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

Friday, December 14, 2007

Leahy and contempt of Congress - too little, too late

sigh...


Dear [name redacted],

It should never have had to come to this.

Yesterday, on a bipartisan vote of 12-7, the Senate Judiciary Committee ruled that White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove are in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued in the U.S. Attorneys investigation. As Chairman of the Committee, I have gone to real lengths to avoid this sort of legal confrontation, but after many months the White House has yet to cooperate with these requests from our investigation -- and the American people deserve the truth.

The President denies any involvement in the political firings of Justice Department officials. Yet he and his staff continue to hide behind the veil of "executive privilege." They have essentially asserted that this privilege -- historically applied very narrowly -- covers all documents and information in their possession. It's a dramatic departure from precedent, and the Bush-Cheney administration's blanket claim of immunity from congressional subpoenas flies in the face of our system of checks and balances.

This is not about pulling a partisan "gotcha" or scoring political points. After all, Committee members of both parties supported yesterday's ruling. No, this is about defending Congress's oversight function and protecting the right of the American people to know the whole truth about the mass firings of attorneys at the Justice Department. Withholding critical evidence requested by a subpoena is a serious crime, and it's time we reminded the President and his staff that they are not above the law.

The White House's refusal to cooperate with our investigation casts further doubt on its contention that it had nothing to do with the political firings of Justice Department officials. In fact, it's now quite clear that political officials in the White House pressured federal prosecutors to bring partisan cases and sought retribution against those who refused.

Since World War II, presidential advisers have testified before Congress 74 times, either voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas -- never once refusing to comply. Executive privilege should not be invoked to prevent investigations into wrongdoing, and certainly should not prevail.

Thank you for your support for holding the Bush-Cheney Administration accountable as we get to the bottom of the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

another forlorn plea...
Dear Senator Leahy,

As I've written previously, I am in full support of all of your desperately needed efforts to hold an outlaw presidential administration accountable. I have witnessed over seven years of determined attacks on our precious Constitution and willful repudiation of the rule of law. I have also been devastated to see Congress continuously, even with a Democratic majority, capitulate and seemingly collaborate with the criminals in the executive branch.

Contempt of Congress charges are not only highly appropriate, but long overdue. However, with the Bush administration's announced intent to prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting contempt citations, I have little doubt that the contempt of Congress charges will amount to little more than an empty gesture. In my opinion, had you been more forceful and timely on this issue, you would already be at the point of invoking inherent contempt, but that is water under the bridge now.

Unfortunately, Senator Leahy, our nation is already well past the point where what should be an unprecedented use of contempt charges will serve to restore the constitutionally-specified checks and balances and necessary oversight granted to the United States Congress. It is abundantly clear that the current occupants of the White House, via the revelation of so-called legal opinions that were vividly presented by Senator Whitehouse in his recent Senate floor speech, will never accede to any dimunition of their vision of unfettered executive power.

My point is this, Senator Leahy. The current administration will continue its outlaw reign unabated until they are removed from office, and waiting until 20 January 2009 for that to happen is putting our country at even more critical risk than it is already. Moreover, allowing the mechanisms of unchecked power to remain in place for a new president to decide to use or not use is an even more unacceptable risk.

I beg you, Senator Leahy, take a stand for me, my fellow citizens, your country, and your oath to preserve and protect the United States Constitution. I realize that you have many competing obligations, but all of them pale when placed up against the need to defend the Constitution and rule of law without which our nation, as we know it, would cease to exist. Throw all of your available energy and resources toward ridding us of the scourge called the Bush administration. I'm counting on you.

Best regards,

rather than composing all these letters from scratch, i really should compose a piece of boiler-plate... "dear [insert name here]..."

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

Saturday, July 21, 2007

One more... (I can't help myself...!)

booman...
Pelosi? Conyers? You listening?
"In circumstances like this, the constitutional prerogatives of the president make it futile and purely political for Congress to refer to a U.S. attorney a contempt citation," White House spokesman Tony Snow said yesterday. "The legislative branch is not in a position to compel action on the part of the executive branch, other than in areas related to its legitimate oversight role."

It's Inherent Contempt or it's the end of the Republic.

i don't think he's exaggerating one tiny bit...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, July 20, 2007

Allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers

this surprises me not in the least... it's perfectly in keeping with the road we've been marched down for the past 6 1/2 years, only instead of it being conducted under cover of darkness, in no media coverage signing statements and executive orders, unfettered executive power is now being baldly unveiled as the overarching imperative of our near-totalitarian state...
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

[...]

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

[...]

[T]he administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power," [Rozell continued]. "Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

congress had better act fast... time's running out...

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

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Inherent contempt charges being considered for Harriet's refusal to appear

in the grasping-at-straws department, i find this to be a tad bit encouraging...
A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

this has led kagro x to ponder on the "pardon-ability" of statutory contempt of congress charges vs. inherent contempt charges...
Our previous discussions of contempt of Congress procedures have allowed us to hash out the shortcomings of statutory contempt and the high-stakes game of inherent contempt. Chief among the statutory procedure's shortcomings: it depends for its enforcement on the non-partisan cooperation of the U.S. Attorney. And if we were guaranteed that, we wouldn't be here subpoenaing everybody, now would we?

Now, in light of the Scooter Libby pardon (and that's what it is, or at least what it will be), we have to consider another possible shortcoming: that statutory contempt of Congress may be pardonable by the president.

There was a time, of course, where such a pardon would have been considered so outrageous, and so utterly beyond the pale, that raising the concern would have gotten you laughed off The Hill. But no longer.

[...]

That, in turn, has led many to wonder whether inherent contempt is pardonable. The answer is: I don't know.

i'll make no secret of my wishes on the matter... i am positively foaming at the mouth with rage over this outlaw gang that has seized control of our government, and i believe the ONLY way to bring them to accountability is with the full force of whatever laws and procedures the constitution puts at our disposal... contempt of congress charges, inherent contempt, impeachment - nothing should be overlooked... by all rights, the entire congress should be marching en masse to the white house demanding the resignations of bush, cheney, and the entire cabinet... barring that, congress needs to come down on them like a ton of bricks... better yet, make make that TWO tons...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, June 29, 2007

So ok, Nancy, are ya gonna support impeachment or not?

you can't go around dropping stuff like this and then continue to keep impeachment off the table...

bob geiger reports on pelosi's conference call with progressive bloggers yesterday...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held another one of her regular conference calls with Progressive bloggers on Thursday, addressing topics across the national agenda and emphasizing her commitment to keeping pressure on Republicans to do the right thing on Iraq, bolstering national security and forcing George W. Bush to start obeying America's rule of law.

[...]

"The American people really don't even know the half of it," said Pelosi in discussing what further oversight efforts might ultimately uncover. "In every aspect of the rule of law, and respect for the Constitution and checks and balances and how they conduct themselves, it's impossible to exaggerate how bad they have been."

they're trying to "build the record..." uh, 'scuse me, "build the record" for WHAT, exactly...?
"But we are trying to build the record and that's what we have to do. They had been going for six and a half years with no oversight, just absolutely zero accountability. And when people talk about this Congress, they have to recognize that there's a big distinction between this Congress and previous Congresses in terms of shedding the light of oversight and accountability on this administration. But with many of these things, you have to build a record so the public sees what it is."

what's wrong with this picture...? for starters, not one mention of impeachment, not one mention of contempt of congress, and not one mention of inherent contempt from either pelosi or geiger...

HE-L-L-L-L-OOOOOOO...?!?! THE ALARM CLOCK'S BUZZING...! TIME TO WAKE UP...!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, June 22, 2007

More on contempt of Congress and inherent contempt

i won't repost it here... just click on over to daily kos and read kagro x's update...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Contempt of Congress? Ok, fine, so DO it already, goddamit

i don't want to hear any goddam WARNINGS... the time for WARNINGS is long over... we want ACTION... this lawless, megalomaniacal presidential administration needs to face some ACCOUNTABILITY...
House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.

