Comments (134)

TheOtherWA wrote on July 25, 2007 2:39 PM:

Could the republics be any more pathetic?

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 2:43 PM:

"That's a contemptible display of executive power, Democrats argue."

Democrats argue? I guess you have to give the impression of impartiality, but that should have a period where the comma now stands.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 2:43 PM:

How transparent.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 2:46 PM:

Does Conyers dispute Congress would be bound by a neagtive Supreme Court ruling? At least the uncertainty of this untested legal argument gives Congress some bargaining leverage. As for any Republicans worried about BUSH being an Imperial President, that's obviously not the case. It is clear they are concerned about the next (Democrat Hillary?) President being handed a blank check, signed by the Supreme Court.

pocket wrote on July 25, 2007 2:51 PM:

So, if you 'do nothing' and let the executive branch do what ever the hell they want (let them act in an imperial manner), then you won't have an imperial prez. But if you 'act' to try to stop a prez from imperial his imperial actions, you'll get an imperial prez.

Crystal clear logic....can't wait for the FoxLogic to run with it.

I'm suprised they didn't just suggest we, as a nation, close our eyes and imagine nothing is wrong.

pocket wrote on July 25, 2007 2:54 PM:

So, if you 'do nothing' and let the executive branch do what ever the hell they want (let them act in an imperial manner), then you won't have an imperial prez. But if you 'act' to try to stop a prez from excercising imperial actions, you'll get an imperial prez.

Crystal clear logic....can't wait for the FoxLogic to run with it.

I'm suprised they didn't just suggest we, as a nation, close our eyes and imagine nothing is wrong.

Or, they may just be saying that the SCOTUS ruling on this issue has already been _decided_ by the imperial prez.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 25, 2007 2:54 PM:

For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.

DNS wrote on July 25, 2007 2:54 PM:

The Republicans' position is that it's better to give something away without a fight than get into a fight that you're afraid you might lose.

In other words, if you really fear a particular state of affairs, it's better to let it happen than to take a risk that it might happen.

That makes about as much sense as "we'll filibuster and then accuse you of getting nothing done" -- but that's the modern Republican Party for you.

TheraP wrote on July 25, 2007 2:55 PM:

It's the "fear" card. Imagine if the Founding Fathers had stopped writing the Declaration of Independence, in case it didn't work!

Stand up and be counted, Fourth Branch!

johnnydoughey wrote on July 25, 2007 3:00 PM:

Am I wrong in believing this?

If one or more of the Democrat candidates begin to state to the public the exact ways, if elected, he/she will immediately do something concrete to diminish the out of control power of the presidency, I will vote for them. If they don't, I do not believe there will be a democracy to care about with the next couple of decades because both parties have now learned how to circumvent our constitution It does not matter WHICH mobsters are in power!
Remember... there WAS NO Gulf of Tonkin incident and that was a democrat. There WERE NO weapons of masss destruction and this is a republican.
The dead soldiers were both democrat and republican and they are STILL DEAD!

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 3:01 PM:

Thank you, Michael; let me add -- please, don't feed the animals.

The trolls are interesting to watch, and can occasionally provide a display of ignorance that will take your breath away.

They're here for your enjoyment -- but please, don't feed them, don't throw things at them to get them to respond, and remember:

Sites like this *allow* trolls. Sites in Right Wignuttia ban Progressive or Left commenters, and worse.

(Code = range, as in "Free Range Troll")

Chris wrote on July 25, 2007 3:03 PM:

Late to the party on this, but if the administration instructs the USA not to proceed, are they not committing obstruction of justice?

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 3:04 PM:

This was a comical bit in an overall pathetic demostration that no matter what the republicans say, no matter what public statements they make of concern, no matter how much profess to be concerned aboutthe rule of law... the they are and always will be the same despotic, criminal, fascists group of Bush bootlickers that ran our government for 6 years, investigated NOTHING and permitted these constitutional abuses to go unabated.

They will run like hell from the president in September - or at least any that have '08 elections will, but make no mistake - they are the same contempable, spineless, weasles. They have not changed one bit.

As our troll clearly displays, there is no bottom to the well of their corruption, no boundary to their behavior to obfiscate crime, and no end to their stonewalling.

pocket wrote on July 25, 2007 3:06 PM:

Jake also seems to be a 9-5 kind of troll.

TO ALL NON-TROLLS:
I propose that we TPM'ers F with the troll during his working hours, and get down to buisness after his shift is over.

Just please start with a 'Jake" as the first line in your post, so we all now that your just F'ing with him and the rest of us can skip the post to the ones that count.

That's my two cents on the subject.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:06 PM:

Slim Picken's:

Since it was a straight party-line vote, which Republican are you referring to?

Anna S. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:08 PM:

Is there a lawyer here that can give us context on the argument that Cannon is trying to make? On my understanding, Meirs is showing contempt if she doesn't show up for a hearing to which she has been called by subpeona (the question of executive privilege is irrelevant; she *has* to show up even if she then refuses to answer every question because the President has asserted executive privilege). If my understanding is correct, then wrongdoing has clearly occurred. Is there a different standard by which the courts would be evaluating the contempt citations?

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:11 PM:

Slim Picken's:

Maybe you can explain "you have to give the impression of impartiality" since it was a straight party-line vote.

JT wrote on July 25, 2007 3:17 PM:

Cannon's argument is breathtakingly stupid. If we exercise our powers to check the Imperial Presidency, the Supreme Court might just create an Imperial Presidency, so the best thing to do is just allow the Imperial Presidency.

Yeah, I bet House Republicans are scared of it - now that they can see where it could leave them in 2009. I'm sure they'll find all kinds of excuses for doing nothing until 2009-01-20.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:23 PM:

pocket:

I posted last night after dinner (it was well after 5 pm) and early this morning before 9 am too. By all means, please "F" with me all you want.

tbhull wrote on July 25, 2007 3:25 PM:

Sensenbrenner at least has a colorable argument as to how to commence the procedure to enforce the subpoenas. The guy from Utah is a worthless party repub party ass licker with a bag full of zeros.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 3:26 PM:

"you have to give the impression of impartiality"

…was referring to the tpmwebsite Jake, not the hearings... but if I were, erring on the side of impartiality is clearly the Democratic position. If they can't get the information to investigate the crimes, then WH and DOJ have left them with not other choice. I am glad someone has the balls to stand up for the rule of law.

"Since it was a straight party-line vote, which Republican are you referring to?"

ALL OF THEM JAKE – They are spineless crooks, one and all. When the many, many investigations of this criminal administration hit pay dirt - and in my opinion it already has - but when the inevitable happens, and the evidence is incontrovertible, what will you tell yourself? How will you explain your defense of this criminal cabal?

I do hope you are paid well for your time, because the damage it would cause my morale to defend such an obvious criminal conspiracy, to explain people who have stepped on our Constitution, and spit on everything our country is about, is devastating to contemplate. I would not wrestle with that for any amount of money.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 3:27 PM:

I must be getting old. I remember a time when people would be embarrassed to advance such an absurd argument.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:28 PM:

JT:

It's called not shooting yourself in the foot, but "keeping your powder dry" ; )

pacr wrote on July 25, 2007 3:30 PM:

Isn't a bit late to be talking about creating an imperial presidency? A total, and arrogant, contempt for Congress is a sure sign we already have one. Clearly there is a flaw in our system of government if it this easy for the executive branch to thumb its nose at Congress only for Congress to realize how little actual power of retaliation it has. Why are we all so scared of a constitutional show down? It seems to me that Bush and Co have already started the fight.

Can we selectively de-fund the executive branch? At least make the Republicans pay for their Monarchy!

pocket wrote on July 25, 2007 3:32 PM:

Jake,

I just love the fact that TPM muckracker now has a pet Troll!!

It just brings laughter and joy to my day reading your views.

biggerbox wrote on July 25, 2007 3:32 PM:

You know, the Republicans are half-right. Since a criminal contempt charge will get tied up in courts for a long time, especially since the question of whether the Pres can block the US Attorney from proceeding will come first, it would probably be better to go for inherent contempt, and have the Sergeant-at-Arms lock Harriet and Josh in the Capitol basement. The clock is ticking and we don't have time to fart around until the Bushistas leave office.

kevo wrote on July 25, 2007 3:33 PM:

For the whole world to see, these House Republicans are continuing the obstruction of justice. They have shown themselves more loyal to man (the Bush WH) than to the rule of law. Well, I say let's start now to remind these lowly House Reps. that we will vote them out in the next three election cycles. Yes, dust it off - Vote the Republican Rascals Out in '08. '10 and '12. -Kevo

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:34 PM:

Slim Picken's:

I'm retired, so I don't get paid anything to post here. Were you this gung-ho about the "rule of law" during Clinton's impeachment?

Dave Adams wrote on July 25, 2007 3:35 PM:

A weapon that you are unwilling to use is no weapon- its a paperweight.

Knowing that we don't have (and won't ever get) Grover Norquist's "Permanent Republican Majority", I don't see how House Republicans can justify seeting such a craven precedent (not to mention the oath they take to uphold the Constitution). Are they so short-sighted that they don't believe that an opportunistic Democratic President wouldn't insist on the same Executive Priviledge that Bush is demanding? Are they really that stupid?

I'm a life-long Democrat and I wouldn't trust a Democratic President with that power.

...(much less a Republican)

Dave Bowman wrote on July 25, 2007 3:35 PM:

Cannon's 'legal' argument only makes sense in Utah, in the fine tradition of Orrin Hatch.

Don Kimball wrote on July 25, 2007 3:35 PM:

I'm tired of party line votes,loyalty trumping competence,and if I hear any more about their"base" I'll puke. Gametime is over time to grow up and govern.

Steve5117 wrote on July 25, 2007 3:35 PM:

Congress must continue to do what it is doing unitil Bush is forced to resign or Congress has the votes to impeach. If that can't be accomplished, wait until Bush is out of office to prosecute to eliminate any pardons.

Either way the handwriting is on the wall, this administration is going to fall.

POed Lib wrote on July 25, 2007 3:38 PM:

What I am hoping is that, once Hillary is elected, she immediately uses the powers of Bush to send all the Repukeliscum Representatives into extraordinary rendition prison.

Because there is NOTHING to stop the president from doing that.

So why not? The Repukeliscum are in favor of torture. So am I, as long as I get to choose the torturee.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:39 PM:

Happy to help, pocket.

P.S. biggerbox 1) you and what Army are going to "lock up" Miers and Bolton; 2) contempt of Congress is arguably pardonable by the President so THAT will tie it up for years (at least until this Congress adjourns, which is how long "inherent contempt" lasts. Checkmate. Nice try though.

Fast1200 wrote on July 25, 2007 3:40 PM:

It is clear to that this whole shuffle is just to buy time. Think. Why are we in Iraq? If we haven't secured our intrests (control of thier oil--hunt around on the web & investigate)we cannot impeach. Rep & Dem are both in on the game.
If you are liking of real representation ck out Ron Paul -- hes on You Tube.
So much info to shuffle through.....

johnnydoughey wrote on July 25, 2007 3:40 PM:

I apologize for not giving credit to the poster who reminded me on one of these blogs that just because there is a defense of executive priveledge during some testimony, does not excuse one from showing up to testify before congress.
It would be the same as not showing up during a local criminal trial and just sending a note telling the judge you were just going to plead the 5th anyway...
I note this because one of dangers of this administration is that after disregarding the law so many times, the public (especially the uninformed ones) can get used to it and begin to believe it is perfectly acceptable. This, however, is one of the subtle ways we continue to lose more and more civil rights, and are becoming more and more of a police state, with different rules and penalties for the important people with respect to us common folk...
Thanks again for the reminder...

Cowboy wrote on July 25, 2007 3:40 PM:

The party line vote was definitely not a shining moment for the Repubes.

There was also an exchange right after Rep. Schiff spoke, when some Repube from Florida said that people shouldn't get the "mistaken impression" that the Republicans would vote any differently if the president was a Democrat. Yeah, and convicted felon David Safavian wasn't Rep. Chris Cannon's Chief of Staff.

POed Lib wrote on July 25, 2007 3:42 PM:

The current Bush Administration approach turns the Rule of Law into the Rule of Strength: If I can do it, I will do it. It is the Mafiacization of the US government. The president is Don Corleone, and the AG is his consigliere. The consigliere is there to tell the president HOW to do what the PRESIDENT wants. It does not matter about legality, or truth, or reality. Just "Can I do it, and how?"

Living in a mafia state is not fun, folks. But this is the desire of Repukeliscum morons like Jake.

Soon, Jake, we will rule, and we will be coming after you, peabrain.

tbhull wrote on July 25, 2007 3:44 PM:

Posted by: POed Lib
Date: July 25, 2007 3:38 PM

Hillary is part of the establishment and part of the problem. She is friends with GWB and his family. If HRC ever becomes prez she might even pardon GWB if he gets in too deep, especially given the fact that the next prez will get to abuse the American people and the Constitution thanks to the actions of BushCo and the pathetic inaction of this Congress to stop such blatant abuses of the executive branch.

Duckman GR wrote on July 25, 2007 3:47 PM:

"And since there's no wrongdoing, it's likely that Congress will lose its battle with the White House in court. And if they lost, he says, future claims of executive privilege by the White House would be much stronger, since they'd be resting on the Supreme Court's decision."

If there's no "wrongdoing" (which of course has yet to be determined) what is it that the court will be decidering? Or is it the court that will be decidering that issue.

Of course their argument rests on circular reasoning, that there is no evidence of wrongdoing, therefore there is no wrongdoing, even though the reason there is no evidence is that the White House is lying and covering up and not answering determinative questions that would actually provide that evidence.

In essence, since we're covering up the truth, the truth is what we say it is, and you're a traitor to America to think there is something there worth looking at, because we said so.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:47 PM:

Don Kimball:

Do you assume that all the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would have voted for the comtempt citation had they voted their conscience rather than straight party-line? Or, your position is so mighty and just, that it should have been a unanimous vote? I prefer our current system, thank you very much.

Steve5117:

Who is going to prosecute someone, if said someone has a Presidential pardon?

POed Lib:

Then I hope Congress stay Democratic, because they would have to impeach Hillary to remain consistent, right? Besides, the United States does not torture.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 3:48 PM:

Yes Jake - why would you assume otherwise? I'm for the rule of law anywhere anytime I was disgusted by Clinton's behavior. I think he should have been censored (not impeached) - and frankly I wasn't a fan of his policies. I am not afraid, in any way to admit it.

I hope you are honest enough to see that these people have DEMONSTRATED criminal activities in relation to:

1. the presidential records act
2. national security letters
3. disclosure of a covert agent (she said so under oath, in front of congress)
4. war intelligence
5. testimony to a grand jury
6. political prosecutions under DOJ
7. hundreds of FOIA requests

That's just a sampler, I could go on and on. And these are not allegations - they have happened.

Now, can youtell me where you are on the rule of law?

BronxInTN wrote on July 25, 2007 3:50 PM:

The word "appeasement" comes to mind. Cannon says that the House must now appease Bush in Bush's current expansion of the presidential power, or else Bush may make even more dangerous power grabs in the future.

Let's see: how well has appeasement of power-hungry national leaders worked in the past?

jak1 wrote on July 25, 2007 3:50 PM:

My favorite line of the thread......... so far!

>>The trolls are interesting to watch, and can occasionally provide a display of ignorance that will take your breath away.>ignorance that will take your breath away<<

Conyers explained it nicely. Putting the cart before the horse. So to speak. Don't we have 'full disclosure in this country. I thought this was about getting the evidence. Oh, and contempt!

Long live the King! George II. Cause if he croaks, then we get Cheney!

osama_been_forgotten wrote on July 25, 2007 3:50 PM:

Idiot Dems never played poker before.

CALL THEIR BLUFF!!!

Call for an immediate Constitutional Amendment - to be passed on an emergency basis - work 24x7 till it's done - to override and preempt any SCOTUS ruling that would create an Imperial Presidency.

Any Republican that voted against such an Amendment would be politically crucified. And, Dems would be able to short-circuit Bush's court-stacking.

Anyway, it's becoming pretty damn clear that we're not just headed to a constitutional crisis - we're there, we've been there. We just weren't sure how far the Republicans were willing to go with this. Now we know. They will go all the way to SCOTUS - and they must be stopped, and this is the ONLY legal vehicle available. Congress MUST take responsibility to amend the constitution, to draw clear limits on the powers of the executive branch (including OVP).

tbhull wrote on July 25, 2007 3:51 PM:

Posted by: POed Lib
Date: July 25, 2007 3:42 PM

You are correct. BushCo can only play power politics. Diplomacy and concession have no place in the world of this dry drunk fundamentalist. Congress is in the midst of power politics pissing match with a hopelessly corrupt executive and bringing anything less than impeach (i.e. indictments, contempt charges, etc..) is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

EH wrote on July 25, 2007 3:53 PM:

What is this theory by which the President exercises his rights to excuse Miers' and Bolton's contempt, tying the contempt issue up in court for a long time? Why wouldn't this be dealt with quickly? There's not a lot of complication into the issue of whether executive privilege applies, so if there's some other detail by which a delay can be hung, I'm interested to know about it.

On the face of it, the issue of executive privilege (or any related exercise by the administration) would be dispensed with rather quickly.

MasonMcD wrote on July 25, 2007 3:54 PM:

Since a criminal contempt charge will get tied up in courts for a long time, especially since the question of whether the Pres can block the US Attorney from proceeding will come first, it would probably be better to go for inherent contempt, and have the Sergeant-at-Arms lock Harriet and Josh in the Capitol basement.

Seeing as how they both apply, why not both at once?

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 3:54 PM:

Cowboy:

Bringing up some random fact that doesn't support the case at hand is a typical right wing trick for which the right wing should be scoriated for using, and for which the left wing should be upbraided for presuming to use one of our tactics.

So what if a convicted felon was the right hand picked man of the Congressman from Utah? That it reveals the depth of the Congressman's judgment, his absense of judgment should not reflect on the fact that Cannon associates with known felons in any way.

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 3:56 PM:

JakeD: "Does Conyers dispute Congress would be bound by a neagtive Supreme Court ruling?"

Does JakeD dispute that the Bush administration and future administrations would be bound by a positive Supreme Court ruling?

Steve5117 wrote on July 25, 2007 3:57 PM:

Poor troll must be desperate.

Once Bush is no longer president, no matter of how he gets there, he and the rest of his administration will be subject to prosecution for any crimes they may have committeed while serving their leader.

However, Bush is not their saviour, their allegiance to him ill be their downfall. Rather ironic I say! LOL

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 3:59 PM:

"Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

Well, apparently, Bush has a precedent for making broad-stroke pardons that cover any crime his dark little heart desires.

And boy, howdy, that sure guaranteed Ford he'd get re-elected, huh?

If Bush tries to use his power to create this sort of broad pardon for the lawless little goebel/goerings that surround him, he may be able to save his closest minions, but he will drive a nail into the Republican coffin, that is already being prepped for the body.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 4:03 PM:

Slim Picken's:

"Censure" of a President is arguably un-Constitutional -- but, let me ask if you are in favor of Feingold's censure resolution of Bush rather than impeachment -- that would put you in the minority around here. As for your list of "alleged" (no one has been convicted for those) crimes, if anyone in the Bush Administration were to get indicted (like Libby) they should resign or be impeached -- I have no problem prosecuting someone in good faith to the fullest extent of the law. Does that explain where I stand on the "rule of law"?

JEP wrote on July 25, 2007 4:04 PM:

Hey, Paul, your headline is only partially accurate; These R's don't fear an imperial Bush Presidency, they aree all rolling in no-bid dough because of it, so they aren't fearful of that at all.

What they REALLY fear is a Democratic President with the kind of powers they have handed to Bush, both legally and illegally, over the past 6 years.

And rightly so. If they are ever forced to face the same lopsided legal imbalance that they have foisted upon all of us, they will all end up in federal prison.

So, don't expect Bushlike presidential powers to survive until the next president. The R's won't let it happen, that would be unconstitutional.

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 4:07 PM:

JakeD: "It is clear they are concerned about the next (Democrat Hillary?) President being handed a blank check, signed by the Supreme Court."

If the current claim of executive privilege is constitutional, then why shouldn't we know that and avoid all the bloviating and hand-wringing by Republican members of Congress.

There is nothing wrong with any president, Republican or Democrat, exercising their constitutional prerogatives and the sooner we have some certainty about what those prerogatives are the better.

Nobody benefits from uncertainty in the law.

In conservative lingo, the argument that we must maintain uncertainty is a canard.

If Congress does not have the power the Democrats claim, then they shouldn't be allowed to bully presidents into giving in due to uncertainty or for any other reason.

And if presidents don't have the power that Bush claims, then they shouldn't be allowed to bully Congress into letting them get away with it.

Let's settle it.

If Bush and the GOP don't want it settled for some unseemly reason, then they have the cure at their fingertips: compromise by Bush.

salesanalyst wrote on July 25, 2007 4:07 PM:

Of course we already have an "imperial presidency" according to the current occupants of the WH and their lawyers. All anyone needs to do is read any of the hundreds of signing statements routinely attached to legislation to see just how "imperial" they really think they are.

This text appears boiler plate in many signing statements:

"The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient."

So, it's all up to POTUS to decide depending if he thinks is necessary and expedient. Amazing. No one has yet challenged the executive on their absurd claims in court, and they should. This is just one step in the long path.

Here's another that shows complete contempt for Congress, as the executive will not consult, but rather "notify", if they feel like it, even if the law requires consultation.

"Because the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the references in the provisions to consulting to require only notification."

These examples were found at the coherent babble site - read 'em and weep.

http://coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 4:11 PM:

MasonMcD:

That would be the most logical course -- politically, however, the Dems are going to have to pick one or the other, and my bet is on a referral to the U.S. Attorney first.

anonymous:

That's a very interesting question. Andrew Jackson didn't seem to think so, as you may be aware. The problem with Congress trying to defy the Supreme Court is that you have to get so many Congressmen and women to agree.

Steve5117:

Please (re-)read "Nixon Pardon" posted at 3:59 pm.

"no name":

Is Bush running for re-election? I didn;t think so.

P.S. that was a fake "Jake D." at 3:54 pm.

Roberta wrote on July 25, 2007 4:12 PM:

TPM: Please fix Cannon's quote, which now reads "And that would 'make the presidency in America, a much stronger, imperial office.'"

What he said was "a much stronger, more imperial office."

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 4:17 PM:

anonymous:

It seems to be headed to the ROBERTS Supreme Court regardless -- of course, they could always "punt" and declare it a political question ; )

salesanalyst:

You do realize that President Clinton issued the same type of signing statements, and it was his OLC who justified their use, right?

JEP wrote on July 25, 2007 4:18 PM:

I hope at least one of the US-Attorneys has the constitutional decency to defy Bush and haul the Washington DC gang in, or at least they can force Bush to fire them like Cox, Richardson and Ruclkeshaus did to Nixon.

It might save the Republican party from the need for a post-mortem, a few good Republicans saved the whole party in Nixon's time, I wonder if any will come forward, and prove they believe in their country mnore than they believe in GW Bush.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 25, 2007 4:20 PM:

"let me ask if you are in favor of Feingold's censure resolution of Bush rather than impeachment -- that would put you in the minority around here. "

No, censure is far too little for Bush and Co.

Jake, over 3,500 Americans are dead (let alone the tens of thousands of Iraqis), our fundamental rights as citizens have been completely trampled, the country is saddled with crippling debt (only after the Dems came into office did we pay for any of the war, the rest [aquired under the republican Congress] is still held as debt). Some people's lives have been destroyed, and the rule of law of been completely subverted and ignored... a crime that will genberations to rectify.

That's a lot different than using a cigar to check someone's plumbing and then lying about it.

"(no one has been convicted for those) crimes"

Of course not, they are stonewalling all the investigations, what do you think today hearing was about? Nothing else. The "confidentiality" arguement would be comical if it weren't the very future of our republic that these fascists pigs were playing with.

In my opinion, the members of the Administration deserve a fair trial in a court of law - nothing more nothing less. As theysaid when they wer caught spying on Americans, if they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't be afraid.

Cowboy wrote on July 25, 2007 4:21 PM:

Nice bank shot JakeD.

If a representative hires a CHIEF OF STAFF -- not some intern -- but a CHIEF OF STAFF -- who is later convicted of a felony involving corruption issues that would certainly raise questions about his judgment. If that same representative praises the performance of Alberto Gonzales -- as Cannon did just two months ago -- it only calls his judgment into question further.

Now Canon thinks that it's time to let sleeping dogs lie with this whole U.S. Attorney issue. Why should we assume NOW that his judgment is untainted and trustworthy?

Given the recent experience of his party with corruption issues--which have touched very closely to Canon's own office--I would think that he would want to get everything out in the open now to clear his good name. This is not unlike what Dana Rohrabacher did in the early days of this matter calling for full disclosure when this story first broke. I suspect he did this to get some separation from the members of the Republican California House delegation who have gotten into more than a little trouble (on issues directly relating to this U.S. Attorney firing matter).

Apparently Canon doesn't want to do that, which suggests to my mind that he likely has a conflict of interest with this issue. Either that or he's fighting against the interests of the institution in which he serves -- he's ceding new powers to the executive branch -- because he's stupid. I don't think Canon is stupid.

Gandhi wrote on July 25, 2007 4:21 PM:

The fake cons don't want the courts to decide because they fear that after 2009 a new president could rely on Bush's tactics.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 4:22 PM:

As I said, Cowboy, that wasn't me.

Allen wrote on July 25, 2007 4:22 PM:

A little legal info for the discussion: (1)The recipient of an inherent powers contempt citation cannot be pardoned by the President for the reason they have not been criminally convicted. Nor is there any avenue of apeal of such citation. This is well-settled law. (2) The Capitol police (not to be confused with the D.C. police) can make the arrest of Meiers & Bolton anywhere in Washington, D.C., excepting on the property of any executive branch facility. It also probable that the D.C. police have the jurisdiction to make the arrests anywhere in the city limits.

Samsara wrote on July 25, 2007 4:23 PM:

So, according to the Republican argument, Congress should have "evidence of wrongdoing" before enforcing subpoenas.

...How would Congress get this evidence?

By conducting investigations as part of the oversight function of Congress.

...What if witnesses refuse to testify?

Subpoena them.

But, according to Republicans, Congress shouldn’t enforce its subpoena unless they have “evidence of wrongdoing”. And you cant get evidence without subpoenas.

In short, if you must have “evidence of wrongdoing” before enforcing a subpoena, then the Congress does not have a real oversight power. If the Bushies on the Supreme Court want to change the current interpretation of the Constitution and strip Congress of that time honored power, then let them. The sooner the better.

Take this to court ASAP.

osama_been_forgotten wrote on July 25, 2007 4:23 PM:

Jake, you're a lying sack of crap.

Clinton used signing statements. Every president has used signing statements going back, I think to even Truman.

But the frequency, and scale of the statements Bush uses is several orders of magnitude greater than any previous president. Bush uses them as a tool to invalidate laws, or exclude them from specifically covering the executive branch. No other president has abused signing statements like this. Not even Clinton.

I'll say that Clinton abused the crap out of Executive Orders. But again - Bush exceeds him by several orders of magnitude on this, as well.

Of course, whether or not you, personally, define this as "abuse" - depends on whether you agree with Bush's agenda, and whether you give a crap about the values on which our nation was founded as put forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Apparently, you care a great deal about the former, and not so much about the latter.

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 4:26 PM:

JakeD: "Does that explain where I stand on the 'rule of law'?"

It might if you had actually demonstrated any understanding of the phrase "rule of law."

Sadly, you have not.

"That's a very interesting question. Andrew Jackson didn't seem to think so, as you may be aware. The problem with Congress trying to defy the Supreme Court is that you have to get so many Congressmen and women to agree."

So, your take is that Congress is bound by a Supreme Court decision, but the president is not.

Now, that's an interesting argument.

But I have no idea where you come up with Congress trying to defy the Supreme Court, since nothing I wrote even remotely suggests that they should or can or have or will.

"'Censure' of a President is arguably un-Constitutional . . ."

Since anything can be argued, this is a fairly meaningless introductory phrase.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 4:32 PM:

Slim Picken's:

I don't think they are afraid : )

Allen:

Care to cite a case for the "well-settled" proposition that a Congressional contempt is beyond a Presidential pardon? Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) holds that the President can pardon judicial contempt orders. I would argue the same rationale applies here.

As for District of Columbia jurisdiction, where are you getting that info on the Capitol Police? Regardless, you do know that Mr. Bolton works at a certain Executive branch facility and that Ms. Miers is in Texas, right?

salesanalyst wrote on July 25, 2007 4:35 PM:

JakeD:
"salesanalyst:

You do realize that President Clinton issued the same type of signing statements, and it was his OLC who justified their use, right?"

Yes of course I know that many presidents have issued signing statements, including Clinton. However, have you read any of them? They are generally informative and state Clinton's opinion on the law, but do not explicitly state that he was not going to enforce said law. And Nussbaum's justification opinion on signing statements referred exclusively to obviously unconstitutional laws. Big Difference.

Duckman GR wrote on July 25, 2007 4:35 PM:

Cowboy, Jake D. is a useless git whose arguments aren't worthy of debate, he's just out to waste time and effort.

I concocted that fake Jake post, you noticed that he mostly crapped on his right wing side.

Sorry if I winged ya in the process! You weren't bringing up a random fact, I just took a little license to scoriate the right wing.

Kim EM wrote on July 25, 2007 4:41 PM:

No feeding the troll? Guys, you're making him a glutton.

As to precedents, the arguments I've seen appear to be based on the concept "if there's no 'underlying crime', then there's nothing to prosecute". If we buy into that piece of bamboozlement, then we've given the store away. "Crime B" doesn't depend on the existence of "Crime A". Perjury is perjury, whatever the motivation for committing it, concealing a crime or avoiding embarrassment. Contempt is contempt, whether the reason is a claim of privilege or (again) concealment of a crime. Whether or not there was wrongdoing is irrelevant to the argument. If the subpoena requires her presence, then her not showing up is contempt. What she testifies to (or invokes privilege on) is an entirely separate issue.

One other thing. There was a recent suggestion (by o_b_f) of a constitutional amendment to limit presidential powers. I doubt that it is doable in the time frame to affect Bush 43, but it is worth doing. This congress should start working on a new amendment, the "Presidential Powers Act", which would define and constrain the powers of the President, Vice President, and executive branch. Just like any amendment, it's going to take some time to get it passed, and even more time to get it ratified, though one suspects that recent history will provide a big impetus to the states.

The text needs to be relatively simple and straightforward, because it's when all the legal jargon and the clauses to nail down each detail are added that the wiggle room to flout the act is entrenched. It's the amendments with simple, direct rules that are most effective. Avoid the mumbo-jumbo and read it carefully for possible double-meanings, and define what the President and Vice President can and cannot do.

One suspects that it will be necessary, in order to get this voted on, to "go nuclear" in the senate, and establish a rule forbidding filibuster on amendments. That can cut both ways, but that's what the ratification process is for, to prevent a senate from passing out an intemperate amendment.

As to content, there are a lot of possibilities. I, personally, don't want the pushback to result in a weak president, just a better balance of responsibilities and powers. Id' like to circumscribe the limits of executive privilidge while not eliminating it altogether. I'd also like to see the role of the Vice President defined. Aside from presiding over the senate, all he is currently defined to do is keep his heart beating in case he becomes president. All his other duties are ex-officio. Defining him soething useful to do might aid in preventing another unaccountable Vice President who dominates the executive.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 4:46 PM:

OBL:

I'm not sure that Bush issued signing statements "several orders of magnitude greater" than Clinton. Clinton also used them as a tool to invalidate laws, or exclude them from specifically covering the Executive branch. You want examples, or are you defining "abuse" as only those signing statements you don't like politically?

anonymous:

Would it be better to note that Constitutional scholars do not agree whether "Censure" of a President is available to Congress? Also, did you post at 3:56 PM or not? In that post, you quoted my post about Congress and then asked about Bush. If Congress could unite to defy the Supreme Court (kinda like herding cats), then yes, I guess they could defy the Supreme Court. In this context, however, assuming they imprisoned Bolten and/or Miers, it would be two branches against one, and I think the President could send in the military to rescue them.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 4:50 PM:

Duckman GR:

I'm actually a registered Independent -- not "right wing" Republican. Thanks for admitting to lying though.

turtleguy wrote on July 25, 2007 4:51 PM:

Hey, this is simple. One of the hallmarks of this administration and, by extention, the GOP machine, is their strategy of anticipating the dems' attack points and then using that attck point on the dems first. They know the dems will complain a lack of oversight could lead to an imperial presidency, so they say the opposite, which has the effect of poisoning the well. Now when the dems say it, it will look like "tit for tat," rather than the accurate analysis it is.

