Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Sic 'em, Bob

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), one of Floida's few Patriotic Politicians.

This is in response to George W Bush's personal attorney, Michael Mukasey.





His attitude IS rubbing off on his fellow-congressmen. Will it be too little, too late? Will it be before the Cabal takes up residence in Paraguay?

Lord, Help Us.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, March 01, 2008

No, no, no, no, and no... Contempt citations DON'T substitute for IMPEACHMENT, dammit...! [UPDATE]

are we supposed to think that, after sitting on your ass AND the contempt citations for SEVEN GODDAM MONTHS, and then filing them knowing DAMN GOOD AND WELL that the doj would refuse to take action, SUBSTITUTES for REMOVING THE CRIMINALS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE...? if that thought even crossed your fuzzy little brain, nancy, i am F****** OUTRAGED...
House Democrats really didn't expect the Justice Department to present their contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury for prosecution.

But the effort and having a civil lawsuit at the ready as a backup in their fight against the White House over the 2006 firings of nine federal prosecutors has satisfied, for now, some liberals who for a year have wanted much more: Bush's impeachment.

Even before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to reach Congress' highest office, the California Democrat had rejected demands from many in her party for impeachment.

Until two weeks ago, she had sat for seven months on the contempt citations sought by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee against Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and his former counsel, Harriet Miers.

and NOW we're supposed to WAIT for the CIVIL SUIT to move glacially forward...? NO, i say... INHERENT CONTEMPT AND IMPEACHMENT...!

[UPDATE]


my final letter to pelosi...
Madame Speaker,

I just finished reading the following news item in the Associated Press (link follows).
-----

[excerpts from above article]

-----
I am outraged. So far, I have attempted to be polite and reasonable in my communication with you and my U.S. Senator, Harry Reid. I have repeatedly expressed my desire to have both of you take strong action against the criminals who currently occupy the White House. However, now that you have stonewalled impeachment hearings for fourteen months, stalled for seven months prior to submitting contempt of Congress citations (all the while knowing that the Department of Justice would not pursue them), and failed to invoke the option for inherent contempt (CRS Congressional Oversight Manual, May 1, 2007), I have no choice but to conclude that you have violated your oath of office.

I am abundantly clear that the unconstitutional, balance of powers-negating mechanisms of unfettered executive power seized by George W. Bush under the bogus claim of the "unitary executive" and an illegal interpretation of our Constitution, will remain intact as the new president is sworn in on 20 January 2009.

Madame Speaker, regretfully I can no longer entrust you, your leadership, or your colleagues with the sacred and sworn obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution. There is nothing left for those of us who cherish our country but to move to replace our government with one which will respect the principles upon which the United States was founded.

This will be my final communication with you.

Sincerely,

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

The Bush sock-puppet, Mukasey, responds

as previously advertised...
Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Friday rejected referring the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey says they committed no crime.

Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers were right in refusing to provide Congress White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Mukasey for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers.

ok, nancy... let's you and your colleagues get your respective asses in gear and PUSH this... you've diddled long enough... from this point on, let no grass grow under your feet...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Enforcement of contempt of Congress charges...? Hmmmm... Pro'ly not...

from kagro x at daily kos...

This just in:

February 28, 2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
The Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In accordance with 2 U.S.C. § 194 and the attached House Resolution 979 (adopted on February 14, 2008), I have today sent a certification to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, advising him of the failure of former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to appear, testify and produce documents in compliance with a duly issued subpoena of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and of the failure of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff and custodian of White House documents, to produce documents in his custody as required by a duly issued subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee.

Under section 194, Mr. Taylor is now required "to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." The appropriate grand jury action is a criminal charge for violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which provides: "Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers . . . willfully makes default . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor" and shall be subject to a fine and "imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that "enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his... not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents." Hearing on Oversight of the Dep't of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a "long line of authority," but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will "act promptly" to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

Thank your for your prompt consideration and attention to this matter.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

Next up: US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor ignores the vote of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Judiciary Committee files a civil suit seeking enforcement of their subpoenas.

One week. Start the clock.


< checks watch, sets alarm >

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, February 14, 2008

CONTEMPT...! "Beyond arrogance ... hubris taken to the ultimate degree"

what took 'em so goddam long to get here...?

pelosi...




conyers...




this should have happened MONTHS AGO...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Dems throw accountability out the window and continue to sell us down the river - for BIPARTISANSHIP...???

valentine's day is fast approaching too, and we certainly wouldn't want to defile the loving spirit of THAT great day...

from raw story...

Last week it was "pretty certain" that House Democrats would quickly move forward with contempt citations against two Bush administration figures who were stonewalling Congress. Then the economy started circling the drain.

The planned citations now appear to be on hold as Congress and the White House work on a bipartisan economic stimulus package, the central tenet of which involves cutting virtually everyone an $800 check.

Democratic leaders and aides tell The Politico that pursuing the contempt citations in conjunction with the stimulus package would "step on their message" of bipartisanship.


gag me with a spoon... why don't the dems just come right out and say, "hey, we're criminals, just like the r's... cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER IT...!"

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Ummmmmmm... No...........

a question is posed in the last sentence of this nyt op-ed excerpt, the answer to which i offered in the post title...
President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress’s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal — as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done — and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?

Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority “to defend the country.” That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress’s laws are supreme.

The founders wanted the “people’s branch” to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress’s powers — with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.

clearly, the answer is "no..." congress has had ample opportunity to forcefully deal with this issue and, as should be obvious now, isn't going to do a goddam thing... the better question is when and if the american people are going to do something...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Contempt citations recommended for full House vote AFTER THE FRIGGIN' RECESS?

goddam it to hell (and, yes, i'm feeling VERY SHRILL!)...! we sit here and decry the iraqi parliament for taking august off and, while our constitution is in flames, our congress does the same exact goddam friggin' thing...
In a 22-17 vote, the House Judiciary Committee approved “a Resolution and Report Recommending to the House of Representatives that Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten be cited for Contempt of Congress.” The AP reports, “a vote by the full House would most likely happen after Congress’ August recess.”


FORGET THE F*****G RECESS!
STICK TO YOUR JOBS AND PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION!

besides, if you go into recess, bush is just going to slip through a big pile of recess appointments anyway...

GET A FREAKIN' CLUE, CONGRESS!
THE COUNTRY IS AT STAKE!

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, July 23, 2007

I welcome contempt charges, but they ain't gonna cut it

yeah, i agree, contempt charges are long overdue and must be filed...
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, the current Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush, will likely be charged with contempt by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday this week.

"This investigation, including the reluctant but necessary decision to move forward with contempt, has been a very deliberative process, taking care at each step to respect the Executive Branch’s legitimate prerogatives,” said Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in a statement. "I've allowed the White House and Ms. Miers every opportunity to cooperate with this investigation, either voluntarily or under subpoena. It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position, and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter."

but, with the white house anonymously announcing last week that it would direct the doj NOT to proceed with the prosecution of contempt of congress charges, the only rational option left is inherent contempt (see here, here, and here)... waiting for the contempt of congress charges to work their way through the obstacles the bush administration is throwing up at every turn is only delaying the inevitable... inherent contempt charges should be drawn up immediately and bolten and miers arrested forthwith... we simply can't afford this kind of delay...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Why is Congress pussy-footing around about issuing contempt charges for Harriet Miers?

huh...? inquiring minds want to know...
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has again rejected calls from the House Judiciary Committee to comply with a subpoena for her testimony on the firing of 9 US Attorneys in 2006 and 2007. The Committee had set a deadline of 5 PM for Miers to explain how she would comply with the subpoena.

"In light of the continuing directives to Ms. Miers and as previously indicated to your Committee, I must respectfully inform you that, directed as she has been to honor the Executive privileges and immunities asserted in this matter, Ms. Miers will not appear before the Committee or otherwise produce documents or provide testimony as set forth in the Committee's subpoena," wrote Miers' attorney, George Manning, in a letter delivered Tuesday to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

HELLO...? HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE...? GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND SLAP HER WITH INHERENT CONTEMPT CHARGES, WILLYA, FERCRYINOUTLOUD...?

yeah, i know she's not the big fish we all want, but, for god's sake, show some spine and start asserting your constitutional power... i'm sick and goddam tired of watching you fiddle-fuck around...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, July 14, 2007

BooMan on the invocation of inherent contempt and the coming showdown

i posted briefly yesterday on larisa's post on john dean's thoughts about harriet miers' refusal to respond to the subpoena of the house judiciary committee... i commented at the time that i thought it was interesting that no mention was made of inherent contempt charges... well, stupid me, i hadn't bothered going to john dean's findlaw post to read the whole thing... my bad... booman obviously did and has this to say...
Congress hasn't used [the power of inherent contempt] since 1934 and it would be a spectacle. The Congress would have the sergeant-at-arms arrest Harriet Miers and then she would face a trial in the House. The Department of Justice would not be involved. Inherent Contempt can be invoked in either house of Congress, so the Senate could do the same thing to Sara Taylor if they so desired. In the 1934 case the Senate convicted the postmaster general to 10 days in prison. He appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.

This is the beginning point to impeaching the president. Bringing Inherent Contempt charges against Miers will provide the kind of exotic storyline that will crystallize the extreme crisis that we are in for the public.

john dean...
[I]f Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized "the narrow principle of necessity" or "self-defense" of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said "the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively."

When all is said and done the only way Congress can protect its prerogatives is to undertake its own contempt proceedings. The parliamentary precedents of the House provide such procedures, by which Congress can effectively protect itself.

[...]

Given the clear attitude of conservative presidents, who are doing all within their power to make Congress irrelevant, Congress should turn to these underemployed precedents and put them back to work. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should take the lead in reviving these procedures, and the Democrats' leadership should announce that they are embracing them.

If they do not, Fred Fielding has it right: Officials are absolutely immune from compelled Congressional testimony. Bush can simply tell Congress to stop sending subpoenas to his appointees. However, if Congress does engage in a little self-help at this crucial juncture, it can be sure that not only Harriet Miers, but also George Bush, will be forced to pay attention to congressional subpoenas - for the bottom line is that Congress will not need the cooperation of the other branches to enable it to conduct proper oversight.

booman concludes with this...
It is only when the battle becomes clearly a battle, not between parties, but between branches of government, that the Republicans will stand up and remove a president that they really have no use for. They won't remove him for torture, or illegal spying, or kidnapping, or voter fraud, but they'll consider it for usurping the powers of Congress. And if the president is going to stay the course in Iraq, they may well compel him to turn over the documents that will seal his fate.

i'm waiting, and not very patiently either...

and, for the umpteenth time, lest we forget, these stakes were spelled out by the bush administration last october...

"In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as 'a cataclysmic fight to the death' over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is 'going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.'"

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, July 13, 2007

Larisa is alarmed, and even more alarmed that John Dean is alarmed

i've been alarmed for quite some time, but with the refusal of harriet miers to appear, my alarm has deepened significantly... i'm not alone...

larisa alexandrovna...

The formidable Mr. Dean raises some very disturbing questions in his latest article at FindLaw, I will skip to the disturbing parts, but I suggest you real the whole piece (emphasis mine):
"By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush's White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers, to the advantage of the White House.

[...]

The Justice Department, then, must be assuring the White House that it will make this, in effect, the law, by refusing to prosecute such defiant officials under the criminal contempt statute if Congress refers the matter to them.

This is a very aggressive position. While it does not reflect the current state of the law, given the pro-presidential bias among so many of the conservative jurists who now dominate the federal judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, Bush may well succeed in defending this position if this matter goes to court

i am at a loss to explain why neither larisa nor john dean touched on the congressional power to declare harriet miers in inherent contempt (see here, here, and here...) it's been bandied about extensively, at least where i hang out in the blogosphere, and seems to me to be about the only option left to congress short of initiating impeachment proceedings...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

The case for war crimes charges against Tony Blair

steve clemons has a post up about an upcoming bbc radio drama...
The BBC has a must-listen show on radio tomorrow titled Called to Account [Saturday, 14 July 2007, at 2:30 pm UK Time and at 9:30 am EST. This can be listened to over the web live or downloaded to a podcast for later listening] offering a theatrical version of Tony Blair's indictment for Iraq War-related crimes. This may inspire many on this side of the Atlantic pond to think about various strategies to hold America's current political leadership accountable for duplicity and mismanagement of America's national security portfolio -- and particularly for the Iraq War.

while i am in complete agreement with the need for accountability, i would certainly see it extending to much more than the "duplicity and mismanagement of America's national security portfolio -- and particularly for the Iraq War"... the failure to uphold the u.s. constitution, violation of fisa, the list is too long to enumerate here...

steve goes on...

If 'Democracy' is ever going to shed its bad name, accountability must be one of its fundamental pillars in any genuine system of checks and balances. There should be a price paid for serious errors by national leaders -- and an even higher price paid by those who wield power with impunity and who lie to their publics in so-called democracies.

again, "serious errors" is a serious understatement... "lying to the public" is a better description, but the "commission of deliberate and conscious crimes" i think says it best overall...

a few more thoughts...

if the u.s. isn't yet at a tipping point, we are getting damn close... the extension of executive privilege to include not only spurning a subpoena but also an outright refusal to appear (as in harriet miers no-show before the house judiciary committee yesterday) is an in-your-face demonstration of the stunning degree of lawlessness that is the hallmark of this presidential administration...

the first order of business, superseding anything else, is getting this crowd OUT of the white house before they can wreak more havoc... the second is undoing the outrages they have perpetrated against our constitutional framework BEFORE a new president takes office... the third requires that we hold these criminals accountable in the fullest possible sense and insure that the maximum consequences are imposed, and that needs to take place both domestically as well as on the world stage... our future as a nation, our future in the world of nations, and our ability to look ourselves in the mirror each morning depend on it...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

DOJ advises White House to ignore Congress



i am completely drop-jawed at the arrogance and total lawlessness of the presidential administration that purports to serve as our elected leadership... this is sounding more and more like zimbabwe under robert mugabe rather than the united states of america...
In a broadly worded legal opinion, the Justice Department has concluded that President Bush's former top lawyer, and possibly other senior White House officials, can ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the U.S. attorneys affair.

The three-page opinion raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt for not cooperating with the investigation into the firing last year of eight top prosecutors.

[...]

Correspondence released by the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday showed that Miers, through her lawyer, had asked White House counsel Fred Fielding whether she had to attend the hearing to personally assert the privilege. After consulting the Justice Department, Fielding wrote back saying that Miers had "absolute immunity from compelled Congressional testimony" and that "the president has directed her not to appear."

The position prompted an angry response from House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., the chair of the commercial and administrative law subcommittee.

"We are aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in response to a Congressional subpoena," Conyers and Sanchez wrote to George Manning, Miers' lawyer. "A refusal to appear ... could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings."

[...]

"The privilege does not entitle you to refuse to appear. The privilege entitles you to refuse to answer questions when you appear if those questions call for privileged information," said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University law school. "No one can claim the privilege entitles you to ignore the body that subpoenas you."

unbelievable...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Not a good day

i keep looking for things that grab me to post and all i'm seeing is more bad news... sara taylor, harriet miers, iraq, lieberman, bush's sorry performance at the opening of the new white house press briefing room, the doj bogus defense of gonzales' latest lies - all of it just makes me want to crawl in a hole and not come out until it's all over...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, July 08, 2007

Of COURSE he will...! Denying and defying IS the strategy...!

once again, context-free journalism rises to an art-form under the expert hands of the wapo...
White House Will Deny New Request In Attorneys Probe
Bush to Defy Congress, Sources Say

The White House has decided to defy Congress's latest demand for information regarding the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys, sources familiar with the decision said yesterday. Such an action would escalate the constitutional struggle and propel it closer to a court showdown.

Senate and House committees have directed President Bush to provide by tomorrow a detailed justification of his executive privilege claims and a full accounting of the documents he is withholding. But White House counsel Fred F. Fielding plans to tell lawmakers that he has already provided the legal basis for the claims and will not provide a log of the documents, the sources said.

The standoff suggests that neither side is prepared to budge in the fight over documents and testimony in the widening U.S. attorney investigation. Officials in both camps said no serious negotiations are taking place to resolve the dispute. Fielding plans to follow up his letter by further asserting executive privilege later this week, the sources said, directing former White House aides Harriet E. Miers and Sara M. Taylor not to testify in response to congressional subpoenas.

i wish to hell everybody would stop pretending the white house is doing anything other than what they said they would do... back in october, even before the november elections (as i've pointed out again and again and again), the white house told us what they were going to do (*see below), and they're doing it, just exactly like they told us they would... they also said that we would remain in iraq forever, and we're doing that too... let's stop dicking around with these stupid games, putting out headlines and sub-heads like it's some goddam surprise, breathlessly announcing "White House to Deny," "Bush to Defy..." how about something like this instead...?

Bush sticks to October Plan

or

White House No-Compromise Strategy Rolls On

why pretend that there's anything the white house or president bush would even CONSIDER doing besides denying and defying...? stick it in our faces - which is exactly where it belongs - that this administration's bottom-line strategy for avoiding oversight and accountability IS denying and defying, and that we've had six and one-half friggin' years of it...

* from time magazine, october 2006...

"In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as 'a cataclysmic fight to the death' over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is 'going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.'"

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Larisa's take on today's goings-on

golly, i sure hope she's right...
I would like to officially welcome you to Watergate. Please buckle up for the festivities of executive abuses and prepare to watch as Rove, in panic mode, begins to throw people under the bus - who in turn, along with so many other enemies made already, will reveal much more than anyone thought to even look at.

As a chess player, who once had a more than average ranking (if I do say so myself), this was exactly the move that Congress wanted and why it waited until it became undeniably clear that the White House was not remotely interested in protecting the integrity of private council, but rather, protecting its own hide and covering possible crimes. The White House taking this position on attorney-gate is the trap. It is one thing to claim EP [executive privilege] when talking about national security documents, but with attorney-gate, their position has rendered them with no legal or arguably Constitutional leg to stand on.

It would have been far easier to throw Rove and Miers to the curb. Such a move would have been seen as a major effort on the part of the White House to work with Congress. By bringing out the big argument, the only argument, that the White House has in defense of these two - Rove and Miers - they have lost the center of the board - or in non-chess terms, they have lost the advantage and likely, they will lose the game.

Karl Rove, however, will not remain loyal if his own ass is on the line - which it is. Mark my words, protecting Rove and Miers by bringing out the only argument the administration can make (instead of holding it for issues such as the wiretapping program) is not only a bad move, it is a mistake of serious and likely game-ending proportions.

larisa is one of the more astute observers on the scene besides being a crack investigative reporter... i wouldn't dismiss anything she has to say out of hand...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Let the constitutional crisis/battle over executive privilege games begin

we knew THESE were coming...

re the subpoenas of harriet miers and sara taylor from fred fielding to conyers and leahy...



[...]


re the subpoenas of white house documents related to the firing of the u.s. attorneys from paul clement to george bush...


[...]


ok, congress, the ball is now in your court...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, June 22, 2007

Political appointees, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the common good

the la times, no doubt reflecting its further-to-the-right ownership (see tribune.com), offers this in today's op-ed section on the alberto gonzales/justice department scandal...
Attempting to resuscitate a rapidly expiring "scandal," congressional Democrats have issued subpoenas to former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers and former White House political affairs director Sara M. Taylor, demanding their testimony regarding the administration's 2006 decision to replace eight U.S. attorneys. [...] The president, however, should stand firm and refuse to permit his subordinates' compliance. He can, and should, claim executive privilege.

From the start, this affair has lacked legal substance. There is no evidence that firing these U.S. attorneys was unlawful or inappropriate. Chosen for political reasons, they can legally and morally be fired for political reasons: insufficient loyalty, a perceived failure to pursue administration priorities or that someone with better political contacts has come along. Politics is not always a pretty business, and anyone seeking job security should not take a political appointment.

Moreover, there is a core constitutional principle at stake here. Political appointees like U.S. attorneys exercise the president's authority, and they serve at his pleasure.

[...]

The Democratic leadership understands very well that the president was entitled to fire these individuals for political reasons. It knows how little job protection political appointees have; the very same rules apply to congressional staff. The newly emboldened Congress is on a grand fishing expedition, hoping to uncover something to weaken and discredit the administration and the presidency itself.

Because there is no legitimate congressional concern here to weigh against the president's clear interest in keeping White House political personnel deliberations confidential, a claim of executive privilege should be upheld by the judiciary. The president's answer to both House and Senate subpoenas should be "See you in court."

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, [both of who] served in the Justice Department under presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

while i do whole-heartedly agree with the "see you in court" suggestion, i must point out that there are two truly astounding assumption that pervade this op-ed by messrs. casey and rivkin... the first is that appointing justice department officials to serve purely POLITICAL purposes is O.K. and that giving them the ax for NOT serving purely political purposes is equally O.K... the second, equally troubling assumption, is that these appointees serve entirely at the PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT... there is absolutely no mention anywhere of honoring the fundamentals of the constitution, observing the rule of law, or serving the common good... none... (and may i point out that the "constitutional principle" of serving at the president's "pleasure" does NOT include negating the OTHER constitutional principles...)

i seriously don't know how any discussion of the ins and outs of presidential appointments could, in all conscience, NOT mention the constitution, the rule of law, or the common good... of COURSE political appointees are expected to follow the policy guidelines set down by the president, guidelines that are, presumably, crafted to serve the common good, observe the rule of law, AND uphold the constitution, but they are also required to do so within the very clear guidelines set forth in that document and the body of law that supports it... when the president's agenda is crafted solely for the aim of accruing more power and money for the political party and financial backers that the president represents, often in contravention of the constitution those political appointees were sworn to uphold and in violation of the rule of law, serving AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT is no longer a valid mandate...

what has taken place in the bush administration is a complete and total perversion of the political appointment process, an abandonment of the principle of serving the common good, and a willful negation of the constitution... THAT'S the "scandal," messrs. casey and rivkin... when you find it in your hearts to point out that our president and everyone in the executive branch must be devoted to upholding the constitution, acting in accordance with the rule of law, and serving the common good, i will be willing to listen... not before...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Let the constitutional crisis begin

there's another one of these (PDF) with sara taylor's name on it...



from think progress...
These are the first subpoenas delivered to the White House regarding the attorney firings. The House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to Miers, and the Senate Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to Taylor.

[...]

CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

fine... let's get the goddam show on the road... and this better not end up like condi's subpoena that's been floating around out there, unenforced, since april 25...
On a party-line vote of 21-10, the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved a subpoena for Rice, which was quickly issued.

and it, too, was accompanied by the same raft of executive privilege horseshit...
[T]he administration said it might fight the subpoena, citing a legal doctrine that can shield a president and his aides from having to answer questions from Congress.

"Those matters are covered by executive privilege," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, moving toward a possible legal showdown with the Democratic-led Congress.

no more screwing around, congress, and that means BOTH of you, patrick leahy and henry waxman... the time for niceties is long gone... we're in a constitutional war and the sooner we face that fact, the quicker we can get on with reclaiming our country...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments