Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings

[cal04]

Source: Washington Post

White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

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.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html?hpid=topnews

[aquart]

1. So much faith in the new filthy five.

It's almost touching. Georgie, whatever you take, Hillary keeps. Think about that, Filthy Five.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Yes, let's do think about Bill Clinton and George Bush Senior's OPEN friendship ...

and THEN truly consider if the potential new boss (another Clinton) will be much less of an Unitary Executive than the old boss (another Bush)? :scared: :(

[ooglymoogly]

27. And let us not forget that like Booshco sr. Bill Clinton is a member of the Tr! ....

L@TTERAL commission and is a world order kind of guy.

[blayne]

80. I like that.

that's a good way to look at it.

[Zorro]

2. In other words

the chief legal officer of the government, sworn to uphold the Constitution, can ignore the legislative branch's statutory contempt citation because he works for the executive branch.

What a fine way to instill respect for the law among the citizens of the country.

[texpatriot2004]

4. I agree with you about the respect for the law part but I think

Congress would actually be in charge of the proceedings with "internal contempt" as it is an internal process.

[frogcycle]

52. that's "inherent contempt"

and it is the alternative to relying on the DoJ, which has just effectively recused itself.

inherent contempt is now the only alternative.


here we go!

[texpatriot2004]

84. So it is. The Congress stands alone eh. nm

[whistle]

42. That is what is known as "cronyism"! Had Harriet Meir become the attorney general

...the same situation would have occurred at the behest of King Georgie.

So we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt and with a moral certainty that this administration has been, is now and will will forever be operating with a stacked deck against the U.S. Constitution, our democracy and the people of the United States.

Impeach the fuckers! :wtf:

[John Q. Citizen]

3. And with Impeachment off the table, I guess it's check and mate.

[skul_Donteecha]

5. Well, when the hell are we going to convince Pelosi...

to put impeachment back on the G-- D--- table?
The calls for impeachment are getting louder and louder and if we get the procedure in motion now, those GOP legislators still sitting on the fence will get some guts and join us in kicking you know whose butt down the highway. And maybe some of our own people will develop backbones too. :kick:

[Indenturedebtor]

6. Dammit two more years

And we will have our house sold and renovated... hopefully my MBA will be complete and I can leave the country... please don't let the jackboots come first.

[whirlygigspin]

8. we don't need no stinkin' laws

Just put them on trial in the Senate

Congress has the power, indeed they do--but do they have the will?

make me do it indeed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. 15 months :>) welcome to du

[ShortnFiery]

11. We will convince Pelosi and the other "entitlement minded" members of Congress that The People ...

are serious when Cindy Sheehan (and other democratic contenders challenging Congressional incumbents) wins Pelosi's district in the 2008 Election.

Sadly, NOTHING LESS than voting out of power - these "for the ruling class first" pseudo-democratic representatives will send a true message to Congress.

Hello Congress!?! You represent US, The American People (specifically your constituents) FIRST, NOT your blessed all-powerful Party, Political Careers and/or Investment Portfolios.

We are in a Constitutional Crisis RIGHT NOW! Despite party affiliation, if our Congressional Representatives continue to serve ONLY the political ruling class, we must wrest their beloved political careers from their GREEDY CONTROL over the next decade. Unfortunately, THAT SOLUTION is firming up to be the only viable answer. :shrug:

VOTE THE SELF-SERVING BUMS OUT OF OFFICE ... with extreme prejudice. :grr: http://voidnow.org

We should NOT care if it's Sheehan or a legitimate Democratic Opponent who WINS BACK "the peoples" representative government from Pelosi, Reid, et. al. All that should matter is that those who serve The Unitary Executive and Corporations FIRST be kicked out of office - yes - despite seniority. Why? They no longer serve their constituents and do NOT deserve their powerful political positions.

WE, the people, *must* take our Government Back from the Corporate Stranglehold that controls far too many of our Congress Members. Damn them for their continued deceit of The American People! :grr: :thumbsdown:

[frogcycle]

53. She never took it "off the table"

Whether she actually used that expression is debatable, but she left the door open:

Here is where it comes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101950.html

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06

Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans. In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."

GOP activists seized on the remarks to warn potential donors of Bush's possible peril if Democrats pick up the 15 net House seats they need to become the majority. The National Republican Congressional Committee republished The Post's Sunday article in a letter to supporters and donors that stated: "The threat of the Democrats taking the majority in the House this November is very real."

Some Democratic activists criticized Pelosi, saying she made the party appear extreme while drawing attention away from more useful issues such as gasoline prices and Republican lobbying scandals.

Daly said Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans "are in such desperate shape," he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to." He said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.

She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."
it is leading inexorably to an ironclad case.

The "off the table" is an indirect quote. Maybe she used that expression; maybe it's a paraphrase.
Regardless, it does not put her on record publicly, as the post quote does.

[Bitwit1234]

7. Next thing you know he will say

he is exerting executive privilege to everything involving his administration and the republicans.

[abq e streeter]

9. Actually he pretty much has...

and so far gotten away with it all... What the HELL will it take to stop these criminals, or more frighteningly, are we now past the point of being able to stop them?

[DRoseDARs]

12. Aw, how cute. Pres. Bush thinks he also has authority to defy the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms...

...who has Constitutional authority "to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States." This should be fairly entertaining. :popcorn:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

[ShortnFiery]

13. My God! It's not "cute" but "reality" because our GUTLESS politicians are letting them DO IT!!!

:grr: :thumbsdown:

[rodeodance]

15. well, he watched Cheney tell the Texas cops to bug off till he was sober and

it worked===so Bush is following in his footsteps (bush is a Pragmatist--What works).

Bush is buying time (with the lives of our troops)-----just buying time.

[Jim Sagle]

22. Will the bushregime have its Blackwater thugs KILL the sargent at arms?

[bearfan454]

48. I wouldn't doubt it for a second.

Of course it would have to be made to look like a "terrorist" did it.(again)

[IdaBriggs]

25. I love your response, but I'm not sure anything will actually happen.

Junior and his minions have gotten away with so much for so long, its been a nightmare, and the fact we actually have rules/laws etc. in place to deal with this type of lunacy means NOTHING if they aren't used.

Edit for coherency -- teething twins! :)

[frogcycle]

56. i hope they're not nursing

:)

[Tab]

14. It's a tortured reading

The U.S. Attorney has the duty to bring it before the grand jury. He does not get to decide whether to bring it before the grand jury, he has the duty to do so. I have the duty to get my son to school, etc. It's not a choice, it's a requirement.

If the grand jury wants to toss it, that's up to them, but he has to bring it before them to let the people decide.

Democracy isn't that complicated, folks!

[John Q. Citizen]

18. What happens if he ignores his duty? What happens when congress ignores their

oath of office, "To defend and protect the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic?"

[Harry Monroe]

57. And surely they are failing in protecting the Constitution from the domestic enemies of the Bush WH

[Knightly_Knews]

19. That is if you live in a Democracy...

We are far past that stage now. Democracy has been replaced with Corporatist Fascism... Are you awake? I do believe we are way past the turning point on this one.. Next Phase is Civil War? :shrug: Suggestions anyone?

[frogcycle]

60. i would hope that

the dem leadership is conducting private meetings to decide who should be the first for whom to sent the Sergeant-at-Arms.

It could be Meirs, Gonzo, the DC US Atty, or others

It will be the firing of a shot across the bow in a Constitutional showdown of historic proportions, second only to the secession of the southern states at the outset of the civil war

They are getting their ducks firmly in a row, folks.

I expect some of the top constitutional lawyesr among them, plus a whole cadre of Jonathan Turley's are doing some heavy strategising - conducting "war games", if you will.

They need an ironclad constitutional case for inherent contempt that the SCOTUS just cannot disagree with. It needs to be simple, straightforward, no nuance.

Stay tuned.

[stubtoe]

62. I sure hope you're right, frogcycle.

Because otherwise, if they're doing nothing ... :scared: :scared: :scared:

[bearfan454]

49. The US Attorney is a puke. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. this is the line in the sand

and it makes the Saturday Night masacre look like a walk in the park

Wanna bet that Congress will issue some strongly worded letter and that's it?

Sorry, I am not feeling hopeful tonight one bit

Game over... that is the way I feel and sleep, who needs sleep

[salin]

17. It is no longer the US Department of Justice. It is a branch of the Office

of the President. President can declare everything as "executive priviledge" and have no more oversight at all. Congress MUST pursue civil charges that circumvent the Office of Legal Advice to the President, once known as the Department of Justice.

[hisownpetard]

79. Not feeling hopeful? Me, neither.

In fact, for the last 24 hrs. I feel like I'm standing on the precipice
between a letter-writing-phone-calling-petition-signing-activist-fury
and the kind of total apathy that comes when hope runs out.

Dumb as they are, Bush&Co. have managed to get their cronies
installed everywhere so that, no matter what recourse we seek, the final
decision will rest in the hands of the Atty Genl of Washington, D.C. (a total
Bushie) or the Supreme Court (stacked in his favor).

Every day brings more horrendous revelations, but the path to justice is
littered with landmines. Miers has spit in the face of the entire country, yet
still walks around in her ugly blue suit, with her Silly Putty face fixed
in a sickening grin. Gonzales - well, the list goes on and on but everyone
here pretty much knows the offenses like the palm of their hand.

I believe that the damage the Bush administration has done to this country's
constitution, political infrastructure and standing in the world will take
decades to undo. Let's pray we have the patience to see it through
and hold the appropriate people accountable for their unconscionable crimes.

[Justice]

20. John Dean's recent article on this issue

I cannot find the link, but Dean recently wrote about this - and laid out a course of action for Congress to take, using a little used procedure whereby Congress could take action directly against those accused of contempt.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

23. Here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1324110
I had bookmarked it.

[Rene]

21. First thing Congress has to do is strip all PARDON power from the President.

We need to elect more progressive Democrats to Congress....get the numbers they need. After the 2008 elections and when they're out of office PROSECUTE these devils in the W.H and DOJ.

They cannot walk out of office after 2008 without some recourse to their illegal actions and their trashing of the U.S. Constitution.

America is at an end if these people are not punished.

Where are the Republicans with any scrap of conscience? they're all boot-lickers who MUST be voted out.

[frogcycle]

63. get real

stripping pardon power would require a constitutional amendment

they can:

• remove him via impeachment,
  
• start arresting everyone under inherent contempt, or
  
• foment a revolution.
  
  

Them's the choices, aside from BOHICA.

[underpants]

24. This is a hell of a lot of time and energy just to protect Rove

I'm just saying

[King Coal]

68. No, this is what happens when you get a fucking dirty tricks expert

with no morals or sense of love of country, like Karl Rove calling the shots. Goddamn it, we don't have to put up with this shit. It is time to take to the streets!

[frogcycle]

81. you speak wisdom

he's only a player in a MUCH bigger cabal, with lots to hide.

it becomes ever more evident that this is far beyond politics. It is a coverup of crimes - crimes that would probably get them executed.

[Rose Siding]

26. A couple of interesting, if now moot, points from the DOJ website-

After reading Rifkin's remark in the article that "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will", I went looking for documentation of the USA's job description. (seemed to me like the USA's mission should stike a LITTLE closer to the rule of law)

3-2.110 History

The Office of the United States Attorney was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided for the appointment "in each district of a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States ... whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses, recognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned ..." 1 Stat. 92. Initially, United States Attorneys were not supervised by the Attorney General (1 Op.Att'y Gen. 608) but Congress, in the Act of August 2, 1861, (Ch. 37, 12 Stat. 185) charged the Attorney General with the "general superintendence and direction duties ..." While the precise nature of the superintendence and direction was not defined, the Department of Justice Act of June 22, 1870 (Ch. 150, 16 Stat. 164) and the Act of June 30, 1906 (Ch. 39, 35, 34 Stat. 816) clearly established the power of the Attorney General to supervise criminal and civil proceedings in any district. See 22 Op. Att'y Gen. 491; 23 Op. Att'y Gen. 507. Today, as in 1789, the United States Attorney retains, among other responsibilities, the duty to "prosecute for all offenses against the United States." See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547(1). This duty is to be discharged under the supervision of the Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 519.


3-2.140 Authority ....
....By virtue of this grant of statutory authority and the practical realities of representing the United States throughout the country, United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. They are the principal federal law enforcement officers in their judicial districts. In the exercise of their prosecutorial discretion, United States Attorneys construe and implement the policy of the Department of Justice. Their professional abilities and the need for their impartiality in administering justice directly affect the public's perception of federal law enforcement.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title3/2musa.htm

Admin's position really just re-interprets "all offenses against the United States" to mean "{only} all offenses against the president"

The good news? Cynicism hasn't eaten my soul alive; I can still be shocked!

[JDPriestly]

34. Dimes to dollars, Roberts would agree with the president

and the rest of the Court will agree. Was Roberts asked about his views on executive privilege? Was Alito?

[CGrantt57]

28. The last step.

The gelding of congress is complete.

There are no balls left in the hallowed halls.

You may now go about your monitored business.

:mad:

[ramapo]

30. Until there is a Democrat as President

You'll see the arguments flip in an instant

[debbierlus]

29. IMPEACH NOW, It is only off the table if WE let it be

Bush has thrown down the gauntlet.

ENOUGH

[UpInArms]

31. Icky Teddy Olson - was the originator of the "opinion" - ROFL

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

These worms have infested the entire world with their trash.

[donkeyotay]

59. Why does this admin always turn to the trash for precedent?

If the preznit tells a flunky to claim executive privilege, same flunky cannot be held in contempt because the flunky is carrying out the president's orders. Likewise, the US attorney is only an extension of the president himself, and therefore cannot act against the Unitary Executive because the president would be prosecuting himself? Where does the Unitary Executive stop? By extension, the congress, the DoJ, the grand jury, and all his subjects are also merely extensions of the power emanating from the WH.

[rox63]

32. They are giving Congress no choice except impeachment

* is daring them to do it, and betting that they won't.

There are no "smilies" to express how I feel about this, but I'll give it a try anyway.

x( :evilfrown: :mad: :puke: :wtf: :argh: :hurts: :grr: :nuke: :scared: :tinfoilhat: :cry: :banghead: :rant: :hide:

[The Witch]

33. UGH. Disgusting. IMPEACHMENT TIME!

So so so soooo freaking time.

[mainer]

35. It's okay. They aren't travel office employees

They're only US attorneys.

[Stuckinthebush]

36. Actually, this may be good

Of course the Dems knew that Bush would play this card because he hasn't respected the rule of law yet so why would he now.

The Dems figured that the normal course of action where contempt charges would be given to the Dept. of Justice to prosecute would be useless. The question they had was just how long would it take for the process to run its course. The Bush administration has jumped the gun and declared that they would not allow the Dept. of Justice to carry out its duties. Fine and thank you.

Now we can move straight to Inherent Contempt without having to play the game and waiting around for the Justice Dept. to do nothing. This actually speeds up the process for Congress to take matters into their own hands.

Now the question is, "Will they do it?"

[ramapo]

37. Here's what Congress should do

1. Democrats in the House need to grow some balls and invoke inherent contempt against each and every one of those officials who are refusing subpoenas

2. Cancel their summer vacation to address this stunning assault on separation of powers

Unfortunately, neither 1 or 2 will happen.

[Stuckinthebush]

40. #2 would send a strong message

that things are right in our country.

#1 should happen on Monday. If Congress doesn't take its power back then this country is dead. What's to stop any other president from saying the same stuff and declaring him or herself a dictator? Nothing. Congress is the ultimate check here. If the supremes interfere, impeach those bastards too.

[Beetwasher]

45. You're Wrong, Conyers Would NOT Have Brought It Up

If he was not prepared to use it. Watch.

[jwirr]

38. Okay, he says that he can do as he pleases - common sense

should tell even the idiots on the SCOTUS that this premise destroys the checks and balances system of government that they have sworn to uphold. It is a no-brainer and even Thomas should be able to get that.

[Dinger]

39. "bold", What A Word To Use.

I'd use something a little stronger like. . . .

psychopathic,
authoritarian
LAWLESSLY
perverted
IMPEACHMENT-DEMANDING
sick
ignorant
final straw

[whistle]

41. So the pursuit of justice is the sole domain of the Imperial President

...is it? Bullshit! Ass-hat Shrub* must be impeached now!

[bemildred]

43. It's a "privilege", not a "right". It can be taken away or limited in any way desired. nt

[Beetwasher]

44. Go DIRECTLY TO INHERENT CONTEMPT

DOJ is not necessary.

[bearfan454]

50. Fucking EH ! nt

[NoodleyAppendage]

77. EXACTLY. If they want a fight, it's high time for the Dems to go for it.

I'm so sick of phrases in articles about inherent contempt like, "...and Democrats do not appear to have the appetite for it." WTF? We are beyond Constitutional crisis and are in a street fight for whether we are a nation of laws or one of an IDIOT dictator.

J

[nealmhughes]

46. This sounds remarkably like Charles Stuart I and his contempt for Parliament.

Of course that issue was settled on January 29, 1649.

I would see the refusal to allow the DOJ to allow the US attorneys to pursue various alleged crimes as prima facie "high crimes and misdomenors" as the Constitution mandates for impeachment and removal from office.

Either that or give George VIII no more money at all. Enough to pay his salary and that is it, and while we are at it, why not minimum wage for him? If the Bushzeit is so enamoured of pittance pay for the masses, then let them try it for a while, and send the WH living quarters a separate light bill, too.

Mr. Bush lied to get the Enabling Act to allow him to pursue war at will with Congressional mandate and oversight adjourning sine die, let it be repealed and the Congress's rights restored, heads falling where they may. . . to get back to Charles Stuart.

[ColonelTom]

47. Rove is trying to force impeachment.

After the last 24 hours, I'm convinced of this. Remember, Pelosi was so afraid of the negative impact of impeachment proceedings that she "took it off the table" moments after a huge Democratic victory in the congressional elections. The Republican Party knows it's completely f*cked in the upcoming election unless something drastic happens. Unless they get their wish of another 9/11, the next best thing - in their mind - is impeachment proceedings.

That said, given the events of the last 24 hours, you HAVE to impeach NOW. I don't tend towards hyperbole, but if the White House prevails on this case, the rule of law in this country is OVER. We will have a pure dictatorship, and the other two branches of government can pack up and go home.

[L0oniX]

51. Again... IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH

Let them come up with some unknown executive powers to stop impeachment too!

[SutaUvaca]

54. Impeach them, goddam it, just impeach them! n/t

[Harry Monroe]

55. Breathtaking in its arrogance and contempt

Ultimately, Herr Bush is thumbing his nose at "WE THE PEOPLE" and telling us to go fuck ourselves. Anyone who thinks we are not yet living in a virtual dictatorship is deluding themselves. It is already happening. If Congress does not stand up to these jackbooted thugs in the WH NOW then we are doomed as a democracy, Congress may as well disband and declare Bush dictator and the law of the land. He already has the Supreme Court in his pocket; there is no longer any such thing as "checks and balances" between the 3 branches of government when one branch will uphold the will of the executive branch and the other branch is too timid to provide the check and balance that is their duty in a sustaining democracy. I am stunned at the arrogance of this Administration and their contempt they have for the citizens of this country.

[BrainGlutton]

58. The Admin shouldn't forget it is dealing with Congress . . .

which has the power to create another route of contempt prosecution than that currently provided under federal law, dig?

[donkeyotay]

61. Forget the US attorney. Forget the grand jury. Forget the DoJ and the rule of law

The Unitary Executive has proclaimed they will "never be allowed" to participate. It must suck to work at the DoJ these days. Are they wearing paper bags over their heads yet?

[frogcycle]

64. we really need some wholesale resignations

the wheels are so far off this administration; it is so far into the ditch, we need some dramatic independent corroboration. There have been a few who have spoken up; now we need them all to get up from their desks and march out of the building.

[donkeyotay]

65. Time for everyone to stand up and be counted - in Washington, too

Not just the hinterlands.

"There's open contempt between the field and main justice ," said one career prosecutor, who like others did not want to be named lest they attract attention from Washington. "The field is fine. We just do what we do. The department is crippled."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1386332

[BlueEyedSon]

66. "Why? Because I say so!"

[CaptJasHook]

69. The one good thing I''' say about Shrub,

at the very least, this guy is really, really showing us the necessity of a Constitution. I am so very, very grateful for our founding mothers and fathers right now. Please, please Democrats have the cajones to use your constitutional powers of inherent contempt and impeachment.

PS Impeach Cheney first!

[L. Coyote]

70. WHAT HOGWASH: official speaking on the condition of anonymity means NOTHING!

From the article:

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

What a pile of BS. This is just a way of running up a flag to see what the reaction will be. It is also indicative of just how panicked they are at the White House! I call this a real sign of complete and total defensiveness about CRIMINALITY.

[tgnyc]

71. Is it impeachment yet?

[MilesColtrane]

72. If no one in Bush's Justice Department will refer this contempt citation...

...to a grand jury it's time for Congress to bring back the law enabling a special prosecutor to pursue the crooks.

Conyers is attempting to build a case for impeachment. He's doing it the same way U.S. attorneys do against other criminal organizations. When you don't have a the defendant actually admitting their crimes (like the Nixon tapes) you go for the henchmen and make them testify against the bosses in order to gain their immunity from prosectution.

If an impeachment trial for Bush or Cheney were held tommorrow nobody would be removed from office.
It took the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee hearing Nixon planning the coverup in his own words before they voted to for a full House vote. (forcing Nixon to resign)

[superkia]

73. We need a real news source

for the average American to be able to catch on tv in between their two jobs or their job and running home to take care of their children. Most people turn on the tv to whatever their favorite cable news channel is and think that they are showing the real news of the world when they mainly see Vick or Benoit or another kidnapping or wife and mother killed. Not that the stories are not important but the constant coverage of some of them is just their to fill peoples minds with something other than the most important things like our freedom to even have a television. Unless their is some kind of serious change, our children and grandchildren are in for a tough life ahead! Well unless they are wealthy!

[karlrschneider]

74. Yup. The Fourth Estate has become the Fourth Reich.

Welcome to DU...

[DutchLiberal]

75. Congress will not get ANYTHING done until Bush & Cheney are impeached.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."
Harry, Harry, Harry... OF COURSE this president is above the law. He MADE himself above the law. And do you even THINK for a second that the administration is hearing your words and thinks: "Gosh! Well, if he says this, we'd better comply!"?? :eyes:

Democrats in Congress are trying and working as hard as they can, but they are willfully ignorant for this message: they will NEVER achieve anything and this administration will NEVER comply! But still, STILL, Congress thinks they can get oversight and control. STILL, they think they will get somewhere with their letters and subpoenas. WHEN are they going to wake up??

[NoodleyAppendage]

76. INHERENT CONTEMPT. God damn it! Bring her ass in chains to the House floor.

It's time for Conyers to get off his butt and bring inherent contempt charges against Myers. This would circumvent the necessity to go to the DC US Attorney and continue to put pressure on Myers to flip on Mad King George.

J

[0007]

78. Why would the Washington Post spell David B. Rivkin name as David B. Rifkin?

David B. Rivkin is James A. Baker III law buddy. James A. Baker III has an office in the White House and is the same man that argued with the Supreme Court over the 2000 election.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

Who is David B. Rifkin?

[The Stranger]

82. PAGING NANCY PELOSI, FIRST FEMALE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE IN HISTORY, WE NEED TO PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK

ON THE TABLE.

[Generator]

83. All the Dems care about is 2008

But the power that is being set in stone by Bush/Cheney scares the shit out of me. ARE THE FUCKING DEMS not smart enough to see that? WHAT if they lose 2008 or 2012? What then? America is over. The time is now.