Comments (34)

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:49 PM:

O.K., so Conyers will vote for a criminal contempt referral to DoJ and then NOTHING will happen. Why is IMPEACHMENT still off the table?! Again, can anyone point out to me why this isn't just more "All Smoke and No Fire"?

Crust wrote on July 23, 2007 12:53 PM:

Why is "inherent contempt" not under serious consideration?

And what about the option of impeachment, e.g. of Gonzales?

The American people are ahead of Congress and the media. They don't think impeachment is a fringe idea. In fact, according to the American Research Group's most recent poll on impeachment, a plurality of American voters support impeaching President Bush (46% to 44% with 10% undecided) and half (50% to 44%) support impeaching Cheney. Unsurprisingly, most Democrats support impeachment of Bush (69%) and almost no Republicans (13%). Perhaps the most interesting angle is that Independents slant heavily towards impeachment, with a roughly 20% spread in favor for both a Bush impeachment (50% vs 30%) and a Cheney impeachment (51% vs 29%).

I haven't seen any polling data for impeaching Gonzales, but he has very, very few defenders so I don't think they would look good for him.

For poll data, see http://americanresearchgroup.com/ , July 6.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:53 PM:

TODAY was the deadline Cindy Sheehan gave Nancy Pelosi to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush or she claims she will run against Pelosi next year:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SHEEHAN_IMPEACHMENT?SITE=WSPATV&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-07-23-12-39-54

RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 12:57 PM:

Crust:

Will you vote out any Democrat(s) who currently represent you if they won't support impeachment?

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 1:01 PM:

TPM readers:

I'll get this in here fast. Don't engage with Jake D., if you don't already know not to. There's no point.

Anything he comments is there to mislead, misdirect, misstate, misinterpret, misconstrue, and misfocus. His mischievous misinformation is disinformation that comes from misanthropic, disempowered miscreants.

Steve5117 wrote on July 23, 2007 1:07 PM:

Someone named Gioele reported to the "TPM crew" that he or she had just spoken to a committee staff member saying inherent contempt would be voted on.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003746.php

Whether or not Gioele is a troll trying to screw up the dicussion I do not know.

I think the committee is taking each and every step that there is to take as they gather more information. The longer the investigation, the more time people within the administration have to write letters to Congress or leak information.

You know, the wheels of Justice grind slowly.

I do imagine there are some innocent bystanders filled with joy watching the DoJ self-distruct.

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 1:07 PM:

Crust,

It is. In the thread from the previous article House Committee to Consider Contempt for Bolten, Miers By Paul Kiel - July 23, 2007, 11:12 AM

"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"

Posted by: Gioele
Date: July 23, 2007 12:15 PM

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 1:08 PM:

If anyone, other that Roberta, can point out why this isn't just more "All Smoke and No Fire" I think that would benefit the discussion.

bejammin075 wrote on July 23, 2007 1:38 PM:

Reminds me of the catchy Blue Oyster Cult song "Going through the motions" with a catchy corus with the same words..."And we're goin' through the mo-oh-shuns..."

Barry Champlain wrote on July 23, 2007 1:42 PM:

I have followed the trail of the "inherent contempt" gambit, from John Dean *, through the netroots and talk radio, all the way to John Conyers (* = I can't say for certain, but I do believe Mr. Dean was the first to propose taking "inherent contempt" out of mothballs, for this specific crisis).

This is a MAJOR victory for the people, a 180 from their previous inability to connect with Congress and create action. Previously, all we ever kept hearing (legitimately, unfortunately) was that the people were "ahead of Congress".

Well, this changes everything. And, as anyone who has followed this movement knows, "inherent contempt" WILL work.

So, I had to ask myself: if you're the Bush/Cheney administration, and up until now you've been confident that all your Federalist Society time bombs would rule for their masters and effectively quash any attempt at rule of law... how would you best shoot down the inevitable efficacy of the HJC's ratcheting it all up a notch, and invoking inherent contempt?

The answer is not pretty.

Congress sends, say, Miers, a little welcoming committee, consisting of the sergeant-at-arms and a couple of deputies.

The White House provides Ms. Miers with a Secret Service contingent, bolstered by an armed SWAT team.

In a showdown of brute strength, I believe the White House team would not hesitate to shoot to kill, in order to protect the "interests" of Bush and Cheney.

Conversely, a couple of deputies and the sergeant-at-arms would never challenge that potential for lethal violence. They'd back down.

And there you have next week, in a nutshell. In my humble opinion.

This will, I realize, sound as paranoid and tinfoil hat as anyone has ever written, but until the above denoument, all I can do is warn Conyers and Congress:

ARM UP NOW.

This will not be a simple arrest! If Conyers and company pull the trigger and opt for inherent contempt, this will be a paramilitary showdown, on the order of Fort Sumter.

(Laugh NOW...)

bekaye wrote on July 23, 2007 2:02 PM:

Barry,

You said, "I believe the White House team would not hesitate to shoot to kill." I was just wondering, who would they shoot at, the seargeant-at-arms or Ms. Miers?

Just wondering.

parrot wrote on July 23, 2007 2:04 PM:

How about we decide to back Congress on this instead of encouraging a "paramilitary" showdown? There are reactionaries and "revolutionaries" everywhere...but their leadership is poor...and that is where the hope lays now. In the poor leadership of those who don't really believe in the Constitutional process of government but pay it lip service to cover up their own criminality and distorted view of human potential.

Roberta wrote on July 23, 2007 2:11 PM:

"In a showdown of brute strength, I believe the White House team would not hesitate to shoot to kill, in order to protect the 'interests' of Bush and Cheney."

In light of everything else that has happened, keeping in mind the race to Ashcroft's hospital bed (didn't Gonzales have Secret Service with him, though not in the room?), I can't rule this out, though I'd like to.

But very practically speaking, how the heck would the Administration spin an armed confrontation with duly appointed representatives of a legitimate action by Congress? I can only see them justifying this if people haven't heard about the process that preceded it.

How much press is this getting in the MSM (I can't stand to watch and read them)? Do all of us need to take action by writing to our newspapers' editorial pages and contacting the major networks to insist they give this coverage before next week? At least then those who don't exactly follow the news might have heard something about this before it comes to a standoff or worse.

I'm going to take preemptive action by contacting the media, and I'm also going to go on record with my congressman AND my senators (who would already support it, I have no doubt--I live in WA state, with two female, Democratic senators and all federal and state offices in my district held by Democrats) so that there will be ample documentation of public support.

Hope for the best but plan for the worst? Might be the way to go.

Chabuka wrote on July 23, 2007 2:19 PM:

Criminal contempt....? They know that that will get them nothing... the courts stacked by the Bush administration with right-wing idealogues...its an attempt of futility and Conyers knows it..so actually they intend to let this criminal administration off..there will be no cooperation and it will all be forgotten

Chabuka wrote on July 23, 2007 2:20 PM:

Criminal contempt....? They know that that will get them nothing... the courts stacked by the Bush administration with right-wing idealogues...its an attempt of futility and Conyers knows it..so actually they intend to let this criminal administration off..there will be no cooperation and it will all be forgotten

Steve5117 wrote on July 23, 2007 2:27 PM:

The obvious way to do it will be to announce to everyone in the world that the marshal is on his way to bring someone in. The MSM will have to cover it. Make the announcement at 5PM and by 8 AM you'll have every video news crew within a couple hundred miles of DC in town.

There would be more people watching that than ever saw OJ's chase.

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 23, 2007 2:39 PM:

Wake me up when this national nightmare is over.

dm wrote on July 23, 2007 2:41 PM:

For the legal minds in the group:

Could Congress bring an action in the nature of mandamus to compel the US Attorney to pursue the prosecution IAW 28 USC 1361? The US Attorney certainly seems to have a duty to perform under 2 USC 194 ("...to the appropriate US Attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.").

This is the DC Circuit's latest summary of the standard for mandamus actions (from in re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005)):

"Jurisdiction over actions “in the nature of mandamus” under § 1361, like jurisdiction over the now-abolished petitions for writs of mandamus, is strictly confined. As the original panel in this case rightly pointed out, mandamus is “drastic”; it is available only in “extraordinary situations”; it is hardly ever granted; those invoking the court's mandamus jurisdiction must have a “clear and indisputable” right to relief; and even if the plaintiff overcomes all these hurdles, whether mandamus relief should issue is discretionary. See 334 F.3d at 1101-02. Although the panel was speaking of this court's mandamus jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, the Supreme Court held that the district court's “analysis of whether mandamus relief is appropriate should itself be constrained” by the same principles. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 124 S.Ct. at 2593; see Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984).

[4] We held in 13th Regional Corp. v. Dep't of the Interior, 654 F.2d 758 (D.C.Cir.1980), that the word “duty” in § 1361 must be narrowly defined, and that a plaintiff's legal grounds supporting the government's duty to him must “be clear and compelling.” Id. at 760. This does not mean that mandamus actions are ruled out whenever the statute allegedly creating the duty is ambiguous. Id. The district court still must interpret the underlying statute, as must we. But if there is no clear and compelling duty under the statute as interpreted, the district court must dismiss the action. To this extent, mandamus jurisdiction under § 1361 merges with the merits."

Janie wrote on July 23, 2007 2:42 PM:

Could the source of the information that Congress may well proceed with INHERENT CONTEMPT please state as clearly as possible who and what the source is?

This would be quite startling for Congress to pursue without first testing the mettle of the District of Columbia US Attorney, who may have scrupples his bosses don't know about.

drew wrote on July 23, 2007 3:06 PM:

I just called - statutory contempt.

drew wrote on July 23, 2007 3:08 PM:

I just called - statutory contempt.

Anonymous wrote on July 23, 2007 3:20 PM:

I believe Congress must not rush this and should take a by-the-books approach. Start with statutory contempt and see if the DC USA refuses to pursue it. For all we know, he might be a straight shooter who will take his responsibilities seriously. Obviously, if he did pursue the case, he'd be fired (on a Saturday night...how's that for symmetry?), which would then give Congress a stronger footing for inherent contempt proceedings.

Congress has the stronger hand here, and as any poker player knows, the trick is to not overplay it.

Anonymous wrote on July 23, 2007 3:42 PM:

Thanks drew. It was a little hard to believe they would do something that mattered, now any doubt is gone.

Grinner wrote on July 23, 2007 4:00 PM:

Weeks ago, I have seen posts that said that the current USA, DC was moved there by the Bush Admin. (read KR) knowing he will be the one take (in)action on contempt, if....

Security Code: tooth, as the tooth has been pulled in advance...

two beers wrote on July 23, 2007 4:06 PM:

Anon @ 3:20: pardon the pun, but the Dems haven't played so far like they have a pair. But they are on a big draw, and the pot is massive. And as any poker player knows, when you're on a big draw and the pot odds are in your favor, you play it (any one of a number of ways, but you play it). The Dems could stand work on their cost/benefit analysis.

Taking the analogy a little further....BushCo plays every hand the same, so they might be on 2-7 as well as KK. BushCo has only one move - coming in over-the-top, and when they don't push you off your hand, they up-end the table and storm off.

I'd guess we're about half-way through the tournament, but there is a clock, and the blinds are about to go up FAST.

It's time to put real pressure on these 2-bit gangsters.

Anonymous wrote on July 23, 2007 4:26 PM:

To take the analogy in a different direction (and mix metaphors to boot), this is just giving Bush more rope to hang himself with. By citing statutory contempt, the ball is back in Bush's court. If the USA pursues the case, he'll get fired (reminding everyone of the Saturday Night Massacre). Those who remember the Watergate years will recall that as the turning point. If the USA follows Bush's direction and refuses to pursue the case, everyone will see it as an assertion of IMPERIAL privilege instead of executive privilege.

Either way, it will move public opinion further towards impeachment, which may be the end game. While a narrow plurality favor impeachment proceedings, it takes a solid majority to give impeachment legitimacy. Furthermore, a refusal of the USA to prosecute gives Congress additional moral standing to pursue inherent contempt charges. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but inexorably. The only thing Bush can hope for is that he can run out the clock, but a year is a long time.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:52 PM:

Since the Office of Legal Counsel has already issued a memo that the U.S. Attorney CANNOT pursue any such statutory contempt, like I said above, can someone else point out to me why this isn't just more "All Smoke and No Fire"? Why is it O.K. for "two beers" to point out that the Dems haven't played so far like they have a pair between the bunch of 'em, but when I point out they have no balls, I get crucified?

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 5:58 PM:

OLC Memo:

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/olson.1984.opinion.pdf

two beers wrote on July 23, 2007 6:05 PM:

Jake,

The difference is that I say the Dems haven't played hardball YET, and that it APPEARS that they are treading lightly. And I am very impatient about the process and would like to impeach the crooks NOW, which is why I'd be a lousy lawyer. But, if the Conyers, Leahy, and Waxman are going where I hope they are going, then it sure looks like they are steadily laying out impervious, rock solid cases to snare the largest criminal operation in history: the modern Republican Party. They are crossing every "t", dotting every "i," so that when the Gangsters' Own Party founders, we won't have to listen to the likes of David Brooks and other criminal apologists scream about an unlawful partisan witch-hunt. Conyers, Waxman, and Leahy are scrupulous with the law - and Jake, that should give you nightmares.

Jake, you "get crucified" because you are a witless troll.

Anne wrote on July 23, 2007 6:44 PM:

I just sent this letter to the Judiciary Committee.

The Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee
U.S. House of Representatives

Dear Representatives,

I just called the Judiciary committee, (202) 225-3951, to find out whether the committee would be considering statutory or inherent contempt on Wednesday and was informed by the person answering the phone that he thought the Committee would be pursuing statutory contempt but could possibly consider inherent contempt.

Here are my thoughts. Since the only available options appear to be inherent contempt or statutory contempt, the obvious choice has to be inherent contempt for the following reasons. President Bush has said that if Congress holds Meiers and Bolten in contempt, the DOJ would not prosecute. Therefore, for Congress to do so unsuccessfully would not only strengthen the presidency, but weaken Congress as well as disappoint the American people, who are looking to Congress for courage in these trying times, not the easy way out. I realize there may be some members of Congress who think that by voting for statutory contempt they can have it both ways in that they can say to their constituents, "I tried," without any effect. A watchdog without teeth comes to mind. The American people are smarter than that.

Inherent contempt, on the other hand, would require them be tried by Congress. If Congress brought inherent contempt charges, I doubt that it would even go to trial, because once Congess voted to bring inherent contempt charges, I believe Meirs and Bolten would testify, which is what Congress is after, yes? If not, that alone is prima facie evidence they have something to hide, and the Congressional show of courage will help restore to Congress the trust and faith of the American people. We are paying attention to what happens here. We appreciate all you do , even though we sometimes may seem impatient for results. Here is a clear opportunity for you to show innovative, decisive, and effective leadership.

Thank you for your consideration and thank you for all you do.

Anne Lundberg

MD wrote on July 23, 2007 7:50 PM:

I think two beers has the right idea, and we should relax a bit on the inherent contempt. It's unfortunate, but a "trial" in congress - being such a weird thing to those of us not alive in 1934 - has a strong chance of backfiring very strongly with Joe and Jane Middleamerica unless all the ducks are in a row beforehand. The MSM will do everything it can to carry Bush's jock, so the story has to be rock solid, with a serious "we gave them every possible chance to avoid this" flavor.

A refusal by the USA to pursue statutory contempt is a duck. Frankly, I think the preemptive letter from the administration saying "the USA cannot enforce contempt against ex-executive branch officials" was an extra duck that Congress wasn't expecting. I wonder how many of them said "thanks, King George, you moron" when that got publicized.

Ducks. Rows. A little more patience. Quack.

two beers wrote on July 23, 2007 9:35 PM:

MD: Actually, I DON'T think we should relax on the inherent contempt.

I think Conyers is measured and does everything in order. Criminal contempt first, and then inherent. But criminal contempt will get bogged down in the courts. A real trial in Congress would be the best possible way to expose BushCo in a way the media and distracted public couldn't ignore.

Based on Conyers' previous statements, I'd thought he would pursue the criminals vigorously. Based on today's comments in response to Sheehan and McGovern, I do worry that he may be just as happy to let this get slogged through the Bush's courts. I HOPE he has a plan, and that it isn't just to wait until 2009. But whatever he does, it will be procedurally sound. By all means, let's keep the heat on about inherent contempt.

If Conyers drops the ball, I think Waxman and Leahy will come through.

Al in Austex wrote on July 23, 2007 9:47 PM:

Barry C.
Yep it might come down to an armed confrontation between the BushCO & Congress.But it would be the final venal act of a corrupted Administration. We have more guns in the hinterlands then even the Federal Marshalls & BlackWater could suppress. And Barry also remember that many Progressives are as well or better armed then most any neo cons -and our cousins the Liberterians (as in the the Ron Paul Revolution ) would also being coming to this particular hoedown ( me and my Cousins may disagree about reproductive rights etc-but we always find common ground on our Constitutional Guarantees).
But Barry I think its rather slim odds that an armed confrontation breaksout in the well of Congress. Leahy et all have got the goods on BushCo the other shoe will drop politically sooner rather then later, Patience my friend -especially in this context is a Virtue.

Kent Mueller wrote on July 24, 2007 2:29 AM:

The House and Senate are lining up their ducks (sadly, that often makes them easier to slaughter), dotting their i's and crossing their t's. The White House is, as always under this administration, crossing their i's and dotting their t's.

This IS a constitutional crisis. After tomorrow's lame testimony by AG AG impeachment should be clearly back on the table. Censure should be persued immediately, and this whole matter should be moved toward the Supreme Court as soon as possible, with all diligent haste.

Charges of contempt will hopefully be levelled Wednesday, in whatever forn best serves the case of Congress in the long run. The continued resistance of the Bush administration ill-serves their eventual, inevitable case.

With luck and grace, recognizing their role as the last untarnished branch of government, as the final recourse, as well as the limited role left to the Bush crowd, Roberts and Alito would step back for the sake of the institution. That they were appointed by the man might be enough for some kind of recusal. Hopefully the remaining majority would vote in favor of Congress.

At the least this would be precedent for the future, proof of precisely how far the American people will go, and above all a rebuke to Cheney's Nixonian theory of the Unitary Executive, a Sun King in essence. At worst it will prove all hope is lost, even the last and greatest of institutions is rotten to it's core.