1 wrote on July 23, 2007 12:24 PM:

re: tekel's comment:

Appreciate the duality.

'Harriet is gonna look great behind (a) bar. '

Which will be one of few jobs available to ex-con cronies.

jw1

jw1 wrote on July 23, 2007 12:31 PM:

When I play poker online there is a textual 'chat' feature. An option of that feature is 'Mute'-- to individually reject commentary from any participant or observer.

I ask that TPM institute this feature to eliminate 'trolls' by choice.

Epsecially those who ought to switch to decaf.

jw1

Steve5117 wrote on July 23, 2007 12:32 PM:

I wonder if the committee would be willing to contract with a private detention facility to house anyone they may wish to detain? I know of some great places in Maryland that would do well for them, several with histories that preceded the Civil War. Fort McHenry, in Baltimore would be appropiate also...

Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light,
All the Bushies we jailed from DC late last night

Apologies to Mr. Key

pragmatist wrote on July 23, 2007 12:33 PM:

Why doesn't Congress hold Miers in "inherent contempt?" Given that the DoJ will not follow up on Congressional Contempt, Congress must act on its own.

Inherent Contempt hasn't been used in the House since the Civil War. If it's issued, the Sargeant and Arms and his deputies retrieve the person who has been subpoenaed. That person would then be held in custody until he/she agerees to testify (just like criminal contempt). This is tantamount to what happened to NYT reporter Judith Miller when she refused to testify in court during Plamegate.

Show some spine Congress. A subpeana will be totally limp noodle if you guys don't do something to protect it. Inherent contempt may seem extraordinary, but this is an extraordinary expansion of executive power.

Tross wrote on July 23, 2007 12:39 PM:

Jake D,

I think what's going on in our government is significantly more important than your $100 bet.

I've noticed your name attached to comments on several progressive websites lately. Your comments are the on-line equivalent of a pesky moth attracted to bright light. Eventually you'll just burn out -- or get swatted.

If your goal is to somehow alter the current debate may I suggest that you offer commentary that sounds a bit less pedestrian?

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 12:40 PM:

Folks, Jake D, for those who don't know about his, is here simply to rankle those who have legitimate questions, comments, and opinions. He's referred to by many as a troll. It's a good idea not to engage him, not in the least because there's no point. You'll get no reasoned discourse from him.

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 12:41 PM:

Folks, Jake D, for those who don't know about him, is here simply to rankle those who have legitimate questions, comments, and opinions. He's referred to by many as a troll. It's a good idea not to engage him, not in the least because there's no point. You'll get no reasoned discourse from him.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:46 PM:

Tross:

Granted, I am obviously getting a bit frustrated with all this big talk and wanted to see if anyone would put their money where their mouths are. You will note that tekel brought up "betting" first.

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 12:47 PM:

Gioele, thanks so much for making the call and confirming the inherent contempt vote. What I found (and I note it above, but I think it bears repeating) is "Presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures like the above, since it is not an 'offense against the United States' or an offense against 'the dignity of public authority.'" (Contempt of Congress on Wikipedia)

Check out the Wikipedia article. It has a nice, concise summary of the procedures available to the Congress.

dixiegrl wrote on July 23, 2007 1:13 PM:

To Gioele, Roberta, and all the TMP folks who take the time to lookup facts, contact folks for information and updates, then share them with the rest of us..
and to the TMP "regulars" who post salient, reiable information and food for thought,

THANK YOU...
for making this a true community comments section.
thank you for helping me feel I am not "the only one" who sees a plethora of naked emperors.
Out here in the rural South, it can get a bit....overwhelming.

OCPatriot wrote on July 23, 2007 1:13 PM:

As I get tired of saying, the only thing that Bush & Co. seem to respond to is a metaphorical whack on the side of the head with a 2x4. Until Congress gets this, it won't matter a bit.

TheraP wrote on July 23, 2007 1:40 PM:

interested litigant: I sure wish I could see your cards. You're obviously keeping them close to the vest. But I'd lay money you know a lot! And I'm waiting for game to commence.

We need a new acronym: SRS = Ship. Rats. Sinking.

And I'm guessing our "interested litigant" may one day be able to tell us more.

EH wrote on July 23, 2007 2:00 PM:

Looks like Jake can't take a joke in this matter. "NO BUT U SAID U WANT 2 BET! LIARZ!"

Pretty ironic given his otherwise reluctance to engage in discussion. He's more interested in playing betting games than saying why he thinks what he does. A slight improvement over his usual hit-and-run blather, but not much.

Harriet wrote on July 23, 2007 2:22 PM:

Jake is obsessed with me. But he's a fly in the ointment. He's nobody - even to us.

Tom Betz wrote on July 23, 2007 3:07 PM:

According to this SF Gate story:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/02/MNGRAH1IF21.DTL

(or click on my name)

the Capitol police have a holding cell where Miers and/or Bolten could be held for 18 months, were they to be convicted of inherent contempt of Congress.

Someone should ask Cindy Sheehan for more details about the cell... once she and Conyers have finished with their confab in his office.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

Oh, sorry, tekel -- I didn't you know you were joking about this:

"Let's play a little game and see how many Bush administration stooges Conyers can lock up before Christmas. I'm betting not more than 10 or 15, but I'll give odds on the over-50, if there are any takers."

As long as you admit, deep down inside, that Conyers ain't gonna "lock up" anyone (except maybe his own staff to force them to babysit his kids), that's fine by me.

Henry wrote on July 23, 2007 3:40 PM:

I wonder what the odds of invading Pakistan or Syria are or even another attack in the US is, given the popular media is preparing us for it. Its not far fetched to think this administration will employ a sort of limited martial law after one of these disasters. Given that holding any of the Bush administration accountable and in contempt of court is right around the corner. Because once they are held in contempt and forced to talk, even a little bit is going to ruin every one of those executive branch folk. Everything they have done so far and everything they want to do will be unveiled as more dreadful than Watergate, Iran contra, Gulf of Tonkin and everything in between put together. Think abuse is bad now? Just wait till power is being stripped from them.

Legalize wrote on July 23, 2007 3:43 PM:

Geepers, I'm sure glad the Congress is seriously considering possibly maybe probably doing something to protect the Constitution.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 23, 2007 3:45 PM:

Jake D., at July 23, 2007 11:32 AM, wrote:
"Again, wake me up if it ever gets past the full House."

Then, Jake D., at July 23, 2007 3:21 PM, wrote some more.

Jake D., how can we wake you up if you are still commenting? Are you sleep-commenting?

If you're still feeling awake, I thought that while you're still encouraging people to meet your wagers and jump your hoops, that you could in turn provide some affirmative positions that buttress all this "ain't gonna" happen talk of yours.

Do you want any accountability from Bush? Do you think Congress is going about it all wrong and that they should be doing it different? Do you think our Constitution is broken and that there's no way to force the President's hand in anything except to pass a Constitutional amendment that would close whatever loopholes you believe exist?

Do you have any grand theories behind your statements, or are you just here to annoy the hell out of people who want some accountability from Bush? Your merely saying that they aren't going to do what other people want them to do seems like a waste of time to me, unless all you're trying to do is annoy people.

If that's the case, then congratulations, you're highly successful. I wonder, however, why you remain, now that you've shown your prowess. We're back to your commenting appearing to be a waste of time.

Anne wrote on July 23, 2007 4:16 PM:

Showdown at the O.K. Capitol

Since the only options open to the Congress are statutory contempt or inherent contempt, and Congress has already been informed that the DOJ will not prosecute a statutory contempt charge, it appears that the only option with a shadow of a chance for success is "inherent contempt."

So the question we must pose to the committee and to Congress is this: If they pursue a statutory contempt charge and lose (which is almost certain), aren't they expanding presidential powers while further making Congress a watchdog without teeth?

By pursuing statutory contempt charges, it appears that Congress merely wants to appear that it's carrying out its role without actually doing so, i.e., paying lip service to oversight while letting Bush do as he pleases. And in the process they're wasting time that could be spent on considering more serious charges such as impeachment.

BTW, I just called the number provided by Giole, 202 225-3951 and was told by the person answering the phone (a nobody such as I) the committee was pursuing statutory contempt but will also consider inherent contempt. So I read my message, which he said would be passed on, and obtained the email address to email it to the committee. The email address he gave was judiciary@mail.house.gov

to TPM: Thanks for all you do. I and others are greatly in your debt. I rely on you for my news instead of the media Machiavellis.

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

O.K., wait a minute, I am "highly successful" or my "commenting appear[s] to be a waste of time"? Which one is it? As for "waking me up" that was figuratively, as I was not sleeping at the exact moment I was typing. Since I don't think Bush has done anything worth impeachment (let alone Miers and Bolten following the directions of Bush in not producing documents / testimony), yes, I think Congress is going about it all wrong. Certainly, Feingold's censure resolution (again) is incorrect and even if I believed grounds for impeachment exist, I wouldn't go for censure. I also don't think there's any Constitutional Amendment I would propose. Obviously, if I thought Bush had done something that he should be held accountable for, the election in 2004 was that moment. Short of convincing him to resign, the only way to legally get him is impeachment. Why, now, do you think that Nancy Pelosi took that option off the table?

Noam Sane wrote on July 23, 2007 4:30 PM:

Wake me up when they actually have someone arrested. ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Steve5117 wrote on July 23, 2007 4:45 PM:

Noam Sane

Do you buy a mystery and turn to the last page? These are the steps that will play out in future procedings. Then you will know why Congress is doing what they are doing.

I watched the House name some Post Offices today after some fallen soldiers. That gave me an idea for Bush's legacy. Let's name sewage treatment plants after the shitheads of this administration.

Eric Stepp wrote on July 23, 2007 4:52 PM:

Couple things...

1. To the person who asked what the vote requirements were for inherent contempt. The INHERENT contempt charges are sent by committee to the parent chamber (in this case, the House) and is settled by simple majority. In the case of statuatory contempt, the full chamber is required.

2. A question to the legal scholars. Can Bush commute or pardon a conviction handed down by the Legislature? Or, is that provision only for convictions by the Judiciary?

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 23, 2007 5:26 PM:

I said if you are attempting to annoy people, you have proven highly successful. I also asserted that if that's the purpose of your comments, then I think commenting for the sole purpose of annoying people is a waste of time.

Ah! See? You've filled the holes in your arguments that I mentioned a few days ago.

The President, part of the executive branch, can direct the Treasury, also part of the executive branch, to spend funds or withdraw funds as it sees fit. Witness his transferral of funding from Afghanistan to Iraq, without prior Congressional approval. Witness his executive order ordering the Treasury to freeze assets of those suspected of aiding terrorism, without need of judicial oversight.

The President may detain a U.S. citizen without need of judicial oversight, according to the Bush Administration. Because the Administration argues that it is the sole determinant of what constitutes a legal detainment, any U.S. citizen it detains is therefore a legal one.

"Why, now, do you think that Nancy Pelosi took that option off the table?" I don't know, Jake D., why don't you answer your own question by reading what she's said? Anyway, I thought you thought that it would be a waste of time. Why do you care if people are unsuccessful in convincing her otherwise? Isn't that what you want?

It may be that she shares the apparent delusion that nearly every Congress, nearly every judiciary body, and nearly every President before this one, has had, that the executive branch can Constitutionally be compelled to act by either of the other two branches without need of impeachment.

I don't know how you, Jake D., can successfully argue that a judiciary or a legislature is necessary under the current U.S. Constitution unless their sole purpose is to be there to impeach the President. Right now, it simply appears as though all they are Constitutionally permitted to do is act in an advisory capacity and impeach members of the executive branch.

Assuming that you agree with the Bush Administration's arguments (and granting that other Administrations have argued similarly), as I deduce both from your belief that impeachment is unnecessary and that impeachment is Congress's only current legal option, is that a government you want?

Look at it this way: why have laws in the first place? Instead of enacting laws, I propose this system:

If enough members of Congress don't like what the President is doing, they could simply hold impeachment hearings after every executive and judicial decision it deems significant. If the executive body or judge in question is convicted, then if the executive body in charge doesn't bring someone in to reverse the convicted official's actions, Congress will impeach that executive body. Only every 4 years will the people be allowed to elect a President and Vice-President. Only every 2 and 6 years will the people be allowed to elect Congresspeople and Senators, respectively, to act as impeachment arbiters.

