This could get ugly

July 2, 2007

The Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed the White House for information related to the U.S. Attorney purge scandal. The White House announced that it would ignore the subpoenas. Yesterday morning on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) what happens next.

RUSSERT: You have asked the White House and others to respond to your subpoenas. They are now invoking executive privilege, and you said this: “We will take the necessary steps to enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law so that Congress and the public can get to the truth behind this matter.” What does that mean, full force of the law? Is — are we headed to a constitutional crisis?

LEAHY: I would hope not. That’s why I say, they — they’ve chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation. The other administration — in fact, I’ve been here with six administrations, Democratic and Republican, they’ve always found a way to, to work out and get the information Congress is entitled to. […]

RUSSERT: Are you prepared to hold the Bush White House, the vice president, the attorney general and his office under contempt of Congress?

LEAHY: That is something that the whole Congress has to vote on. In our case, in the Senate, we’d have to vote on it; in the House, they would have to vote on it. I can’t…

RUSSERT: Would you go that far?

LEAHY: If they don’t cooperate, yes, I’d go that far.

(Crooks & Liars has a video clip of the interview.)

If Congress passed a contempt-of-Congress measure, it would effectively be an instance of lawmakers accusing the White House of a crime, which would then be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for consideration. Russert asked Leahy this morning, “Are you sure the U.S. attorney would prosecute?” The chairman responded, “Well, I think it’d be very difficult for him not to.”

Maybe, maybe not.

AYM writes in this morning, reminding me of who the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is. Meet Jeffrey A. Taylor.

From 1999 to 2002, Mr. Taylor served as majority counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee where he advised Chairman Orrin Hatch and drafted provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Before his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales from 2002 to 2006 where he oversaw law enforcement operations by U.S. attorneys.

Taylor was able to take the position on an interim basis thanks to the Patriot Act, which he helped write. He was never approved by the Senate.

If it reaches a point at which Congress holds the White House in contempt, it would be up to Taylor whether to convene a grand jury. Given his background, it seems like a long shot.

Stay tuned.

How about a special prosecutor in this case? I would hope the Dems wouldn’t give this guy their approval.

  • “If it reaches a point in which Congress holds the White House in contempt, it would be up to Taylor whether to convene a grand jury. Given his background, it seems like a long shot.”

    Which is where the possibility of impeachment raises its head again.

  • Given his past position as counselor to Gonzalez and Ashcroft, he may very well be conflicted out.

  • If they committed a crime, and their flunky won’t follow the law and convene a grand jury, then there is only one option, and frankly impeachment is way overdue.

    To not impeach this bunch of crooks would be a crime, so Leahy has a choice to make. Join in a criminal enterprise, or defend the constitution.

    I’m not sure why they’ve been so hesitant to even mention the word impeachment, so I am equally unsure that the Dems will do the right thing.

  • I’m not sure why they’ve been so hesitant to even mention the word impeachment…

    Maybe Senator Don Quixote will take up that cause, but for now it’s tilting at windmills.

    I see so many people shaking their fists and calling for impeachment, but I can’t figure out how that will possibly work. Maybe I should learn Rove’s math.

    Half of the criminal enterprise you so valiantly rail against is lurking in both Houses just waiting to stab an impeachment attempt in the back.

    I think, politically, a failed impeachment would validate the crimes of this Administration and leave the Democrats looking weak.

    It may be the on paper right thing to do, but it would most assuredly fail and any of the progress that could’ve been made will be lost.

  • Republicans just line up to protect each other from oversight. Owning the DoJ makes it so much easier. Democrats are banging on a brick wall of republican obstructionism.

    At least the Dems were able to pass an amendment to block funding for political appointees, accountable to no one, to run federal agencies like the EPA etc.. A big blow to big business to have Bush’s executive order blocked. Good work Dems to stop this power grab. More at the gavel.

    I would have more hope if this case did go to a USA that it would at least be an attorney confirmed and approved by the Senate.
    Was this the last attorney pushed through by the now repealed patriot act provision while the repeal was sitting on the president’s desk waiting to be signed?? Surely not…that would be too obvious.

  • Congress may want to consider citing these individuals for inherent contempt.

    Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

    Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its “inherent contempt” authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against the Postmaster-General. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

    The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945).[1]

    This would circumvent the DOJ, but, of course, it would bring Ol’ Fourth Branch Dick into the picture if the Senate employs it.

    BTW,I am not the first to suggest this be used in the current situation. It was discussed back in March at the Next Hurrah. I think it is worth looking at.

  • I’m tired of this kabuki dance. Practically everyone knows the White House is going to stonewall every effort and drag investigations out through the end of Bush’s presidency. Nothing short of impeachment will make any difference, can Congress please rush through all this preliminary bullshit so I don’t have a heart attack waiting for something meaningful to happen?

  • “I think, politically, a failed impeachment would validate the crimes of this Administration and leave the Democrats looking weak.”

    I think, respectfully, that you are dead wrong. I don’t think a ‘failed impeachment’ (my guess is that you mean a failed conviction of the impeachment, of the charges brought by impeachment–the ‘impeachment would likely be successful as it only requires a majority of the house to impeach) would validate anything–it will only show that at this time the GOP criminals are sticking together to refuse to prosecute one of their own. It will show that the GOP clowns really are not a ‘law and order’ party and nothing but a privileged holier-than-thou club of people who should not be trusted to run the country responsibly, ethically or with any sense of accountability. This will not look good for the GOP come 2008 and for a few elections thereafter–they are on the run and divided. Impeachment would drive that wedge further and embarrass them more, forcing them to side with criminals like the DC USA who fails to do his duty owed to the American public, or Abu G or Dick Cheney. And the Dems can finally take steps to do something, make decisions, and most importantly stand up for something important, even if it means, ultimately that there is no conviction in the Senate. One of the biggest knocks on Dems is that they fail to really stand up and fight for what they feel is important (in contrast, standing up for what they feel is important, even if wrong or they know they will not succeed, has been a fairly strong attribute of the GOP in the eye of the public for a long time). I hope the Dems will do all they need to do to resolve this matter for the benefit of the American people, and if it has to include impeachment that ultimately does not net convictions, so be it. This will hurt the GOP much more than the Dems, and very well may make it clear to the American public that the Dems have found their ‘manhood’ once again.

  • doubtful******* “I think, politically, a failed impeachment would validate the crimes of this Administration and leave the Democrats looking weak.
    It may be the on paper right thing to do, but it would most assuredly fail and any of the progress that could’ve been made will be lost.”

    Looks on paper that it is the “wrong” thing to do which is why it is not being pursued. Some Congressional Dems say it would interfere with “policy making”, that it would not be successful anyway. In other words, it’s just too inconvenient.
    BULL. Senate republicans are blocking and obstructing every important piece of legislature coming out of the House anyway.
    There is no downside to impeachment. It would strengthen the Democratic party as they stand up for the constitution and Justice. Who in this country believes Cheney has not committed high crimes and misdemeanors?…No one.
    So impeachment would be seen as “justified”. The Dems would be seen as unafraid to do what’s right in spite of the opposition.
    “If you build it, they will come”…Same here. With the overwhelming amount of corruption running rampant in this “secret” administration that we already know about, 3mos with a special prosecutor investigating would uncover vasts amounts of corruption we don’t know about. Even if impeachment failed it would win because it would show those who are trying to protect corruption and secrecy.
    The public is strongly behind impeachment because America still has principles and we demand accountability for the horrible mess this administration has made of our country. If we let these people get away with this then we will lose faith that our government can be held accountable for the crimes it committs.
    We’ve been waiting for the current investigations to out this administrations crimes but now they act as if the law doesn’t apply to them. I used to think this Administration “acts” like a crime family, but now I know they “are” a crime family and must be stopped. Every day without impeachment is another day of fear of what this Administration might do next.
    Many of us fear that there may not even be an ’08 election though we don’t want to think it.
    People scream for impeachment all across the country like never before in our history. We want congress to spend the time and money. It would calm our outrage. It would bring us together not divide us. It doesn’t matter that this administration is republican…it matters that they broke the law, that they are corrupt and dangerous, that they have unleashed war and death under false pretenses, that they have ransacked our treasury and that they have trampled on our freedoms and our constitution. Congress must stop ignoring the voice of the people and start supporting our demand for Impeachment.

  • rege,

    This would circumvent the DOJ, but, of course, it would bring Ol’ Fourth Branch Dick into the picture if the Senate employs it.

    But what if Dick “neither here nor there’ Cheney were the subject of the inherent contempt charge? This may be the best option to progressive forces in this country.

  • bubba, bjobotts,

    This is one of the most recent impeachment polls:

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_shows_39_of_Americans_support_0508.html

    39% is a lot, and may be unprecedented, but it’s still not a majority. You can count me as a member of that minority, but I’m not convinced it would be successful.

    Failing in the attempt would damage the Democrats credibility with the American people. Most of the country is not as engaged as the readers of certain particularly well written blogs, and are still influenced by the media.

    The media would set this up as a rivalry between the petty Democrats and their nemesis. Phrases like ‘playing politics’ would be repeated ad nauseum. Without a conviction, Bush’s crimes would be white washed as he stood in front of the country and exclaims “See, I done nothin’ wrong. Heh.”

    I think that would turn off a lot of voters and Fred would drive his little red truck right up to the white house and we’d be in the hole for eight more years.

    I don’t want to see that happen so I’d prefer the Dems proceed with caution, and continue the build up like Leahy is talking about. Don’t think I don’t want the Administration to pay for their crimes. It’s exactly that reason that I think impeachment is the wrong course of action now.

  • doubtful–what do you have on polls regarding impeachment of Abu Gonzales? How about just Dick Cheney?

    Something tells me that that 39% is not only old (especially in light of all the recent Cheney news), but slightly skewed due to the inclusion of el presidente. And if a DC USA decides to ignore direct orders from Congress, I bet much more than 39% of the country would support an impeachment of that person.

    Polls are great–if they actually apply to the situation being discussed.

  • “People scream for impeachment all across the country like never before in our history.”

    That’s not true: more people were screaming for Clinton’s impeachment, and many, many more screamed for Nixon’s. Even so, Nixon’s impeachment was a non-starter until lots of Republicans started calling for his removal.

    Although there’s some truth to the “build it and they will come” argument, I don’t think that impeachment is, as yet, the way to go. Under present conditions, the Dems can’t even get mildly controversial legislation through the senate, so the first moment a vote in the senate would become necessary for some procedural point or issuing a subpoena or some such, all the Republicans and Lieberman and a few timid dems would bail. You don’t start a mutiny without a clear possibility of victory, and a loss, presently certain, would set an atrociously low standard for future presidential behavior.

    The way forward here is to continue a drumbeat of hearings and revelations of outrages, all the while forcing Bush to drag his feet and causing his supporters to use up their political capital until he becomes completely indefensible, all the while tying as many Republicans as possible to the Bush anchor. Once Republican politicians see themselves as part of an upcoming 2008 Republican mass extinction event and start getting pressure from their moderate rank-and-file supporters, they’ll start coming round to impeachment.

    Given the timing, Bush might very well be able to run out the clock. I agree that his behavior needs condemnation and future behavior of this sort needs to be prevented, so if he does run out the clock, I think we should ignore the American tradition of letting leaders retire gracefully into civilian obscurity, and instead make him spend his retirement appearing before an endless succession of committees in order to find out what happened, to make sure that it can’t happen again, to find reasons to turn him, Cheney, Gonzales, & Rumsfield over to The Hague, and to throw Rove in jail.

  • “…more people were screaming for Clinton’s impeachment…”

    Bwwahhhaaaahhhaaaa! Man that is funny.

    • Comments are closed.