Archive for the ‘Inherent Contempt’ Category
Posted by bosskitty on August 13, 2007
Rove ‘more dangerous’ on the outside
Karl Rove may be leaving his roles as hard-nosed strategist and bookish policy expert in the Bush White House, but that doesn’t mean Democrats can rest easy.
“Karl outside the White House is more dangerous to Democrats than Karl inside the White House,” said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager. Her view: He’ll have lots more free time now to dream up ways to boost President Bush’s standing, “rebrand” the GOP and conquer the 2008 electoral map.
Though Rove says he is not about to vanish from politics, the debate over the legacy of his unique dual role has begun. Some say he personifies the need to limit the power of White House political aides; others say he’s a model future presidents may want to emulate.
Rove is the epitome of intellect applied to evil goals … Rove incited Republicans into more unscrupulous behavior than they could have imagined on their own . . . He will remain the poster boy for political corruption until someone has the guts to indict him.
Posted in Bush, conspiracy, Contempt, Corruption, Deception, disinformation, DoubleSpeak, Election, Evil, Executive Branch, Hypocracy, Impeach, indictment, Inherent Contempt, intelligence, Karl Rove, Legacy, Orwellian, Politics, President, profiteers, Propaganda, Republican, RNC, Rove, The Divider, The Liar, threat, Vote, War Cost | 9 Comments »
Posted by nytexan on July 25, 2007
I think there’s a good chance Miers is going to jail.
House Democrats, preparing for a vote today on contempt citations against President Bush’s chief of staff and former counsel, produced a report yesterday that for the first time alleges specific ways that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys.
The report says that Congress’s seven-month investigation into the firings raises “serious concerns” that senior White House and Justice Department aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year may have obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records.
The investigation “has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by the department and White House staff,” Conyers says.
The memorandum says the probe has turned up evidence that some of the U.S. attorneys were improperly selected for firing because of their handling of vote fraud allegations, public corruption cases or other cases that could affect close elections. It also says that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior Justice aides “appear to have made false or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of White House personnel.”
In addition, the memorandum asserts repeatedly that the president’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, was the first administration official to broach the idea of firing U.S. attorneys shortly after the 2004 election — an assertion the White House has said is not true.
In one of more than 300 footnotes, the Democrats point to a Jan. 6, 2005, e-mail from an assistant White House counsel that says that Rove “stopped by to ask . . . how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we were going to allow them to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.”
Last week, White House officials vowed that if the full House holds the two officials in contempt, they would block lawmakers’ ability to bring the charges before a federal judge by preventing any U.S. attorney from pursuing such a case. The administration cited a 1984 Justice Department legal opinion, never adjudicated in the courts, that said that a federal prosecutor cannot be compelled to bring a case seeking to override a president’s executive privilege claim.
In the memorandum, the Democrats provide the first legal justification for countering the White House’s view, saying that the 1984 legal opinion “does not apply here.” For one thing, the Democrats contend, Bush has not invoked the privilege properly because he has not furnished a signed statement or “privilege logs” specifying the documents being withheld. In addition, the memo says, “there is not the slightest indication” the 1984 opinion would apply to a former executive branch official, such as Miers.
Posted in Bush, Congress, Contempt, Conyers, executive privilege, Gonzales, Harriet Miers, Inherent Contempt, Judiciary Committee, News, Politics, Rove | 1 Comment »
Posted by nytexan on July 23, 2007
- 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.
- 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.
On Impeachment of Bush
Notice in Pelosi’s statement she doesn’t address Cheney. I think the veep is on the table. With Cheney out of the way Bush won’t know what to do.
- 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.
- “Look, it’s hard enough for us to end the war. I don’t know how we would be successful in impeaching the president,” Pelosi said.
- She did note that calls for the president’s removal are not coming just from San Francisco.
- “I’m not unsympathetic to the concern people have — I hear it all over the country. People here have said to me, ‘Well, people on the left want the president to be impeached.’ I hear it across the board across the country. It’s not just the left,” Pelosi said.
If Congress brings us the head of Cheney, I could very well look past Bush. For Bush will be lost without the puppet master.
Posted in Bush, Cheney, Congress, Constitution, Contempt, Conyers, Department of Justice, executive privilege, Harriet Miers, Headlines, Impeach, Inherent Contempt, Judiciary Committee, News, Pelosi, President, Republican | 6 Comments »
Posted by bosskitty on July 22, 2007
FEINGOLD CALLS FOR CENSURE OF PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS OVER IRAQ & ATTACK ON RULE OF LAW
Feingold to Introduce Resolutions Censuring President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Other Administration Officials
July 22, 2007
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold announced today that he will introduce two censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President and other administration officials for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law. Feingold called the resolutions appropriate and necessary steps for Congress to rebuke an administration that is responsible for some of the worst misconduct and the worst abuses of the law in American history.
“Censure is about holding the administration accountable,” Feingold said. “Congress needs to formally condemn the President and members of the administration for misconduct before and during the Iraq war, and for undermining the rule of law at home. Censure is not a cure for the devastating toll this administration’s actions have taken on this country. But when future generations look back at the terrible misconduct of this administration, they need to see that a co-equal branch of government stood up and held to account those who violated the principles on which this nation was founded.”
Feingold is my hero! Go, go, go – Stop these MadMen who hi-jacked this country. Censure their butts! We have a lot of shit to clean up.
Posted in Accountability, administration, “Corporate Corruption”, Bill of Rights, Bush, Censure, Cheney, Constitution, Corruption, criminal, Democracy In Action, Executive Branch, Executive Orders, executive privilege, Feingold, Hypocracy, Impeach, indictment, Inherent Contempt, King George, Legacy, Lord Cheney, Monarchy, Oversight, Shadow Government, The Divider, The Liar, Theocracy, War Contractors, War Cost, War Crimes | 16 Comments »
Posted by bosskitty on July 21, 2007
No other former president in the nearly 50-year history of the Fifth Republic has been questioned by a judge investigating criminal activities.
PARIS — A judge questioned former president Jacques Chirac for more than four hours Thursday in an investigation into a party financing scandal that dates to his time as mayor of Paris, his attorney said.
Mr. Chirac lost his presidential immunity from prosecution on June 16, a month after he left office. He has denied committing any wrongdoing during his time as mayor of Paris.
In light of these developments surrounding France’s Ex-President prior criminal activities, this country must have the resources to do the same to the Bush Crime Syndicate! Someone, please, gimme a legal take on what we must do to hold them accountable if impeachment fails!
Beware! Bush has a terrorist production in the wings to postpone coming elections! He is laughing from his ass now that the polyps are gone …
Posted in Accountability, Anti-War, “Corporate Corruption”, betrayal, Bill of Rights, Bush, Cheney, civil liberties, civil rights, Constitution, Corruption, criminal, Democracy In Action, Department of Justice, Election, Evil, Executive Branch, Executive Orders, executive privilege, Fear, Federal Court, Homeland Security, Hypocracy, immunity, Impeach, indictment, Inherent Contempt, Jacques Chirac, Judiciary Committee, Law, President, resonsibility, Scandal, terrorists | Leave a Comment »
Posted by nytexan on July 20, 2007
I am sick and tires of this administrations constant stonewalling and lying. If you have nothing to hide and if you did nothing wrong, one would cooperate. Isn’t that what honest descent people believe. But then we are speaking of Bush.
- Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
What an intersting statement coming from an administration. That statement alone proves that the White House is running the DoJ, which has been the claim of Congress from the beginning.
- The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
- 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.”
Not only is the administration telling the justice department how to do their job, they’re also saying that that DoJ can not argue the reasons the administration has put forth. We have now officially arrived at dictatorship level.
- Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration’s stance “astonishing.”
- “That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president’s role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president’s claim of executive privilege trumps all.”
King George giving himself more power. I think he’s planning a coupe against America.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Bush, Congress, Constitution, Contempt, Conyers, criminal, Democracy, Department of Justice, dictatorship, executive privilege, Gonzales, Harriet Miers, Impeach, Inherent Contempt, National, News, Pelosi, Politics, Reid, Senate, Waxman | 2 Comments »
Posted by nytexan on July 18, 2007
Congressional Democrats inched closer to holding Harriet Miers in contempt yesterday after the former White House Counsel reiterated her decision not to comply with subpoenas seeking testimony and documents related to the recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
- The House Judiciary Committee is weighing what to do next but has few options other than moving to vote Miers in criminal contempt. “They’re on the road, and whether they go fast or slow, it is the road to contempt,” says Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and former deputy counsel to the House.
- The committee could reach a decision soon, but the bill would then need to come up for a vote on the House floor. But even if a vote of contempt passes, the choice to prosecute lies in the hands of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. That’s now Jeffrey Taylor, a former counselor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The D.C. U.S. attorney is not required to prosecute such cases—and in the past has refused to do so.
- The House could also vote to put Miers in “inherent contempt,” which would mean holding her in the congressional jail, though that hasn’t happened since the 1930s.
Inherent contempt would be the way to go since the U.S. Attorney probably won’t do anything to piss of Alberto and George. He’ll get a directive from Bush telling him not to do his job.
- Or Democrats could turn up the pressure on the executive branch by subpoenaing other White House officials connected to the firings. Congress has already authorized subpoenas for a number of officials, including J. Scott Jennings, deputy political affairs director; William Kelley, outgoing deputy White House counsel; and Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser. However, the president is likely to assert executive privilege over their testimony, as he did with Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, who testified last week under a subpoena by the Senate.
- Another wild card is the House’s subpoena to the Republican National Committee for documents related to the firings. Conyers gave the RNC extra time yesterday for the White House to determine whether documents contain privileged material.
I love all these options. Bush can’t stonewall forever.
- But if the last most significant battle over executive privilege is any guide, resolution may not come through the legal system. In 1982, then Environmental Protection Agency Director Ann Gorsuch Burford asserted executive privilege over a congressional subpoena, leading the House to hold her in contempt. The U.S. attorney held off prosecution, but eventually the White House, under the direction of then (and now) White House Counsel Fred Fielding, negotiated a compromise that allowed Congress to view the documents.
Posted in Bush, Congress, Contempt, Conyers, Gonzales, GOP, Harriet Miers, Inherent Contempt, Judiciary Committee, News, Politics, President, Republican, RNC | 6 Comments »
Posted by nytexan on July 12, 2007
Would you like to see Harriet Miers, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove being led to jail by the Capitol Hill Police and the House’s Sargeant at Arms? Would Friday be good for you?
Two Words: INHERENT CONTEMPT
- Inherent Contempt is a little used, little known tool that the House or Senate can use. It requries only a majority…which we should easily have in the House. Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be IMPRISONED. The purpose of the imprisonment may be punitive or coercive, and can be indefinite. The Inherent Contempt power is recognized by the Supreme Court as Constitutional.
Regular Contempt charges simply won’t work. The U.S. attorney is in Bush’s pocket. Most likely he won’t pursue it.
You need to BOMBARD Pelosi and Conyers and tell them to pursue the new “I” word = Inherent Contempt.
This may be our last and final attempt at justice.
Harriet Miers needs to be first. She refuses to even appear to testify today! This is UN-acceptable. Lets try Inherent Contempt on her first. Lets watch her cry as they Capitol Police haul her ass to jail. Let Cheney and Rove watch knowing they’re next.
CALL CALL CALL:
Nancy Pelosi: 1-202-225-0100
Harry Reid: 1-202-224-3542
John Conyers: 1-202-225-5126
Posted in Accountability, Cheney, Congress, Conyers, Democrat, Harriet Miers, Inherent Contempt, National, News, Pelosi, Politics, Reid, Rove | Leave a Comment »