Like I said, I'm trying to move to Canada. Seriously.

osama_been_forgotten wrote on July 25, 2007 4:52 PM:

Kim;
I think that professional politicians right now are grossly underestimating the amount of rage and anger there is right now, in America, at our situation.

I think most people are just suppressing it, because then we'd have to admit we were punk'd by a punk like Karl Rove.

My bet is that such a Constitutional Amendment as I proposed, would fail. It would fail in the Senate, and I would bet you a million dollars (if I had it) that Lieberman would be the deciding vote. No matter. Sometimes you need to tilt at windmills. Hell - Americans are mad as hell. Tilt at SOMETHING dammit!

Because in 2008 - we'll know WHO opposed this amendment. And they wont survive.

This "behind closed doors" committee stuff, where Miers gets off on her contempt charge on a straight party line vote using sleazy arguments that will never be honestly described in the mainstream press - that's not going to get these Republicans tossed out.

A "We Don't Approve Of The Last Six Years (maybe we can't stop it, but we sure as hell will keep it from happening again)" Bill, will show voters who the traitors are.

Yes - a political stunt. But if Democrats are otherwise completely unable to accomplish anything else due to Republican Obstructionism - then so be it.
Tilt at SOMETHING!

OhSnap! wrote on July 25, 2007 4:55 PM:

Jake D. is correct in his "Clinton did it too!" signing statement comment. As did GHWBush.

Bush 41: 232 signing statements in 4 years (58 /yr)

Clinton: 140 in 8 years (17.5 / yr)

Bush 43: at ~5.5 years, 750 used (~136.4 / yr)

Bush 41 and Clinton also used more outright vetoes of bills vs. Bush 43 (only 1)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=1

Just like last Congress, 58 filibuster / no-go votes were issued.

At present, with this 110th Congress, 40+ filibuster / no-go votes were issued.

It is all about proportionality and context. If Pappy Bush and Clinton had serious issues with a Bill, they VETOED it as opposed to using a signing statement. Not so with our current Prez.

Not only that, but Clinton used about 1/3 less signing statements per year that Pappy Bush. Our current Prez (as of 2006) used 2.35 MORE signing statements than his father and 7.8 more than Clinton. And these signing statements of Bush 43 were issued when there was a significant/decent Republican majority in Congress.

Bill Clinton was not perfect. He was a horndog who disrespected the presidency, played "hide the cigar" with an intern and LIED about it both to the American people and to Congress.

I would still take the lying horndog any day of the week over the man currently in office.

I would also prefer outright impeachment of Bush/Cheney - but that requires votes that I don't think are there.

So if Feingold wants to enter a censure resolution, I'm for it.

Anything on the Congressional record that says "No. We do not approve of your illegal/improper/etc. activities such as..." is perfectly fine by me.

Again, Jake D., why should Bolten and Miers NOT appear in front of Congress and cite their EP at the relevant questions? I am still confused as to why they cannot come in person to make their assertion.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:01 PM:

turtleguy:

Don't forget to go into the closest U.S> consulate office or Embassy to remounce your citizenship too.

OhSnap!

I thought you were done responding to me?

Susan wrote on July 25, 2007 5:01 PM:

I never thought I would say that I actually yearn for the Nixon years....

Susan wrote on July 25, 2007 5:02 PM:

I never thought I would say that I actually yearn for the Nixon years....

Susan wrote on July 25, 2007 5:02 PM:

I never thought I would say that I actually yearn for the Nixon years....

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:02 PM:

I like the argument: "We should not do anything today, because if we stand up for ourselves today, we might get knocked down tomorrow."

The GOP's argument for groveling like a dog.

Never. We re free today; and will be treated like free people today; if the President tomorrow wants us to treat us like a tyrant, then Free people tomorrow will cross that bridge and oppose him. Today we are free; and today we will act like free people. Tomorrow, when it ends, we will remain free. Without fear.

sluggo wrote on July 25, 2007 5:05 PM:

Watch the Republicans, not the Democrats. The Bush Gang will start to have real problems with Congress when the Republicans start breaking ranks and covering their own re-election chances. At this point, Bush and his Gang have nothing to offer to keep Congressional Republicans in line.

1. Bush can veto but not get bills passed.
2. He is going out of office and there is no chance of a Republican President.
3. He is leading the Republican party over a cliff, which is indicated by the staggeringly low amounts of money being raised for Republican elections.

The Republican members of this committee could be shouting slogans about "protecting the terrorists" and "supporting our commander in a time of war" but are rather trying to appear as members of Congress first and Bush supports second.

I believe this indicates cracks in the rank-and-file Republican support for the Bush Gang and I am waiting for the dam to burst.

Duckman GR wrote on July 25, 2007 5:05 PM:

Call yourself anything you want, tell us how you voted for Dukakis or Clinton for all we care.

In your world there is no lying, else you would be condemning BushCo roundly, rather than defend them. Therefore, I claim poetic license to mock your posts any way I see fit, there is no lying involved.

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 5:08 PM:

Jake D has made a return! No longer haunting the folks in Conceptual Guerillas Molotov Cokctail Lounge I see. Oh, and I believe

"Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) holds that the President can pardon judicial contempt orders. I would argue the same rationale applies here."

Is true...for the most part. It more or less says that the President can pardon judicial CRIMINAL contempt orders, but not CIVIL judicial contempt orders. There are differences.

And civil contempt more closely resembles exactly what Congress is trying to accomplish - lock up Miers until she provides the Congress what is asked of her...kind of like Judy Miller was held indefinitelly.

Inherent contempt does have limitations (she will be released at the end of the session) but there is nothing preventing Congress from simply bringing her back in again when it comes back into session...whanna bet she'll break eventually? Or even the threat of bringing her in.

The capitol police certainly has jurisdictional problems but what about the Senate Seargent-at-Arms? I'm curious about his power to leave DC.

In short, I think you underestimate the tools of COngress in this case...if it was so inclined to use them. That, is not so clear yet though.

osama_been_forgotten wrote on July 25, 2007 5:13 PM:

Turtleguy;
That's what I'm saying about this Constitutional Amendment. It should be obvious now that the GOP strategy here is to run out the clock, and obstruct, and make the Dems look ineffective. Every Iraqi that dies in a bombing or sectarian killing will be blamed on "Dems who tied Bush's hands".

Dems should think ahead, go on the offensive, and call their bluff by proposing this Amendment. Because the other route leads to - as JakeD pointed out, the Roberts SCOTUS. That is obviously a dead end. We all know it. There is an avenue to make an end-run around that, and that avenue should be taken while there's still time.

Jake D;
I think you're quite mistaken about Clinton's signing statements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28USA%29
Thanks for playing though.

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 5:14 PM:

I never thought I would say that I actually yearn for the Nixon years.... Susan

Boy, that was a lot of yearning. This multiple-posting situation is getting to be almost as good as Holoscan!

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:15 PM:

sluggo:

There ALWAYS a "chance" ; )

Oyka:

I have no idea where the "Conceptual Guerillas Molotov Cokctail Lounge" is and there is no case law I am aware to bar a President from pardoning CIVIL judicial contempt orders -- Congress is obviously not a "private party" entitled to those anyways -- as for the "tools" of the Capitol police and/or Sgt-at-Arms, I am informed and believe that the Secret Service can call in the U.S. military, if need be. So, again, you and what ARMY?

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 25, 2007 5:17 PM:

Jake D., at July 25, 2007 4:46 PM, wrote:

"If **Congress** could unite to defy the Supreme Court (kinda like herding cats), then yes, I guess **they** could defy the Supreme Court."

Please clarify your statement. (I inserted the sets of **.)

Otherwise I can't tell where you answered the question.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:19 PM:

OBF:

I'd trust OhSnap! before Wikipedia any day ; )

Austin Cooper wrote on July 25, 2007 5:20 PM:

This is just an open comment to Josh, Matthew, et al. ("The Usual Suspects"):

With this much increase in troll activity on the site -- it's a sure sign you're doing something right.

Onward!

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:24 PM:

Aaron G. Stock:

"Congress" = the bicameral Legislature of the U.S. federal government, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives, with a total of 535 voting members.

"they" = a majority of said Congress.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:28 PM:

Or, Austin Cooper, TPM could be just as wrong as ever, and some "textbook psycopath" is just on the loose ; )

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:39 PM:

Aaron G. Stock:

Please stop asking me "clarify" anything from now on.

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 5:40 PM:

Samsara: "So, according to the Republican argument, Congress should have "evidence of wrongdoing" before enforcing subpoenas."

Not exactly.

The GOP argument is that there must be absolute proof that a crime has occurred AND absolute proof showing who committed the crime before you can even start an investigation whether a crime has occurred or who committed it.

In other words, they believe the cart should be put before the horse since if you meet the GOP criteria for starting an investigation [of a Republican] there is no need to investigate because you already know everthing an investigation would be intended to uncover.

Even simpler: there should never be any investigations of alleged wrongdoing by a Republican office holder.

But only if it is a Republican being investigated.

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 5:42 PM:

"Oyka:

I have no idea where the "Conceptual Guerillas Molotov Cokctail Lounge" is and there is no case law I am aware to bar a President from pardoning CIVIL judicial contempt orders -- Congress is obviously not a "private party" entitled to those anyways -- as for the "tools" of the Capitol police and/or Sgt-at-Arms, I am informed and believe that the Secret Service can call in the U.S. military, if need be. So, again, you and what ARMY?"

I suppose it was another Jake D with similar 'style' of argumentation. This must of been in 2003-2004 so who knows. Law Profesor Frank Askin recently made this assertion in the washington post(do with it as you will)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001802.html :

"The limitation on the president's pardon power was most comprehensively discussed in a 1925 opinion by Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft in the case of Ex Parte Grossman.

Grossman had been accused during Prohibition of the illegal sale of liquor and was enjoined by a federal court from further sale of alcoholic beverages. When he violated the order, he was accused of contempt and sentenced to prison -- and then pardoned by the president.

Despite the pardon, a federal judge in Chicago ordered him to jail on the theory that a charge of criminal contempt was not an "offense against the United States" because it was a judicial act, and a presidential pardon would violate the separation of powers.

In an analysis of the pardon power that Taft traced back through English parliamentary history, the opinion concluded that the power did reach contempts -- but only criminal contempts, the purpose of which is to vindicate offenses against the dignity of public authority.

The opinion distinguished civil contempt, whose purpose is to enforce a third party's rights by coercing compliance with a court order."

and then follows with:

"Thus, the congressional alternative. Instead of referring a contempt citation to the U.S. attorney, a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate -- i.e., an order of civil contempt. Technically, the witness could be imprisoned somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol, but historically the sergeant-at-arms has turned defendants over to the custody of the warden of the D.C. jail.

That was what was done in the landmark 1876 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had overstepped its bounds by investigating the private activities of the defendant in a matter in which it had no jurisdiction.

That decision, however, left no doubt of Congress's power to punish for contempt those who defy lawful investigations."

So that is where I get that from.

As for the ARMY we need....hahaha. Assuming they give her a Secret Service detail (and they might), what kind of spectacle do you suppose will happen if the SecServ calls in the army to stop a a former adviser from being sent before the bar of congress? Even if its only a standoff between the Seargent-at-Arms and the Sec Service...that will be one embaracing spectacle and not for Congress.

The people will ask: what the hell does she know that President Bush is using the secserv and the ARMY to keep her from appearing before COngress. This would NOT turn out well for the President.

SO I say: Go for it...and let them try and stop the Congress from asserting its constitutional right to investigate. Try it...let the ARMY come out and show just how much an imperial presidency this is...haha

interested litigant wrote on July 25, 2007 5:43 PM:

Conyers is an idiot. He employed inductive logic to change the topic of the sentence and took it as if he had done something intelligent. He's an idiot. That just proves it. If you can't stick with the topic don't pretend you were listening.

JEP wrote on July 25, 2007 5:45 PM:

"Call for an immediate Constitutional Amendment - to be passed on an emergency basis - work 24x7 till it's done - to override and preempt any SCOTUS ruling that would create an Imperial Presidency."

Doesn't have to be quite so dramatic, just drawing up articles of impeachment for Cheney and pursuing them vigourously will break this deadlock.

That would stop all this back and forth, and get the privilege-free truth out "on the table."

An freindly letter to the Speaker

Nancy,
impeachment is NOT a four-letter word, and the information you gather in the process does not need to be "utilized", just uncovered.

Whatever the 111th decides to do with that information, you can consider that later on in the 110th.

But for right now, impeachment has become the one tool remaining that these imperialists can not trump with their ever-evolving "privelege" wild-card.

It would take all this Congressional investigating, and put into a legislative nutshell that seems to link the Prez and the OVP to just about every misdeed currently under investigaton, if not directly, surely through the perniciously political Karlulu. Those tentacles slithered into every nook and cranny of govfernment, in an uprecedented power grab that is still playing out in these very pages.

As the impeachment begins to bring in all these queries into one event, you and your peers can get back to legislating, working to end this ill-conceived war, and let the Impeachment Committee do its work.

Hopefully, they can do it in the same public light we sufferd in 98.

...even FOX would have to cover it.

The ratings will be historic!

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:45 PM:

That obviously is NOT the Republican argument, Samsara (for instance, Mark Foley was forced to resign by the GOP leadership without absolute proof that a crime has occurred). Congress is free to investigate to their heart's content, calling any witnesses EXCEPT for the President and those covered by Executive Privilege -- it's a separation of powers issue -- the same issue arose when DoJ searched Rep. Jefferson (D-LA) Capitol Hill office.

interested litigant wrote on July 25, 2007 5:47 PM:

OhSnap.... you'll learn why soon enough.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 5:49 PM:

What "sentence" are you referring to, interested litigant?

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 5:58 PM:

From Tafts opinion in Ex Parte GrossmanL

"In our own law, the same distinction clearly appears. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Company, 221 U.S. 418; Doyle v. London Guarantee Company, 204 U.S. 599, 607; Bessette v. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324; Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 109. In the Gompers case, this Court points out that it is not the fact of punishment, but rather its character and purpose, that makes the difference between the two kinds of contempts. For civil contempts, the punishment is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant, AND A PARDON CANNOT STOP IT [capitalization added by me].

For criminal contempts, the sentence is punitive in the public interest to vindicate the authority of the court and to deter other like derelictions. [p112]

With this authoritative background of the common law and English history before the American Revolution to show that criminal contempts were within the understood scope of the pardoning power of the Executive."

Taft in the opinion makes clear distinctions as to criminal and civil contempt and makes quite CLEAR that criminal contempts can be pardoned while CIVIL contempts cannot.

Bush cannot pardon even if he wanted to in this case. There is the case law that you requested...

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:00 PM:

JakeD: "In that post, you quoted my post about Congress and then asked about Bush. If Congress could unite to defy the Supreme Court (kinda like herding cats), then yes, I guess they could defy the Supreme Court."

Again, my comment had nothing to do with Congress defying the Supreme Court.

The question was: would you dispute that Bush would be bound by a positive decision (consistent with your usage of "negative" that there is NO executive privilege as asserted) of the Supreme Court?

There is in fact no reference to Congress in my question or reference to defying at all.

Why are you being obtuse?

Oh, I forget that's what you do.

Sigh.

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 6:00 PM:

Woops I forgot the link to Ex Parte Grossman and the Taft Opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0267_0087_ZO.html

Cromwell wrote on July 25, 2007 6:02 PM:

It is precisely this level of contempt for the perogatives of the legislative branch that caused Parliament to go to war with the crown of England in the 17th Century and it is the principle over which the King lost not ony his crown, but his head. If only this tyrant could be similarly dealt with!

Our founding fathers created the three coequal branches of government precisely because they did not believe in and wished to prevent any President/executive from excercising the kind of tyrannical power that Charles did against the Parliament and thus the people. The clash between the English executive power and legislative power was the seminal event that propelled the popular rise of representative democracy in the colonies which ultimately gave birth to our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Ever since, those who despise representative democracy have done all they could to erode the balance of power of the other two branches in favor of the executive. There could not be a clearer case of one branch attempting to usurp power from the others than this case before the Congress now. Not even Bush appointees to the bench could look themselves in the mirror were they to rule in any way other than strongly against the administration's baseless claims of privelege in this instance.

hgs3 wrote on July 25, 2007 6:06 PM:

I tried to comment on some stories at REDSTATE.com. I was deluded enough to think I might actually turn a few of them to vote with the democrats. I commented on some of their stories. I was quite amicable did not ruffle anyone's feathers on a personal level. My arguments were solid and based on facts. They didn't like it very much though so they blocked me. I came up with a new screen name and tried again and they blocked me again. I guess it's true " facts are just bothersome things to the republicans. redstate is not an equal opportunity blog site.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:06 PM:

Just ask the trolls if they want Hillary to have the powers that Junior has claimed. She's got a vengeful streak, and I'd actually like to see her use the new powers of the Presidency.

