Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charges

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charges
Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:42PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House chief of staff faced
possible contempt charges after a congressional panel on
Thursday rejected President George W. Bush's attempt to limit
the probe of the firing of federal prosecutors.

On a party-line vote of 7-3, a Democratic-led House Judiciary
subcommittee rejected Bush's contention that his claim of
executive privilege shields the top aide, Joshua Bolten, from
having to turn over subpoenaed documents.

Last week, the panel neared contempt proceedings against
former White House counsel Harriet Miers after she declined to
appear at a hearing on the dismissals. It rejected Bush's claim
that Miers was immunized from having to show up.

Unless a compromise is reached, the full House Judiciary
Committee could vote to hold Bolton and Miers in contempt of
Congress. If the entire House concurs, the case would be
referred to a U.S. attorney to seek grand jury indictment.

The administration says its firing of nine of the 93 U.S.
attorneys last year were justified. But critics say the ousters
were politically motivated, perhaps even to influence ongoing
criminal probes of Democratic or Republican lawmakers.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1943245420070719

[soothsayer]

1. eh, he'll just get pardoned. They're totally above the law over there.

maddening.

[Igel]

11. Not for inherent contempt, if it goes to that.

He can pardon sentences and verdicts from the federal judiciary. Inherent contempt and any penalty doesn't come from a court, most certainly not a federal court. The due process constitutionally required in federal courts doesn't apply.

[Zodiak]

2. They had to wait until the 2nd paragraph

To name the guy? Weird.

[global1]

3. What Are The Chances That The Entire House Concurs?......nt

[billyoc]

4. I'd say the chances are 100%.

It doesn't have to be unanimous, a straight party line vote will do.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. Only a majority is necessary?

Are you sure it's not 2/3rds?

[billyoc]

8. Yes, I'm sure it requires a simple majority only. n/t

[jtrockville]

6. A US Attorney will decide if there was foul play in US Attorney hirings?

Doesn't sound promising.

[dflprincess]

9. They can charge inherant contempt and then it goes through the Sergant at Arms, not the U.S Attorney

However, I won't hold my breath waiting for the committee to actually do something besides sending another strongly worded letter.

[jtrockville]

13. Has the Sergent at Arms been infiltrated with RW hacks (yet)?

[ClayZ]

7. Yay! K and R

[rodeodance]

10. reaking: DoJ will 'never be allowed to persue contempt charges.'

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Breaking: DoJ will 'never be allowed to persue contempt charges.'
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1383916#1383916
1383916, Breaking: DoJ will 'never be allowed to persue contempt charges.'
Posted by americanstranger on Thu Jul-19-07 11:50 PM

Fuck this. Time to impeach. And Congress better start using Inherent Contempt - like tomorrow.


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.

(snip)

Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. 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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html

Son of a bitch.

(Geez. Don't get so worked up,guys. Bush just put Congress pretty much out of business.)

- as

[Doctor_J]

12. Yawn

if you believe this will go anywhere, I'd like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

[yojon]

14. Judiciary Committee rejects Privlege Claim by Josh

Source: truthout

Democrats Take Step Toward Contempt Against Bolten
By Robert Schmidt
Bloomberg.com

Thursday 19 July 2007

House Democrats, escalating a battle with the White House, took the first step in seeking to hold President George W. Bush's chief of staff in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena requesting documents on the firing of eight U.S. prosecutors.

Voting 7-3 along party lines, a House Judiciary subcommittee approved a resolution rejecting executive privilege claims made by Joshua Bolten in refusing to turn over e-mails and memos on the firings. The panel adopted a similar measure last week after ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers declined to testify about the dismissals.

Bolten was subpoenaed in June because as chief of staff he is the custodian of the White House's records. The next step for the panel would be to vote on a contempt resolution. If that is adopted by the full House, the U.S. attorney in Washington, a Bush appointee, would be asked to pursue a prosecution.

____________________________________________________________________________

No link yet.

---

Wonder if the US Attorney in Washington would be the same John Bates who dismissed Plame/Wilson's civil suit.....

Cant imagine why they dont pursue impeachment!

[wryter2000]

15. What would impeachment change?

What would happen differently if they did pursue impeachment?

[yojon]

16. Different impeachment

It would not go directly to a Bush appointee Federalist Society judicial hack who would immediately dismiss it. The appeal would wind up with the Supremes where Scalia/Alito/Thomas could chew it up and eliminate it through their posterior aperatures.

[wryter2000]

19. It would mean more hearings

More hearings that they could treat exactly as they're treating the current hearings. Nothing changes.

[The Stranger]

24. Everything.

Everything would happend differently if they did pursue impeachment.

[wryter2000]

27. Such as

What. What exactly?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Sergeant at Arms

this man is in contempt. Go get him and put him in jail!

[yojon]

18. Hmm I can just see the House Warlords

having a standoff at the gates of the White House opposing the Executive Blackwater Warlords. Hmm not sure who would win this one...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. the Sergeant at Arms has this big MACE

not the chemical, I mean this big ceremonial club thing called a mace. He has the legal right to use it, you know.

[troubleinwinter]

23. This

[Salviati]

25. More like this:

and by more like, I mean exactly like :)




Go get 'em Terrance!

[wryter2000]

20. That's what they need to be doing

At least, Conyers is threatening that now. That might get us somewhere.

[Demeter]

26. And Pick Up Harriet While You Are At It

She's been wanting to get out of the house, anyway.

[Bitwit1234]

22. Bolton sent a letter giving him til 10AM Monday

to reply to the subpeona or they are coming after him....

Finally...we're coming to take you away ha ha