Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHouse Panel Cites Bush Aides for Contempt of Congress
WASHINGTON -- The House Judiciary Committee voted contempt of Congress citations Wednesday against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and President Bush's former legal counselor, Harriet Miers.
The 22-17 party-line vote -- which would sanction the pair for failure to comply with subpoenas on the firings of several federal prosecutors -- advanced the citation to the full House.
A senior Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the House itself likely would take up the citations after Congress' August recess. The official declined to speak on the record because no date had been set for the House vote.
Committee Chairman John Conyers said the panel had nothing to lose by advancing the citations because it could not allow presidential aides to flout Congress' authority. Republicans warned that a contempt citation would lose in federal court even if it got that far.
And the White House accused the Democrats of engaging in political theater.
"Now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege which hails back to the administration of George Washington and in particular to use criminal contempt charges against the White House chief of staff and the White House legal counsel," said White House Spokesman Tony Snow.
Snow used two video screens on either side of the White House lectern with images illustrating that the White House has provided documents that, if stacked up, would be twice as high as the White House.
The drive to pass the citations on to a federal prosecutor comes after nearly seven months of a Democratic-driven investigation into whether the U.S. attorney firings were directed by the White House to influence corruption cases in favor of Republican candidates. The administration has denied that, but also has invoked executive privilege on internal White House deliberations on the matter.
White House counsel Fred Fielding had said previously that Miers and Bolten were both absolutely immune from congressional subpoenas -- a position that infuriated lawmakers.
"If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother to show up, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest basis and in the broadest possible manner, then we have already lost," Conyers, D-Mich., said before the vote. "We won't be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other."
Conyers' predecessor, former Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., argued that Democrats can't win that fight.
A civil lawsuit in federal court would be less perilous for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, he said, than a constitutional battle over contempt.
"I think that the White House is going to win an argument in court" over the contempt matter, Sensenbrenner told the panel.
"The proper thing to do is to determine the executive privilege claim aside from who said what, who refused to submit to what, who didn't show up to subpoena," the Wisconsin Republican said. Instead, Congress should "direct the general counsel to the clerk of the House of Representatives to file a civil suit," Sensenbrenner added.
Added Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah: "The real argument here is not over the audacity of the White House, but over the strength of our legal argument."
Conyers, however, did not discount Sensenbrenner's suggestion.
The fight over the limits of executive privilege erupted after Miers and Bolten refused to comply with subpoenas compelling testimony and documents about the White House's role in the firings.
Democrats reject Fielding's claims that the White House aides were immune.
Contempt of Congress would be a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and a one-year prison sentence. If the citations win support in the full House, they would be forwarded to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia -- a Bush appointee.
And that's as far as it's likely to go, the Justice Department said in a letter to the committee late Tuesday.
Brian A. Benczkowski, principal deputy assistant attorney general, cited the department's "long-standing" position, "articulated during administrations of both parties, that the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the president or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."
Benczkowski said it also was the department's view that the same position applies to Miers, who left the White House earlier this year.
Republicans said Democrats couldn't win this fight, noting the White House has offered to make top presidential aides available for private interviews about their roles in the firings. Republicans also suggested that the Democrats' rejection of the offer leaves only one reason for the dispute: politics.
"If the majority really wanted the facts, it could have had them," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.
If history and self-interest are any guide, the two sides will resolve the dispute before it gets to federal court. Neither side wants a judge to settle the question about the limits of executive privilege, for fear of losing.
But no deal appeared imminent.
Contempt of Congress is a federal crime, but a sitting president has the authority to commute the sentence or pardon anyone convicted or accused of any federal crime.
Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.
The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt citation was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.
On the Net:
House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press
49 Comments so far
Show AllHuckleberry,
Sorry to respond so late to your post on the John Conyers thread. I left a message there for you: nothing implied, my friend. I am glad to see that there are at least two of us actively combating this political nonsense with the Bush Admin. It is all good. Peace brother.
Best,
Claudius
This man will look worse and worse in history.
"They have been miserable failures since Day One…since 2000. Why are you wasting your time with this worthless, useless party?"
They have been sold-out failures since way before that. As a minimum, they have been failures since 1993 - a few months into Clinton's term - who proceeded to promote, and sign, legislation that would have made Reagan blush...
Die Heimat, the home country, The Department of Homeland Security-- Sig Heil!
The reason why the Whitehouse cannot comply is there are one too many subpoenas.
Picture on left: Josh Bolton.
Picture on right: Josh Bolton (nice wig)
Actually its four bald tires and a space saver spare and its a long black limousine. Full of lies,hate and down right mean.
To be fair - the arrest of Sheehan & entourage was a bit of a publicity stunt. She announced beforehand that they would stage a sit in if they didn't get what they wanted.
I think it got them both what they wanted - a little more coverage.
Both she and Conyers got airtime out of it, so hopefully it pays off.
You know, we might be in for a double matinee here. Gonzo is about to crack. The evidence clearly shows that he lied under oath. As someone mentioned the Bush Administration is running on three bald tires and a fourth going flat. Well, one of those bald tires is about to pop, and it only will be a brief matter of time before the others do the same. Abbybwood, thanks for the website, it was spiritually refreshing.
This just in:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Bush-Fein.mov
I think it's high time to cite congress for contempt of the people.
"Note well that the Constitution does not permit judicial review of or interference in impeachment proceedings, so Congress is the sole "decider" of what offenses may constitute an impeachable "high crime or misdemeanor." Consequently, Congress's choice is quite clear: either make an utterly useless criminal referral to the Department of Justice (while further fouling our air with political platitudes), or act promptly to impeach the President who is directly responsible for the problem he has deliberately created for Congress and the American people. What will it be, dear Public Servants: more verbal diarrhea, or effective action to preserve our constitutional form of government?"
More verbal diarrhea.....that seems to be the "status quo".
I can't believe the attacks made on John Conyers in some articles and comment yesterday, and some comments here. This is crazy. Aside from Kucinich, Conyers is the best friend impeachment advocates have. He, along with Henry Waxman and Patrick Leahy have gone after the Bushies hammer and tongs, building the case for impeachment. I too would rather go right to formal impeachment proceedings since there is so much evidence already, but let's give credit where it's due. These individuals have gone after Republican corruption as well as we could ask, and to blame them is just nuts. This contempt citation is hardly a weak gesture. It may even be what brings impeachment, since for Bush to order the DC USA not to bring it to a grand jury directly violates the law. I'm also hopeful the investigations into warrantless spying will produce evidence of what many of us suspect, that Bush spied on domestic opposition, like Nixon did, which was a count in Nixon's impeachment articles the full House would have taken up had he not resigned. I'd rather they didn't wait until it was that clear, but maybe that's what it will take to bring along some Republicans and make conviction feasible.
To: Richard Young
I'll pay for your first 8 hours to serve The People of the United States against ....?
You tell me.
What is your hourly? $300? That would be about $2000 for one day, right?
You're on.
Fight fire with fire, right?
I'll get this ball rolling..... Just let me know where to send the check.
Richard,
Oh, so you think Bush and Cheney are leaving in 2009 do you? What signs or indication have you seen that they have any intention whatsoever of leaving in 2009?...considering they have installed a dictatorship.
QUOTE: These fine gentlement and ladies... END QUOTE
Fine gentlemen and ladies? Oh please. What's with the rhetorical excess! They are the scum of the earth, these Bush-enablers (R and D). As enablers that makes them no better than Bush (whom I have never called "President" and never will, as you did, because he's illegitimate having stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections. I'm not about to make him appear legitimate by calling him "President" or use a capital "P" which denotes respect). This international war criminal piece of trash in the White House deserves no respect. I have no respect for any of them.
Also, these politicians don't at all see themselves as our public servants, otherwise for example Conyers would NOT have had Cindy Sheehan arrested on Monday because she was calling for IMPEACMENT. These useless politicians see themselves as some sort of celebrity. I think their title goes to their head. Probably, in part, because so many people (their supporters...including Dem koolaid drinkers) bow and scrape to these useless people and seem to worship the ground these politicians walk on as if they deserve to be up on some sort of pedestal. Frankly, I wouldn't walk across the room to see or talk with any of them!
Most politicians today are the scum of the earth as far as I'm concerned.
And based on their history and past "performance" since 2000 I can assure you that they will provide MORE verbal diarrhea and only that. We now have no constitutional form of government to preserve. Our former constitutional form of government has been shredded by the installing of the Bush/Cheney dictatorship because the useless Dems did nothing except vote "yes" to help Bush/Cheney accomplish this dictatorship...such as voting "yes" for the USAPATRIOT ACT which shreds the US Constitution. In addition, Bush/Cheney have essentially unofficially dissolved congress. They have made them irrelevant and the congress have been complicit in this completely.
Impeachment is not about to happen. These people are not about to impeach one of their own and the very people they have been enabling (with their "yes" votes, their complicity and their silence) for the last 6+ years.
richard young,
It is good to get sensible commentary from a seasoned federal court litigator. It seems to me that some clarification is needed here with regard to contempt citations versus "inherent contempt." The media keeps saying the President is facing a "Constitutional showdown" with the Congress. But if I understand this correctly, why not invoke "inherent contempt" which means the Congress gets to handle the situation with the possibility of sending the accused to jail. Is there a difference between contempt of Congress and "inherent contempt?" Or are they the same thing? Secondly, Mike Gravel brought this up in the debate the other night that really has me thinking. As you point out, it would take forever to get an impeachment trial moving forward. Why not as Gravel suggests, draft a law that gives Bush 60 days to withdraw the troops, or go to jail. I realize that Bush obviously would veto this and Republicans most likely would try to stop it. But it seems to me that this would be a faster process than impeachment, although starting the impeachment process would make a big statement to the public. I am not sure I would make a referral to the DOJ, especially after Gonzo's brilliant performance in front of a Senate committee (he even pissed off Arlen Specter, which is a major nono!). Your thoughts on this??
As an experienced federal court litigator, I can share with you the lessons of the recent Libby case: it will take more than three years for a competent and agressive prosecutor to investigate, try and convict a well represented defendant in any federal criminal proceeding (to say nothing of subsequent appellate proceedings in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court). Presumably you already know that the Bush Administration only has 1.6 years to go. John Conyers and the other lawyers serving on the House Judiciary Committee are not so stupid as to be unaware of the utter impossibility of getting any effective legal redress until after the 2008 elections. These fine gentlemen and ladies are also not so stupid as to be unaware that they have at hand an immediate, nonjudicial, political remedy spelled out in the Constitution: IMPEACHMENT of the President who has just publically and in writing ordered two US citizens not to comply with validly issued subpoenas of Congress. Presidents can be and have been impeached for "abuses of power" indistinguishable from President Bush's recent order, as well as for "high crimes and misdemeanors" which must certainly include this President's boasted issuance of 30+ felonious orders authorizing his subordinate officials to violate FISA's express prohibition against covered electronic surveillance without a court order. Note well that the Constitution does not permit judicial review of or interference in impeachment proceedings, so Congress is the sole "decider" of what offenses may constitute an impeachable "high crime or misdemeanor." (In this respect, ironically, Congress is an Article I "unitary legislature" comparable to the Article II "unitary executive" that President Bush has so ingeniously inferred from our Constitution.) Consequently, Congress's choice is quite clear: either make an utterly useless criminal referral to the Department of Justice (while further fouling our air with political platitudes), or act promptly to impeach the President who is directly responsible for the problem he has deliberately created for Congress and the American people. What will it be, dear Public Servants: more verbal diarrhea, or effective action to preserve our constitutional form of government?
Do you know what never made any sense to me?
15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Why didn't we decide to "hit" Saudi Arabia???
Oops. My bad.
Oil.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6702050570069604257&hl=en
DaddyTiger,
You are living under the illusion/presumption that there will be an election in 2008. I wouldn't bet on it at this point. I don't see Bush and Cheney going anywhere in 2009. They have put a dictatorship in place since 2000 with the help of the Repugs AND your beloved Dems who voted "yes" and helped Bush accomplish most of his goals since 2000. Therefore, why would Bush/Cheney leave in 2009?
As for "our victory" the Dems don't deserve any victory in 2008. They have been miserable failures since Day One...since 2000. Why are you wasting your time with this worthless, useless party?
You're asking Cindy to be patient. PATIENT?! We are LONG past patience. It is time for action. We have been "patient" since 2000. It's that lame "patience" that has gotten us into this disaster. I hear Dem apologists and excuse makers coming up with one excuse after excuse ("you've got to give them tiiiiiiiiiiiime,") for why the Dems haven't done anything since they became the majority. I have to ask you and the other Dem apologists:
How much longer are you going to allow yourself to drink the Dems' koolaid? Or how much more of this Dems' koolaid do you and others plan on drinking?
Dems = Repugs
They are both bought and paid for by the same corporate interest. They are both pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-Bush and pro-imperalist.
Just last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. That includes your beloved (pro-war) Dems. So while the Democrats posture and put up lame nonbinding legislature and call for withdraw of our troops from Iraq in the future, they insist we must keep an eye on Iran, for the Iranians are opposing the occupation of Iraq by allegedly arming the Shia resistance.
Instead of wasting your times on these useless Dems, it's time to get out in the streets by the MILLIONS and MILLIONS. The Dems are not going to save us. They are not going to be your "lord and saviour."
I would also like to add that when the Repugs are in the MINORITY OR THE MAJORITY, they get their stuff through congress. They get their agenda accomplished. Period. Their Repug supporters don't have to resort to making apologies for them and making excuse after excuse for the Repug politicians and trying to defend them somehow...the way the pathetic Dem supporters are now doing.
Conyers has already shown his true colors by having the wrong people arrested in his office on Monday. He should have filed inherent contempt charges against these idiots and had them locked up by the sargent-at-arms. Instead, we get a simple contempt citation that will run out the clock on this administration by being held hostage in the courts while they argue about executive priviledge. The Dems will just say they did everything they could do. No spine required. Fini.
Impeach now!! The Dick first. This is not about removing these thugs from office. It's about the PROCESS of getting the truth about their crimes before the congress and the American people. It is the only remedy available to the American people that the Administration CANNOT stonewall. It's NOT about whether you have the votes to win BEFORE the evidence is even presented. That's idiotic. Impeachment is the remedy for an assault on the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
So, get with it people! Call, write, e-mail your House congress critters! And then do it again when they send you back their stock form letter that says they really don't have the time or the votes. Just keep doing it over and over again until the do something just to get you out of their hair!
Quaggenbush is making a good run at destroying democracy, the Republican party, and Christianity.
"Bush fatigue" is a phrase now in common parlance. It existed long ago, however.
I will never forget what a Texan visiting his sister said, at the Christmas party of the North Carolina electrical construction firm where I worked.
Quaggenbush had just obtained the presidency.
"I'm so glad," the Texan said. "Now you can deal with him instead of us."
Karl Rove also is a tendentious cuss, judging from his recently recorded speech in Aspen, Colorado. He and Bush are unfailingly right, pressing ahead like the blockheaded Hessians always coming over the hill in grade B war movies.
When either says, "We're fighting Al Qaeda
in Iraq so as not to fight them here," he speaks symbolically (i.e., delusionally), not realistically.
Does either Bush or Rove actually think that Al Qaeda is strongest in Iraq? If it's strongest in Pakistan and Afghanistan,
as the most recent American government research claims, why don't Bush and Rove attack there instead?
If Al Qaeda is a great cancer on the world, shouldn't the treatment be systemic? What would one say, if, after Quaggenbush exterminated every member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a doctor asked, "Well, did you get it?"
"Well, no, but..."
Forget the but, Butthead (and Bevis).
Could anyone who ever played poker admire Quaggenbush for another minute? How would he do in chess? Would he open his pawn first on the rook file? If he were behind 5-0 in a tennis set would he try to serve aces on his second serve? Would he always try for his longest drive in golf? How would he do in baseball ownership (well, we know that). Is he as bad in sports and games as in diplomacy and world affairs? Where do his bad decisions come from?
Don't we have a right to know? It's our country that got the black eye, after all.
And it's our fellow human beings who have gotten killed. How many?
Almost a million, starting from the most professionally esteemed sampling studies of Columbia School of Nursing-- Johns Hopkins-- The Lancet.
Granted, the entire Executive should get a few days of Guantanamo waterboarding, fire and ice treatments, 24 hour rock and rap "music" at several thousand decibels, etc., but I'm not sure if a contempt citation would work.
It would be very hard in this day and age to find twelve "good men (and women) and true" who don't hold the entire self-serving, do nothing, vote whoring, one party with two names, sold out bunch in Congress in utter contempt.
