« Politics of Iraq V | Main | Did Eric Edelman Steal Robert Gates' Mail? »

July 21, 2007

Comments

"criminal contempt was not an "offense against the United States" because it was a judicial act, and a presidential pardon would violate the separation of powers."

Freakin' beuatiful.

Can the SAG be sent to the WH, or do we have to wait until January
to 'cuff em?.

correction; SAG, should be sergeant-at-arms,

Would the DC elite go into as great coniptions about Josh Bolten or one of the DOJ thugs going to a DC jail as they did with Scooter Libby? Hard to scream "criminalizing politics" when it's civil contempt (!)

You are absolutely right that they have to settle on a strategy and begin to execute it befpre they leave. I really think they ought not to go on recess (be role models to the Iraqi Parliament) this August because it is too dangerous to leave Bush/Cheney unsupervised for any length of time and Bush is likely to make recess appointments. There must be a way they can leave a few people in charge and schedule votes every week or so.

Sent to Waxman, with the note to consider it my phone call (at least until I get a cell phone that can call out of the building I work in ... mumble #$%^& cellphone provider).

Sadly, I fear the movers in Congress are too wrapped up in trying to picture their next chess move, and have yet to fully grasp that Bush has overturned the chessboard. It's time to play by a new, or rather old, set of rules.

Perhaps if someone pointed out the symmetry of having the Sergeant-At-Arms in the Executive Office Building, after having had the FBI in Rep. Jefferson's office?

Ah, to see Josh Bolten spend the August recess cooling his heels in custody.

Investigate NOW, Prosecute in 2009

Don't you suppose there are ten Republican senators who know if they do not support impeachment, they will not get re-elected? And how many more of them already realize their support of Bush's "war" will cost them their chair?

Any Senator still supporting Bush's "war" will become a very threatened species when The People get to vote again. And I would suggest, if you look at the signs, a lot of Senators have already realized it, and are just weighing their bully, Bush era Republican pride against their popular electability.

The longer they take to weigh their obvious and inevitable conclusion against that vain error, the more likely they will bear the weight of Bush's burden at election time.

As for riots in the streets, and all our tinfoil-hats a-tingling lately, I believe, by now, we should have civilized ourselves beyond the need for mob response. We have so little influence on the timelines of this "war", insurrection would never solve that problem.

To be brutally honest, I think we are trapped in the profiteer's calendar, when it comes to the timelines we can demand, and only massive oil concessions from the Iraqis will satiate them.

And, except that we will numbly consume it all, we have no influence over that final oil contract, besides our opinions from afar. It will take another major U.S. election to weigh the balance fully against these lawless rogues, and ironically, that gives them their one way out, and I hope to God they do not even ponder creating any delays to that glorious day, because I do not want to die in the streets, fighting a Revolution my ancestors already won. Those election dates are the only way we can change this mess, and denying us for any reason is tantamount to a declaration of dictatorship.

But I expect that they will take their multi-trillion-dollar redistribution-of-wealth booty off to The Bahamas or Dubai and slobber over it happily. They already got what they wanted, we just have to hope it was enough.

I do hold out hope that some of their more egregious misdeeds (let me count the ways) will be put under the spotlight of unrestricted justice, soon after their Grand Protector, (that High Crimes addict,) has lost his pardon powers, which he fully intends to profane. Andy work we do before then should be purely for the purpose of thorough investigation. And no doubt, a Cheney Impeachment would provide the perfect privilege-free environment for it.

But we must wait until the next president to actually lay charges against the criminals, because by convicting them before Bush is gone, we give them a get-out-of-jail-free card. However, we can use this time, and the Democratic Party gavel, to gather in "The Truth" that has not been deleted or destoryed.

One last note; if something should happen that threatens those election deadlines we have come to trust, then I will rejoin you all in the streets, and we can start the civilized thing up again, immediately after they give us our elections back.

sent to Conyers, at his House address, because HJC's e-mail is down this morning. (It's giving a 'to see this error message, you have to do all this other stuff' kind of message, so it's something wrong in their system.)

If this doesn't work, it won't be because we're not trying.

KX

you have written a substantial number of columns that have given me history and law that i knew nothing about previously.

i can't thanks you enough for taking the time to research and then lay this out this info in the last couple or three months.

on john roberts:

my strong suspicion is that john roberts is a republican political operative first

and a united states supreme court justice second - a distant second.

just as the improperly sainted alan greenspan always appeared to be a wise man with the nation's interest at heart - unless, of course, that interest conflicted with a republican president's or party's needs and well-being.

ditto for roberts' predecessor, rhenquist.

by "operative" i mean just that,

these men worked in, with, and for the republican party in their young careers


i'm not certain of this but i can hope and expect that there will be some major legislative realignment of executive and judicial power vis-vis the legislature beginning in 2009.

at the moment though i think the actions that need to be taken are those you have outlined.

-congress MUST take the initiative.

- it must not expect other branches of govt to do its work for it in this case.

as for the nation having waited waiting for gonzales to resign, i did not spend time waiting. i predicted very early on that that would never happen - who else could bush afford to have in the job at this time?

and now we see just how critical to bush's future gonzales at doj is.

So, suppose the House seizes John Bolten and locks him up in the DC jail. The White House has to file something to get him out. Who files it? Does the Justice Department take sides in this political fight? Does Bolten have to get his own lawyer to file the Habeas Corpus litigation?

If Justice does it, who exactly is their client? Justice doesn't represent the President, nor does it represent Bolten. They will have to craft some kind of assertion that it is the Executive Branch that is their client, and they are vindicating the assertion of privilege by that Branch. That puts them in the position of defending the Executive against the Legislative. So who represents the Legislature? Do they have to get their own lawyers? How?

As to the Courts, this has to present a political question which is another hurdle for them.

Meanwhile, Bolten sits in the DC jail. No wonder these things usually settle. And my gut tells me that the Congress has the upper hand.

Who could be held in contempt for refusing to respond to a congressional subpeona to testify beside Harriet Miers?

Statutory contempt is the one less often used -- sometimes referred to as "criminal contempt."

Ordinary contempt is the "inherent" kind that judges use to compel testimony. Bush could not have pardoned Miller out of jail for her refusal to testify before a grand jury, for example.

And as with Miller, if Congress uses its inherent power of contempt, the contemnor holds the keys to his own cell.

But Congress isn't going to use inherent contempt in this case. It will seek a court order.

i wouldn't go with the d.c. jail.

i's suggest the oubliette be on the grounds of the congress.

let the (house) sergeant-at-arms detain taylor, or meirs, or bolten, or,

most deserved of all, fred feilding

and put them in a congressional dungeon.

then it's the president who is on the defensive.

i would be most interested to see whether police or federal marshall's would invade congressional territory.

i'd like to see the claim made that congressional territory is like an embassy or the vatican.

besides, it's easier to transport a detainee in an elevator than in an suv with armed guards.

i's also like to see the federal judiciary forced into a position of having to respond

by defying the congress and supporting the president.

I vote for Rove. Enforce a subpoena against him, and if he fails to appear, lock him up. He's a decidedly unsympathetic figure. And he's butt ugly.

>

>

Clearly the person consulted was not an expert on pardons. Indeed, one of the more famous pardons in American History (in the minds of those who are literate on the topic) involved contempt of Congress. The individual was one of the most famous persons alive at the time of the pardon. His name was Francis Townsend. Likewise, the logic of the piece is destroyed by the fact that presidents have also granted pardons for contempt of court. Other than those fatal errors, it is fun reading. http://pardonpower.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad