So tell me...why ISN'T Congress issuing contempt charges on Rove, anyway?

[kay1864]

(and "because they're spineless cowards" isn't a real answer, if you think about it)

Are they worried they'll appear too "partisan", and risk their election chances in the fall?

Is it just up to Conyers? What's holding him back?

And if the answer to that is "Pelosi", then what's holding her back?

What are they worried that might happen?

[tridim]

1. They ARE pursuing contempt charges on Rove

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aasGin8_abkw&refer=home

[lonestarnot]

4. key word possible

setting up a possible contempt of Congress vote as soon as next week. meah.

[tridim]

7. On MSNBC Linda Sanchez said "We ARE pursuing contempt charges".

She didn't qualify the statement at all.

No link, sorry.

[kay1864]

8. From today's CNN:

Luskin responded immediately that Rove still would not appear, prompting a threat of prosecution from the Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

"A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/10/rove.subpoena/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Not holding my breath...

[kay1864]

9. And this from MSNBC:

A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House Republicans called Thursday's proceedings a political stunt and said if Democrats truly wanted information they would take Rove up on an offer he made to discuss the matter informally.

The House already has voted to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with its inquiry into whether the administration fired nine federal prosecutors in 2006 for political reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25622771/

Let's see, that was back in FEBRUARY...so that means Bolten and Meiers have already been taken into custody, right? After which they testified?

Oh, wait...

[tridim]

10. From the link I posted:

"House Democrats asked a federal judge in Washington to force White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena seeking information on the prosecutor dismissals. The judge heard arguments on that case June 23."

I guess we should ask the judge why the Contempt charges are still pending. The point is, the Dems did file contempt charges against Miers and Bolten. Are you implying they didn't?

[kay1864]

12. Ask not the judge, but rather the committee itself

ie they don't have to go before a judge to get them to testify. I don't have a link but I read awhile back that Congress can simply order the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police to arrest anyone defying a contempt order, once the contempt charge has been voted upon.

Instead they've decided to go with the more bureaucratic route. And again, I ask WHY?

[kay1864]

5. But qualified by "possible"

*sigh*

[az chela]

2. He might just tell the truth about bushco and and they would all

GO TO JAIL

[kay1864]

6. I can't see that at all

This is only about the Siegelman case. Rove then taking the opportunity to spill his guts on anything else? Please.

[Double T]

3. Everything is OFF the table.

Now let's get back to happy talk and playing nice.

[librechik]

11. they are worried they will LOSE the vote to issue contempt charges

which will make them look even weaker than they already do.