Labels: contempt of Congress, Karl Rove
Submit To Propeller
posted by Anonymous at
7/24/2008
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.
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: contempt of Congress, Democrats, Department of Justice, Harriet Miers, House of Representatives, Impeachment, Inherent Contempt, Joshua Bolten, Michael Mukasey, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
3/01/2008
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.
Labels: Attorney General, Congress, contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, Harriet Miers, House of Representatives, Joshua Bolten, Michael Mukasey, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
3/01/2008
February 28, 2008
The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
The Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001Dear 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 HouseNext 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.
Labels: Congress, contempt of Congress, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Joshua Bolten, Michael Mukasey, Nancy Pelosi
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
2/28/2008
Labels: contempt of Congress, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, John Conyers, Joshua Bolten, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
2/14/2008
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.
Labels: bipartisanship, Bush Administration, contempt of Congress, criminal Democrats, economic stimulus plan, economy, Harriet Miers, House of Representatives, Joshua Bolten, Republicans, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
1/23/2008
another forlorn plea...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
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,
Labels: contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Inherent Contempt, Joshua Bolten, Karl Rove, Partick Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee, US Attorneys
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
12/14/2007
Labels: Congress, constitutional crisis, contempt of Congress, New York Times, subpoenas, U.S. Constitution
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
11/16/2007
[The White House has] stalled or ignored Leahy's requests as his committee looks into the wiretapping program and the travails of Gonzales. They have calculated -- accurately so far -- that the Dynamic Duo of Leahy and Schumer would deliver harsh words but no punishment of consequence.
"The time is up. The time is up," Leahy announced yesterday. "We've waited long enough."
But what would Leahy do about it? The first questioner riddled Batman with this.
"The full Judiciary Committee will have to sit down and determine whether to seek contempt from the full Senate," said the noncommittal action hero.
Does that mean he would seek a contempt-of-Congress citation? "What I want to do is get the response to these things," Leahy demurred.
The best spin that can be put on this -- and the spin Leahy would no doubt put on it -- is that the Senator was careful, even cagey, and displayed a statesmanlike refusal to tip his hand.
The rest of the world saw this: He's got nothin'.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Chuck Schumer, contempt of Congress, Patrick Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee, subpoenas, warrantless domestic wiretapping, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
8/21/2007
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.”
Labels: Congress, constitutional crisis, contempt of Congress, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, Iraq government, Joshua Bolten, recess appointment, U.S. Constitution
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/25/2007
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."
Labels: contempt of Congress, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, Inherent Contempt, John Conyers, Joshua Bolten, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/23/2007
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.
Labels: Booman Tribune, Congress, constitutional crisis, contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, Inherent Contempt, Tony Snow, U.S. Constitution, US Attorneys, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/21/2007
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."
Labels: Bush Administration, Congress, contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, executive privilege, Inherent Contempt, unitary executive, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/20/2007
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.
[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.
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.
"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: constitutional crisis, contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, Impeachment, Inherent Contempt, Senate Judiciary Committee, Supreme Court
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/14/2007
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
Labels: contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, Inherent Contempt, John Dean, Larisa Alexandrovna, subpoenas, unitary executive, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/13/2007
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."
Labels: contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, Fred Fielding, George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, immunity, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/11/2007
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.
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.
Labels: Congress, contempt of Congress, Dick Cheney, George Bush, House Judiciary Committee, Impeachment, Inherent Contempt, U.S. Constitution, White House
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/11/2007
Gonzales Knew of Violations, Paper Says
AP
Posted: 2007-07-10 05:53:34
WASHINGTON (July 10) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales received reports detailing legal or procedural violations by FBI agents in the months before he told senators that no such abuses had occurred, The Washington post reported Tuesday.
In April 2005, while seeking renewal of the broad powers granted law enforcement under the USA Patriot Act, Gonzales said, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" from the law enacted after the 9/11 terror attacks.
According to the Post, Gonzales had received a least half a dozen reports describing such violations in the three months before he made that statement. The newspaper obtained the internal FBI documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
The violations, the Post reported, included unauthorized surveillance and an illegal property search.
Justice officials said they did not know whether Gonzales had read the reports.(emphasis added)
[...]
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Congress, contempt of Congress, Department of Justice, domestic spying, perjury
Submit To Propellerposted by jburke6000 at
7/10/2007
[F]ollowing George W. Bush's pardon (let's be honest) of Scooter Libby, a Republican's admonition to let anything play out in court ought to be regarded as worth exactly squat.
So long as George W. Bush wields the pardon pen, there are no courts. And any Republican who tells you otherwise is pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining.
Labels: commuted sentence, contempt of Congress, George Bush, Impeachment, Presidential pardon, Presidential resignation, Republicans, Scooter Libby
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
7/04/2007
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."
"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."
Labels: contempt of Congress, George Bush, Impeachment, Inherent Contempt, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, oversight, rule of law
Submit To Propellerposted by profmarcus at
6/29/2007
An alternative look at NEWS THAT MATTERS: current events, politics, opinion, perspective, discussion, analysis, issues, debate, and insight - national and global.
Reno |
London |
 |
 |
