DoJ Makes It Official: Contempt Stops in Congress

[Hepburn]

The Justice Department sent a letter yesterday to the House Judiciary Committee that made the administration's position official: a U.S. attorney will not enforce a citation of contempt, should it pass the House.

Or as the letter (you can read it here), sent to the committee yesterday by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski, put it:

"As it considers the contempt resolutions, we think it is important that the Committee appreciate fully the longstanding Department of Justice position, articulated during Administrations of both parties, that "the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

That last quote is indeed from a 1995 opinion from Clinton's Justice Department, which The Washington Post reported on this weekend. As the Clinton-era DoJ officials behind that memo told the Post, they didn't think that Congress could force the U.S. attorney to prosecute, but did think that the president's assertion of executive privilege should be heard in court.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tpmmuckraker.com%2Farchives%2F003779.php

Ummmmmmmmm...did anyone expect the loyal Bushie DOJ to do the right thing? Fuck them...fuck them all. IMO, of course.

[emulatorloo]

1. Bushco has pretty much rigged the system -- Congress is gonna have to keep on pushing and pushing

hard.

I am writing my Repub Senator today -- this is fairly outrageous, and most sensible people are going to see it as such.

[aquart]

8. Republicans need to feel real fear. Go for it.

[loyalkydem]

2. Bush knew

Bush knew this shit was coming, he planned this all along. What course of action can the house take to show they mean business?

[Hepburn]

3. I think...but am not sure...than and INHERENT contempt...

...would get past the obstacle of the DOJ refusing to handle the case. I am not up on this issue too much...so I hope someone with some info and knowledge will add to a discussion of this.

[JDPriestly]

4. Impeachment

Start with Gonzales. He has committed perjury most decidedly.

[Wapsie B]

5. That's what I would like to know.

Contempt means just that, no matter who's involved....well, normally anyway.

[BlackHawk706867]

6. They can still pursue this with Inherent Contempt charges.... Just

try them right in Congress/Senate. So the WH might try this, but Congress can send out the Sargent At Arms to do the arresting of these thugs...

ww

[Hepburn]

7. I have been reading about this process...

...and that is about all I have read that is really, really specific: The Sgt at Arms can do the arresting.

What I think I know about this process also is: That the CJ of the SOTUS is the trial judge...and it kind of sounds like how an impeachment goes forth procedurally ~~ but I am not real sure on this.

If anyone has a good link to something which explains this process in full, please post! TIA!

[BlackHawk706867]

10. This explanation comes from our own DU....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1393713

ww

[Hepburn]

11. Thank you...

...when in doubt...ask DU! :hi:

[BlackHawk706867]

12. There is a bit of a caveat here... The person that may be imprisoned..

cannot be held beyond Congress's adjournment date... hmmmmm bummer..

ww

[Hepburn]

13. Could they then just not adjourn?

I 'spose they could skip a few vacations for a really good cause???

[HereSince1628]

9. Sounds like the Courts never tested that long standing position...

DOJ opinions don't really mean more than Senate opinions in a balance of powers fight.