Secret to Forcing Compliance with Subpoenas

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

On April 10th, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department for papers and Emails related to the apparently politically motivated firings of U.S. attorneys. The deadline passed. The DOJ did not comply.

On April 25th, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify about the forged documents used as evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Rice publicly refused to comply, arguing that she was "not inclined" to comply. Two deadlines passed. The committee chairman claimed to believe she would eventually change her mind. She hasn't done so.

On June 13th the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House documents related to the US attorneys firings. The White House publicly refused to comply or to allow Miers to comply. The deadline passed.

Also on June 13th the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed White House Political Director Sara Taylor in regard to the US attorneys firings. The White House wrote a letter to the committee chairman refusing to comply. The deadline passed.

On June 27th the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed legal analysis and other documents concerning the NSA warrantless wiretapping program from the White House, from Vice President Dick Cheney, from the Department of Justice, and from the National Security Council. If the documents were not produced, testimony was required from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney Chief of staff David Addington, and National Security Council Executive Director V. Philip Lago. All of the above refused to comply. The deadline passed, and the committee chairman set a second deadline. That passed, and he set a third deadline. That third deadline has passed.

The above is a sampling of the outstanding subpoenas not complied with.

What options does Congress have?

1. Keep issuing subpoenas. Hope. Pray. Whine. Threaten. (This is the current strategy. For this and/or other reasons, Congress has the support of 18% of the nation.)

2. Attempt to hold individuals in contempt of Congress through the court system, with the only certain result being the wasting of many months on the process. (And we know Congress Members don't like to do anything that takes that long, since they keep telling us they don't have time for impeachment.)

3. Use a little-known procedure called inherent contempt to send the Sergeant at Arms to actually arrest people and lock them up for trial on Capitol Hill. (Most Congress Members have never even heard of this. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman recently had to be told by constituents what it was and how it works. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has threatened to use it but not done so. Given the spine shortage on the Hill, this seems very unlikely to happen.)

4. Pull out the third article of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974, the one charging him with refusing to comply with subpoenas, change a few words, and introduce new articles of impeachment against Rice, Cheney, and Bush.

Option #4 would not require that you believe the impeachments would succeed or that a trial in the Senate would result in conviction. It would only require that you desire people to comply with subpoenas.

This would accomplish a couple of very interesting things as well. Congress Members frequently tell their constituents that they cannot impeach Cheney or Bush because they don't have solid evidence or time to dig it up. But Cheney and Bush have INDISPUTABLY refused to comply with subpoenas, which is established by precedent as an impeachable offense. Not only is no investigation whatsoever required, but none is even imaginable. These impeachments could take a day. Do one before lunch and one after. This is instant impeachment. Just add the will to do it.

Were one or more congress members to introduce such articles of impeachment, they would not come up for a vote right away. In the meantime, as they gained cosponsors and attention, the White House might just start complying with subpoenas. Certainly we know that when a serious movement in Congress to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales picked up steam, there were results. Similarly, when Congress moved to impeach Nixon there were results. When it moved to impeach Truman there were results. When it promised never to impeach Ronald Reagan, as when it promised never to impeach George W. Bush, the results were deadly. Both failures left blood on the Democrats' hands and brought losses for Democrats in the next elections. It's hard to imagine why Democrats in Congress would want either of those things.

[calimary]

1. Kicking this one like there's NO TOMORROW!!!

AND recommending.

AND bookmarking.

Another great one from the Great David Swanson!

:toast:

[chervilant]

56. In Addition...

Please call Nancy Pelosi's California office at [phone] AND her DC office at [phone]. If all of us call and assert that we will not rest until she begins impeachment proceedings; further, that she is in line for impeachment for failing to act in the face of the BLATANT criminal behavior of this administration; further, that We The People will not go silent into the night, maybe she will get busy! (If you read her "New Direction Agenda," you can see how insipid is her response to the crisis we face.)


The Global Internet Community (We The People--remember us?) is metamorphosing our Body Politic faster than the Corporatist-driven propagandists can keep up. They cannot stop us. Increasing numbers of us are getting clear about corporatism and its myriad shills, e.g. Fox, ABC, PELOSI, et. al. In 1789, the French Imperialists had to learn their lessons the hard way. Perhaps the Corporatists are doomed to make the same mistake.

The Revolution has begun. We The People ARE NOT GOING SILENT INTO THE NIGHT!!!

[Truth2Tell]

2. Big Fat K & R

And I've copied out the first five paragraphs of this piece to re-post anytime and anywhere someone tries to make the laughable claim that our Congress is actually doing anything to hold this administration accountable.

Thank you David for your common sense.

[jgraz]

3. Bush is practically daring them to impeach

He knows they don't have the stones to do it.

[rudy23]

9. Yes--this will allow him to get whatever he wants AND make Congress look pathetic

and complicit. And make no mistake, Congress looks pathetic AND complicit. Count me amongst the 82% who do not approve.

Taking impeachment off the table and announcing it repeatedly is one of the biggest blunders I can imagine.

[Ian David]

4. Can we volunteer to join The Sergeant at Arms force instead of The National Guard? n/t

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

62. I like this thought...

I first thought of promoting "Requesting Volunteers" during the Sept. 11th General Strike, but then I read this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1696253
and consider we could use some action much sooner.
Best of luck getting Citizen Volunteers, and More Power to Them.
ADW

[Ian David]

63. Can't read that one. I'm ignoring the author of the thread. n/t

[lazyriver]

5. "Instant Impeachment"...I like that.

I think it would lead to "instant resignations"...lots of them and all the way to the top.

[rhett o rick]

6. K & R.

[onenote]

7. Worth trying, but I have my doubts it would work

First, this gang seems to care about the niceties of law even less than Nixon. Second, in the Nixon situation, the subpoenas that were the basis for the third article of impeachment were issued by the Judiciary Committee in conjunction with the inquirty that it had been authorized to conduct by the Full House in February 1974, by a 410-4 vote. Even so, the third article was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a much smaller margin than the other two articles (articles 1 and 2 were approved by votes of 27-11 and 28-10 respectively, while article 3, the one based on Nixon's noncompliance with subpoenas, was approved by a 21-17 vote).

Again, I wouldn't mind seeing it attempted, but the Nixon situation was different enough that I wouldn't necessary take any comfort from the result in that situation in terms of how chimpy would react.

[Time for change]

8. Great summary

I can think of no excuses for not going with option # 4.

To stick with option 1 is to acknowledge that our president is a dictator.

Option 2 would take too long and be a waste of time.

Option 3 would be ok, but why bother, given that option 4 is available.

If option 4 was good enough for Nixon, why not Bush?

[Vincardog]

10. IF aWoL wants any AG confirmed 1) honor the subpoenas 2) Appoint a Special Consul.

3) appoint Someone one who is qualified and not firmly up your a$$

[defendandprotect]

22. Agree -- and we haven't even heard a whisper of a special prosecutor being mentioned -- !!!!

[puebloknot]

11. "Just add the will to do it." Kicking and hoping! nt

[annabanana]

12. This post belongs at the top of the "Greatest". . if only to point

out to the braindead common-taters that the low Congressional approval ratings are because they are NOT DOING WHAT THEY SHOULD by bringing some accountability to the crime syndicate running roughshod over our Country!

[Disturbed]

13. Inherent Contemp is imperative!

Will Leahy, Conyers &/or Waxman have the spine to bring it on?

[annabanana]

14. Kickin'

this back up to the top

[burrowowl]

36. I LIKE YOUR KICK! So, I'll kick too!

Vive le CanCan!
Better kick than the Donkey! The admins should add it to the smilies!

[robinlynne]

15. kick this post! Everyone needs to read it.

[sakabatou]

16. K+R

[creeksneakers2]

17. As things are now, I don't think Bush or Cheney are guilty

of contempt.

First, Cheney has nothing to do with it.

Second, Bush has not been subpoenaed. His aides and cabinet members have. I can't find a law against Bush telling somebody not to appear.

The contempt statute I found, 2 U.S.C.A. 192, applies only to the persons who are subpoenaed.

Section 192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the
authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to
produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House,
or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent
resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of
either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having
appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question
under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable
by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and
imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more
than twelve months.

The only impeachable person who refused to appear is Rice.

While its open and shut factually that witnesses refused to appear, a legal finding of contempt is subject to legal issues and defenses, even if those are only raised by Republicans in an impeachment trial. Congress can only find a person in contempt if the subject matter sought was within the power and duties of Congress.

Your idea wouldn't fix everything in a day. Like most tasks, it would be far more difficult than it at first sounds.

[Usrename]

46. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

§ 1512.

snip>

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation <1> supervised release,,<1> parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


snip>

(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

[Sam Ervin jret]

47. He explicitly told them "executive privilege" meant they did not need to testify! Obstruction!

obstruction of justice! He explicitly told them they should not go because of Executive privilege. He made no secret of this! He put he need to cover his &*% above the needs of the people to the right of checks and balances, above his own friends and associates professional reputations and put them in jeopardy of their own prosecutions and loss of freedom.

This man and his like are the personification of what has gone wrong with this "all ships rise with the rising tide" metaphor/bumper sticker domestic policy that has been at the rotting root of the Republican Party ever since the 1980's. Well, all ships have not risen, and the rats are jumping off, leaving,as usual, those of us not in first class to either sink or swim.

The time for the powerful is at hand. The house that they have built has no foundation. They are jettisoning the only lifeboat on board. The constitution. We must be quick to pick it up for even those of us who can swim can do so only for so long.

[ms liberty]

18. K&R...n/t

[Senator]

19. Any impeachment charge could "take a day"

Because the regime admits (confesses) to their impeachable acts. They just claim them to be lawful. All that is left is to say "No."

That is why all this rationalization about time constraints is just more lying.

They've been a vacation for how long now? No time?

---

[rhett o rick]

20. I sent this to my Senators for whatever good that will do. nm

[defendandprotect]

21. With Treasury being bankrupted at about $3 Billion per day, our Congress went on vacation !!!!

We're begging them to impeach --
When they haven't had the balls to force this administration to respond to information requests/subpeonas -- !!!!

We're begging for an end to the war --
and they're refinancing it -- !!!!

Add it up, folks!!!

[barbtries]

23. i kinda like the idea of number 3 better,

since i believe these people should all be locked up for the rest of their lives for a multitude of crimes including murder by warmongering, but this is actually a great and wonderful and doable idea. somebody has to stand up to this shit soon...

[rambler_american]

24. Kicked and Recommended

:kick:

This sh*t needs to end now!

[L. Coyote]

25. K & R.

[5X]

26. k and r, but not holding my breath. n/t

[MasonJar]

27. Does anyone here know how to forward this to all the dems and also

appropriate pugs? If so, please do so asap. It is times like this when I wish I knew more about the computer.

[femrap]

28. K & R....

If the Dems can't handle this, they're simply worthless.

[Gman]

29. Why is it that the people have to come up with these solutions?

Why is it our leaders don't think this stuff up? There are still a lot of Democrats in Congress that were also there in 1974.

[dickbearton]

30. K&R.

[JBear]

31. Key is in confirmation

So why don't we just ask any potential nominee for AG whether they will comply with subpoenas from Congress. If they say no, they are out. If they say yes and then don't they have lied under oath...It just seems so simple.

:bounce:

[annabanana]

54. Welcome to DU. . This little note deserves it's own thread!

They sure as HELL can ask any nominee this question!

[bjobotts]

32. TPM muckraker has article of Conyers blowing smoke up voters butts

Claiming impeachment may be off Pelosi's table but it's not off Conyers table. Just doesn't believe there is enough evidence or other house members would support it. So actually it is off his table and he is acting just like Pelosi. He could sign on to Kucinich's resolution or admit that there is definitely already enough evidence to impeach Cheney and more evidence to come if they would just start impeachment procedures with a special prosecutor. Can't hide behind executive privilege with impeachment nor can you not comply with subpoenas. So if non-compliance with subpoenas is a impeachable offense then Conyers' excuses don't hold water. These Democratic leaders are going out of their way to avoid impeachment, preferring to wait until we get a democratic president to avoid dealing with it. It makes it very difficult to have any respect for their actions and is extremely frustrating. Isolating them as Bush dogs makes it easier to know who it is that must be targeted to pressure to change. But people like Conyers and Pelosi are so stubbornly self assured that they know what is best and we who support impeachment are mis-guided that they have shut their ears to our demands, refusing to be moved to change. Therefore we must find a way around them if we cannot get them to listen. I would love to see a debate on this issue between Bruce Fein and Nancy Pelosi because her arguments won't stand scrutiny. That's why she avoids discussion on the issue and just issues statements and comments without anyone there to challenge her. If challenged she would fall flat and so would Conyers. The failure to impeach will never go away, even with a new president, the outrage is so strong that these Dem leaders will forever be remembered as the cowards who refused to impeach during the reign of the worst, deadliest, most corrupt an unpopular presidency in our nations history. To hear their names, one would just shake their head in disgust. In 20yrs it WILL make all the difference in the world and come back to haunt us all as a nation. This is a time that calls for champions of the constitution to come forward, but none came because they were too busy "policy making" and it was too much trouble.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. The Dems are losing me. I just don't get what their problem is. But it seems to be

a serious problem.

Impeachment has always been a good idea. Now more than ever!

[WillyT]

34. HUGE K & R !!!

C,Mon Dems... show us what ya got!!!

:bounce::wtf::bounce:

[djjimz]

43. Call me naive

But I honestly believe when they come back in session, they will!
My bet is, they have been flooded with calls and emails this past month and I just don’t see them ignoring them any longer. Let’s wait and see, but that is my bet.
In other words, the shit is about to hit the fan!
Go Democrats!
:dem:

[More Than A Feeling]

35. I've got a delivery of K+R addressed to this thread.

Where do you want it?:silly:

[mrdmk]

37. K & R, Nutin' else needs to be said, just action! n/t

:hangover:

[bobthedrummer]

38. HR333 K&R

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST

[2008]

39. hell yes

k&r

[Raster]

40. High Kicks Everyone!!!

Wake up America! NOW is the time!
:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[Duppers]

41. another K & R

for a fellow Virginian (and former Cambridge resident).

[Usrename]

42. This should not be very difficult at all. You make it sound simple.

I wish the control of the government were in the hands of smart people.

I'm sick and tired of idiots, from both parties, being in charge.

[Norrin Radd]

44. k+r

[avrdream]

45. Big KICK.

Stay. Up. Top.

Thank you also for writing some of this stuff. I'm hopelessly clueless about congressional options in this matter and was wondering why nothing was being done about the ignored subpoenas.

[lfairban]

48. K&R

n/t

[leveymg]

49. One of the most logical and lucid posts, ever. K&R

Our friends on Capitol Hill are running out of excuses and zero-risk approaches to doing the job we sent them to Congress to do.

This is a perfectly sane, practical approach to a process that many would wish was too complicated for normal Americans to understand.

Either produce the documents and answer our questions, or we'll throw you out of office. Logical and lucid.

[The Wizard]

50. And while they're at it

issue a subpoena to Antonin Scalia for his decision to grant a stay on the Florida recount that effectively made Bush the Decider under false pretenses. It all started with Scalia violating his oath of office. And the remaining felonious three (The dead bigot Renquist can't testify), need serious questioning under oath.

[Pooka Fey]

51. Great post. K&R

[lonestarnot]

52. K & R

[Highway61]

53. KICK!!!....would someone help me please ...

send this little ditty to EVERYONE in the House to help kick them in the ass to DO SOMETHING?

[redqueen]

55. Please call your representative & relay this info.

(877) 851 – 6437, (800) 828 – 0498, (866) 338 – 1015, (866) 340 – 9281, (800) 614 – 2803

[glitch]

57. K & R nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

58. K @ R

[sampsonblk]

59. Amen & Kick & Rec

[BridgeTheGap]

60. I'm willing for congress to try anything at this point

Though, with all the chest thumping over Iran, one would think that Kucinich's resolution against Cheney would be gathering steam. Instead, it just sits.

[ReadTomPaine]

61. Kick and a post 24 hour rec...

Nicely done

:thumbsup:

[peacetheonlyway]

64. Washington State can FORCE house to begin impeachment.....

David Swanson, you are eloquent as always.

i consider you the foremost historian and action taker of this century and this historical era. we are blessed by your presence in our country and working to save our demoracy.

what can we citizens do to encourage impeachment?

GOOD NEWS! i spoke with Senator Eric Oemig from Washington state. We can FORCE/COMPEL the House to begin proceedings by passing it in our state house/senate.

Oemig will reintroduce it next session which begins in January.

Look to Washington state to kickstart this whole thing....