Pelosi: Judiciary Committee will bring contempt of Congress charges against administration THIS WEEK

[bigtree]

Congress this week will take the next step to force the Bush administration to hand over information about the dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday.

The House Judiciary Committee will bring contempt of Congress charges against the administration this week, said the San Francisco Democrat. She did not specify who the subject of the action would be, but Pelosi spokesman, Brendan Daly, said later it would be former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who defied a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to appear.

"They have disregarded the call of Congress for information about their politicizing the Department of Justice. We can document that. Those are actual facts and we will bring the contempt of Congress forth," said Pelosi, who spoke with reporters at a San Francisco workshop for people who want to become U.S. citizens

article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/21/BAGKTR4SJC3.DTL&tsp=1

[LeftCoast]

1. Hmm...it's unclear whether they mean statutory or inherent contempt

and the author of the article doesn't seem to realize there are two routes for Congress to follow. Interesting article in any case.

[bigtree]

2. I think it will be the statutory route

The statutory action has to be voted on, in and out of committee. I think it will serve the effort to make legislators vote on whether to expose Bush's crimes or cover them up.

These cases take some time, but they could flood the White House with subpoenas and contempt actions until some of these documents emerge or someone cracks and implicates the WH to the point where they can't continue to sustain the stonewall.

[Bandit]

13. I think they can and will do both

Conyers hinted at that last time he spoke on the issue.

[bluestateguy]

3. I know how this will end

They will approve the contempt of Congress charges, send them up to Alberto Gonzalez's "Justice" Department, who will then throw them in the trash can.

Months or years of litigation and pushing paper will follow, after which time the Bush Team will be long out of office and back at work in their think tanks and at the Halliburton Board of Directors and the Carlyle Group. The federal judiciary will most likely side with Bush, on the basis of some trumped up technicality.

[bigtree]

5. I don't think Bush and his minions can long withstand the coming flurry of legislative action

the resistance in and of itself suggests something criminal involving the Executive is being covered up. There is enough already implicating the WH and the AG that I don't think they will, as targets of the criminal investigation(s), even allow this to go to some court for scrutiny and judgment. I think they'll try to keep this as far from the consideration of the courts as they can. We'll see.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Can't do that

that would be an impeachable offense. And I think Conyers will have the bill of impeachment ready to read to the committee tomorrow if the DOJ tries such a stunt.

[izzie]

4. Sounds good to me.

Some how Congress must force the President, any party, that the Congress has that right. Our only direct contact with power is what we can force the House to do under the constitutions. The President is OURs not a man alone doing as he wishes.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Inherent Contempt....The Only Way

This half-way step is a waste of time. We know this "unitary executive" will ignore any contempt citation that have no real teeth. We already know that Gonzo's boys in the DOJ will not pursue a contempt case...thus this action is symbolic and allows this regime to continue to stonewall and run out the clock.

The only way to force this regime's hand is the sight of a Meiers or Bolton or Gonzo being frogmarched into a jail cell until this regime honors the subpoenas and provides open testimony. People will think twice about "honoring the requests" of this regime if they know it means some time in the Grey Bar hotel.

The only use of Contempt of Congress is a half-way step to force a Constitutional showdown with this regime...but only half-way.

[bigtree]

8. I don't think Congress should back down from this action

just because of some predictable opposition.

And I already see the next bitch and moan campaign against the leadership because they didn't move right away to an arcane procedure which hasn't been used since 1934.

I trust the committee leaders who've managed these actions against the administration so far. They deserve our support for these statutory contempt efforts just like in all of the myriad of other measures we stood behind despite the opposition in the way. It just make no sense at all to me to pronounce these contempt actions -which will soon proliferate - a failure before we've even begun to use our influence to pressure the administration into complying.

And, I think their claims that their own Justice Dept.'s verdict of Executive Privilege would prevent the U.S. Attorney from doing his "duty" and referring the case to a grand jury, in a case which directly involves them, should be challenged in court.

here's the CRS view:

A person who has been subpoenaed to testify or produce documents before the House or Senate or a committee and who fails to do so, or who appears but refuses to respond to questions, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. A contempt citation must be approved by the subcommittee, the full committee, and the full House or Senate (or by the presiding officer if Congress is not in session). After a contempt has been certified by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it is the “duty” of the U.S. Attorney “to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”

The criminal contempt procedure was rarely used until the twentieth century, but since 1935 it has been essentially the exclusive vehicle for punishment of contemptuous conduct. Prior to Watergate, no executive branch official had ever been the target of a criminal contempt proceeding. Since 1975, however, 10 cabinet-level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt for failure to produce subpoenaed documents by either a subcommittee, a full committee, or by a House.

In each instance there was substantial or full compliance with the document demands before the initiation of criminal proceedings. However, following the vote of contempt of EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, but before the contempt citation was forwarded to the United States Attorney for grand jury action, the Department of Justice raised the question whether Congress could compel the U.S. Attorney to submit the citation for grand jury consideration.

The documents in question were turned over to Congress before the issue was litigated in court. The question of the duty of the U.S. Attorney under section 192 to enforce contempt of Congress citations remains unresolved and has left some uncertainty as to the efficacy of the use of criminal contempt proceedings against executive branch officials.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

[KharmaTrain]

14. I Agree On Procedure

I've long had discussions with those here who aren't that familiar with the archane ways the Legislative works and the impatience many have with how slow or "meaningless" things appear. For example, the May funding vote...which was guaranteed to fail and only got 2 cross-over votes...the next time Reid ran it, 2 more flaked away...and as we get closer to next year's election even more votes will cross as weak-kneed Repugnicans will start seeing the real abyss they're heading over and try to save their asses. It may not be until the primaries next March...unfortunately. But the growing force of public opinion is building more on the other side of the aisle as their conflicts are far more profound. People here need to keep that in mind.

I, too trust what Congressmen Conyers and Waxman say and suggest. They've been on these issues from the outset and have been compiling their own cases. The problem, to this point, is there has been no real underlying crime to go after administration figures...allegations, yes, solid charges, no. The issuing of contempt citations will set the game into the next strata...where a crime can now be cited...be it from the person subpoenaed to the others in the chain who ordered the obstruction.

The use of Congressional contempt will be ignored by this regime or tossed into a rigged legal game that will waste time. Thus I firmly believe that Inherent contempt should be the way forward...as we know there are crimes...we don't need more committed...let's call this regime's bluff.

Cheers...

[KharmaTrain]

16. I Agree On Procedure

I've long had discussions with those here who aren't that familiar with the archane ways the Legislative works and the impatience many have with how slow or "meaningless" things appear. For example, the May funding vote...which was guaranteed to fail and only got 2 cross-over votes...the next time Reid ran it, 2 more flaked away...and as we get closer to next year's election even more votes will cross as weak-kneed Repugnicans will start seeing the real abyss they're heading over and try to save their asses. It may not be until the primaries next March...unfortunately. But the growing force of public opinion is building more on the other side of the aisle as their conflicts are far more profound. People here need to keep that in mind.

I, too trust what Congressmen Conyers and Waxman say and suggest. They've been on these issues from the outset and have been compiling their own cases. The problem, to this point, is there has been no real underlying crime to go after administration figures...allegations, yes, solid charges, no. The issuing of contempt citations will set the game into the next strata...where a crime can now be cited...be it from the person subpoenaed to the others in the chain who ordered the obstruction.

The use of Congressional contempt will be ignored by this regime or tossed into a rigged legal game that will waste time. Thus I firmly believe that Inherent contempt should be the way forward...as we know there are crimes...we don't need more committed...let's call this regime's bluff.

Cheers...

[bigtree]

9. BTW, Here's John Dean's excellent piece on Inherent Contempt. He makes a compelling case . . .

Friday, Jul. 13, 2007

Harriet Miers's Contempt of Congress: Are Conservatives About To Neuter Congress, While Claiming Full Legal Justification for this Separation-of-Powers Violation?

