Comments (34)

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 11:27 AM:

About damn time.

correctnotright wrote on December 13, 2007 11:34 AM:

Now we will how the "moderate" republicans vote. They have always been Bush protectors. The end result of almost all the votes in congress has been the republican minority protecting the crimes of the Bush administration.

Derek wrote on December 13, 2007 11:36 AM:

I think it would be helpful if you explain what happens next. It gets sent for a vote but what type of majority do they need? Etc

And yes

About damn time.

Dennis wrote on December 13, 2007 11:43 AM:

Let's say these contempt charges work, then what?

There are those in the Democratic leadership who will work behind the scenes to protect the wrong doings of the Bush administration - as exampled by the recent revelation that key Democrats knew of the filming of torture suspects, and knowing thatthe destruction of those tapes would cover their own support of torture.

You can bet on two things; the Democratic LEADERSHIP does not want to face a question of Constitutional authority between the office of the president and Congress, and, there will be Democrats protecting Karl Rove and Johs Bolton as well.

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

Lovelynina wrote on December 13, 2007 11:50 AM:

Let's all heave a collective So What.

Gary wrote on December 13, 2007 11:54 AM:

Why does Reuters simply call it "largely party line" instead of mentioning that Specter and Hagel crossed party lines to do the right thing?

ghost wrote on December 13, 2007 11:57 AM:

Hagel and Specter both jumped the line? Then was the missing vote a Dem? Did that person miss the meeting, or abstain?

OCPatriot wrote on December 13, 2007 12:00 PM:

Yeah, I'd bet the Democrats will cave in again. How much you want to bet?

JohnG wrote on December 13, 2007 12:00 PM:

I believe that under Senate rules this is not subject to a fillabuster, so that the Democrats do not need 60 votes.

The next step will be Mukasey sitting on it or rejecting it outright. Anything further will require the 60 votes, so it will die there.

cynical jim wrote on December 13, 2007 12:01 PM:

Specter did the right thing???

Oh My Gawd!!!

Is the Capitol still standing?
Has hell frozen over?
Is the pope jewish?

How could this be?

disco wrote on December 13, 2007 12:04 PM:

Reminds me when my second grade teacher used to send me home with a sad note when i misbehaved in school.

jeffgee wrote on December 13, 2007 12:07 PM:

Expect a STRONGLY WORDED letter from the Democrats and the customary executive middle finger response.

P J Evans wrote on December 13, 2007 12:09 PM:

Good.
Now let's see them hauled into the Capitol to answer the questions they've been ducking.
And then the impeachments can begin.

Habanero wrote on December 13, 2007 12:16 PM:

A good start. Now let us see why Bolton & Rove (likely) had access to data from the illegal spying upon United States persons.

malcontent wrote on December 13, 2007 12:19 PM:

Does inherent comtempt require a 60 vote majority? In the event Mukasey refuses to prosecute, would that be a logical next step?

TheraP wrote on December 13, 2007 12:22 PM:

In case there's never another chance: I add my own total contempt for these people!

And Yet... wrote on December 13, 2007 12:25 PM:

I wish I could believe it will be a different outcome this time from SJC. I really wish that, but previous performance would dictate...

Specter in on the ground floor on this so he can undermine it later.

Leahy will watch him do it.

AND be really annoyed.

Republican Muscle wrote on December 13, 2007 12:30 PM:

You whiney wimps

Oh gosh, gee wiz, oh your so strong,
can I feel your muscles. Oh I am just swooning over the raw display of Democratic prowess. Oh my , I feel a bead of sweat trickling down my breast bone.
I do declare I think I may swoon.

Yeah , all you Democratic losers are so pitiful. Get use to republican power -
because there is more to come for many many years.

George Bush is the best thing that ever happened to you all, your like a bunch of
babies who need to be suckled on a republican tit.

Gary wrote on December 13, 2007 12:30 PM:

Correction: Specter and GRASSLEY . . . not Hagel.

Same effect. To GOoPers crossed the line and did the right thing.

glennpdx wrote on December 13, 2007 12:31 PM:

Despite all the criticism of Dem leadership in Congress, the noose is slowly, certainly tightening on the corrupt Bush administration and its apologists. Contempt votes. Bush forced to sign a Head Start bill he opposed. Another Presidential veto of health care for kids. Resignation after resignation. Sex and corruption scandals. A war that just won't go away. Republicans fleeing ('retiring') from public service...

This is what abject failure looks like. I would say 'enjoy the show,' but it's just not fun. But, please, do take notes. This is real history unwinding in front of us...

EH wrote on December 13, 2007 12:32 PM:

Love all the naysayers and pessimists here. No good deed goes unpunished, and I guess if there isn't impeachment and castration then it's all for naught.

Why not admit that either your intelligence or imagination is lacking and that this could actually be seen as a good - if nuanced - development. Let me guess that some have been saying "where's contempt?" Yet when that comes down it's just not enough. Well, thanks for nothing.

H, Jenkins wrote on December 13, 2007 12:40 PM:

Rove and Bolten need not worry.
A vote without any consequences.
Bet on it.

oleeb wrote on December 13, 2007 12:55 PM:

I wonder how long it would take the Senate Democrats to do something if Bush just declared the Constitution null and void and installed himself as President for life? Would they say that without 60 votes their hands were tied? How many months would it take for them to strongly condemn, and look seriously into citing the President for something as a result?

Wimps.

IrishJim wrote on December 13, 2007 12:58 PM:

The positive take on this is that Rove will have to Lawyer up and perhaps start a legal defense fund. Now maybe we will not have to see his ugly mug on TV and in the press. He will be too busy raising money to save his a**

nrglaw wrote on December 13, 2007 1:01 PM:

EH,I agree. Its hard for folks to see some things in Washington as a clumsy, slow progress, but the contempt citations are far from that. Now, its certainly possible that this dies on the floor. If it does not, though, and there is any failure to appear by Rove or Bolten, you will have a genuine Constitutional crisis on your hands. That is hardly bad work by the SJC.

John G states that this vote is not subject to filibuster. Anyone agree with that? I'd sure like to know.

nrglaw

brian wrote on December 13, 2007 1:07 PM:

Patience, friends. Exposing all the wrongdoing will take time.

This is one Senator, Leahy, using correct ( therefore time-consuming ) methods.

He has already caused Gonzo and Rove and a dozen of Rove's operatives in the DoJ to resign. Let the man work.

Senator Leahy : I encourage you.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on December 13, 2007 1:43 PM:

EH, I suspect that such cynical comments sport more names than people behind them. It's irrelevant to the substance of my comments below, except whether my referring to them in plural is applicable!

Who are you people and what have you done with the TPMM comments sections? It's as if we haven't learned this, from the previous comments on the hundred-ish TPMM stories on Democratic attempts to reign in Bush Administration's illegalities, that:

Yes, we get it, there are a handful of Democrats who don't get it and who aren't on board with officially censuring members of the Bush Administration. OK!

One could simply drone on about how annoyed one is with such Democrats (never seems to hurt to simply implicate all "Democrats" instead of "a few" or "some" (or better yet, name them)), OR instead, one could suggest methods of persuading or sidelining such Democrats. I'm waiting! Call your representatives, as I have, and tell them you support all methods of censure (in the general sense), the stronger the better. Organize a march, start yelling more, whatever it takes.

I mean, it's great to see that Republican Senators who have and would attempt to block any and all censure/contempt proceedings are off the hook! Republican Senators are apparently exempt here from being castigated for ignoring facts and creating their own reality, that the Bush Administration has done nothing outrageously illegal. The Bush Administration apparently is exempt from following any sane interpretation of laws and the Constitution.

There's certainly no requirement on anyone's part to mention obstructionist Republicans' hands in these affairs at all, but I thought I'd note some people's omissions.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on December 13, 2007 1:45 PM:

"Republican Muscle": One more stellar example of the degradation of civility whenever Repubs appear on the scene.

Yell Loud and Furious wrote on December 13, 2007 1:50 PM:

Don't you see

The power does not reside in civility

The power resides in the law

Be uncivil goddamn it, and stick up for those laws

Or the republicans will shout you down every time

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 3:00 PM:

Nit for original source,

"Bush has claimed executive privilege to _protect_ aides from complying with congressional subpoenas demanding documents or testimony in an investigation into the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys."

Should that read,

"Bush has claimed executive privilege to _prevent_ (not protect) aides from complying with congressional subpoenas demanding documents or testimony in an investigation into the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys."

stephen wrote on December 13, 2007 4:18 PM:

Oh My Gawd......Specter actually voted on something that he had previously considered criminal. Usually he pontificates and says how serious somthing may be and that he is very "Concerned" about what is going on and then he votes the party line. Of course in this case he may have voted as he did knowing that the Repbs are going to tie this up anyway so no harm no foul so to speak. Now he gets to blubber on about how he tried to hold them accountable but his republican pals wouldn't let it go through. Oh well thanks for small mercies I suppose.

Al in Austex wrote on December 13, 2007 8:45 PM:

Hey Republican Muscle @ 12:30 PM 13th of December ,
I hear tell that you Republican muscle boys ( RE Jeff Gannon ) suckle other things besides tits- and do those big muscles you brag about allow for wider stances ( RE Larry Craig)at your cladestine meetings ??. At least the progressive side does not exhibit such hypocritical self loathing as you all do ..BTW how is Mark Foley doing these days .. is he staying away from the Republican Youth rallies ??
Republican majority - Mr Muscle last time I looked the Democrats had majorities in both the House & the Senate ..

parrot wrote on December 13, 2007 11:11 PM:

Hey, is anybody else noticing that it's tomorrow and we're missing a dollar?

phil james wrote on December 13, 2007 11:35 PM:

Spokesbot Dana Purina just told reporters the WH response will be to tell the SJC to go pound sand. Any bets on whether there will be any successful counter move by the Dems? More political theatre brought to you by a gutless Congress.