Code: shoe, as in "on the other foot."

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:07 PM:

Oyka:

I already cited to that case -- at best, your position is based on DICTA (since the case actually involved the pardon of criminal, not civil, contempt) and you are forgetting that Congress is NOT a "private party" entitled to civil contempt orders -- you really think the ROBERTS Supreme Court is going to rule against the President on this one?

hgs3 wrote on July 25, 2007 6:07 PM:

I tried to comment on some stories at REDSTATE.com. I was deluded enough to think I might actually turn a few of them to vote with the democrats. I commented on some of their stories. I was quite amicable did not ruffle anyone's feathers on a personal level. My arguments were solid and based on facts. They didn't like it very much though so they blocked me. I came up with a new screen name and tried again and they blocked me again. I guess it's true " facts are just bothersome things to the republicans. redstate is not an equal opportunity blog site.

oleeb wrote on July 25, 2007 6:07 PM:

Who, other than guilty mobsters and Republicans, try to defend their criminal behavior by responding to a cover up by saying there's no evidence of crime when there is no evidence because of the coverup?

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:12 PM:

JakeD: "Would it be better to note that Constitutional scholars do not agree whether [censure] of a President is available to Congress?"

It is arguable that the Supreme Court would never decide the question as to whether censure of Bush was unconstitutional.

Have I said anything of consequence above?

I think not.

Neither have you, no matter how you reword it.

If a majority of members of Congress vote to censure Bush, there is not a thing anyone can do about it, including the Supreme Court.

Since such a censure carries no substantive effect, only a political one, I predict that a decision by the Supreme Court would not be forthcoming, and in any event certainly not until long after Bush has left office and long after any elections, affected or subject to being affected by the censure, have passed.

You are free to make a figurative wager against that proposition.

Bottom line is that the constitutionality of censure is irrelevant as a practical matter and is only of interest to the constitutional scholars you refer to and those GOP members of Congress who suck at Bush's teat.

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 6:13 PM:

oleeb: Kind of like those people who cried during after the scooter verdict: They never found an underlying crime.

But forget that Libby obstructed justice, and that obstruction is what prevented investigators from ever making a case and finding evidence (or lack there of) of an underlying crime.

Frustruating aint it?

Oh, and where is Jake D? I provided the case law about civil contempts not being pardonable by the president (the opinion in Ex Parte Grossman). Busy perhaps...just a reminder in case Jake D sees this...

anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 6:19 PM:

JakeD: " . . . you really think the ROBERTS Supreme Court is going to rule against the President on this one?"

It is really good to see JakeD acknowledge that the Republicans on the Supreme Court have absolutely no integrity and will rule based on partisanship and which party occupies the White House and which party controls Congress, rather than the law.

Such admissions are a refreshing change from the dishonesty of troll discourse.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:25 PM:

Not at all, anonymous, as I pointed out above, I think Bush indeed has law on his side.

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 6:27 PM:

Jake D: If I read Askin right, his argument is that congress inherent contempt powers are - essentially - civil contempt orders and not subject to pardon. And that this power to coerce a witness to testify has, indeed, already been upheld as a proper power of Congress in cases where it has the jurisdiction

And yes, I know you cited Ex Parte Grossman in a previous post, but you cited it and said:

"Care to cite a case for the "well-settled" proposition that a Congressional contempt is beyond a Presidential pardon? Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) holds that the President can pardon judicial contempt orders. I would argue the same rationale applies here.

As for District of Columbia jurisdiction, where are you getting that info on the Capitol Police? Regardless, you do know that Mr. Bolton works at a certain Executive branch facility and that Ms. Miers is in Texas, right?"

So I thought it would be instructive to note that the opinion in Ex Parte Grossman holds that criminal contempts are pardonable, while civil contempts are not. Not as sweeping as you made it seem.

I might add that Bolton certainly works in an exec office facility...but does he spend 24 hours a day there. Any time he ISN'T there he can be apprehended if the Seargent-at-Arms or the capitol police wishes. Let the Secret Service or the Army try and stop it...

joe wrote on July 25, 2007 6:30 PM:

it's mighty uncomfortable for me to read the attacks on this "troll" you're all digging into. his point of view should be as welcomed and defended here as any other, regardless of his intentions. i just don't feel good about it. these singular attacks are not appropriate.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:32 PM:

Oyka:

Look up the word "dicta" hun.

Jake D. wrote on July 25, 2007 6:34 PM:

Thanks, Joe : )

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 6:40 PM:

so..lets just narrow the issue to the pardonability of civil contemps:

Your position is: what?

At the very least it is debatable, and in this case I think it should be settled directly. Now I do not have that much faith in the Roberts Court but the issue might as well be settle sooner rather than later because, lets face it...all the conservatives are relatively young and the others are geezers so the court will likely retain its current lean for quite a while anyways.

Don't you believe it should be settled directly? Why not here

BobR wrote on July 25, 2007 6:43 PM:

Sensenbrenner's and Cannon's statements that pressing this in court risks creating "an imperial Presidency" signals that the Democrats have in hand an important victory: they're won the "fear of an imperial presidency debate".

The reason Cannon and Sensenbrenner are making this argument is because they are ass-covering: they can see the direction this Presidency is going, and they know that, sooner or later, the Republicans are going to have to move against it, because the voters already have. So they have decided to join that parade: "We are against the imperial presidency. We have always been against the imperial presidency."

Now we're just arguing over tactics.

Oyka wrote on July 25, 2007 6:49 PM:

And, dicta or not, Taft made quite a compelling case which could form the basis when this issue is directly dealt with.

Lets settle this! haha

But, we are off-topic a tad. Congress indeed has the power to have in-house forces (seargent-at-arms) compel people to appear before the bar. If President Bush wants to pardon...let him and see how it works out in the courts etc... And then maybe we can frickin finally figure out whether he indeed has these powers.

Anonymous wrote on July 25, 2007 7:23 PM:

If you can see the parroting of the "meme" fabricated (probably by Rove or his ilk) almost verbatim from Cannon (Repub), Sensenbrenner (Repub), and the aforementioned "troll" Jake D, we know what they are afraid of: 1) that actual evidence will come out that indicts the president and the entire republican party, 2) that if such powers were conferred to a president by a republican supreme court, that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would use it.

This notion of being "afraid" to pursue justice because of the possible consequences and precedent-setting nature of failure used to be the Dems trick, an excuse why they couldn't take on Repubs. Now it's the Repubs excuse, which they are "generously" trying to sell the Dems. What a laugh. Any time you see this kind of coordinated propaganda, they've essentially tipped their hands. I'd love to play poker with these guys! Take them to the woodshed. Slap them with "inherent contempt" which requires no US Attorney to service it AND it does not allow for a presidential pardon either. Dems try to "exhaust" all more moderate options. I think it is time they simply send a clear message. All moderate options have been exhausted.

CZ

Duckman GR wrote on July 25, 2007 7:26 PM:

joe, please, Jake likes to build mountanous arguments out of nothing, apparently he's retired and has nothing better to do with his life.

If he were honest and not just a time waster that would be one thing, but he's not. So save your concern for him. He's not worth the concern. Worry about the troops, or Lady liberty, or your own personal rights before being concerned with a dishonest Bush enabler.

Shane wrote on July 25, 2007 7:28 PM:

Before we all bash the Republicans, and believe me this is weird to say, but I have to credit one of the Republicans on this matter. He worried that sending it to the courts takes it out of their hands. It seems that the right thing is going on here. In principle the Republicans (who spoke) and Democrats agree about not wanting to weaken the Congress and strengthen the Executive. They were discussing tactics of how to win, which I think is a great step. My question is, why are they going to push this matter through the courts when they could use their powers of inherent contempt? The Congress doesn't need the Justice Department or the courts to decide this matter if they use inherent contempt. Sure it's an old power, but given the extraordinary nature of this inquiry, I think it'd be worth dusting off and exercising.

Onyx wrote on July 25, 2007 8:16 PM:

The Republican argument seems to be that Congress only has an effective check on the executive so long as Congress doesn't try to use it.
As far as Sensenbrenner's suggestion, a suit to get a ruling on the scope of the privilege asserted by the president would probably be thrown out unless Congress was actually trying to enforce the contempt citation. Federal courts don't give advisory opinions; there has to be a live "case or controversy."

parrot wrote on July 25, 2007 10:10 PM:

So...under Canon's logic the best way to fight terrorism is not to stand up to terrorists?

Seriously, Americans didn't get a Constitution because they refused to stand up to King George...so, um, why would it be a good idea not to stand up to this George? Anyone else curious about that?

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 11:25 PM:

"Does Conyers dispute Congress would be bound by a neagtive Supreme Court ruling?"

Congress can overturn the SC.

"At least the uncertainty of this untested legal argument gives Congress some bargaining leverage."

"Untested legal argument"!? Not being a lawyer, you can assert that there has never before been a challenge to a subpoena; or to a citation for contempt of Congress, or any (other) court. The fact is, of course, contrary: there is a legal process by means of which to challenge a subpoena: going to court with a request that the subpoena be quashed, both of which have been known to happen, and not rarely.

As well, citations for contempt in a regular court can be appealed; and it isn't unheard of that an appelant can win on appeal.

As the case appears, the question does not deal with Bushit's extreme assertion of Executive Privilege (let's assume, _arguendo_, that such a claim is legitimate, despite the fact he has not put the claim oin writing). It deals solely with the issue of contempt of Congress arising from the ignoring of the subpoena -- on which there is endless case law holding that one cannot legally do so. That is an issue separate and distinct from Bushit's bullshit claim.

The Executive Privilege issue is solely that of the defendants -- Miers and Bolten; and it is doubtful such a claim, not only beyond all reason but also not asserted, actually, by Bushit, but only by Miers and Bolten -- can stand against a subpoena from Congress seeking testimony and documents directly related to investigation of crimes, of which crimes Congress has hard evidence, and of which Congress' statement of the facts includes allegations of crimes having been committeed.

"As for any Republicans worried about BUSH being an Imperial President, that's obviously not the case."

Of course not; they're all for it, even though a violation of the Constitution.

"It is clear they are concerned about the next (Democrat Hillary?) President being handed a blank check, signed by the Supreme Court."

No. They are only concerned with protecting Bushit's imperial presidency, and the Republican party's putting of party before country.

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 25, 2007 2:46 PM

JakeD wrote on July 25, 2007 11:28 PM:

You are all correct. I am troll planted here by Karl Rove to the bidding of the Bushies and the RNC. But, please take me seriously because I have been promised some no bid contracts and a cushy USAG appointment.

JNagarya wrote on July 25, 2007 11:50 PM:

"You know, the Republicans are half-right. Since a criminal contempt charge will get tied up in courts for a long time, . . . ."

I don't know who you're listening to, but that is false: in these matters, all court actions will be expedited.

". . . especially since the question of whether the Pres can block the US Attorney from proceeding will come first, . . . ."

Except that it won't come first. The focus is to enforce the contempt citation -- and subpoena. The proper response to a subpoena one does not want to honor is not to assert Executive Privilege in one's own behalf but to go to court and ask that it be quashed. Ignoring it is not acceptable, regardless what employee allegedly says in order to prevent obeying the subpoena.

". . . it would probably be better to go for inherent contempt, and have the Sergeant-at-Arms lock Harriet and Josh in the Capitol basement."

I'll bet Conyers and Leahy (et al.) have explored every option, and have chosen that most conducive to their ends.

". . . The clock is ticking and we don't have time to fart around until the Bushistas leave office."

There's plenty of time to impeach. But we don't want to deal with reality -- do we? We want to demand the impossible, and when we don't get it, bash the Democrats because its the Republicans who are foot-dragging and obstructing.

Posted by: biggerbox
Date: July 25, 2007 3:32 PM

Any court filings on these matters will be expedited (even the anti-American Sensenbrenner made that point).

Cowboy wrote on July 26, 2007 12:16 AM:

JakeD, well I give you partial credit for not writing the response to my Safavian post. Duckman GR, fool me once . . .

In reference to the authority of Congress to deputize the Capitol Hill police in the execution of a warrant connected to contempt citation, reference McGrain v. Daugherty (1927).

"The witness challenges the authority of the deputy to execute the warrant on two grounds--that there was no provision of law for a deputy, and that, even if there was such a provision, a deputy could not execute the warrant because it [the warrant] was addressed simply to the sergeant at arms. We are of the opinion that neither ground is tenable.

The Senate adopted in 1889 and has retained ever since a standing order declaring the sergeant at arms may appoint deputies 'to serve process or perform other duties' in his stead, that they shall be 'officers of the Senate,' and that acts done and returns made by them 'shall have like effect and be of the same validity as if performed or made by the sergeant at arms in person.' In actual practice the Senate has given full effect to the order, and Congress has sanctioned the practice under it by recognizing the deputies--sometimes called assistants--as officers of the Senate, by fixing their compensation, and by making appropriations to pay them [read Capitol Police]. Thus there was ample provision of law for a deputy.

The fact that the warrant was addressed simply to the sergeant at arms is not of special significance. His authority was not to be tested by the warrant alone. Other criteria were to be considered. The standing order and the resolution under which the warrant was issued plainly contemplated that he was to be free to execute the warrant in person or to direct a deputy to execute it. They expressed the intention of the Senate, and the words of the warrant were to be taken, as they well could be, in a sense which would give effect to that intention. Thus understood, the warrant admissibly could be executed by a deputy, if the sergeant at arms so directed, which he did."

Oyka wrote on July 26, 2007 1:24 AM:

Jake D: Wouldn't a President being able to pardon an inherent contempt citation be a violation by the Executive of the constitutional powers of Congress?

Inherent contempt as a power of Congress to coerce testimony persuant to its investigative powers is meanigless if the President can simply overide it with a Pardon. I mean how could Congress possibly investigate anything related to the Executive if he can pardon and thus quash any attempts to get evidence of wrongdoing. Oversight is almost a joke, and so too its power of investigation if this is the case.

All I ask is this: Has this issue been settled of whether a president CAN pardon an inherent contempt citation? You seem so sure he can but where is the case law proving this. Or is this, essentially an unanswered legal question?

If this is an unanswered question, than aren't you just as wrong to assets as fact that inherent contempt CAN be pardoned by the President as others are to say it CANNOT?

IF its unanswered than...why not test it? Lets see what happens when Miers is arrested and Bush pardons and then it goes to the courts.

Shouldn't we try and figure out if the President can check the Congress in this manner? Of course, the political damage to the GOP and to the President would be immense if camera footage of the Secret Service or the Army physically denying the Seargent-at-Arms access to Miers. It would really drive home to America just how "imperial" this President and his backers actually are...and that's whether or not you believe he is justified and perfectly within his rights to do so.

That, would be irrelevant to the American people and even I hope among the news people. So...lets call the bluff and see what happens.

Oyka wrote on July 26, 2007 1:38 AM:

Oh jeez, even worse:

Imagine that the Seargent-at-Arms of the Senate or some of his deputies manage to get Miers and/or Bolton and has them in DC jail (or in the bowels of the Capitol...you never know).

Now imagine a squad of Army soldier or secret service agents storming the jail or the Capitol in order to take back them back...

The, imagine the outrage and fury from all corners at such a heavy handed, despotic-LOOKING act by the President. Ouch.

Just thinking in type form haha.

RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 5:31 AM:

I've posted this on another thread, but it applies to almost any given TPM Comments section at any given time:

Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.

Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).

Enough is enough.

If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.

Could others who feel the same way pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?

Thanks.

(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )

RBS

Wretched Refuse wrote on July 26, 2007 10:10 AM:

"...since there's no wrongdoing, it's likely that Congress will lose its battle with the White House in court"

The Contempt charge is the first step towards obtaining the evidence of wrongdooing. The Repulkkkans are doing nothing but once again BOSFISCATION< OBSFISCATION, OBSFISCATION.

Since when does a "Privlege" trump a "law"?