Charging Contempt: I Think It's A Mistake

[Senator]

(Was suggested that I promote this to its own thread.)

Yes, Even Inherent Contempt -- A Mistake. This is why I've been chanting "ONLY impeachment" for so long.

At best this is another procedural dead end (more of the DemocRat's Maze). They've really got no problem letting Harriet or Fredo sit a cell (ask Judy Miller) -- in fact, that's what figureheads are for. It would have to be an old white guy -- like Scooter -- to get them to risk anything. But still, the pardon pen is properly poised.

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 constitutional law.

Once again, the DC Dems are showing up with a knife to a gunfight.

==

[Toots]

1. What's Hadley if he ain't white?

:shrug: I don't buy what you are selling for even a second.

[Senator]

9. Standing unaccused at this point

But I would think he'd warrant a pardon-promise. As would the Bolten kid, although he may choose to take real heat just to "make his bones."

And I'm not really selling, just saying.

--

[bigtree]

2. I'll 'promote' my response along with it

I think it would be the ultimate capitulation to let the WH assert these imagined powers . . . to watch the WH assert these imagined protections from accountability they say fall under their claims of Executive Privilege, and not confront them in court.

The claim is that just having the Justice Dept. assert Executive Privilege is enough to PREVENT the U.S. Attorney from doing what the CRS defined as his "duty" to forward Congress' complaint to a grand jury. The WH assertions are even more egregious when considering that senior officials at Justice (including the AG) and senior officials at the WH are themselves the subject of the inquiry into whether crimes were broken.

Congress hasn't produced a coalition with enough legislators to advance impeachment yet, but that shouldn't prevent them from exercising other important functions of accountability which are mandated by their oath and charter, right along with impeachment. Certainly the prospect of predictable republican resistance in the courts and from the WH and Justice shouldn't stop them from pursuing these subpoenas with every resource at their disposal, including charging the subjects with criminal contempt.

Anyone who has bothered to argue strenuously for the upholding of the rule of law and the defense of the Constitution by moving to some sort of impeachment, threatens their credibility when they push aside and disparage these other levers of accountability which may (at least initially) fall short of the extraordinary remedy of impeachment, but nonetheless, are in place to ensure that accountability to a conclusion which could very well lead to the check on the Executive that we all say want.

[Senator]

7. Thanks, I was going to do both

This makes it easier.

Failure to impeach is the ultimate capitulation

And that failure rests on the refusal to recognize that there are no "other levers" available. The regime has long since jumped off their end of the seesaw. There is no "pressure being ratcheted up" -- that's just rationalizing inadequate (non)action.

They long ago made clear their claim of monarchical power and all they need is some sort of response to have it "enabled" by the other, only-ostensibly independent, branch of government. Now, I can't say with certainty that Kennedy would go along with this nonsense. But I also can't say with certainty that they'd have any qualms about forcing him to "see the wisdom" of going along -- or else. Yes, really -- these thugs don't dance.

And even if contempt charges "succeed." What is gained other than a further gumming to death of the real, ongoing atrocities being committed in our names -- without our proper consent? Like "calling for deadlines," and "cutting the funding," and "flipping Repubs," it's just one more dead end in the Exitless DemocRat's Maze.

The filibusters, and vetoes, and "Rule By Signing Statement" really do exist. They really, really do. Why can none of the DC strategerists include them in their calculations? Perhaps it's because they all add up to the same thing -- Total Impotence Without Impeachment. And they've been spooked into Impeachophobic Groupthink by the same Euphemedia RNC-Talking-Point Parrots that screamed "Mushroomd Clouds!" at them until they wrote a blank check to Haliburton.

There's nothing extraordinary about impeachment -- the circumstances demand it. It's just a beltway delusion that "the sky will fall" on anyone if the Dems do what they were elected to do and lodge the formal objection to the regime's serial criminality and torture.

Their mandate is to protect and defend the Constitution, not jump through some legal hoops that could end up further damaging it with an edict that cements dictatorial power in a chief magistrate who simply has to claim "we're at war." Especially since their only claimed reason for doing so -- instead of doing the right thing -- is concern about their future political fortunes.

And that's the cruelest irony. It's this failure to see the forest for the trees that has their poll numbers plummeting.

--

[bigtree]

15. I really don't believe that an impeachment effort which is generated and advanced by our side alone

has much of a chance in producing a conviction, given the balance of power in the Senate.

So, what's left is impeaching for the sake of the process itself. An impeachment would, possibly, be more effective in breaking down barriers erected by the WH than the committee subpoena/contempt process. But moving immediately to some nebulous, omnibus impeachment without the benefit of the buttress of some outside prosecution/investigation, will likely invite the impression of a partisan, political effort; negating any anticipated boost that would possibly be expected to come from the heightened level of exposure.

The prospect of an acquittal in such an elevated confrontation should be enough to warrant caution in proceeding. I think the effect of an acquittal (party-line or not) would be to render whatever was charged immune from any future ambition to impeach. What future Congress would bother to put themselves through such a dubious process again?

I believe that these other levers, or points, of accountability that you dismiss as ineffective, nonetheless, serve to confront the administration; and to challenge them to either comply and reveal their malfeasance, or to cover and obstruct. It is a fact that the majority of successful political prosecutions have been advanced as a result of legal action on the obstructions and cover-ups of the targets as they respond to the investigations and prosecutions.

Neglecting to follow through on every process of law (no matter what the anticipated ruling or disposition) is an abdication of those prosecutable opportunities which inevitably arise from the targets' ducking and weaving as they attempt to avoid accountability in each instance where they are confronted. The advancement and imposition of criminal contempt charges will be one more important opportunity to challenge the WH to either come clean or break the law in full view, and with consequence, as they run from the legal inquiry.

Moreover, the impeachment of the Executive is an extraordinary remedy, because it carries the prospect of Congress, in seeking the removal of the president and vice-president, substituting for the votes of millions of Americans with their own biased judgment. Nothing could be more 'political' than that, notwithstanding the fact that those judgments about the true ambitions of legislators will be made, no matter what course they take or what they actually think and feel.

[lazer47]

3. And just how in hell are you going to impeach Harriet Miers?,

you have to have the womans testimony before you can have evidence to begin Impeachment.

[Senator]

11. Have her testimony??

What is it you think Harriet can tell us that we don't know already?

They're quite open with their claims of monarchical, "Unitary" power. There's no smoking gun to look for.

--

[lazer47]

12. What we know and what we can prove under oath are 2 different things

[Senator]

14. There is nothing to "prove"

Impeachment is not a legal procedure with rules of evidence and standards of proof. In fact, for impeachment alone (regardless of removal) the standard is really "what we suspect."

It's a political process, where Congressman and Senators must decide whether they defend the regime and its torture, illegal spying, and/or terrorizing the nation into war or they reject it as a dangerous precedent to be set for future presidents.

All that is required is "what we know" and "what we are prepared to do about it."

---

[KharmaTrain]

4. I'd Rather Have Fredo In A Jail Cell

These goons are scared shit of going near a jail, yet inside one. Look at how crazy the corporate media went when Miller the traitor was locked away (cause Rove wanted to send a message to his corporate media toadies) and how quick the manchild jumped to keep his buddy Scooter from modeling an orange jump suit. Some grey bar hotel time for members of this regime who refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas and summons MUST be locked away and this regime MUST be forced to obey the Constitution NOW...not in some failed impeachment folly.

Sorry, but "constitutional niceties" equate into political realities...and not the one the writer wishes. Life sucks...get a hobby. So since the Democrats can't dance fast enough, THEY must be the problem, not an obstructionist Senate and Repugnican and corporate media enablers.

Again...I ask those so gung-for for a failed impeachment how this "constitutional nicety" will do to bring an end to the dying and waste in Iraq? Will it end it one day sooner? Or will it prolong and empower this regime?

Please don't give me this "it's our obligation" bullshit. Right now our obligation is to find any and every way to get our troops out of Iraq and force this regime to obey the basic laws of human decency...this is beyond the Constitution. The judgement for this regime can and must be persued once we put the brakes to this runaway regime. Impeachment does not accomplish that.

Inherent contempt is the best weapon in the Democrats arsenal right now...it can be passed out and force the confrontation with this regime to be on the defensive and forced to comply with the rule of law...and sooner rather than later.

[Senator]

13. Impeachment is the ONLY Way to "End the War" Sooner

Because the process can't even begin unless and until bushcheney are gone. That means Jan. 2009 if and only if they don't steal the next election, with their "bushie" US Attys all in place to do exactly that.

Impeachment is the only way to "force" anything.

Even if they sway enough Repubs to override a veto and/or vote to cut off funding, the regime just implements "Rule by Signing Statement" and funds it illegally. We've seen this movie before.

So what if he has to pardon a few more flunkies?

Since we're asking questions, what "brakes" are you talking about? What's the non-impeachment endgame, exactly?

---

[KharmaTrain]

16. Defund The War

We both agree...and I can't state it enough, that Impeachment of boooosh and cheney must be one end result of their criminality. A trial at the World Court on war crimes charges is another. Conyers stated the other day that Impeachment can be done at any time...and in due time it will become evident this must be done as most compelling, solid legal evidence is gathered and a true criminal basis for the articles can be used rather than political ones. Yes, this probably won't happen until after the next election...and it should be an incentive for Democrats to work toward getting more Progressive Democrats elected next year along with a Democratic Executive that will allow Conyers to procede and we can get a complete and succesful impeachment AND conviction.

The brakes I'm refering to are what can be done now to fight this regime with the limited resources we have. It's to confront boooshie and his Repugnican enablers on Iraq and force them to allow an up or down vote in the Senate...and if boooshie refuses to compromise, then his funding gets cut off. Put the pressure on the Repugnicans...the bastards who claim to have "reservations" about how things are going or have been critical of asshat's Napoleonic misadventure and force them to allow debates and votes to go forward to bring troops home NOW. It also will open up a log jam that's delaying lots of other very important legislation from moving through.

We also need to stand strong for ongoing investigations and the use of inherent contempt to destroy the "Executive Privilidge" obstruction that prevents Democrats and Americans from learning, in detail, about the crimes this regime has committed. That battle has just been started.

Cheers...

[Senator]

19. How?

We have no "resources" other than impeachment.

Up and down votes are being filibustered. And if they break the filibuster they'll be vetoed. And if they override the veto they'll be negated via "Rule By Signing Statement."

All of the "other very important legislation" will hit the same wall. Only what the regime allows.

These are criminals. They will continue acting criminally. They will fund the war criminally.

There is no battle underway, merely shadowplay.

--

[KharmaTrain]

20. Dancing Around In Circles

The problem with this discussion is frustrations set in and no matter how one looks at the glass it's always half empty...I try to see the half full side.

Confronting this regime to veto any future Senate funding bills allows both the House & Senate to withdraw the bill and let things sit...let the money run out at the end of the fiscal year. Yes, it's more symbolic than has real teeth as, as you state, the manchild will rob peter to pay paul to keep his war for profit going. But the pressure this showdown creates on the Repugnicans is far more damaging than a partisan battle that will be portrayed in the corporate media as a personality contest.

Unfortunately this is all shadowplay...including impeachment. I keep asking how pushing impeachment now...without the evidence needed for a solid conviction, without having been able to conduct any real investigation or oversight...without having articles based on real, prosecutable criminality takes the focus off the main issue...the Repugnican obstructionists...and cheapens a process we all agree has to be prosecuted.

Putting booshie in a fight with his own party will distract and slow down this runaway regime...and right now the battleground is in the Senate and soon in the courts.

[Senator]

22. Yes, You Seem To Be

But I don't dance. You admit "cut the funding" is a cruel hoax. But where is the "pressure." I see none.

Impeachment is anything but shadowplay. It is high theatre. I know, because they put it on the real teevee.

The evidence is as solid as a confession (in fact they do confess to their acts). Therefore, nothing to investigate. The http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=articles">articles are already written, you can take your pick.

The Repub obstruction is not the main issue. It's the main distraction. And the DC Dems are falling for it.

And if they keep being led by the nose "in the Senate and soon in the courts," accountability will be gummed to death. But that is no "battleground." Both sides have to show up for there to be a battle.

No, it's still the oldest GOP joke in DC: "Gosh, for a minute there I thought they might actually DO something."

The ones dancing around in circles -- laughing -- are bush, cheney, and rove.

--

[MilesColtrane]

5. In the absence of direct evidence of a crime...

...the next best thing is eyewitness testimony.

If you don't have a tape recording of The Boss ordering a hit, you charge his lieutenant with a serious crime, get him on the stand, and make him testify against him.

[aquart]

6. This is ridiculous. The contempt charge is a necessary step.

Because we are a constitutional democracy, no matter what Bush thinks he's running.

[bryant69]

8. DemocRat?

Hey it seems like there's another group of people who loves that phrase - Conservative Extremists.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sharp_stick]

10. I know, I've seen that phrase around the nutjob blogs

and it makes me sick, not a thing that we should be calling our own even if we disagree with them.

[bigtree]

17. right

here: http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/category/crime/democrat-crimes-against-america

here: http://dailywhackjob.com/index.php/2007/07/11/i-cannot-even-believe-i-am-seeing-this/

here: http://www.blognetnews.com/GOPblogs/feed.php?channel=107

there was a commercial also, I think republican Jim Talent's campaign

[gratuitous]

18. Uhm, Harriet Miers can't be impeached

Miers is not an elected official. And it's pretty cut-and-dried, "unitary executive" or "American dictator" nonsense aside: If you're duly served with a subpoena (from the Latin meaning "under penalty"), you have to show up, even if it's to say that you're not going to answer any questions. That's what the "poena" means.

And Bush can issue any statements he wants about not allowing the Justice Department to prosecute his former employees for disobeying a subpoena. This one is an easy "get" and Congress should take it.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

21. Although I want impeachment/conviction, these contempt proceedings are a separate matter.

Both should be pursued.

[Senator]

23. I hope that can be safely done as well

I just see potential danger involved. The WH is already using it as a weapon (hopefully inert) and I'm also learning that the full House won't take it up for a month -- another dazzling display of weakness.

But on the other hand, actually doing something (futile or not) might catch on as a habit. It's possible this could be the booster rocket they need to realize that the public is demanding accusation/confrontation of some kind.

If they see a bump in the polls they might get the right message -- bigger confrontation, bigger bump.

---