{snip}

. . . if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized "the narrow principle of necessity" or "self-defense" of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said "the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively."

When all is said and done the only way Congress can protect its prerogatives is to undertake its own contempt proceedings. The parliamentary precedents of the House provide such procedures, by which Congress can effectively protect itself. There is no shortage of past instances where the Congress has held such trials. Readers may want to consult, for example, Hinds' Precedents and Canon's Precedents. Unfortunately, however, this machinery has become a bit rusty, for these procedures have not been used since 1934.

Congress Must Avail Itself of Traditional Procedures to Compel Testimony and/or Punish Contempt

Given the clear attitude of conservative presidents, who are doing all within their power to make Congress irrelevant, Congress should turn to these underemployed precedents and put them back to work. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should take the lead in reviving these procedures, and the Democrats' leadership should announce that they are embracing them.

If they do not, Fred Fielding has it right: Officials are absolutely immune from compelled Congressional testimony. Bush can simply tell Congress to stop sending subpoenas to his appointees. However, if Congress does engage in a little self-help at this crucial juncture, it can be sure that not only Harriet Miers, but also George Bush, will be forced to pay attention to congressional subpoenas - for the bottom line is that Congress will not need the cooperation of the other branches to enable it to conduct proper oversight . . .


http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070713.html

[KharmaTrain]

12. I Heard Him On Friday

He was on with Randi Rhodes and laid out the case very clearly. He knows Fielding's game here and Conyers would be wise to seek his counsel on moving forward.

[radfringe]

7. good

but don't stop there, warm up the impeachment papers too

[Senator]

10. I Think It's A Mistake -- Yes, Even Inherent Contempt

This is why I've been chanting "only impeachment" for so long.

At best this is another procedural dead end. They've really got no problem letting Harriet or Fredo sit a cell (ask Judy Miller). It would have to be a white guy -- like Scooter -- to get them to risk anything. (Yes, they're still "like that." Appointing Powell and Rice was a huge "uh, oh" that certainly got justified.)

But that's not the real problem. I think they may well be looking for any opportunity to "BushvGore" their "Unitary" delusions into "reality." And any issue will do. That's why they've been so "inexplicably" confrontive. They want something to trot up to the New Felonious Five for an "Enabling Decision."

They're not the least bit interested in "constitutional niceties." They believe them to be as "quaint" as torture bans.

They should be treated as the "fugitive" war criminals that they are. Poking them with legal sticks -- based on laws they scoff at -- is not a recipe for successful return to equilibrium.

==

[ThomWV]

11. Maybe she's starting to get the message

Get them out or get out yourself Nancy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. Does this mean they are filing contempt charges with the GONZO's , recess appointed, USA, Taylor?

Is she making this move so the psycho will say PUBLICLY that he's invoking EP over Congress and the USA cannot take a Contempt of Congress case that applies to the administration? THEN she will make the move to IMPEACH?

I can hope.:(

Sending the case to Taylor is a waste of time, but maybe that's part of the Impeachment plan? Let them push the EP issue OVER THE EDGE?

Jeffrey A. Taylor

I am pleased to welcome you to the web site for the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. We enforce the criminal laws of the United States and the District of Columbia and, thus, serve as both the federal prosecutor and the local District Attorney here in Washington, D.C. This site has been designed to service the needs of the residents of Washington, D.C.

Here you will find a wealth of information about our office, your community, and the law enforcement agencies with whom we partner and, who, in turn, serve the Nation's Capital. We have included a description of our responsibilities,
U.S. Attorney for DC Jeffrey Taylor
details of the Office and its many components, information about employment opportunities, and links to community resources and our law enforcement partners. In collaboration with the communities we serve, we strive to improve the quality of life for all residents and visitors here in the District. Thank you for visiting us and I hope you will find the information useful, helpful, and informative.

[creeksneakers2]

18. Kicked!

This is great news. First step toward war!