Holy... It's Inherent Contempt or BUST, people. READ THIS

[yodermon]

They have COMPLETELY gamed the system. If Congress doesn't invoke inherent contempt, we are well and truly fucked.

...The house that issued the subpoenas can vote to hold non-compliant subpoena targets in contempt of Congress, but those charges are prosecuted only at the discretion of... the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Imagine that. In the middle of an investigation of how it came to be that the US Attorneys were prosecuting political enemies and coddling political friends, it's up to the US Attorneys to decide whether or not to prosecute their political friends for refusing to answer questions about the scheme that started the investigation in the first place.

Sounds fair.

But has the US Attorney ever done that before? Declined to prosecute a political friend on orders from the White House? Absolutely. The case was that of Reagan administration EPA chief Anne Gorsuch Burford in 1982.

And who was the White House counsel who ran the strategy? Why, it was Fred Fielding himself:

In 1982, during current White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s first stint in the position, the U.S. attorney declined to bring a contempt charge against a Reagan administration official, instead seeking an injunction against the House.

Thinking this executive versus legislative branch showdown will have to be resolved in the courts? Maybe even the Supreme Court?

Know who helped direct Fielding's legal strategy on the Gorsuch case?

Guy by the name of John Roberts. :wow:

But I'm sure this time it'll work out great in the courts.

(by kargox at kos, http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/7/165658/2191
via the most excellent marcy wheeler at http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/with-all-due-re.html )

[Richard Steele]

1. Yup. recommended.

[Occulus]

2. Ridiculous. Those DAMN sons of bitches.

It's already decided.

That leaves inherent contempt. That procedure is quite literally the very, very last bastion of accountability.

No wonder the previous SCOTUS (here, pluralized) have upheld it.

But- 5-4. Thus, we can't even bank on that.

(If inherent contempt is overturned by the current SCOTUS, the US is a dictatorship by default.)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

3. Is this a conspiracy theory?

Just asking 'cause I wonder if it should be in its own forum?

[flyarm]

16. no theory...

Fielding was also part of the Nixon administration - some things never change.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. I was carrying over (being facetious) from a previous

OP last night. The OP here is excellent and I am not questioning the validity of the conclusions... I could have been more clear.

[bdamomma]

60. they have their men in place don't they?

all the more reason for us to fight back. And damn there are more of us than them, does anyone think they have the capability to hold over a million people back, our military is tied up in Iraq. Now who has the power?

[everydayis911]

69. I'm afraid to think this

but China holds our debt and I wouldn't put it past Bush to let the Chinese Army handle the unruly ones. I think the USA as we know it has simply been stolen right before our eyes. Bush kept pushing and getting what he wanted and now I think it's too late to go back.

[WinkyDink]

76. So Roberts was in like Flynn from a decade ago.

[sanskritwarrior]

88. Are you saying the military would defend them?

What exactly do you mean, "now who has the power"????

[FredStembottom]

19. What was that proposed forum?

"People Who Think There Might Be Some Trouble Somewhere"?

Whatever it was, let's get it started so threads like this can be vacuumed away.

DU is no place for glum thoughts!:sarcasm:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Great find. The subterfuge is astounding

in its depth and breadth...

[Unreconstructed Lib]

5. Inherent contempt and impeachment. Or, come November of 2008, they can all go to hell.

[Guaranteed]

12. Wikipedia on inherent contempt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), a lawyer who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, William P. MacCracken, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. <1>

The Postmaster had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). <2><3>

Presidential pardons appear not apply to civil contempt procedures like the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or an offense against "the dignity of public authority." <4>

[cureautismnow]

74. Oh, great. Cheney would preside over the Senate trial.

"After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President)." Is there any political game that isn't fixed by these evil bastards?

[FedUp_Queer]

80. Only with a trial in the Senate

Since the subpoenas (Miers and Bolton) were issued by the House Judiciary Committee, the trials would be before the House and not the Senate. Cheney has nothing to do with it.

[cureautismnow]

92. Yes, that's right.

With so many Bushco scandals being investigated by the House and Senate, I lost track of which particular subpoenas from each body were being ignored.

Perhaps, these two weasels can be imprisoned without obstruction. :woohoo:

[malaise]

14. Only they won't go to hell

they'll regroup and start scheming again. Arrest these MOFos by any means necessary.

[Unreconstructed Lib]

32. I foresee that Bush will continue to show his ass to Congress and the American people.

Impeachment is the only solution--double impeachment.

[Wednesdays]

46. Indeed...

"...they'll regroup and start scheming again..."

Everyone thought they were finished in 1974. Look what happened in 1980.
Everyone thought they were finished in 1986. Look what happened in 1988.

[BrainGlutton]

68. Everyone thought they were finished in 1992 . . .

[TomInTib]

39. You're assuming that there will be elections held. I think you're mistaken.

With the PATRIOT Act combined with whatever-in-the-hell is in all of those 'signing statements', I will just bet that national elections will be suspended in the blink of an eye.

[Unreconstructed Lib]

42. It's difficult to deny that they have no intention of giving up the reins of power.

That's why, ultimately, impeachment is our last, best hope.

But don't bother Nancy. She's busy working on her memoir.

[WinkyDink]

77. And the MSM will tell us it's all okay; that, what the heck, Bush has BEEN President, so no harm, no

foul.

And any protestation will be called "treason".

[razors edge]

6. Looks like we are left with only

God almighty to smite the defilers, and since his judgment is swift and decisive, this should all be taken care of by next Thursday.













:sarcasm:

[JDPriestly]

8. The only recourse is impeachment proceedings.

Gonzalez then Cheney then call the president himself. Impeachment is a constitutional process, and Congress has the authority to compel witnesses to testify in impeachment proceedings. There is no way out. The challenge for Congress is to select from the many crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration which to focus on. There are so many including the ongoing theft of Iraqi resources, which has not been mentioned thus far. Does the president have the right to authorize the plunder of the resources of another nation? I seriously doubt it.

[razors edge]

9. "Does the president have the right to

authorize the plunder of the resources of another nation? I seriously doubt it."

Ever hear of the terms "Manifest Destiny" or "Monroe Doctrine"?

"You have no recourse to the law anymore.

And as the windshield melts, and my tears evaporate,

Leaving only charcoal to defend.

Finally, I understand - the feelings of the few,

Ashes and diamonds, Foe and friend,

We were all equal... in the end."

Last six lines of the last track of Pink Floyd's - The Final Cut.

[tabasco]

25. Past crimes do not justify present crimes.

What's your point?

[razors edge]

30. My point was in reply to JDPriestly

stating "Does the president have the right to authorize the plunder of the resources of another nation? I seriously doubt it."



This is a country founded on genocide and slavery. Do you think little things like common decency or justice will ever really get in the way of fortune building?

Do you expect a criminal to respect the jurisdiction of state boundaries?

[tabasco]

35. So let's just throw up our hands and say "fuck it?"

Help me out here. I'm compiling a list of nations not founded on genocide and slavery.

What nations are on your purity list?

Thanks!

[razors edge]

65. I have no purity list.

Deal with reality for yourself and don't look to someone telling it like it is to smooth over the facts and make all better.

Am I somehow the bad guy for stating simple fact?

A billion connected typewriters is having little to no impact on changing the repeated abuses of the privileged, blame me if it makes you feel better.

[AntiFascist]

45. The real issue should be that they lied us into war...

Obviously the purpose of that lie was to go after the oil and establish bases for future plundering. The Administration is blaming the CIA, but no amount of executive privlege should prevent Congress and the people from investigating what role our administration and other foreign entities tied to the administration played in generating the falsified CIA reports.

[Theduckno2]

13. I do believe that the Bush administration is feeling the walls closing in.

I have posted in the past that I supported investigation/oversight by Congress in lieu of moving directly toward impeachment.

It seems to me that this latest action by the Bush administration has forced the issue. I am concerned that the Bush administration has forced the issue on what it sees as the most favorable of terms. They may see a confrontation on the U.S. Attorney firings most winnable and subsequently a much needed political victory. As this country moves toward the 2008 elections it becomes much easier for the Bush administration to dismiss Congressional oversight/investigation as solely political machinations.

I do believe that, given this upping of the ante by Bush, some of the crimes of this administration can go un-investigated for now but I submit that we shouldn't limit ourselves to focusing on just one crime (yes, I know how sad that sounds). Initiating an illegal war, illegal wiretapping, and Gitmo tend to make the firing of 8 attorneys pale in comparison.

Whereas I am concerned that many of the spineless and weak would submit to this latest attack on Congress, I am also concerned that Congress could conceivably expend its energy in a futile attempt at one "hay-maker punch".

[Rhoads]

18. Even time is against them.

they are out in 2009. nothing to protect them then. watergate was a sore for years after nixon resigned.

[Wednesdays]

49. Yeah, 6 whole years

until the election of 1980. We've been awash in the neocon agenda ever since.

[JDPriestly]

59. The Bush administration is not allowing investigation/oversight.

After Gonzales was caught in a series of lies, the Bush administration has closed up. Next thing you know, every document they ever prepared or exchanged or stored somewhere will be marked "confidential" "top secret," "classified." Bush is not only refusing to allow his aids to testify, but he apparently is not providing privilege logs for subpoenaed documents. A privilege log, as every lawyer knows, is necessary in order to allow a court to review specific documents or items to determine whether, indeed they are privileged. Bush is stonewalling the investigations/oversight. He is daring Congress to impeach because he thinks that the Democrats do not have the votes in the Senate to convict him. That is true at this time. But that is not what impeachment is about. If you read the Federalist Papers, No. 64, Alexander Hamilton explains that impeachment should start in the House. He anticipated that it would be difficult to get a conviction in the Senate. The impeachment process is the constitutional process for investigating and overseeing the conduct of the the officials including the president and vice-president. If the House finds sufficient evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors which Hamilton says are "denominated POLITICAL, ss they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself."

Odds are supposed to be against conviction. The impeachment process is however the means for inquiring into the conduct of officials such as the president and vice president. Actually, the kinds of issues that the House Committees have been investigating really are more appropriate to impeachment proceedings than to just oversight proceedings.

[Wiley50]

20. Cheif justice John Roberts Would Preside Over Senate Impeachment Trial

How many monkey wrenches could he throw into the proceedings

[ProudDad]

83. As Johnny Cochran would have said about roberts

"He'd just preside, he don't decide!"

The decision to remove would be made by the Senators...

[Decruiter]

7. Welcome to December 12, 2000. We are fu' ed. I wish it was not so.

Remember when the "decider" surrounded himself after his appointment with his new staff and "cabinent", promising to bring back integrity and honesty to the government? That was it. Everyone surrounding him were war criminals pardoned by Bush I. Did everyone miss it that day?

We were going to war as of December 12, 2000. Welcome back the BFEE, love them or leave them.

[Pachamama]

10. Oh come on....its's just coincidink.....right?//

Holy Shit....I'm shaking....this is scary....the fix is in....

[Hissyspit]

11. Hey, I posted this first !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1393397

...with the wrong link; I changed the subject line from a good one to an excruciatingly dull one; and I even managed to spell 'privilege' wrong. Think someone's telling me to get some sleep? Good that you rescued the article. Larisa Alexandrovna had highlighted it at her site, which is where I found it.

Funny thing is that even before I saw Marcy's post, I was running around the past couple of days thinking "They've gamed the system," "They've gamed the system."

Will Pitt posted about how everything they are doing indicates how much bad stuff they are hiding and he is right, but they also are not too much worried about it apparently because they HAVE gamed the system.

Really, I think the reason I did such a bad job on my initial posting is that I found it so upsetting, I didn't want to spend any more time looking at it then I had to. :scared:

IMPEACH!

[fasttense]

15. The bushes are forcing this issue into the dancing supremes' laps

because they know the black robed junta is going to protect them.

Come on, the supremes picked our president for us. What's going to stop them from picking our dictator for us?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

21. I liked this comment at TNH

snip
Clement: We know that Fred Fielding wrote letters suggesting Exec. Priv., but this is the BUSH administration after all...
Alito: So Bush really meant to properly invoke exec. priv.
Scalia: But that's just passingly stupid and doesn't do the job..
Roberts: So what Bush really really meant was to wait for the Grand Jury to be empaneled and issue a Pardon of the criminal contempt.
Clement: Yes.
Thomas:
Kennedy: So we're supposed to infer from Fred Fielding letters suggesting Exec. Priv. that Bush meant to issue a pre-emptive Pardon?
Clement: That's about the size of it.
Breyer: Then why didn't he just do that, then?
Clement: Well, this is the BUSH administration.
Kennedy: I'll have to think about that for a while.

end. The Thomas blank had me laughing. Monday looks to be an interesting day.

[bdamomma]

61. that is when if the SC is in the back pocket of this filthy administration

they need to be confronted too.

[doublethink]

22. Just for the hell of it .......

"13": Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee." Isiah 47:13 .....

Interesting next year and a half we gotta deal with huh? More to the point, some very nervous and depressing moments were spent by myself and quite a few others here on DU when John Roberts and Samuel Alito got their nominations and confirmations to the Supreme Court back when. "Back in the Day' so to speak ha ha !! Anyway .... yea not a laughing matter. But what the hey, it is what it is. And like the little fishes in 'Nemo' at the end of the movie floating in their baggies back in the ocean asked .... now what? ........ :shrug: ........ Peace.

[peacetalksforall]

23. Well, let's all feel worse when we recall who voted for them and

their commentary. Want to puke?

[SaveAmerica]

33. Don't forget the scene when Nemo has all the fish work together to

get the net full of fish back down in the water - they all 'kept swimming' until the net was at the bottom of the ocean and the line attached to the boat snapped. Can we do the same thing if we get millions of people in DC on September 15 and don't leave until the line that connecting these idiots and our drowning country are severed? Masses of people need to give up whatever it is they're doing, your job, school, whatever won't be important if these goons keep this up.

SEPTEMBER 15 WASHINGTON DC IMPEACH CHENEY AND BUSH!!

[doublethink]

54. Dorie the optimist ......

yea just "keep swimming", what else can we do? :thumbsup:

[grasswire]

78. now what? Keep swimming.

That's all we can do.

[broadcaster]

24. Fred Fielding was Nixon's deputy counsel under John Dean

..and of course Cheney was around during Nixon's years, to what we have here are
people who from Nixon days have been angling and planning to do what we see them
accomplishing today---the establishment of the unitary executive and the use of
presidential claims of executive privilege, very disturbing signing statements, and
a Department of Justice that will not enforce the law. Meanwhile, from Congress, we
see no action at all to deal with this.

[IChing]

26. If they go any other route it will be" just for show"

where they can say "hey, we tried but what can you do?"

[me b zola]

27. k&r

[BrainGlutton]

28. Problem is, "inherent contempt" is a process outside the courts.

Therefore, while that would keep Roberts out of it, it would also not produce any definitive ruling as to whether and how far "executive privilege" applies in this investigation.

Another option would be for Congress to revive the Office of the Independent Counsel. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel

The OIC was created in 1978 in the aftermath of Nixon's abuses of executive power, and expired in 1999 after Kenneth Starr abused and defiled it. But it was a good idea to have an agency POLITICALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE which could investigate/prosecute anyone up to and including the president. If Congress revives the OIC -- and if there are enough votes to override W's inevitable veto -- then the OIC could indict Miers for contempt whether Bush says yea or nay.

[TahitiNut]

34. Not true. "Inherent Contempt" has been tested in the courts ... and would be retested.

There is abundant precedent and a legacy of SCOTUS rulings on Inherent Contempt. It's a falacy to presume that only the courts are influenced by precedent. If that were the case then concerns regarding the unopposed power grab by the Cheney/Bush White House in asserting unbounded "Executive Privilege" and over-reaching signing statements would have less impact on future Presidencies.

[BrainGlutton]

47. You misunderstood me.

I did not mean that Congress' inherent contempt power is not supported by case law. I meant that it is a power they can use WITHOUT INVOLVING THE COURTS. The person charged with contempt would be arrested by the Sergeant at Arms of the relevant house; tried before that house; and punished by that house. That would end in Miers getting locked up, but it would not produce any authoritative COURT ruling on the scope of executive privilege as applied here, and Congress' position on that question would properly be perceived as simply Congress' position, carrying no more legal weight than the Administration's position.

[Kingshakabobo]

53. Hopefully, it wouldn't "end" with Miers being locked up.....

The goal is to get her to squeal and blow the lid off their "we have nothing to hide; we're just protecting the privilege principles" argument. No?

[Independent_Liberal]

56. Damn! We really need the Office of Independent Counsel at this moment.

We need to pressure Congress to revive it.

[cureautismnow]

73. Unfortunately, I bet the slimeball Repukes would try to filibuster it.

Just like everything else that threatens their privileged way of life.

[spotbird]

29. This scares them shitless

Not to invoke the current Presidential condition.

Someone on DailyKos pointed out that none of their web sites even mention it. They have no talking points on the issue at all, for fear that mentioning it will cause it to grow legs.

It isn't often that an idea scares them silent.

[seemslikeadream]

31. Just happened to be on the 9/11 Commission also

[proud patriot]

36. How dare they do this to the American People

To the Constitution ...I am outraged .

[smoogatz]

37. They're ALL in inherent contempt of congress, the Constitution

and the people of the United States. I hope they send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest every goddam one of them.

[Tab]

38. And just how in hell is the Sargent at Arms supposed to get near the President?

Past the SS? (I mean "Secret Service" guys)

If Congress can't physically execute this, then how does it come to pass?

[Kablooie]

41. Simple, it doesn't. Bush people have certainly taken all this into account.

[TheMadMonk]

64. Well one could hope that when it came to an armed standoff...

...between the Executive, with Bush screaming he can do as he pleases and one or both Houses screaming back "Like fucking hell you can!" even the "Amurikan" public might actually take notice.

Not that it should go that far in the beginning. Many of those subject to these ignored subpoena's are now private citizens. I very much doubt that Bush (or his handlers) would send the SS to intervene in the arrest(s). Even Faux would be hard pressed not to see that as at least "A concerning development."

[Tab]

94. If they're going to ignore subpoenas

They're sure as hell not going to let anyone near him to arrest him. If you think they can come up with excuses not to comply with subpoenas "executive privilege" crap, wait until you see the excuses not to be arrested.

It's sad, but it ain't gonna happen that way. There will be no "physical" conclusion to this.

[TheMadMonk]

96. I meant her in the first instance.

What are they going to do to keep her out of the Sgt. At Arms reach? Certainly no armed confrontation, that almost certainly would end in the Oval Office itself, congress's choice at that point would be moving forward to impeachment or locking its own doors. And if they try to hide her, and everyone else under subpoena even Faux might be forced to speculate whether they might be hiding something.

As for himself. We knows where he lives.


I suspect one of the major problems with this mess is that there are no good solutions. None that the Dems can make that won't back The Cabal into a corner where they have no choice but to go for broke. And none that Bush and his handlers can make without looking more and more guilty. And as I'm sure his handlers discovered a long time ago, they can't cut him loose because, Bush is not the sort to go alone, and his ego is such that he will try to take the biggest fish he can with him. Nor is Cheney for that matter, however, he would be far more selective about who he grassed up to win himself a better deal.

So right now we've got a bit of a standoff. Bush & Co can afford to wait and see if the Dems will blink. The Dems are, I think, betting the Administration won't go Banco unless forced, but WILL keep pushing and hopefully overreach themselves and force the Republicans to bring impeachment to the table themselves, or commit political suicide. A wonderful, bloody airy fairy everybody wins scenario, because of course it would never get that far. Bush would see the writing on the wall and resign gracefully.

Fat chance and still a stupid idea if it did work.


The ONLY solution which stands a chance of restoring the USA to what it was supposed to be, is to unravel the whole sorry mess right back to the days of Nixon and beyond, airing ALL of your nation's dirty laundry for the world to see. It will mean essentially dismantling your entire intelligence network and starting from scratch. It will mean the forced breaking up of media empires and other mega-corporations. Billions in compensation. It will mean going to the world on bended knee and begging for a chance that you don't really deserve.

[drm604]

87. How can Congress physically execute this?

This is exactly my concern. From what I've read, the Capitol police would be the ones arresting people at the direction of the Sergeant at Arms. But what if they're no longer in DC? For example, is Myers even in DC anymore? If she is then surely she'll get the hell out of Dodge if people start talking seriously about inherent contempt. How does Congress physically arrest someone who's outside DC jurisdiction? Who does the Sergeant at Arms send to Texas or New Jersey, or wherever? U.S. Marshals? Not likely. FBI? Not likely. A bounty hunter?

If they do send somebody, would the local authorities cooperate or would they consider it a kidnapping attempt? Is there such a thing as a Congressional warrant? Would local authorities be confused as to whether or not Congress has the authority to order an extradition, especially when the President and the Justice Department are ordering otherwise? Could this come down to the decision of some State Supreme Court and, if it did, would the US Supreme's simply overule them like they did to Florida?

I like the inherent contempt idea, but I wonder if it really could be successful in the real world. Does Congress have an effective enforcement capability?

[Kablooie]

40. You gotta give the Bushies credit. They've done a heckava job perverting the system.

They spent their time trying to tie up all the loose ends that might bring justice and there are virtually no loose ends left.
Very admirable in a Sopranos kind of way.

Unless we have someone who's extremely knowlegable, capable, fearless, and damned clever, you aren't likely to see anyone in the Bush system brought to justice.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

43. All it will take is one forgotten loose thread to tug on.

And it will be some stupid inept thing they did that will finally bring to this Nation the Justice she has been waiting on.

[progressoid]

44. Fuck.

Just fuck.

[AzDar]

48. Jesus. WHO WILL STOP THEM????

[Knightly_Knews]

55. We The People Will Stop them...

I see images of anarchy surfacing shortly if someone doesn't stop these fools.

[Nikki Stone1]

57. I don't know how many people actually understand what they are doing.

And have the willingness to fight it.

[a kennedy]

93. Most don't understand......and when you try to explain it, their

eyes glaze over and the "out to lunch" stare becomes evident. They just want the faux way of telling them, you know the shortest version so they don't have to think to much. *sigh* D*mn though, I keep trying to explain it all. :patriot:

[bdamomma]

62. we the people can stop them. there are more of us than them.

apparently our congress does not know the powers they can use to stop them, and we don't realize that we are the only ones who can rescue ourselves.

[wordpix]

71. you are right---only WE can stop these asses! But what will we storm without getting shot?

It can't be the WH. Best bet might be covering t-shirts and going to the congressional hearings.

[Knightly_Knews]

91. "We" Own the White House...

And the pentagon, and congress and the senate.....
We could definitely March down the halls of Congress and the Senate.

If that doesn't work, we can Storm the gates of the White House..When one person storms the gates he is a crazy person, when a nation storms the gates, it's called a Revolution! If they start killing off innocent Americans, because we have had enough, then the rest of America will wake up.. Maybe.. They are sleeping pretty heavily....

[anitar1]

50. after trying them in the Congress, then impeach the SCOTUS.

They need to be thrown out too, stinkin' crooks all.

[Joanne98]

52. The Congress can impeach the Scotus!

[Emillereid]

51. This is the point I made in a previous post - we can no longer rely on the

courts. The repukes have been stacking the courts for years -- there are federalist society nut-jobs throughout the judiciary -- it has to be inherent contempt AND IMPEACHMENT AND CONVICTION!!! And if you and I know this -- the Democrats in Congress must. If they go the normal contempt route expecting justice in the courts - - then they will reveal themselves as just plain stupid. For the sake of what little constitutional democracy we have left -- I pray they are not that stupid.

[paparush]

58. Can't we just pop some popcorn and watch a movie...

....something....like...taxi...driver...

