Pelosi to send Bush Investigations to the COURTS with CONTEMPT...NOT INHERENT CONTEMPT!

[KoKo]

This article from 'SF Chronicle' says that Pelosi will go for "Contempt of Congress" thereby throwing this to the Bush stacked Courts which will drag it out forever or outright dismiss it. The only way to get Miers and other on the Hill testifying and to get the documents Bush is hold released is for the Judiciary Committee to go for "Inherent Contempt."

So...did Nancy overule John Conyers? If so ...this is very bad news. :-(


---------

Pelosi promises congressional contempt charge for Harriet Miers
Speaker reiterates impeachment is not on her agenda

Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer


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.

She also addressed criticism of the farm bill and reiterated her opposition to impeaching President Bush.

Lawmakers have increasingly put pressure on the administration to share documents and records -- and for officials to testify, under oath, in front of Congress -- about why nine U.S. attorneys, including Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, were dismissed from their jobs in December 2006.

Congress has for months been seeking information about which administration officials were involved in the dismissals of the attorneys. The White House, however, has claimed "executive privilege" for many of those requests, meaning the executive branch is free from oversight of the legislative and judiciary branches of the government in those instances. A House judiciary subcommittee has voted to reject such reasoning.

Contempt of Congress is defined by federal law as action that obstructs the work of Congress, including investigations. If both the White House and Congress stick to these positions, the matter could become a constitutional question for the courts to decide.


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

[paulk]

1. Conyers never said he wouldn't try this route first

inherent contempt always was (and is) a measure of last resort.

[KoKo]

3. Once it goes to the Courts...you can't Change It...though!

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Says who?

If the courts refuse to deal with it, why can't inherent contempt then be invoked?

[OzarkDem]

11. It will get bogged down in the courts

most legal experts watching this scenario have said the same thing. As long as Gonzo is in charge of the DOJ, and the federal courts are stacked, this will go nowhere.

[MonkeyFunk]

But Koko seemed to imply

that if it goes to the courts, then inherent contempt is no longer an option. I'm asking why that should be the case.

[KoKo]

20. Well...you have to do either one or the other. It's possible that

Judiciary could go for "Inherent Contempt" on another issue that doesn't involve the USA Firings. There are so many investigations going on that it's possible Conyers could go after "Inherent Contempt" on the NSA Spying or the Valerie Plame Outing Investigation.

But, it would have to be one or the other with the NSA Firings. :shrug:

[OzarkDem]

27. I'm not an attorney

but I don't think you can do both at the same time. It has to be one or the other.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. If, as Bush as reportedly threatened,

the Justice Dept. does nothing with the referral, then you vote inherent contempt.

I think it's wise to go the judicial route first. Then, when that fails, the house is forced to use the more drastic measure of inherent contempt.

[OzarkDem]

45. What's more likely to happen

is the Bush admin will find a way to tie it up in court, thereby leaving Dems with no options at all.

Not outright rejection, just bringing the entire process to a near halt.

Surely Pelosi is smart enough to know they'll do this.

[drm604]

70. But why would that leave them with no options?

If they tie it up in court, then they can use inherent contempt.

[creeksneakers2]

129. I think Bush will go ape on this right away

I think Bush may even be dumb enough to go on TV and expose his inner Nixon. The most belligerent drastic action Bush could take would be to order the US Attorney to drop any prosecution. Doing so would make Bush feel manly, and relieve his inner tension over not getting his way.

I know it would be tactically much smarter for Bush to stall and wait and dump the prosecution later. Fortunately, Bush is stupid.

[Bandit]

87. Why they are totally different charges in completely different environments

One is a legal charge with legal consequence and the other political with political consequence. I am fairly certain both can happen at the same time just as a criminal trial and a civil trial can both happen at once. It is not double jeopardy

[OzarkDem]

99. No, they're both legal processes

that's why they're in the Constitution.

[MonkeyFunk]

138. What does the constitution say

about inherent contempt?

[KoKo]

17. Because Bush/Cheney/Gonzo will be long gone before courts can decide this.

It has to go to Gonzo's Justice and then to the DC Circuit Court then to the Supremes.

[OzarkDem]

28. And Pelosi knows that

I smell blackmail.

[KoKo]

46. It's possible...that this is a clever move to expose the Justice Dept and Bush owned courts...

There are other investigations that will involve subpoenas by other committees so it's possible that "Inherent Contempt" could be used with a different witness that doesn't comply down the road.

By throwing this one to the courts, it shows that the Bush Judiciary will REFUSE TO ACT and maybe the M$M will pick up on this...being reminded of what happened with Nixon. Although we don't have an Independent Prosecutor to help us out with this as we did with Nixon.

[warren pease]

79. It's also possible...

...that Saturn will collapse into a black hole and suck the entire solar system into its density, including all the moons, asteroids, space debris, solar flares, starlight and anything else within its considerable gravitational pull. But I really wouldn't bet actual money on it.

Nor would I bet that an action that looks and smells like yet another way to avoid confronting the Bush cabal isn't exactly what it seems. Pelosi and Reid are often credited with being master strategists and tacticians, political pros so slick that they can set up an intricate series of smoke screens, diversions and lures to trap BushCo into stringing itself up by the thumbs.

Personally, after watching their epic ineffectiveness at imposing even mild limits on BushCo's terra, terra, war, war, blood, blood, round up the lefties agenda -- which is so obviously what's going on that it's beyond debate -- I can only assume that they're utterly incompetent, that they're disinterested in the will of the people, or that they're so thoroughly bought and paid for by corporate campaign "donations" that they're incapable of acting against an administration whose real constituency is the "haves and have mores."

Or am I missing something?


wp

[leftchick]

67. I smell

corporate cash to keep the status quo.

[spotbird]

141. It's vile, insulting

and makes me hate the Party.

[Occulus]

29. I should point out here that they could expedite the hearings

I guarantee you this will land before Bushies and they will throw it out or rule in favor of the shrub. It's just how they are...

[KAT119]

108. Or Martial Law and dissolution of Congress Will Happen First....

[orleans]

59. this claims conyers DID say he wanted to go with INHERENT CONTEMPT

"Also, Land Shark was here and talked to Conyers in the presence of others about the disastrous Holt bill as well as impeachment issues. Conyers stated that he would be going for inherent contempt - he declared that as his intent. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1390369

my question is: can pelosi NOT ALLOW CONYERS TO CHARGE MIERS WITH INHERENT CONTEMPT?


there is another thread that says conyers will begin impeachment proceedings if he can get three more reps signed on--without pelosi.

if he can do that, why can't he charge miers the way he sees fit?

[KoKo]

63. Thanks for posting that link. As I remember Conyers cited both in his letter

so it's good to have it posted here. Maybe Pelosi said go with Contempt because she felt it was important to get it in the courts first with Miers. :shrug:

[orleans]

95. when DID pelosi say that? because conyers was talking inherent

on friday apparently.

on edit: if she said it before friday, then it sounds to me like conyers will do what HE thinks is the best route. and hopefully that is the case!

[OzarkDem]

116. But it won't get into the courts under Pelosi's plan

Gonzo won't let it.

Why would Pelosi say one thing and do another?

[eggman67]

2. Wise move

Good job Madame Speaker

[MessiahRp]

4. This is why she is an ineffectual leader

She just doesn't have a fucking clue. Bush just issued an executive order that prevents the Department of Justice from prosecuting this charge. Inherent contempt is the ONLY recourse if she chooses to continue the folly of investigations and not impeachment.

They just keep making the same mistakes over and over... putting it in the hands of Bush's minions as if they'll ever grow a conscience.

Rp

[MonkeyFunk]

6. No he didn't

don't make stuff up.

It was reported that he would block such attempts - but he didnt' issue an executive order.

And if he DOES block it and the justice department does nothing (though I'm not sure they CAN do nothing on the President's say-so), THEN the House has good reason to invoke inherent contempt.

[MessiahRp]

48. It wasn't an executive order, you're right.

He did just issue a couple of those this past week so it was easy to be confused.

BUT he did put it out there that he will block the DOJ from participating and thus we're playing silly games to get to the same point anyways and all this shit does is buy time for Bush to keep issuing executive orders, signing statements, "legal opinions" that take all the power from the Congress and the People and give it to him, the Dictator.

This is a pointless charade in which inherent contempt is the ONLY route that makes any sense at all. Why waste our time and energy sending something out that is clearly going to be rejected by the DOJ for prosecution and will get smacked down in one of the many Bush packed courts?

Rp

[Maribelle]

9. Before swearing filth about Nancy, how about if you did your homework ....

or are you just making up excuses to spit filth?

[OzarkDem]

16. Welcome to DU!

Pelosi has a very long record of making the wrong choices in carrying out her job and protecting the Constitution from Bush's abuses.

There's plenty of proof.

[Richard Steele]

118. You'll notice, this person has aaactually been a DU member since 2001...

Only 150 posts in six years, and now THIS issue
suddenly has her attention. I find this FASCINATING.

[MessiahRp]

51. Sorry you came to the adult board where swearing does happen to occur

I have done my homework. Inherent Contempt is the ONLY option. Bush has asserted that the DOJ shall not prosecute a regular Contempt of Congress charge and the Bush packed courts will smack the charge down (as they did with the Cheney Energy Task force meeting, the Plame lawsuit, the wiretapping lawsuit from the ACLU, etc).

Pelosi HAS to know this and thus this is a silly game that buys that jerkoff more time to wreck the country even further. Inherent Contempt is where we will end up anyways. There is NO benefit to going to a Contempt of Congress charge and losing. If we then go back again the media surely will paint us as on a vendetta and sore losers since the Contempt of Congress charge made it to a court of law.

Rp

[juajen]

96. Anyways is not a word.

Only used to indicate the plural of anyway, i.e., "There were two 'anyways' in that sentence."

I ask forgiveness for being OCD about spelling, and this particular misuse of "anyway".

The Spelling Police

[MessiahRp]

121. A little nitpicky

But... point taken. When I type fast I manage to find more use of "anyways" and it tends to slip in there a lot.

Rp

[OzarkDem]

12. or maybe she's compromised

I'm beginning to think there may be something to the talk of Bush using blackmail to pressure Congress and Pelosi is showing all the signs of someone who is too afraid to make the right choices.

I might think otherwise if it weren't for the fact that, tough talk aside, she ends up doing exactly what Bush wants her to do every time.

[Maribelle]

7. Why on earth did you say "NOT INHERENT CONTEMPT"?

The contempt powers of Congress are inherent.

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. "Inherent contempt" is different.

:eyes: Inherent Contempt doesn't involve the Judiciary AT ALL. The Sergeant-At-Arms arrests the person held in contempt and holds them until they comply with the subpoena.



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, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. <1>

MacCracken 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>

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

[Maribelle]

32. Certain Congressional powers are inherent.

Meaning they have options to this or that by the very nature of their powers under the Constitution.

If they choose to send out the sergant-at-arms they have inherent power to do this under the Constitution.

[OzarkDem]

40. So why didn't she choose that process?

Why is she choosing the process that she and everyone else knows is doomed to fail?

[Maribelle]

50. Did she say she wasn't going to?

The writer is the one that said "If both the White House and Congress stick to these positions, the matter could become a constitutional question for the courts to decide." - - not Nancy.

The original poster of this thread apparently made an accusation that was not true.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. That's not what you said in your other two ARROGANT posts. Here's the one that REALLY shines:

:eyes:

You DUers that don't know what you're talking about are really embarrassing

Y'all need to study up on congressional "inherent" powers

Seems to me, YOU are the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.


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, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. <1>

MacCracken 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>

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

[Maribelle]

52. "Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms "

Where in the article does Nancy say what will happen following the contempt citation?

[in_cog_ni_to]

74. They are arrested ONLY if the USA and the DOJ bring the Contempt Charges before a Grand Jury

and try the case. THAT is not going to happen. DC's USA is a GONZO, recess appointed, US attorney is Jeffrey Taylor.

NOTHING will come of her sending this citation to Jeffrey Taylor. NO arrest will happen because NO CONTEMPT charges will come forward. They will NOT prosecute Miers. THESE ARE BUSHBOTS...."Loyal Bushies."

Congress has ONE option of holding Miers In Contempt and that is by using INHERENT CONTEMPT which bypasses the DC USA, the DOJ and the repuke Supreme Court.


<snip>
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.

“A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case,” said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. “And a U.S. attorney wouldn’t be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen.”<snip>

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/07/bush_wont_enforce_contempt_of_congress_warrants/

[OzarkDem]

83. Thank you

its definitely an "either/or" situation. There are few other options available to Congress.

As I read it, Gonzo's refusal would also end any further challenges to Bush's claim of executive privilege. Congress is almost in the position of having to create a parallel legal process. It has been given the power to do that, it may not have any other choice.

[OzarkDem]

23. *Inherent Contempt* is a process

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, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. <1>

MacCracken 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>

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

This is the process Pelosi chose to ignore. She's choosing the statutory procedure - the one that is doomed to fail. Even former Nixon staffer John Dean agrees.


So why is Pelosi really backing down?

[Maribelle]

55. Show us all where she "chose to ignore" it.

That's the point. First comes the contempt charges. The Congress can use its powers.

[OzarkDem]

62. Well let's assume

that she knew of the two options she had to choose from.

If she knew that one path would lead to the contempt charges being put into the court system where the GOP would bury them from public discussion and run out the clock and the other path would back Bush into a corner and either honor their request or be branded in public as flouting the law - then her choice was to choose the path that follows Bush's strategy.

Its not a matter of taking one step and if blocked taking another; Bush isn't going to allow that. Pelosi was at a Constitutional fork in the road and she chose the wrong path. I'll give her full credit and assume she was fully aware of her choices.

[Maribelle]

72. What she actualy said was"Those are actual facts and we will bring the contempt of Congress forth"

Assuming she choose anything additional is, in the very least, totally premature and false.

Calling her "stupid stupid stupid", swearing about her, and using all caps to shout out a false assumption in the title of this thread, as we see above, credits nothing.

[OzarkDem]

101. I guess you need to re-read my posts

If you can't debate the issue honestly, then why bother?

[Maribelle]

113. You truly should be more interested in debating facts ...

rather than false assumptions.

[OzarkDem]

117. Here are the facts

read them in the linked article. Pelosi is going to pursue this through the standard contempt process. Using weasel words and phrases isn't going to make your case.

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

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.

[Maribelle]

119. "Pelosi is going to pursue this through the standard contempt process" is a false assumption

next

[OzarkDem]

122. Wanna bet?

Check back here this time next week, if you have the intestinal fortitude. We'll see whose interpretation of Pelosi's spin is correct. Game on?

[Maribelle]

126. The House will vote - - they will be the deciding factor.

It has to come out of committee and go to the floor.

This will not be an interpretation of Pelosi's spin.

[proud patriot]

8. stupid stupid stupid

what a stupid thing to do .

We've done the work for you Nancy ,, You need to use Inherent Contempt

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

13. Perhaps you could offer something? n/t

[KoKo]

14. You need to Google for difference between Contempt and Inherent Contempt

before you suggest we bone up on congressional "inherent" powers, though.

[Maribelle]

18. Contempt powers of Congress are inherent (n/t)

[Occulus]

26. LOL

No, my dear, we're talking about TWO DIFFERENT contempt powers: vanilla contempt and INHERENT contempt.

They really, really are two different things. One involves the executive branch, one does not.

[Joe Chi Minh]

81. You're talking over her head. That's too difficult for her to understand.

[Maribelle]

93. They are not "different" - - one is secondary.

Evidently this critical fact could be over both your heads.

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. "Secondary" in what sense, pray? They are obliged to bring Contempt

charges, before bringing Inherent Contempt' charges?

[Maribelle]

104. First the judicial committee moves to vote Miers in contempt

then it goes to the house floor. Once on the floor they can then vote to put Miers in "inherent contempt," which would mean holding her in the congressional jail or something of that nature.

[Joe Chi Minh]

109. If I understand you correctly, I defer to your superior knowledge of the subject,

and apologise for my rancour.

[OzarkDem]

115. But if you read the linked article, she's very clear - DOJ only

Read the article and you will see that Pelosi is clear on how she plans to proceed - through the Dept of Justice, not through the Inherent Contempt process. If you know so much about her position, why are you so evasive in trying to spin this?

She also reiterated her intention to not seek impeachment of Bush. Does she really think we're dumb enough to believe they're going to accomplish anything in Congress related to health care or jobs?

Is she obliquely telling us that she thinks she has cut a deal to let the Bush administration off the hook in exchange for getting some health care and jobs legislation passed? Is she really that naive or does she just think the American public is so stupid we won't notice when it doesn't happen?


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


Pelosi also reiterated Saturday that she would not engage in what would perhaps be the biggest confrontation possible with the White House -- seeking the impeachment of Bush over the Iraq war.

The speaker said she had "no hesitation" criticizing the president about his handling of the war, but said there were more important priorities for lawmakers -- such as health care and creating jobs -- than the divisive pursuit of impeachment.

[creeksneakers2]

131. My guess is inherent means

that the powers were inherited from the Continental Congress, Colonial legislatures, and the British Parliament before that.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

24. We're attentive students. Please enlighten us.

Go for it, Sensei- the dojo is yours for as long as you need it. Please explain the legal issues behind contempt- I can see you probably have much personal experience dealing with it already.

"YOU DUers"? I guess you don't plan to hang on to your slot here long...

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Before you embarrass yourself anymore than you already have, READ THIS:

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

SHEESH...your arrogance is embarrassing!


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, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. <1>

MacCracken 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>

[OzarkDem]

30. Are Congressional staffers really this uneducated?

or do you just assume we haven't done our own research on the issue?

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. LOL! Vitter's staffers are bored these days. No more diapers to change!

:)

[Richard Steele]

43. Wrong. "Inherent Contempt" differs from "Contempt of Congress". NOT the same thing. nm

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maribelle]

54. The original poster made up " NOT INHERENT CONTEMPT"

Show us all where in the article Nancy says what will happen following the contempt citation.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

56. If I am to understand your argument,

you are upset about the lack of quotations for "inherent contempt"? Or, are you arguing that "contempt" and "inherent contempt" are the same thing? You have me confused.

[C_U_L8R]

15. who knows, it could be a trap

a trap for Bush that is.
Send it to the courts where he will most likely OBSTRUCT
and clearly setting the premise to impeach
(as if we didn't have enough premise already...
maybe they need one more really good reason to tip the balance)

Who knows.

Then again I feel like the Dems just want to keep
Bush (and by default the Pukes) over a low flame
until election day... turning and basting every so often
until charred to a well-done crisp.

Who knows.

[KoKo]

22. True....it could be a trap to get attention to it. But, for those of us who want

Gonzo/Cheney removed as soon as possible...it's disappointing.

[terisan]

19. From what I have read about inherent contempt, the Sergeant-at-Arms would have to locate Meiers

and physically take her to Congress. Does this mean if she is in Texas they would have to fly to Texas, locate her, and then physically take her from where they find her and forcibly bring her to DC and Congress? What if she resists, or calls friendly police in Texas. Is there going to be a standoff or a shootout? What if Bush has a rent-a-mob, such as they had shut down the recount in 2001 in Miami, surround the the Sergeants-at-Arms?
What if Harriet, knowing they are coming, merely flies to Mexico or Europe where Congress has no powers?

[SoonerPride]

35. Then you 'extraordinarily rendition' her.

Bring her to trial.

No justice.
No peace.

[OzarkDem]

36. then all the world gets to see

the length that Bush is going to cover up his criminal activities. Such a thing would be devastating to the Bush administration, which is why they put enough pressure on Pelosi to skip it and go with the quieter, less effective approach.

[dkofos]

33. Is she doing this because she knows it won't work??

Or does KKKarl have something on her??
Or maybe she really is that stupid!!

[OzarkDem]

37. All of the above n/t

[dkofos]

39. That is certainly how it seems.

[KoKo]

57. As bad as it seems since many of us were hoping for Inherent Contempt it's still possible

that sending this to the Justice Department and forcing them to act or not act could have some value. Since there are other investigations going on in the House that will require more subpoenas then this first one could just be a "test case" BEFORE going for "Inherent Contempt" which allows Congress to have a "trial" and bypass the courts to get action.

:shrug:

[EST]

127. You have it just about right.

Nancy and company must show the proper protocol, going through procedure, and the thing that must be done is go through normal channels first.
First your request, failing that, a subpoena, then judicial contempt , then inherent contempt.

Any other procedure would cause problems and could create further delay because of bypassed steps. We are sick and tired of the bullshit and glacial pace but, in this case, doing it right and making sure the public is behind you is the only way to steer something as big as America.

[Individualist]

38. It's called complicity.

She knows perfectly well what the outcome will be.

[dkofos]

41. What a leader.

[OzarkDem]

42. I'm done

I've given her all the second chances I can.

Its time to call for her resignation. Seriously.

[KoKo]

58. Why not wait to see how this plays out next week. And, how the rationale

for this is explained. At least they are going to do SOMETHING! And, there's more coming.

As disappointing as it is that the Sergeant-at-Arms isn't going to Texas to put Miers in handcuffs...there are more than Miers who will be required to comply with subpoena's down the road.

[OzarkDem]

77. I don't know

Based on evidence of past failures, this tactic doesn't show much chance of working. Its just another stalling tactic.

We've been patient with Pelosi many times, yet there is still no improvement. A definite pattern has emerged and we have to face up to it.

Letting Bush "run the clock out" on investigating and fully prosecuting these crimes is only going to allow them to rig the electoral system and win the next election.

[KoKo]

82. Yes....but if you "drop out" what's that going to do to change things?

Better to keep informed and keep trying than to give up hope.

[OzarkDem]

111. "Drop out"?

Not likely to be doing that.

We have to fight for our country and the best way to do that, AFAIC, is through my party. Its time to start fighting to fix my party and its leaders in Congress. Having worked inside the political process I can understand what they're thinking right now and they're wrong. They don't realize how weak Bush and the GOP really are, how the doomsday threats, blackmail and fear they're putting into Dem leaders minds are really their last desperate measures. Bush really doesn't have many options left, he's cornered and dangerous, but he's still cornered.

I will not let my Dem leaders chicken out. If there ends up being a high price to pay with blackmail, terror threats, etc. so be it. They don't have a choice this time. Sure some of them may not survive this mess with their careers intact, but there are others who can take their place and lead. Their loyalty has to be to their country, not their personal political career.

We as grassroots Dems have to shake off the "abused wife" syndrome and stop waiting for a miracle to happen.

[ThomWV]

34. The court is packed, its suicidal.

[acmavm]

53. She sure makes a joke out of our 'victory' in November, doesn't she?

[zalinda]

60. Please remember that politics is like a chess game

Many people, who never get on the computer and have never hear of DU (imagine that!) are still not clear about what is going on. What Pelosi is doing is the next logical step. She knows she will be smacked down, but it will then show the public that she has tried the normal means to get things done. Inherit contempt, is one of those things that will have to be explained to the public. And this is what will get out to the MSM. They will have to explain that the normal means failed and that Pelosi had to then use inherit contempt. This will get a big news splash, and as it does, it means more bad news for Bush and his buddies. What we will see is more people calling their repub reps and telling them they want impeachment, so many that they will fear that if they don't call for impeachment, they will not be re-elected.

zalinda

[HCE SuiGeneris]

64. That is a nice positive spin.

I hope you are correct.

[KoKo]

65. Good points there "zalinda." While I'm disappointed...I can see what you

say as maybe the way to go.

[alfredo]

66. You always think several moves ahead.

[mmonk]

68. bush, Cheny, and the neocon movement aren't playing chess

and those that don't get it need to do something useful with their lives. This is a systemic attack on our form of government. If the democratic party wants a voter and activist in me, they can't keep playing this as a game.

[Neshanic]

78. Correct, they are playing Bulldozer. Individuals here, the chess players

may find themselves without a board or pieces in the near future. They do not play chess. They play to win by running over everthing. No strategy in THAT!

[mmonk]

98. Yep. They have been running a scorched earth strategy

and unfortunately, even the constitution with its checks and balances are being seared. This is for keeps and history will judge the outcome.

[zalinda]

125. I realize that the repubs aren't playing chess

While we here on DU are up on what's going on in politics, the general public isn't. If we go in and bull doze, and not get any where, we will be accused of playing politics in the media. If we go about the proper way of doing things, then it becomes, "well they gave us no other choice." If they see that Bush controls the courts, that will scare people. Look at the out rage over Libby. Every one thought that it would be just a blip on the radar screen, and it didn't turn out that way.

Every one looks to the courts to make fair and just decisions, and if this contempt is handled as badly as Libby, then it will just generate more air time. Every one knows about subpoenas, because just about every one has seen some lawyer TV series, and that's what is going to help our cause.

I don't know if I'm right, but I'm hoping that that's what is being played out.

zalinda

[Joe Chi Minh]

84. But isn't the time scale still the problem, If you mean "smacked down"

by the courts?

[OzarkDem]

120. We've been spinning these fantasies about Dem "strategy" for years

and so far, none of these things has worked. What exactly is it about this latest "strategy' that makes you think it will work when all others have failed?

[KoKo]

128. Maybe it's their "last strategy," before Capitulation..or Impeachment.

:shrug:

[mmonk]

61. She doesn't get it

or something smells.

[Beetwasher]

69. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT!! You Assume Too Much

And so does the article. Pelosi NEVER specifies what TYPE of contempt in any of her quotes. The ARTICLE assumes criminal contempt. She may in fact mean INHERENT contempt. It's not clear. Do not assume. Conyers is the one who will actually decide what kind of contempt and there's a reason he mentioned "inherent".

[Joe Chi Minh]

86. That sounds very plausible. I'm loathe to underestimate the character and

intelligence of your current Democratic leaders.

[Beetwasher]

103. Additionally It's SMART POLITICS FOR HER TO BE VAGUE

About what TYPE of "Contempt" they will be pursuing. Why tip her hand?

[Joe Chi Minh]

110. Precisely! I'd been looking for a less pejorative term than 'evasive'.

[Beetwasher]

112. The Article May In Fact Be Disinformation

To send a signal to the WH that the Dems are NOT going to pursue "Inherent Contempt" so that they are caught off guard when they actually DO pursue it. Who knows? It's something I might do in her place. It IS her hometown paper publishing the story, I would think she probably has connections there. :evilgrin:

It IS politics after all.

Although it could simply be a badly written article, it's not like we haven't seen enough of those. :shrug:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

71. It isn't Pelosi saying it is going to the courts. It's the SF Chronicle. It appears

they are accepting the same meme from the WH that the WAPO received.

From the SF Chronicle and Not Pelosi
Contempt of Congress is defined by federal law as action that obstructs the work of Congress, including investigations. If both the White House and Congress stick to these positions, the matter could become a constitutional question for the courts to decide.

[Beetwasher]

73. CORRECT

Nowhere does Pelosi specify what TYPE of contempt. The article assumes "criminal". It doesn't even mention Conyers threat of "inherent". Pelosi may very well have been talking about "inherent".

[KoKo]

76. Well then we can hope the "SFChronical" is lying about this...or that Pelosi's

spokesperson is lying. :eyes: It wouldn't be the first time a M$M Newspaper lied.

Here is the exact quote in "quotation marks" from Pelosi. And, she knows the difference between "Contempt" and "Inherent Contempt" because those are two separate Congressional Actions with different rules.

from the SFC:


"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.

[Beetwasher]

80. Who Said Anything About Lying? I Just Think It's A Badly Written Article

:shrug:

Nancy never specifies what type of contempt. Is "Congressional Contempt" automatically criminal? What if they bring "Inherent" Congressional Attempt charges and that's what Pelosi's talking about? The article and you are assuming she means "criminal" contempt, but it is NOT clear from the actual quotes if that's the case. Conyers DID say "inherent" contempt would be considered and HE will make the decision this week.

[KoKo]

85. She doesn't say in her quote "criminal Contempt." She says "Contempt" and that's

different from "Inherent Contempt" which is stronger and gives Congress the right to investigate on it's own without going to the courts.

Check out Post #21 on this thread. It explains "Inherent Contempt." The word "criminal" doesn't apply to either of the statutes ...it's just either "Contempt" or "Inherent Contempt." You can't do both at the same time...just one or the other.

[Joe Chi Minh]

88. The suggestion is that she was speaking of legal "Contempt" generically,

[KoKo]

89. As the Speaker of House and familiar with the rules...I think she would be careful

in the use of the word "Contempt" as it relates to Congressional actions pending...though. Dontcha think?

[Beetwasher]

91. Yes, She Would Be

And she was careful NOT to specify. Why tip her hand to the WH? Better to leave them guessing at what's coming. Smart politics.

[Joe Chi Minh]

105. Well, not if she wanted to keep the Administration guessing, d'yer think?

Why do so many of you expect them to reveal their hand in every situation, to those who have potentially arrogated to themselves the full panoply of State, just to placate their base, who are not legal experts?

The very meaning of the word, 'politics' should give a clue to the need for judicious ruse and subterfuge, to protect the legal and parliamentary processes. Not Churchill's 'bodyguard of lies', that he alleged was sometimes necessary to protect the truth - just a judicious reticence.

[Beetwasher]

90. There Are TWO Types Of "Contempt", "Criminal" and "Inherent"

Are you saying that "Congressional Contempt" is ALWAYS, NECESSARILY "Criminal"? You may be right, and that IS the case, but I'm not so sure. I think you and the article are ASSUMING she means "CRIMINAL Congressional Contempt" when in fact she may mean "INHERENT Congressional Contempt". If you are sure that "Congressional Contempt" is ALWAYS "Criminal" and they don't have the option of "INHERENT Congressional Contempt", I'd be interested to see the sources that back up this understanding of "Congressional Contempt". Otherwise, you are jumping the gun in your admonishing of Pelosi, IMO.

[KoKo]

92. I've not mentioned "Criminal" in my posts and neither did the Chronical

why do you keep posting that? :shrug: There's only "Contempt" of Congress or "Inherent Contempt" of Congress. "Criminal" is not used in connection with either of them.

[Beetwasher]

94. Because That Is The Type Of "Contempt" It Seems You Believe

Pelosi is pursuing. You believe she is going to the courts w/ the "Contempt" charges. That is "Criminal Congressional Contempt".

[KoKo]

100. Nope....don't know what your reading...but it isn't what I've posted.

[Beetwasher]

107. "Pelosi to send Bush Investigations to the COURTS with CONTEMPT...NOT INHERENT CONTEMPT!"

That's what you've posted and it's not true. It's a badly written article and post PRECISELY BECAUSE of what WASN'T written. There is no mention whether the "congressional contempt" is "criminal" or "inherent" (or "civil", which in fact is what "inherent" contempt is). Nancy NEVER said there would be NO INHERENT CONTEMPT, nor does the article. Only YOU said that and you inferred it improperly from a badly written article. She said there would be "Congressional Contempt" and DIDN'T specify WHAT TYPE. The article goes on to describe what would happen if there was "Criminal Congressional Contempt" while ignoring the possibility of "Inherent (or civil) Congressional Contempt". If you don't "get it" now it's only because you're being purposely obtuse.

[OzarkDem]

123. But Beetwasher, its Pelosi

enough said.

[Beetwasher]

124. No, It's Not Enough Said

I have no idea what you're talking about. What about her?

And just FYI, it's NOT just Pelosi. It's CONYERS who will ultimately decide what type of contempt to bring.

[KoKo]

132. If Pelosi doesn't agree with Conyers...then what happens?

As Speaker...she must have the final say...right?

[Beetwasher]

133. No

Conyers is head of the Judiciary and makes the decision, then it would go to a floor vote. I doubt very much Pelosi would go against whatever Conyers recommends. It's practically inconceivable.

We will find out this week where are they are going w/ the contempt. But to make any declarations now is premature, especially considering the speciousness of your source.

[KoKo]

137. the "speciousness of my source" is the "San Francisco Chronical."

Hey...what's with you trashing my Post and the Source which I snipped and gave link to. Didn't you take the time to READ IT? Blame the Messenger and Not the Message? Is that what you are up to? :shrug:

[Beetwasher]

140. LOL! It's A Badly Written Article

and post. I've pointed out to you time and time again how and why BOTH are badly written. Indeed, it is most assuredly specious. If you don't get it, that's your problem. You jumped to a conclusion ("NOT INHERENT CONTEMPT!) and posted things that the article DID NOT SAY. If you consider that an attack, fine. I consider it correcting disinformation.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

102. She doesn't say what kind of contempt and the SF Chronicle came to the same conclusion

that the WAPA came to, that it would be brought to court, without mentioning the option of Inherent Contempt. Can the writer of the SF article be ignorant of Inherent Contempt, or are they misleading the public that there is no other option?

[Neshanic]

75. Really, what is the point any longer? Why put on the show Pelosi?

The absurdity is just beyond words. Impeachment off the table, no inherent contempt, so really what is the point of continuing anything?

Just wait it out and we don't do anything. Really as a plan for us Democrats, obviously nothing will be done to anyone in the criminal administration, so just shut up. Nothing is going to happen. "Fitzmas" is not arriving this or any year this Century, no one will go to jail, no one will be prosecuted, impeached, questioned, hauled infront of congress, or generally put in a position of answering any questions about ANYTHING this nightmare has brought us.

So just let it go Pelosi, just let it all go. I would rather you and your spineless toadies just write a big bad list, and then when the election comes near, broadcast them as political commercials. Just go out there NOW and tell the American public that the administration is officially out of control, aided by their corrupt helpers in congress, there is NOTHING you or anyone else can do and call it a fucking day!

Then just update every day on the latest crime, no posturing, no promises, no outrage, no nasty letters, no nothing. You will have put the nation on notice that we are officially in a freefall, and only an election in 2008 will save us.

I for one would have respect for that, because if you are not going to fight, and know the deck is stacked against our freedoms, just come out and say it, and stop this drama you have no control and have evry intention of doing nothing about.

[defendandprotect]

114. The fastest road is impeachment -- but the investigations must begin -- NOW --

[bigtree]

106. whatever. I've NEVER heard our party dismiss criminal contempt charges

as some sort of cave-in.

This is a new low for the constant critics of our Democrats. Inherent contempt may well be appropriate, but Democrats shouldn't be put off of the statutory route just because Bush waves Executive privilege around. This type of contempt charge has worked in the past. But, I suppose now, the constant critics of our party will declare it a failure without lifting a finger to support the action.

[Disturbed]

130. What does the Busholini Regime have on Pelosi?

She needs to resign this coming week. Dems need a Speaker that is not complicit with the Regime.

[shance]

135. The corporations installed Pelosi. She represents the corporations, not you or me.

Wake up everyone.

We have no leadership.

[shance]

134. I like to imagine if Cindy Sheehan were speaker of the House.

We wouldn't have the elitist waffling and excuse making while Congress sells our country down the river.

We need actual citizens back in Congress - humans, who care, who use their brain, who have a moral compass.

Not the corporate pod puppets who smile and wave, gleaning their top of the line veneers and Park Avenue facelifts, and spout the same lies over and over again when you pull their string.

[KoKo]

136. I know...if Public Citizens with Causes could have a "Fair Hearing" vs. Corporatists Paid Interests

...wouldn't that be GREAT! To think of it...just inspires the imagination.

Hope...and Angel Wings........

[Disturbed]

139. Rep. Conyers said he would issue Inherent Contempt if

Josh Bolton does not comply tommorow. Let's see if he makes good on his word. Pelosi should resign. Conyers should be Speaker of the House.