Now 'inherent contempt' is the new bar set by the constant critics of Democrats

[bigtree]

Frickin took just a few hours for complainers to whip up their contrived fury at our party members who, apparently, intend to proceed to charge the administration with statutory criminal contempt instead of, right away, adopting an arcane procedure which hasn't been tried since 1934.

Almost every one of the past times criminal contempt has been voted on and forwarded has resulted in Executive compliance. But, somehow, these critics can't see their way to putting their support behind the effort, like our party did in the past when we were successful in moving the Executive with unified action.

The constant critics of our Democrats have no interest in any process of law which our party has so far pursued against the administration, except, perhaps, for a move to impeachment which doesn't yet have enough support in this Congress for a conviction. So, it's not surprising that they've found something new to bitch and moan about which may fall short of their pie-in-the-sky panacea of impeachment.

Like impeachment, Congress could very well move toward the new low bar of 'inherent contempt' critics have set for them. But, our Democrats shouldn't be put off these other levers of accountability just because there will be predictable opposition. Indeed, the administration claims about executive privilege trumping the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the cases to a grand jury should be directly challenged, no matter how much 'paperwork' or delay the administration puts in their face.

In fact, observers like former Asst. U.S. Attorney Elizabeth de la Vega think Congress should not be put off of charging statutory contempt just because of the White House's whispered strategy of claiming Executive privilege:


from BradBlog: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4852

Calling it "shocking" and noting that the claim was made only by an anonymous source --- not actually announced as official policy by Bush --- de la Vega, the author of United States V. George W. Bush et al., (said) that, should such an extraordinary legal argument be made as official policy, that action in and of itself would be an impeachable offense as she sees it.

"I really think, it's almost as if the Bush administration is asking to be impeached," she said. "It is not true that the President can instruct the Department of Justice not to charge his own people. Especially when he's implicated in this as well."

In reference to the administration's claims of Executive Privilege to block the Congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents from former Bush attorney Harriet Miers and current Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, de la Vega advised Congress to ignore the claims made by the unnamed official and proceed with contempt charges.

If Bush should make that legal argument officially, that in itself would be grounds for impeachment, according to the former federal prosecutor...

"They should just proceed and completely ignore what the President has said right now --- because he actually hasn't said it in any formal way, in fact, no one has even ascribed a name to the person who is saying it."

"They should proceed. Find these two in contempt and refer the matter to the D.C. U.S. Attorney. At that point, if the President says to the U.S. Attorney in a formal way, 'You can't proceed' that is a grounds for impeachment."


Funny how it works out that ducking these other levers of accountability could actually lead to allowing the administration to advance these Executive Privilege claims without any challenge at all; and could actually skip an instance where Bush's open obstruction of justice could be directly challenged by Congress as a whole and open them up to impeachable obstruction charges.

It's not like impeachment supporters have managed to get the necessary amount of support in this Congress to actually convict the Executive in some rushed, nebulous impeachment proceeding. I don't know where these folks get off claiming that dubious course of an immediate move to an impeachment, with it's predictable wall of republican defense, would generate so much more accountability than this one with it's predictable wall of republican defense.

EVERY course of accountability will have opposition which should be faced down. The statutory contempt route - if taken by our Democrats - should be supported and defended like every other action which faces a predictable wall of republican opposition; not unilaterally declared a failure just because the Bushies might resist.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[debbierlus]

1. They should use whatever tools available to STOP this insanity

Excuse my french....

But enough, is fucking, enough....

Bush has basically declared himself ruler & king. He is dangerous & he needs to be stopped.

[RevolutionToday]

24. They Refuse To Do So

It is up to the people.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Amen!

Welcome to DU :hi:

[pnwmom]

2. Thank you, bigtree. K & R.

[The Magistrate]

3. Excellent Points, Mr. Tree

Worth taking to heart, by all who read this.

[MessiahRp]

4. You're assuming the Bush packed courts will rule against them.

They didn't when the ACLU sued them over wire tapping. They didn't when it came to giving up the Cheney Energy Task Force records. They didn't when Valerie Plame sued them.

The courts are too loaded with Right Wing acolytes to get a fair trial these days.

Maybe that's what Bush is counting on. He doesn't need to enforce his legal opinion about stopping the DOJ from prosecuting if he already put out the word on this and then any prosecutor will be afraid to approach (see: Fitz not wanting to go after Cheney). Then you get a tepid prosecution in a Bush appointees' court room. When we lose the media destroys us if we go further and inherent contempt is off the table.

Rp

[bigtree]

13. why would inherent contempt be off the table?

I haven't heard that expressed by anyone in Congress.

[MessiahRp]

22. Backlash by the media...

If we lose the Contempt of Congress charge, they will destroy us with negative media and we will be made to look like sore losers if we follow through with another charge.

We're going to get one shot at this where the public is behind us. If we fail the first time, I doubt the media blitz will keep those on the fence supporting a second attempt to get these criminals.

Rp

[OzarkDem]

27. Because the Bush administration would keep it off the table

they're not likely to outright reject the referral, they'll accept and tie it up. Once they do that, inherent contempt is off the table until the USA or a grand jury rejects it. Its like stealing the ball during the game, taking it offsides and sitting on it. The game can't go on.

[Lerkfish]

5. I suppose I am confused by this proposal

it appears the same people who oppose impeachment because it'd be a waste of time, support censure.
Wouldn't censure be an even more egregious waste of time?

If censure is the first step towards impeachment, and there is allegedly no time to impeach, then if the same people who are anti-impeachment are pro-censure, then logic has been broken.

It almost begs one to conclude that some would prefer nothing with any teeth every be done to these criminals.

[datadiva]

6. Recommended

Regardless of the outcome, it would be newsworthy and maybe wake up a whole bunch of sleepy americans. The more this administration pushes back, the more people who will see them for what they are. I am still hopeful even if I'm afraid of the failure to stop this insanity.

[Xipe Totec]

7. Follow the process - tighten the noose

You're right; the next step is to charge statutory criminal contempt.

[walldude]

8. I understand your frustration but we keep taking these

"little steps" and getting our faces laughed in. The DOJ has just established that they will act as the legal arm of the Bush Administration and if the Supreme Court follows, we are royally screwed. I will support any action the Dems take but I'm not going to be happy with a slap on the wrist for the willful destruction of our nation. And saying that "Impeachment won't work" is like saying "if we leave Iraq they will follow us home" we don't know what will happen if we get impeachment going. If the media gets behind it it might just work. People are tired of this crap and the politicians are in fear for their careers.

[dkofos]

9. The problem is

"if the President says to the U.S. Attorney in a formal way"

I don't expect bush to do tell the DOJ or the AG in a "formal" way.
And even if he did how would you get the evidence? More subpoenas.

How has that been working out for Conyers and Leahy?

Inherent contempt is the best option.

[nashville_brook]

10. rank and file dems simply want justice -- we know practically nothing of the rules of engagement

we see nothing happening -- we see the bushies getting away with murder and worse -- that's why there's criticism.

if sending this to the corrupt/bushie DC US Attorney is the way to go, then fine. whateva. our concern is that some sort of justice is juiced out of this disaster. period.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. The DOJ will not proceed with the contempt charge.

The criminal cabal in the white house has already made this clear. Now of course they may be bluffing, but so far they have not been bluffing about anything. In my opinion they are 'balls to the wall' on this and will take it as far as it goes.

Inherent Contempt is the only recourse Congress has they Congress can itself enforce.

That said, congress should first issue a standard contempt citation, let the cabal show its hand, and then issue an inherent contempt citation.

Oh, and impeachment proceedings should start Monday. Enough is enough.

[OzarkDem]

12. Bush is setting the bar

grassroots Dems are simply telling their leaders to either do something real and effective to counter Bush's power grab or forget it.

Walking into Bush's legal trap to slow down investigations isn't a strategy. Planning one step at a time against one of the most criminal leaders in history isn't good leadership.

[mmonk]

14. What high bar have they shot for or achieved?

[bigtree]

18. I see a deliberative process which is similar to every other prosecution I've witnessed

in scope and time elapsed before an indictment. Most of these efforts usually lead to prosecutions for the sort of obstruction we see now coming from the Justice Dept., the White House, and the RNC. You don't get to those convictions without following through on the levers of due process and confronting them on every obstruction of that investigation/prosecution. The three most active committees - led by Conyers, Waxman, and Leahy - are really a good way into their legislative prosecution of some of the most pernicious abuses of the administration, from wiretapping, to perjury over the attorney firings, to unlawful politicization of government offices by the RNC and the White House. All of these are being met with predictable resistance. They should be challenged at all levels; and they are. Failing to challenge the administration at these points where they assert untested, unenumerated powers would be an abdication of Congress' responsibility. So, there hasn't been a big sensational bang yet. That's not how prosecutions work. This one has been going on for only seven months; a small time for any political prosecution without the benefit of matters already under outside investigation or prosecution like in Watergate and Whitewater. But, already, these committees have moved into a position to directly challenge the administration obstruction of justice in court. That's no less than the Watergate Committee or the Whitewater Committee had managed in an equal amount of time.

The 'high bar' is the prosecution of Executive they're confronting. Amazing how that gets swept aside; even as they manage to move their deliberate prosecution forward.

[yodermon]

15. What a profound waste of time your post was.

No one is suggesting that Congress skip Statutory Contempt and go straight to Inherent Contempt. You are absolutely correct that should bush publicly Order "his" DOJ to ignore a statutory contempt citation, we'd have immediate grounds for impeachment. Bring it on. So when you say "But, somehow, these critics can't see their way to putting their support behind the effort" I have no idea who you're talking about. And when you attempt to label such people as "critics of our Democrats" :eyes: I think you're just trying to stir up trouble.

For the record: I hope Congress holds Miers et. al. in statutory contempt. I hope this will cause her to comply. IF shrub attempts to quash the citation via executive fiat, I hope they find her in Statutory Contempt and send the Sergeant at arms to arrest her. Do you agree? Or will you find more "critics of Democrats" to criticize?

I'm sure it won't come to that. I'm sure shrub will meekly comply with the will of Congress and allow Harriet to reveal everything.
Cool.

[bigtree]

20. 'stirring up trouble'

moi?

or . . .

Pelosi to send Bush Investigations to the COURTS with CONTEMPT...NOT INHERENT CONTEMPT!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1401543&mesg_id=1401543

[jimshoes]

16. I suppose there is a right way and a wrong way

to go about trying to save one's country from a maniac and his criminal administration. I kind of see these smallish steps and necessary leading up to the grand finale, sort of like setting up a pattern of dominoes, each one needs to be placed in just the right spot so at some future time a predictable outcome eventually takes shape by initiating the first domino in the pattern's sequence. Although it seems numbingly slow right now while setting up the dominoes, once they start falling, they will all fall down very quickly.

[EFerrari]

17. It might not be a bad idea to distinguish among the different kinds

of critics the Party has.

Some will never be satisfied, no matter what is done. They don't contribute anything except bashing.

Some have a goal or goals and apply political pressure to meet that goal. That's democracy.

Some seem to overreact to the spin the RW owned media put out and blame Democrats for that disinformation.

I'm sure there are other categories but that's what occurs to me right now.

[OzarkDem]

23. Some are loyal Dems

Who have been supporting the party and helping get its leaders elected for many years, but are now seeing them continue to make one bad decision after another, doing exactly as Bush wants them to do. Some of us have spent a small fortune over the years donating to and working in the campaigns of those Dems now in Congress.

As time goes on and the same bad decisions are made again and again by Dem leaders, its obvious they've become compromised by the Bush administration. They are laboring under the mistaken notion that all they have to do is close their eyes and go to a "safe place" while they let Bush screw them over and when they open their eyes again it will magically be 2008 and Bush will be gone and Dems will be in charge and all will be right with the world. That's ridiculous, its not going to happen. 2008 is not promised to them, and its looking less and less like they will be able to win.

There's no plausible excuse for that kind of leadership during dangerous times. Mend it or end it. Lead and take our country back or get out of the way.

[EFerrari]

25. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

I agree.

[mmonk]

28. Could you explain this one for me using an example?

"Some seem to overreact to the spin the RW owned media put out and blame Democrats for that disinformation."

[rateyes]

19. Meanwhile.....

[creeksneakers2]

21. Statutory contempt is a good base to tag

Force Bush to go on TV looking like Nixon.

As for compelling the US Attorney to prosecute, its such a waste of time I wish the Democrats would just say its impossible and skip it.

Bush's executive privilege claims look stronger to me than to most. I think they can be trumped by starting an impeachment inquiry for Gonzales.

The OP here is wise to speak against throwing wild punches and making unrealistic demands.

[Beetwasher]

26. I Agree, If They Choose This Route They Should Be Supported, However

I'm not sure I understand where people are getting the idea that they are going this route? I've seen no indication that they've decided NOT to go directly to inherent contempt, unless you're talking about that poorly written article in the SF Chronicle. I still think it's a possibility considering the admin. has ALREADY directed DOJ not to comply w/ any requests to investigate/prosecute criminal contempt. I guess we'll find out this week! Not to mention there's no reason to why they couldn't do both, criminal AND inherent.

[BlooInBloo]

30. People have been suggesting it to DUers for literally *months*...

... Thank fucking god DUers finally caught on to it.

[KharmaTrain]

31. I Have Now Stepped Through The Looking Glass...LOL

From one who was blasted for being a "defeatist" for arguing against a political, not criminally-based impeachment, now because I stand firmly for pushing for Inherent Contempt vs. Contempt of Congress, I've joined the "angry pitchfork and torch" folks. :rofl:

There is a procedure here, and it's obvious how this regime will play and job it every chance they can. The problem with using a standard "Contempt of Congress" game is it allows this regime to delay and stonewall longer. The contempt is handed to a booshie lackey in the DOJ who surely will want to "investigate" closely...holding things up for weeks or months and then kick it down the rabbit hole. Then we're back to where we are now...and with more crimes having been committed and covered up.

Inherent contempt forces this regime's hand in the only mean they understand. You can see how freaked out they got when Judy Miller got hauled in and how scared shit boooshie was of Scooter sporting an orange jump suit. Throwing some of these goons in jail or waving the real threat is within the House's power and the votes are there to do it.

[bigtree]

35. first of all 'defeatist' isn't anywhere in my remarks here

It's just fine to push for inherent contempt, but makes no sense to posture as if pressing for prosecution of statutory criminal contempt was some sort of capitulation. The mere act of refusing to confront the administration in court where they make these outrageous claims of privilege is a capitulation. The fact that there will be a delay as it moves through the court system, or that some 'lackey' is in a position to defy the congressional intent, is no reason not to press forward.

Now, I see that there are reports that Congress will be voting on inherent contempt. If that course is chosen, it will be awesome. But, if the statutory route is taken, it will be a correct response to this administration which has been successful in advancing their assumed powers through the default of the lack of challenge in court. That's as enabling of this administration as anything else. They should be challenged in court.

We still don't have anything definitive on the prospect and efficacy of doing both.

[wiggs]

32. No. Statutory contempt will never lead to testimony under oath in congress, which

is what we want. We want to get to the bottom of the issue at hand, right? Inherent contempt is used to compel testimony and get information, not just punish uncooperative witnesses.

Using the unlikely, best case scenario (she is prosecuted, case not dismissed or overturned, sentence not commuted, conviction not pardoned) that statutory contempt is successful against Meirs then in about a year OR MORE she will serve time for contempt of congress without ever having to tell congress what she knows.

Which route is likely to shed more light on administration misdeeds QUICKLY so that lives and national treasure can be best preserved (like...RIGHT NOW)? Statutory or inherent contempt? I say inherent.

[Junkdrawer]

33. Now, the excuses get thinner and thinner....

With Impeachment, the "The Senate will never convict" excuse was a pragmatic reality.

But that excuse is not there for Inherent Contempt.

[bigtree]

34. but, that's not my reasoning at all

It makes sense to challenge the administration wherever they assert their imaginary Executive privilege and claim that it shields them and whoever they choose to cover for from accountability. There is, of course the prospect that Justice will scheme with their conservative counterparts in the U.S. Attorney's office and beyond to stifle the statutory effort. I really don't see why both shouldn't be explored. There are reported signals from Conyers' office that inherent contempt will get a vote. We'll see, but it makes no sense at all to frame the debate over this as if charging the administration officials with statutory criminal contempt was some sort of capitulation. The statutory course would have value, if only to confront the Executive where they assert these false privileges and to ensure that our party doesn't just allow their claims to hold water by the default of Democrats refusing to pursue the claims in court.

[Junkdrawer]

36. They should do both...especially when the WH Spokeman Tony Fratto tells...

the press up front that they (the WH) intends to ignore the statutory course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2925107

I can understand that a lot of people are frustrated, especially when it appears to most that Congress is all bark and no bite.

[CANDO]

37. In case you hadn't noticed......Congress polling at levels lower than the shrub.

Now this tells me they had better start to stand up to the administration. It seems you would rather coddle them than kick them in the rear to give them some motivation.

[bigtree]

38. well, that's typical rhetoric these days.

It's an amazing time when charging someone with statutory criminal contempt is seen as 'coddling'

Then there's the dynamic some have grown comfortable with as they withhold support for ongoing congressional investigations, declare the efforts a failure before they are even initiated because there will be predictable republican opposition, then jump on board demanding the process accelerate when the investigations manage to hit the Executive nerve.