If Congress ever does something that is not contemptible, it will be time to cheer. I think we will also be able to ice skate on the river of Hell.
When the contempt citations are given the middle finger by the white House and 'Berto at Justice, we will finallyonce and for all know whether the Democrats have any spine left to stiffen.
If they fail to begin impeachment hearings on Gonzo, Cheney, and Bush, they might as well adjourn and go home to enjoy the millions they have been paid in bribes by the K street crowd.
Anybody who votes for any incumbent in the 08 election (with very few exceptions like Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and so forth) after their performance so far deserves what they get-worthless spineless wimps who are a waste of time and money.
Kucinich, or Gravel or Nader or the Green party in 08.
Bernice,
You are spot on. What you are referring to is "inherent contempt."
DO NOT IMPEACH BUSH!!!! He is the repubs BEST ENEMY in '08. Impeach Cheney yes...today...but Bush is ***our*** poster child for Imperial Corruption and we NEED HIM! He is the best advertisement for change we have. If he is impeached in a speedy way...the repubs will be liable to say..."well, we cleaned house and you can trust us now...that bad man Bush is gone." Please be patient...Please Cindy!!!!! Let them *hang themselves* in a more blatent criminal way...something requiring prison time. They most certianly will, but if we chase them...well...we have a chase. I honestly believe Harry and Nancy are on this track...they want Bush in office in Nov.'08...it is our guarantee of victory and the wholesale rejection by the American people of Plutocratic/dictatorship in our country. Impeach TrickyDickII. Let the shrub stay there and stink on and on and on and *no repub* will be able to be elected even for dog cacher in '08. We will survive. We will prevail...come on be smart rather than reactionary. Does he deserve impeachment...hell yes...but why just humiliate him when he will ***send himself*** to Leaverworth! Use the enemy aginst himself!...just good tactics in a grave and dangerous war against tyrany. Please be patient...Please Cindy!!!!!
(from the main article):
"...Snow used two video screens on either side of the White House lectern with images illustrating that the White House has provided *A MOUNTAIN OF LIES* that, if stacked up, would be twice as high as the White House."
_________________________
~ [ I prefer _my_ version, to theirs! ]
They'll all be in Paraguay (if we're LUCKY!!) Actually, if we we're "lucky".....
If you don't impeach Bush, then instruct him to follow his advice for "Abstention" that he has spent millions on. Then we will have seen the last of the Bushies.
sumbuddy ottertwk dodat boi.
erk.
dictator? king? megalomaniac? um.
urk.
rk
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Along with a majority of U.S. citizens/voters last November I wanted two things: 1. Immediate withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq and 2. Impeachment of both Bush and Cheney for their treacherous and murderous misdeeds and for their lawbreaking, some of which they bragged about publicly because it was "to secure the safety of the U.S." or some such blather. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS WHAT PRESERVES OUR SAFETY, AND VIOLATORS OF THEIR OATHS TO PROTECT THAT NOBLE DOCUMENT MUST BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW - TO FAIL THIS IS TO ALLOW OUR REPUBLIC TO BE EXTINGUISHED AND REPLACED BY A "FOURTH REICH"-type GOVERNMENT!!
Demonstrations: In Minneapolis-St Paul, and perhaps throughout the US, the media do not announce the times and places at which demonstrations will occur. If you do not learn of them on the internet, you likely will not learn of them. Attendance at larger anti-war marches ranges from 3000-7000 but COULD be thousands and thousands more if additional people only knew about them. How do Europeans and S. Americans and others get MILLIONS of people on the streets?
Contempt of Congress: In a Washington Post article on July 21, Frank Askin of Rutgers School of Law notes that Congress has another weapon in its arsenal. He says that "a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate -- i.e., an order of civil contempt." Congress therefore does not have to rely on a Justice Dept. that may refuse to act because they are honoring the nauseously phony "executive privilege" nonsense.
Massive impeach Bush march in Washington!
Right on, Bladerunner.
I read the comments before adding my own--and found you'd already raised the issue:
WHY NOT "INHERENT CONTEMPT"?? This is another example of the Kabuki theater masquerading as a legislature that we have for a Congress. These spineless, worthless korporatist-Dem's we elected to stop this heinous, illegal war do not have the courage of their professed beliefs, or we would already be out of there. All they do is posture and mouth meaningless generalities.
Here are a few things they could do to end it:
1.) Begin impeachment proceedings. Just starting them would do a lot to bring the authority of the Bushthieves into question, and would accelerate the ending of the war just by giving encouragement to its opponents.
2.) "Nuke" the filibuster. This would remove an old relic which has done more to obstruct progress than any other rule in the Senate (which is all it is--it does not have a Constitutional foundation), and the passing of substantive laws aimed at extricating us from the war will serve to raise consciousness amongst the masses, even if Bushpig vetoes them.
3.) Just QUIT FUNDING THE DAMNED THING. Period. Just DO NOT pass legislation which gives a dime to the imperialists for the occupation or any extension of the war into Iran. This is sure-fire, since being the LACK of an action, there is nothing the Neoconmen can veto.
Instead, we get this charade of formal contempt. And even then, it won't be taken up until September.
"Dude, where's my country??"
THE COUP THICKENS!
militantlibrarian,
I understand where you're coming from.
I think maybe a few thousand would show up in DC. It needs to be millions and millions in every town and city in this nation and I don't see that happening. I've been in all of the major anti-war protests and I've noticed they generally have been getting smaller and smaller.
Unfortunately, most people are too busy with their job, their mobile phones, their status-SUVs, their lattes, their junk food, watching American Idol and just tuning out.
Recently I talked with some acquaintances and I thought were politically aware (from past discussions I'd had with them). I mentioned the Libby thing to them. They asked, "who?" They hadn't heard a thing about it and didn't know what I was talking about. Then the following week I saw them again and mentioned Cindy Sheehan. They asked, "who?" They had never heard of Cindy Sheehan!
Sigh.
A long national strike might do something but again I can't see The People doing that either, in part, for fear of losing what job they do have.
"DON'T FALL FOR THE TRICK. The primary 2008 campaign tactic of the Republicans is to divide Democratic voters and discourage them from voting, or to vote Green instead (which can't win in 2008)…. either way it gives Republicans more votes by comparison."
What are you talking about? Did a band of roving Republicans capture and hold Conyers and force him to dissolve his spine?
The Dems are self-destructing before our eyes.
DON'T FALL FOR THE TRICK. The primary 2008 campaign tactic of the Republicans is to divide Democratic voters and discourage them from voting, or to vote Green instead (which can't win in 2008).... either way it gives Republicans more votes by comparison.
One of the main Green Party honchos in California was long involved in MK-Ultra research... that should tell you what kind of mess is in the Green Party and that certain elements of it are clearly working for Republican objectives.
A more substantial componente of the Green Party, because of the corruption, is doing more to help Republicans than Democrats, any way you look at it.
erma,
re: "This is just more continued posturing, hot air, theatre, charade and pretending by the useless Bush-enabling Dems".
I agree. But we do have a chance to prevail. Since we invaded Iraq, we have continued to organize huge peace demonstrations in many cities. But since "Peace" is such an elusive concept and there have been so many disparate groups involved in the protests, the overall effect is mostly to make us demonstrators feel good.
If we, in solidarity with Cindy Sheehan, begin mass demonstrations to DEMAND impeachment --and concentrate ONLY on impeachment -- and show up in the huge numbers we have produced for peace marches, Congress may take us seriously. If the capitol is shut down by sheer numbers of people clogging the area, even the mass media will have to take note.
I have no illusions that pulling this off will be easy. But I well remember when we shut down bridges in DC in the 70's, and attention was paid.
Of course, I am ever mindful that the power of the executive to order physical attacks on us lurks in the background.
But I am ready for nonviolent civil disobedience, having taken a preparatory course in protecting myself which was taught by the wonderful local young radical student protesters in Pittsburgh. (I am 63).
The authorities have developed new weapons since our Viet Nam protests. We were accustomed to tear gas and cops beating us. Now rubber bullets, tasers, and god knows what else are part of their armamentarium.
I'm scared. But I'll go to DC and demand impeachment if you folks will go too.
This is one where the House should brook no compromise. The White House is brazenly advancing a concept of executive privilege for which there is no precedent. Go ahead, Conyers, and let the chips fall where they may! The future of the American system of government is at stake.
In a dictatorship which is what Rove and Cheney have installed with the help of the Dems ("yes" votes for USAPATRIOT ACT as one example), the dictator (Bush) is above the law or as they have been calling it, the "unitary executive."
Don't you folks remember Alito said he believes in the "unitary executive" concept and then the Dems voted "yes" to put him on the Supreme Court. They voted "yes" because they wanted to "keep their powder dry."
(What powder? They don't have any. They willingly gave their powder to the Repugs in 2000).
Will this make any difference? Both Parties have been dancing to the corporate tune too long. A pox on both of their houses, I'm ready to secede.
Thank God Hurricane Katrina showed us how incompetent Republicans are. If that hurricane had hit some unpopulated area without levees, the Democrats would probably still be the minority party in Congress, and investigations like this wouldn't even be taking place.
Using Campaign Spending Limits to Get America Better Politicians is the Only Way to Solve America's Problems Enough
You go erma! Absolutely spot on in your comments. The Dems, with a few exceptions, are weak and worthless, as well as complicit. It has become "fashionable" to attack the White House and its minions, but when you look @ the Democratic leaders nearly all of them gave the Child President and the Evil One (a.k.a. Dick Cheney) the green light on Iraq and are also allowing them to gear up for a disastrous attack on Iran. Although, Iran might not be possible w/ the US military already stretched to its limits. Everyone claims they didn't know the White House was lying, blah, blah...That's funny because people like Scott Ritter were writing articles calling out the White House well before the invasion commenced. I know he was only the head of UN weapons inspections for several years, former military, and a Republican. So why would anyone listen to him, right? I have one word for this mess: Tragishamockery. Impeach Bush and Cheney and send Tony Snow on a long walk off a short pier.
I agree with emma: this is another spineless, toothless, non-move by the Democrats in Congress.
Conyers can have Ms. Sheehan arrested in no time flat, and he has the power to toss, forgive me, that Miers bitch in jail, right now. He chose not to do it. Hell, they're not even going to vote on it until September.
Harriet Miers gave all of us the middle finger. Her actions told all of us to take our subpoena and shove it up our proverbial ass.
Conyers and all of Congress are beholden to the people and their Constitution. The Republicans, by their voting actions, have demonstrated that all of them are traitors to our Constitution.
It appears that we have lost our country to the neo-cons. You ain't seen nothing yet because it's only going to get worse.
Hi Jaded........you are so correct but does he not have the rights of "Executive Privilege" to counteract such a charge?
(student of US Constitution and antiwar songwriter here)
DJ, Miers only following direct order from her boss. Only choice to comply or resign.
Does anyone know if the Republican claim that the rulings are not available in the Supreme Court to pin the contempt charges is true for sure? I thought it was not all that uncommon for Justices to break from the Party line -- especially on something so important and technical within the justice system.
This is good news. Given the Bush orederd them to refuse to comply with subpoenas, he too should be charged.
Dioxins are absorbed primarily through dietary intake of fat, as this is where they accumulate in animals and humans-Wikipedia
QUOTE: Committee Chairman John Conyers said the panel had nothing to lose by advancing the citations because it could not allow presidential aides to flout Congress' authority. Republicans warned that a contempt citation would lose in federal court even if it got that far. END QUOTE
Oh, so you can't allow the aides to flout Congress' authority? Yet you, John Conyers, have no problem with the White House residents flouting Congress' authority on a routine basis.
And I say that because this is the same John Conyers that had Cindy Sheehan and others arrested on Monday because she was calling for IMPEACHMENT and Conyers says impeachment is not going to happen because "we don't have the votes."
Yes, they said they didn't have the votes at the start of the Nixon impeachment too, but they got the votes as the impeachment process proceeded.
I have lost all respect for Conyers.
But I don't live under any illusion that impeachment is about to happen. The Dems are not about to impeach one of their own and the very people they have been enabling since 2000 because the Dems would be implicating themselves. They are and have been part of all of this with their "yes" votes, their complicity and their silence.
This is just more continued posturing, hot air, theatre, charade and pretending by the useless Bush-enabling Dems.
Take them down. One by one if we have too.
I can't believe Miers was once considered for the Supreme Court. Now she flagrantly contempt's the courts she was nominated to preside.
Take them down! By any means necessary!