[motocicleta]

82. You talkin' to me?

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? I don't see anybody else here. You talkin' to me?

[althecat]

63. Yes holy shit.... & since the option of unelection is also being sold-down the river....

Welcome to the age of the American Emperor.

[DutchLiberal]

66. I'm sorry

If Congress doesn't invoke inherent contempt, we are well and truly fucked.

You are well and truly fucked. I'm sorry. :(

[bunny planet]

67. I'm all for either 'inherent contempt', the appointment of an independent

prosecutor (after reviving the ability to appoint one) and I think I've also heard of the possibility of a civil case of contempt being brought before the courts by the Senate as an option. However, I don't necessarily agree that the Bush Crime Family has this thing all planned out that effectively. The US Attorney for DC would have to recuse himself no??? Also, I sensed desperation in Bush's ordering Harriet Miers not even to appear to claim executive privilege on the same day that Sara Taylor went in to claim the same privilege and screwed up so badly in her testimony. Its my understanding that the President has broken some law just by instructing Miers not to appear. She can claim privilege, but she has to show up to answer the subpoena and telling her not to is against the law. Someone over at TPM posted the statute that was violated, I posted it here that day but can't find it right now. Why, if Little Lord Pretzeldent is so confident he's got all his ducks in a row, why wouldn't he let Harriet just come in and claim executive privilege instead of flouting the law and not showing up at all. I think its because they know Harriet can't stand up to the pressure, she'd fold like a house of cards under scrutiny and they couldn't even risk her going in at all. I think they'd be very nervous about inherent contempt. So, let's do that, and appoint an independent prosecutor. Once they try to squash those moves, which I've no doubt they'll try, we immediately turn around and hit them with impeachment. Once that happens, stuff will come out fast and furious, these guys have made too many enemies, and pretty soon, lo and behold, we will have the votes in the Senate. Of course, Cheney and Gonzo has to be impeached first. I don't believe impeachment will take nearly as long as its rumored, I think that's just more catapaulting of the propaganda.

Oh, and we have to make it clear to our dear Congresscritters that are afraid impeachment will interfere with their fast track 2008 regaining of the WH and super majorities in both houses, that without it, an unchecked, unaccountable dictatorship without any further oversight will definitely interfere with that happening.

[grasswire]

79. how long before they start suiciding people like Miers?

Seriously.

[wordpix]

70. oh what a clusterfuck these repukes are puke, puke and repuke again

[everydayis911]

72. I think

our only hope maybe is for the UN to see the disaster unfold and somehow step in. I mean we are ALWAYS stepping in on some democratically elected official and replacing them. How come we can't get the same for Bush. Hell Saddam would have been more diplomatic than Bush. We Are So Fucked.

[VP505]

75. I don't know how we

can do it but somehow we have to do a through Government house cleaning when we finally get a solid majority in both the House and Senate and a Dem President. All of Bu$h's appointees have to go and anyone who worked in any previous admin of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, BuSh 41 and Bu$h 43 need be removed as well. We must also refrain from resurrecting any of the so called experts from those previous admins and using them for ANY purpose, like bu$h has done with guys like Baker, etc.

[Gloria]

81. AH...the benefits of "keeping one's powder dry".....CRAPOLA

[ProudDad]

84. Just arrest them

and throw them into the dungeon in the basement of the House...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3391001&mesg_id=3391001

[Rosa Luxemburg]

85. Crikey!

[AJ9000]

86. Well that's 1 reason the 04 election was so important - judicial appointments.

They have much of the judicial branch in their back pockets at this point.

I believe a serious populist media could repair things though if we could ever create it.

[FourScore]

89. Oh what a tangled web they weave! n/t

[Land Shark]

90. Conyers referred to inherent contempt in this thread yesterday on impeachment

Conyers on impeachment saying "What are we waiting for? Let's take these two guys out!" This and other important details on contempt and even election reform are at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1390369

Then today he said on the radio he needs three more reps and then he will FILE impeachment, with or without Nancy Pelosi. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3392226

[bbgrunt]

95. too bad nancy thinks otherwise/