The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.

it looks like we have yet another opportunity to re-visit inherent contempt... (previous posts here and here...)
the most widely-discussed option, contempt of congress, would entail automatic involvement of the justice department, which, as we now so clearly realize, would be problematic to say the least... however...
Under the inherent contempt power [PDF], the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

here's kagro x's thoughts...
The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.

But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.

[...]

Let's face it: if the "administration" simply refuses to budge, the Congress either has to fold its tent and go home, or enforce on its own authority the subpoena power the American people voted for. Given that we've reached this impasse -- and we knew it was coming -- over an investigation into the hyper-partisan and hyper-politicized nature of the U.S. Attorneys, inherent contempt proceedings would appear to be the first and most direct resort of Congress in enforcing its mandate.

contempt of congress, inherent contempt, whatever... let's git 'er done...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, June 14, 2007

What to do when subpoenas are ignored

i'm reposting the majority of a post i put up back at the end of april because i think it gains greater relevance every day...
i confess to being one of the members of the great unwashed blogosphere referred to by kagro x in his commendable efforts to point out another option available to congress in its response to requests and subpoenas related to oversight investigations that are being ignored by the bush administration... the most widely-discussed option, contempt of congress, would entail automatic involvement of the justice department, which, as we now so clearly realize, would be problematic to say the least... however...
Under the inherent contempt power [PDF], the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

here's kagro x's thoughts...
The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.

But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.

[...]

Let's face it: if the "administration" simply refuses to budge, the Congress either has to fold its tent and go home, or enforce on its own authority the subpoena power the American people voted for. Given that we've reached this impasse -- and we knew it was coming -- over an investigation into the hyper-partisan and hyper-politicized nature of the U.S. Attorneys, inherent contempt proceedings would appear to be the first and most direct resort of Congress in enforcing its mandate.

It would also appear to be the last stop short of impeachment. And with that remedy currently "off the table," Congress needs to speak -- and speak soon -- about how it intends to protect its prerogatives.

so, how do we help our congressional representatives to prepare...? again, kagro x...
Study up a bit on what happens when the subpoenas are defied. Learn about inherent contempt. Then drop a friendly line to your Members of Congress, expressing your support for the investigations the Congress is conducting, and urging them to think ahead and game out the "administration's" refusal to acknowledge the legislature's power as a co-equal branch. Let them know that when push comes to shove, you'd support enforcing that power through the inherent contempt procedure, and ask them if they're aware of it.

Sure, we'll get non-committal responses drafted by staff. But that doesn't mean there's no consideration for our communications going on inside the office. When Members get multiple letters, faxes and emails on the same subject -- even just a few -- it raises some notice among the staff. That's the way the system is designed. And when they several letters raising something that's otherwise as obscure as inherent contempt, you'll definitely be raising eyebrows.

it makes perfectly good sense to me, particularly since i have been ranting and raving about getting bushco removed from office in the most expeditious manner possible... i have never been keen on impeachment, simply because of the time and effort involved... leaving george, dick and the rest of the criminals in office and free to continue attacking the foundations of the republic while an impeachment process drags on doesn't address the urgency... however, the option of inherent contempt, something i was not aware of, ought to be out on the table just as much as contempt of congress and impeachment... write your representatives in congress as kagro x suggests... there's nothing to lose and everything to gain...

we simply CANNOT sit idly by while the bush regime continues its lawless rampage over every fundamental principle our country was founded on...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Bill banning interim USA appointments still unsigned and interim appointments still being made

the criminal cowboy who has the nerve to call himself our president seems to take perverse delight in seeing how many ways he can negate the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers, legislation passed by the united states congress and its duly elected members, and the will of the american people...

from raw story
...

On June 4, the Congress sent S. 214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, to President George W. Bush. The bill overturned a measure stealthily passed by the Republican-led Congress in 2006 that allowed the Attorney General to indefinitely appoint US Attorneys on an interim basis. Critics said the provision was intended to do an end-run around the standard Senate confirmation process for US Attorneys.

The bill passed the Senate by a 94-2 margin on March 20, and also cleared the House of Representatives by a 306-114 vote on May 22. The President has yet to sign or veto the bill.

so, in the meantime...
"It just so happens the [Senate Judiciary Committee] got notice yesterday, that on June 16, George Cardona's 210 days as Acting U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California will have run out and the Attorney General will appoint him as an interim U.S. Attorney at that time. (i.e. still using the end-run authority because Bush has slow-walked signing the bill)," [Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Senator Leahy] wrote.

this kind of lawlessness simply cannot be tolerated... it's time to revisit the "inherent contempt" provision, which i will drag out once again in a subsequent post...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Comey goes before the committee day after tomorrow

heh... it's a good move scheduling this before gonzo goes before the committee next week...
Earlier today, a House Judiciary subcommittee approved a subpoena for former Deputy Attorney General James Comey to testify on the firings of U.S. Attorneys.”Comey has agreed to comply with the subpoena and will appear before the committee on May 3, 2007.”

cool… potentially more grounds for inherent contempt if he refuses (altho’ i don’t think that would be applicable in the case of FORMER doj employees)… as a civilian, i think he's pretty much compelled to appear...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Inherent contempt - another Congressional option

i confess to being one of the members of the great unwashed blogosphere referred to by kagro x in his commendable efforts to point out another option available to congress in its response to requests and subpoenas related to oversight investigations that are being ignored by the bush administration... the most widely-discussed option, contempt of congress, would entail automatic involvement of the justice department, which, as we now so clearly realize, would be problematic to say the least... however...
Under the inherent contempt power [PDF], the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

here's kagro x's thoughts...
The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.

But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.

[...]

Let's face it: if the "administration" simply refuses to budge, the Congress either has to fold its tent and go home, or enforce on its own authority the subpoena power the American people voted for. Given that we've reached this impasse -- and we knew it was coming -- over an investigation into the hyper-partisan and hyper-politicized nature of the U.S. Attorneys, inherent contempt proceedings would appear to be the first and most direct resort of Congress in enforcing its mandate.

It would also appear to be the last stop short of impeachment. And with that remedy currently "off the table," Congress needs to speak -- and speak soon -- about how it intends to protect its prerogatives.

so, how do we help our congressional representatives to prepare...? again, kagro x...
Study up a bit on what happens when the subpoenas are defied. Learn about inherent contempt. Then drop a friendly line to your Members of Congress, expressing your support for the investigations the Congress is conducting, and urging them to think ahead and game out the "administration's" refusal to acknowledge the legislature's power as a co-equal branch. Let them know that when push comes to shove, you'd support enforcing that power through the inherent contempt procedure, and ask them if they're aware of it.

Sure, we'll get non-committal responses drafted by staff. But that doesn't mean there's no consideration for our communications going on inside the office. When Members get multiple letters, faxes and emails on the same subject -- even just a few -- it raises some notice among the staff. That's the way the system is designed. And when they several letters raising something that's otherwise as obscure as inherent contempt, you'll definitely be raising eyebrows.

it makes perfectly good sense to me, particularly since i have been ranting and raving about getting bushco removed from office in the most expeditious manner possible... i have never been keen on impeachment, simply because of the time and effort involved... leaving george, dick and the rest of the criminals in office and free to continue attacking the foundations of the republic while an impeachment process drags on doesn't address the urgency... however, the option of inherent contempt, something i was not aware of, ought to be out on the table just as much as contempt of congress and impeachment... write your representatives in congress as kagro x suggests... there's nothing to lose and everything to gain...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments