Breaking: CONTEMPT citations going out for Miers and Bolten - TODAY

[kpete]

Bush aides to face contempt citations
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Heading toward a separation-of-powers showdown, House Democrats prepared contempt of Congress citations against two White House aides who have refused to comply with subpoenas for information on the abrupt firings of federal prosecutors.

The White House has said that Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former legal counselor Harriet Miers, among other top advisers to President Bush, are absolutely immune from subpoenas because their documents and testimony are protected by executive privilege.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., reject that claim and have drafted for a vote Wednesday a resolution citing Miers and Bolten with contempt of Congress, a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and a one-year prison sentence.

The panel's vote is the first step on the road to a possible constitutional showdown in federal court.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_co/prosecutors_contempt;_ylt=AsBhNufGYJS6AlXCkGOad6ys0NUE2 \

http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=836


More From Wapo:

The investigation "has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by the department and White House staff," Conyers says.

The memorandum says the probe has turned up evidence that some of the U.S. attorneys were improperly selected for firing because of their handling of vote fraud allegations, public corruption cases or other cases that could affect close elections. It also says that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior Justice aides "appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel."

In addition, the memorandum asserts repeatedly that the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was the first administration official to broach the idea of firing U.S. attorneys shortly after the 2004 election -- an assertion the White House has said is not true.

................

In the memorandum, the Democrats provide the first legal justification for countering the White House's view, saying that the 1984 legal opinion "does not apply here." For one thing, the Democrats contend, Bush has not invoked the privilege properly because he has not furnished a signed statement or "privilege logs" specifying the documents being withheld. In addition, the memo says, "there is not the slightest indication" the 1984 opinion would apply to a former executive branch official, such as Miers.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402311.html?hpid=topnews

[Richard Steele]

1. Recommended as usual!

[rfranklin]

2. And then what? A nasty letter perhaps?

I can't wait.

[orleans]

56. we won't know about a letter until AFTER THE RECESS!

because they don't want the house to have to vote for JUSTICE! until after their vacation.

snore.....

[liberal N proud]

3. And who will arrest them?

bu$h has told his cronies at the in-Justice Dept that no one can be charged with contempt.

[AndyA]

4. If they do inherent contempt, the Sergeant At Arms can do it.

This would remove the Justice Department completely from the issue, and the case would be tried in the House.

[youngdem]

6. The Sargent At Arms does

[soothsayer]

9. He'll just pardon them anyway, so big deal. He's totally lawless!

[harun]

60. Not if the trials against them last until after Bush is gone

which is what the Dem's plan should be. They should line everything up so the trials of the staff start late enough to miss pardons. Then when B*sh and Cheney are out of office they can start their trials.

[Fluffdaddy]

66. monkey face can pardon them BEFORE any trials take place

[harun]

70. No you can't, you can pardon convictions, not charges (at least as far as I know)

[Fluffdaddy]

71. Two words................Dick Nixion

[BrainGlutton]

69. The president's pardon power does not affect Congress' exercise of its inherent contempt power.

See this WaPo editorial by a Rutgers law prof: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001802_pf.html Includes relevant case law.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

5. I know they're just stooges, but

I take some comfort knowing also that, whatever the outcome, this is going to dog their careers for the rest of their lives.

[WinkyDink]

17. Then he pardons them. But Bush will know he's going into the history books as the most criminal

President ever.
And even his megalomania will recognize that that will be irredeemable unto the end of Time.

[stimbox]

51. Miers looks like the Joker.

[KansDem]

57. KYRIST!!! Does he make them ALL wear American flag lapel pins?

What for! So in case they forget what country they're running they can just glance down on their chest? :grr:

I hate this faux-patriotism!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

58. and a cross under the shirt.

it's the LAW!, the new and improved law. Faith based, flag-waving, constitution-shredding justice on demand.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Will it be enforced by Gonzo's DoJ?

What happened to "inherent contempt?":shrug:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. It really depends upon what the Dems decide to do

If they wanted to, they could go with inherent contempt if Bush defies them. But I think they are so afraid of offending Murdoch and Fox Noise that they won't. They have yet to realize that they are in a brawl with a bully who doesn't follow the rules, cheats, and who will kill them in the end if they don't grow a spine and fight back with everything they've got.

[wake.up.america]

13. I agree. Bush simply does not give a rat's a**. It's naked survival right now.

Demos will back off

[zanne]

38. Yup. Bush is in his bunker....

But he's still calling the shots.

[havocmom]

44. Correction: in his bunker calling FOR shot

;) cheney can make bush jump through the hoops of being the public face on the crime spree, but it seems he can't make bush do it sober anymore.

[emulatorloo]

26. "they are so afraid of offending Murdoch and Fox Noise"

I seriously doubt it.

I think most get that Murdoch is a bully and Fox Noise only appeals to the deranged group of republicans who still worship Bush.

Yes I know some blogger "quoted" John Conyers saying he was afraid of fox. But I don't believe it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. having seen conyers in action for years, he was probably

being sarcastic, something that their small brains cannot process without a roadmap, one reader, two aides, three analysts, a dictionary and a thesaurus.

[radfringe]

10. drafted for a vote Wednesday a resolution

will they follow through with it? Are they prepared and WILLING to take the next step?

[Atman]

11. Just don't expect America to hear a word about it on the teevee

Nope. Not a word.

.

[bdamomma]

72. no, not at all

or they will say we are subpoena happy, but we can call them "pathetic"

[Senator]

12. I Think It's A Mistake

Yes, Even Inherent Contempt. This is why I've been chanting "only impeachment" for so long.

At best this is another procedural dead end. They've really got no problem letting Harriet or Fredo sit a cell (ask Judy Miller) -- in fact, that's what figureheads are for. It would have to be an old white guy -- like Scooter -- to get them to risk anything. But still, the pardon pen is properly poised.

But that's not the real problem. I think they may well be looking for any opportunity to "BushvGore" their "Unitary" delusions into "reality." And any issue will do. That's why they've been so "inexplicably" confrontive. They want something to trot up to the New Felonious Five for an "Enabling Decision."

They're not the least bit interested in "constitutional niceties." They believe them to be as "quaint" as torture bans.

They should be treated as the "fugitive" war criminals that they are. Poking them with legal sticks -- based on laws they scoff at -- is not a recipe for successful return to constitutional law.

Once again, the DC Dems are showing up with a knife to a gunfight.

==

[Atman]

15. That post should be its own thread.

Excellent. Couldn't have said it better.

.

[Hissyspit]

20. Yes. n/t

[Senator]

39. I've started one

If you'd like to chime in.

--

[WinkyDink]

18. Judith Miller was allowed to go to prison because one long-range Bushco goal is to destroy

the credibility of the MSM, and the vaunted "Liberal" NYT was a major target.

IOW, all "Truth" must be perceived as coming only from the WH.

[Senator]

24. Only secondarily in her case

If they really wanted to push that point, they'd have let Cooper be jailed as well.

Judy Miller was more co-conspirator than journalist at that point -- not a clean precedent. She had real evidence of malice aforethought. And remember, they never really let her off the hook. She decided on her own to give up. The real reason was to get past their "last" election without being revealed as traitors.

And the bottom line is that these neofascist thugs haven't "really changed" to being more modern/tolerant. They only use women and minorities as figureheads and tokens -- at departments they intend to ignore or loot. There are no exceptions. Even Powell, Condi, Harriet, and Fredo. (That's why they all seem so dumb. They really are.)

When they're put at seemingly important posts like those four, they're there to "take the fall" or get nothing done. Cheney's crew is always running those operations via aides and outside bullying.

--

[bigtree]

23. I think it would be the ultimate capitulation to let the WH assert these imagined powers

. . . to watch the WH assert these imagined protections from accountability they say fall under their claims of Executive Privilege, and not confront them in court. The claim is that just having the Justice Dept. assert Executive Privilege is enough to PREVENT the U.S. Attorney from doing what the CRS defined as his "duty" to forward Congress' complaint to a grand jury. The WH assertions are even more egregious when considering that senior officials at Justice (including the AG) and senior officials at the WH are themselves the subject of the inquiry into whether crimes were broken.

Congress hasn't produced a coalition with enough legislators to advance impeachment yet, but that shouldn't prevent them from exercising other important functions of accountability which are mandated by their oath and charter, right along with impeachment. Certainly the prospect of predictable republican resistance in the courts and from the WH and Justice shouldn't stop them from pursuing these subpoenas with every resource at their disposal, including charging the subjects with criminal contempt.

Anyone who has bothered to argue strenuously for the upholding of the rule of law and the defense of the Constitution by moving to some sort of impeachment, threatens their credibility when they push aside and disparage these other levers of accountability which may (at least initially) fall short of the extraordinary remedy of impeachment, but nonetheless, are in place to ensure that accountability to a conclusion which could very well lead to the check on the Executive that we all say want.

[Senator]

29. Failure to impeach is the ultimate capitulation

And that failure rests on the refusal to recognize that there are no "other levers" available. The regime has long since jumped off their end of the seesaw. There is no "pressure being ratcheted up" -- that's just rationalizing inadequate (non)action.

They long ago made clear their claim of monarchical power and all they need is some sort of response to have it "enabled" by the other, only-ostensibly independent, branch of government. Now, I can't say with certainty that Kennedy would go along with this nonsense. But I also can't say with certainty that they'd have any qualms about forcing him to "see the wisdom" of going along -- or else. Yes, really -- these thugs don't dance.

And even if contempt charges "succeed." What is gained other than a further gumming to death of the real, ongoing atrocities being committed in our names -- without our proper consent? Like "calling for deadlines," and "cutting the funding," and "flipping Repubs," it's just one more dead end in the Exitless DemocRat's Maze.

The filibusters, and vetoes, and "Rule By Signing Statement" really do exist. They really, really do. Why can none of the DC strategerists include them in their calculations? Perhaps it's because they all add up to the same thing -- Total Impotence Without Impeachment. And they've been spooked into Impeachophobic Groupthink by the same Euphemedia RNC-Talking-Point Parrots that screamed "Mushroomd Clouds!" at them until they wrote a blank check to Haliburton.

There's nothing extraordinary about impeachment -- the circumstances demand it. It's just a beltway delusion that "the sky will fall" on anyone if the Dems do what they were elected to do and lodge the formal objection to the regime's serial criminality and torture.

Their mandate is to protect and defend the Constitution, not jump through some legal hoops that could end up further damaging it with an edict that cements dictatorial power in a chief magistrate who simply has to claim "we're at war." Especially since their only claimed reason for doing so -- instead of doing the right thing -- is concern about their future political fortunes.

And that's the cruelest irony. It's this failure to see the forest for the trees that has their poll numbers plummeting.

--

[bigtree]

37. I really don't believe that an impeachment effort which is generated and advanced by our side alone

has much of a chance in producing a conviction, given the balance of power in the Senate.

So, what's left is impeaching for the sake of the process itself. An impeachment would, possibly, be more effective in breaking down barriers erected by the WH than the committee subpoena/contempt process. But moving immediately to some nebulous, omnibus impeachment without the benefit of the buttress of some outside prosecution/investigation, will likely invite the impression of a partisan, political effort; negating any anticipated boost that would possibly be expected to come from the heightened level of exposure.

The prospect of an acquittal in such an elevated confrontation should be enough to warrant caution in proceeding. I think the effect of an acquittal (party-line or not) would be to render whatever was charged immune from any future ambition to impeach. What future Congress would bother to put themselves through such a dubious process again?

I believe that these other levers, or points, of accountability that you dismiss as ineffective, nonetheless, serve to confront the administration; and to challenge them to either comply and reveal their malfeasance, or to cover and obstruct. It is a fact that the majority of successful political prosecutions have been advanced as a result of legal action on the obstructions and cover-ups of the targets as they respond to the investigations and prosecutions.

Neglecting to follow through on every process of law (no matter what the anticipated ruling or disposition) is an abdication of those prosecutable opportunities which inevitably arise from the targets' ducking and weaving as they attempt to avoid accountability in each instance where they are confronted. The advancement and imposition of criminal contempt charges will be one more important opportunity to challenge the WH to either come clean or break the law in full view, and with consequence, as they run from the legal inquiry.

Moreover, the impeachment of the Executive is an extraordinary remedy, because it carries the prospect of Congress, in seeking the removal of the president and vice-president, substituting for the votes of millions of Americans with their own biased judgment. Nothing could be more 'political' than that, notwithstanding the fact that those judgments about the true ambitions of legislators will be made, no matter what course they take or what they actually think and feel.

[Senator]

41. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

So concern about ultimate conviction/removal is at best premature.

But yes, impeachment has huge intrinsic value -- done for it's own sake. Impeachment is objection. The American People will have their objection to this regime voiced, as they demanded in the last election. It also sends a signal to the world that we do not intend to remain a rogue, dangerous actor on the world stage and that we wish to comply with our treaty obligations to respect human rights.

There nothing nebulous about torture, illegal spying, and/or terrorizing the nation into war. And they can be lodged in omnibus or in sequence. The bottom line is that no process of accountablility can even begin without accusation/objection. And nothing will happen without impeachment first. Failure to impeach is complicity -- approval -- exoneration of the regime.

No process, or investigation, or outside prosecution, is necessary (or possible). The regime has publicly declared their claim to monarchical, "unitary" power. They admit (stipulate to) the circumstances -- and merely "defend" it as lawful and unimpeachable. All that is left is to reject it. No witnesses, no investigation, no "legalities" necessary.

In fact, the torture charge has already be adjudicated in Hamdan -- the USSC ruled that "Geneva applies." And the US Senate has even voted 90-9 in favor of the McCain Anti-Torture Amendment -- sadly and impeachably negated via "Rule by Signing Statement." So the prospect of acquittal on that charge -- with 24 GOP Senators needing to reverse themselves and stand to defend torture and war crimes -- would seem to be much lower than simply counting Rs and Ds.

There is no "process of law" to follow through on impeachment. And impeaching abdicates no other prosecutorial mechanism that can be applied. This is stated explicitly in our (former) Constitution. And there is no "substituting," as the American People elected this Congress to protect and defend the Constitution, as their oath states.

So, none of these rationalizations for inaction are really relevant to impeachment. We're well beyond those types of concerns and people are dying every day while our "leaders" opt not to lead.

---

[bigtree]

45. Impeachment has no guarantee that it will prevent 'people dying'

you throw that in there as if the course I suggest is indifferent to all of that. We both intend the same level of accountability. I just don't think your course is necessarily going to be a successful one, if attempted.

I don't see how an impeachment effort which hasn't been defined yet, much less announced, could be characterized as anything other than 'nebulous'.

[Senator]

48. The impeachment effort is well defined

Articles of impeachment have already been published. Kucinich's articles against cheney are already in process. They can be transferred to bush as well instantly. Perhaps you should be more informed about them.

The "people dying" aspect is only an indication that there is no time to lose. This is very much not like the "other priorities" some impeachophobes keep claiming (amazingly) are more important than objecting to torture and war crimes immediately.

And our intentions are not the same. My intention is to demand that my "leaders" recognize the reality that none of their actions, except impeachment, will have any real effect at all on the actions of this regime. And that their oath requires them to impeach and remove a chief magistrate who they suspect has committed impeachable offenses. And that their duty to report and act to stop torture -- or become guilty of war crimes themselves (yes, too late) -- supercedes their strategerizing about the next election.

Your intention appears to be achieve some perfect accountability, at some later unspecified date, through some other unspecified means. All in the face of continual exoneration by the current members of congress. That's exactly the way Reagan and Poppy Bush were held accountable for their crimes.

Sadly, the odds remains slightly in favor of your way. But slighter every day.

--

[bigtree]

50. just pointing to article which have been published somewhere

isn't any substitute at all for an actual impeachment effort. The substance of any proposed impeachment will remain nebulous until it's actually put into place. Until then, proponents are able to present the prospect as some slam-dunk refutation of administration crimes and abuses. Without an actual list of Articles which are actually going to be advanced, there is no way at all to judge the impact on the public or on the opposition.

But I can foresee a process which advances without the benefit of any outside prosecution or outside investigation and safely project that an impeachment under those circumstances will become bogged down along the same partisan lines which have marked all of the important issues so far in this Congress.

The only difference with my view in your desire for Congress to 'report' and 'act' is that I don't believe that any old impeachment (even with all of the publicity it would receive) would accomplish the accountability you say you want.

[Senator]

62. It's many redundant articles.

And they include articles that were already proposed in the last Congress by Rep. McKinney and Rep. Kucinich's current articles against cheney which continue to gain co-sponsors. And the public has already been impacted -- they are far ahead of the beltway on impeachment.

It seems they are only "nebulous" to you, as I've not heard that from anyone else. As is your proposed alternative course of action, because it is unclear what "partisan lines" you imagine impeachment articles will become "bogged down" in when no GOP participation is required. But clarity of impeachment and the lack thereof in whatever you are actually proposing (if anything) is not the "only difference" in our views.

The core difference is that those who propose impeachment as necessary and overdue are concerned about how we ourselves, and those who currently hold title to "our leadership," are meeting our own responsibility to our Constitution, our treaty obligations, and our moral imperatives. We are concerned with doing the right thing for its own sake -- letting the chips fall where they may -- letting justice be done though the heavens fall.

We know our children are not going to comprehend the false memes of the moment should failure to impeach (exoneration/approval of monarchical power) be the ultimate outcome.

We want to say we stood in objection -- instead of just stood still.

---

[creeksneakers2]

64. Beating Republicans in 2008 is objection too

Only much more profitable than a failed impeachment effort. Losing all their power will teach the Republicans a lesson. Throwing up a wimpy impeachment attempt against them won't.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

25. I see your point. Why "test" the process rather than USE it to the fullest extent possible.

I think it's pretty clear the administration not only waves magic wands over the legal process (and will engage in every delay tactic, possible, out lasting their tenure and then some) but also holds no regard or respect for the rule of law.

Instead of fancy foot work, the most practical and effective action does seem to be to take these people right to the mat. After all, there is PUH-LENTY of evidence tending to show the commission of numerous crimes. PUH-LENTY!!!

[bigtree]

28. because, to let the assertions of Executive privilege stand without challenge in court

is a tacit acquiescence to those false assertions. Any unchallenged assertion of imagined powers by this administration is an ultimate codification of those unprecedented grabs for power.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. I believe they will continue to assert EP even in impeachment/conviction proceedings.

But, you are correct. The extent to which they use EP should be challenged.

[Senator]

32. They've been challenged

This is settled law as ruled against Nixon. Like with the FISA violations, they are looking to "reopen the issues."

And they've got Feingold and Leahy and others running around trying to "bring them back within the law" and "acting to restore habeas corpus" (as if it's somehow disappeared).

All Congress need do is say "No." Anything else is a victory for fascism.

--

[bigtree]

40. from the Congressional Research Service

Prior to Watergate, no executive branch official had ever been the target of a criminal contempt proceeding. Since 1975, however, 10 cabinet-level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt for failure to produce subpoenaed documents by either a subcommittee, a full committee, or by a House.

In each instance there was substantial or full compliance with the document demands before the initiation of criminal proceedings. However, following the vote of contempt of EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, but before the contempt citation was forwarded to the United States Attorney for grand jury action, the Department of Justice raised the question whether Congress could compel the U.S. Attorney to submit the citation for grand jury consideration.

The documents in question were turned over to Congress before the issue was litigated in court. The question of the duty of the U.S. Attorney under section 192 to enforce contempt of Congress citations remains unresolved and has left some uncertainty as to the efficacy of the use of criminal contempt proceedings against executive branch officials.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

[Senator]

42. That's not executive privilege

In fact, that's the legal quagmire they're running into by charging contempt.

An ideal case to "gum to death." And could possibly give them the opportunity to partially reverse US v. Nixon.

--

[bigtree]

43. there is no 'quagmire' without the obstruction of the WH

which will occur in ANY confrontation.

You are dismissing the effect of a contempt charge because of anticipated republican resistance, yet that resistance is an almost surety in this Congress which will likely result in an acquittal if Democrats bring nothing more than charges generated solely from within our own party.

Why does a prospective acquittal in an impeachment trump the due process of the committee effort?

[Senator]

46. Yes, obstruction is the game

And unlike the defeatist Dems, the WH knows that the object is to not get impeached.

They also know that all these "due process{es}" are not visible to the general public. They can't be expected to pay attention to what just gets labeled "partisan wrangling." All this "committee effort" produces little outside the belway other than the general disgust at "businsess as usual" and "gridlock." Our side gets as much blame as theirs -- as the polls are demonstrating.

Only impeachment can focus the public/electorate. In fact, it already has -- with only 29% opposing it for cheney and only 44% opposing it for bush.

This is not real confrontation. This is gumming impeachment to death.

--

[bigtree]

49. well, the rhetoric about 'defeatist' Dems is false

as it would be to describe you or those who agree with your point of view on how best to confront the administration, "defeatist," just because I don't feel your strategy would produce any accountability at all.

[Senator]

61. No, it's description not rhetoric

Impeachophobes are failing to pursue impeachment because they presume defeat.

de·feat·ism (dĭ-fē'tĭz'əm)
n. Acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat.

You might describe me as "naive" or a "pipe dreamer" because you presume my strategy will be futile. But as I define the effort itself -- as a patriotic duty to my country -- as a success in itself, you'd be engaged more in opinion than description.

---

[puebloknot]

52. Thanks for this clarification. My first thought today was...

... that the Dems are going to wimp out and send this to the courts, rather than use the inherent contempt procedure, but I don't know what the protocol is, and whether inherent contempt can be followed, even if referral to the courts has already happened.

This piece helps put things in perspective. It appears the Dems are just going to keep fiddling and delaying until that blessed day in November 2008 when all our asses will be saved by a Dem's ascension to the White House.

I keep saying it: Elections are the opiate of the people.

[creeksneakers2]

63. Contempt is the best way to get to impeachment

Bush will create a constitutional crisis and Congress will have no choice but to impeach him. This way, the public will go along and the Republicans probably will too.

[flyingfysh]

14. a question about inherent contempt

If Congress charges and tries someone for inherent contempt, can Bush pardon him?

[TahitiNut]

47. No... not as long as the contempt charge is coercive rather than punitive.

The House of Representatives has TWO choices regarding a contempt citation. (1) Statutory criminal (misdemeanor) contempt, which is what the Judiciary chose, and (2) Inherent contempt. Inherent contempt is more coercive (to force compliance) than punitive (to punish non-compliance). A coercive contempt citation is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Only criminal punishments are pardonable.

Next ...

While statutory criminal contempt is pardonable, it's entirely possible to issue another subpoena immediately following a pardon and, when the witness again refuses to appear, prosecute again for statutory contempt. It's a merry-go-round.

It's also VERY possible to follow a pardon for statutory contempt with another subpoena and, when the witness again refuses to appear, cite the person for Inherent Contempt. Then, when there's an attempt to pardon the witness, the challenge to whether the pardon is to be respected (and release the witness from incarceration) under habeas corpus (!!) would be taken before the courts - who would (if they follow established precedent) refuse to intervene because of Congress' Constitutional prerogatives.

[bobbolink]

53. And our Dem Reps do so well with merry-go-rounds.

I think, by writing that, I just let myself know that I don't hold my hope out for this.

[Recursion]

16. This is now the third day this has been "BREAKING"

I'm starting to think we're being Leopolded.

[hootinholler]

19. Does it go to the floor today?

I thought it just was being heard by the full committee. I'm assuming that it will take a few days to get on the floor.

-Hoot

[Elidor]

55. It goes to the floor in AUGUST, after the recess

As expected the House Judiciary Committee approved citations of contempt against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in a vote just a few minutes ago. The vote was along party lines, 22-17. We'll have more from the committee's meeting shortly.

The AP reports, citing "a senior Democratic official," that "a vote by the full House would most likely happen after Congress' August recess."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003775.php

:grr:

[Imagevision]

67. Ironically most people thought Bush was/is stupid and he's managed to fabricate news/laws and

still keeps the Dem's off his back, Bill Clinton commented that; Bush isn't a dummy" not at all...

[bigtree]

21. right. As planned and promised

good work

[porphyrian]

22. About fucking time. - n/t

[libnnc]

27. Wonderful.

So what happens next?

[marmar]

30. If nothing else, it will force Bush to show what a criminal he really is to the masses.....

Hopefully 2 million people will descend on DC for a citizens' arrest or something. .... I can hope, can't I?

[DFW]

33. If Bush has to pardon every felon working for him...

...and does so, that is pretty much an indictment in itself--
both of him and his whole gang of crooks.

[lonestarnot]

34. Unless they are going to be enforced, they are just gd pieces of paper.

[lovuian]

35. Its about Freakin TIME but I am proud of them

they have no choice
these are war criminals

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. "Bush has not invoked the privilege properly because he has not furnished a signed statement or

"privilege logs" specifying the documents being withheld."

I'm sure there's a "signing statement" taking care of that issue.:eyes: Laws and rules mean NOTHING to these thugs. Why would anyone expect them to follow them in this case?

Go get 'em Conyers!

Are the Inherent Contempt charges??? Do we know yet?

[flyarm]

54. On Ed Shultz show they just said it will not go to full congressional vote until after August Recess

[frylock]

65. whenever they can get around to it..

hate to be a bother.

[BrainGlutton]

68. The thread title is misleading . . .

The Judiciary Committee has voted for contempt, but the citations don't go out until the whole House votes on it. Which it will, along party lines. Then it goes to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and then . . . oh, shit.

Unless Congress either (1) dusts off its "inherent contempt" power (not used since 1934, or (2) revives the Office of the Independent Counsel (expired in 1999, its functions passed on to the Office of SPECIAL Counsel which, unlike the OIC, is part of the Justic Department, so . . .).