Sure, it would be a waste of resources to be throwing officials out whenever they do something disagreeable, but that's the system that essentially exists now, Jake D.

Is this is a false reduction of what you've just said, Jake D.?

PFers wrote on July 23, 2007 6:18 PM:

Boy the Dems sure have a short memory.. All this is just payback for the impeachment of Billy "Rape'em" Clinton and the fact that the Dems dont have any solutions for the crises we have in this country. They are just buying political time. Actually the voters should cite them for Lying to the American people just to get control of Congress. They got it and all they are doing is playing politics.. Can't wait till there is a GOP Congress again. Watch out Pelosi's husband, Ted Kennedy, Wm Jefferson, Reid's boys...
The Dems won't be able to handle the subpoenas to family members of Democrats..

PFers wrote on July 23, 2007 6:18 PM:

Boy the Dems sure have a short memory.. All this is just payback for the impeachment of Billy "Rape'em" Clinton and the fact that the Dems dont have any solutions for the crises we have in this country. They are just buying political time. Actually the voters should cite them for Lying to the American people just to get control of Congress. They got it and all they are doing is playing politics.. Can't wait till there is a GOP Congress again. Watch out Pelosi's husband, Ted Kennedy, Wm Jefferson, Reid's boys...
The Dems won't be able to handle the subpoenas to family members of Democrats..

Bad Troll wrote on July 23, 2007 7:22 PM:

ooooh, Jake puts up ... a hundred bucks.

I'm impressed - NOT.

Why would anyone engage a troll ? Why do their (minimum wage) job for them ?

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 9:27 PM:

2. A question to the legal scholars. Can Bush commute or pardon a conviction handed down by the Legislature? Or, is that provision only for convictions by the Judiciary?
Posted by: Eric Stepp
Date: July 23, 2007 4:52 PM

I found out the answer to this and posted it awhile ago, but this is a long thread. Things get lost.

This is important enough to reiterate:

"Presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures like the above, since it is not an 'offense against the United States' or an offense against 'the dignity of public authority.'" (Contempt of Congress on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress)

Check out the Wikipedia article. It has a nice, concise summary of the procedures available to the Congress.

kentuck wrote on July 24, 2007 1:13 AM:

Congress has no choice. The power that is given to them by the Constitution, they must use it or lose it. If one person can tell them to get lost, then anyone can tell them the same thing. Congress must exercise its power or lose it.

If it goes to the courts, then so be it. Godspeed. The sooner the better. God help the judges that vote for George W Bush.

rewinn wrote on July 24, 2007 1:48 AM:

As for Jake - Anyone who claims Bush has done nothing meriting impeachment is just being silly.

We learned in 1998 that the reasonable suspicion of a felony MANDATES impeachment. There is a reasonable suspicion (since Bush admitted it) of felony FISA violations.

Whether or not FISA is constitutional (as Bush's defenders will argue) is immaterial. It is not Congress' role to rule on the constitutionality of the laws it passes and the President signs. Congress must impeach (according to the Clinton precedent) and let the defendants make such arguments as they wish.

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:20 AM:

Presidents have always spied on the enemy during war -- if you want to impeach Bush for that, be my guest -- Clinton had no Constitutional right to commit perjury.

yamaikaaa wrote on December 13, 2007 1:36 PM:

Hi to everyone !!! Penny Hardaway's comeback to Maimi Heat, what do you think ?
%0D%0AA bikini or two-piece is a type of women's swimsuit, characterized by two separate parts

yhayha wrote on December 17, 2007 3:47 PM:

Hi to everyone !!! DVD features a 16-page book with an paper written by an official talk history as well as scarce and unseeable photos. Jazz Icons DVDs are produced with the alter sustainment and compliance of the artists or their estates, who, in most cases, are causative infrequent private photographs, memorabilia, and forewords. click here and read more
%0D%0Ajazz icons