When has Congress EVER polled well?

[Oak2004]

40. When? Earlier this year

when people were hopeful that the Democrats they elected would be really tough on Bush, and not confused, weak, and inclined to capitulate on matters of principle whenever their consultants and DLC operatives told them to.

[bigtree]

41. I really don't think they've done that much less than what they're actually capable of

and I really think the DLC crap is nonsense, especially since this lifetime liberal is often tagged with that label in debates here.

[Maribelle]

39. Charging statutory contempt refers to the citation, inherent contempt refers to the prosecution

“Contempt of Congress” is defined by a statute found in the United States Code, thus the term statutory contempt.

2 U.S.C. 192

TITLE 2 CHAPTER 6

§ 192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

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

It is a statuatory charge. It is a criminal charge - - criminal misdemeanor.

Once a person is charged with contempt under statute 2 § 192 further non-compliance can lead to prosecution. "Inherent contempt" refers to the type of prosecution Congress decides on when they use their inherent powers and prosecute themselves, instead of prosecution by the applicable Attorney General.

[LWolf]

42. I haven't commented on the "contempt" drama.

That said, my response:

Frickin took just a few hours for excusers and enablers to whip up their contrived fury at our party members who, apparently, intend to hold our elected representatives accountable instead of, right away, drinking the kool aid and joining the ranks of party enablers.

Almost every one of the past times Democrats have been urged to compromise, it has resulted in a victory for the opposition. But, somehow, these critics can't see their way to putting their support behind the effort to hold the party accountable for taking a strong, clear stance and acting decisively.

The constant critics of dissent have no interest in holding the Democratic Party to a high standard of courage, integrity, and action. So, it's not surprising that they've found something new to bitch and moan about which may fall short of their pie-in-the-sky panacea of loyalty oaths, keeping powder "dry" until some vaguely hoped for political "rapture," and supporting people based, not on what they do, but on the political label they wear.

[bigtree]

43. 'courage, integrity, and action' don't include prosecutions of statutory criminal contempt?

Aren't those values reflected in the congressional investigatory process led by Democrats that got us to the point where we're challenging the administration at this level?

The progress of these committee efforts - without the benefit of any outside prosecution like we had in Watergate or Whitewater - has developed into a shot across the WH's bow; not anywhere close to "keeping powder dry." Those efforts (Waxman, Conyers, Leahy) are well worth our committed support.

As for party loyalty, there is no party other than the Democratic party which is in any position to effectively challenge this administration. They also deserve our committed support.

[LWolf]

44. It depends.

It depends on how timely the action is, and whether or not it is the most appropriate action in the circumstance.

As I pointed out, I haven't commented on this particular drama. My comments, my reaction, really has nothing to do with the current "contempt" actions.

It has to do with the contempt of dissent and dissenters shown by party purists.

[bigtree]

45. I'm for results, as much as 'dissenters' are. If that's 'purist' . . .

I really would never have risen to such defense of the party if I hadn't felt they were being unfairly attacked on both the Iraq funding issue and on the majority's reluctance to move to an impeachment. I think many of the objections have served to dismiss and obscure important work underway by Democrats which may well lead to remedies like impeachment.

If I have any 'contempt' at all it's for the attitude that any action or suggestion confronting Bush short of any one particular strategy advocated by constant critics of Democrats - like impeachment - is a capitulation, instead of out of a legitimate desire to hold the administration accountable; as much as anyone else.

[LWolf]

46. I'm glad you are for results.

We may disagree on how to achieve those results. I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with being called a "complainer," or with having dissent called "contrived fury," or with anyone proclaiming what I have an interest in, or have no interest in. I'm not fine with anyone categorizing dissent as "bitching and moaning," or with equating holding government accountable with a "pie-in-the-sky panacea."

That's not disagreeing on how to achieve results, that's incivility. That's using derision, name-calling, and general verbal bullying to make a point.

I'm not fine with that. I'd like to hold interactions between people who disagree to a higher standard.

[bigtree]

47. but, you know I'm pushing off of a huge weight of criticism here

for dissenting from DU impeachment orthodoxy. Don't pretend like my comments were made in some atmospheric vacuum where civility and comity proliferate.

[LWolf]

48. Since you started the thread with those comments,

I don't know what other discussions you may be drawing on. I can only see that you STARTED a thread/conversation with those remarks. :shrug: