|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats.
#8023570 - 02/14/08 05:49 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
What do you guys think about this? I think its fair to point out Paul voted w/ the democrats on this one, given the interest around here w/ him.
I think it was ridiculous these folks weren't cited previously. If Bush wanted to fight it he should have gone to court and gotten their subpoena's quashed.
I don't see how these individuals can cite executive privledge, they have no standing. Let the executive worry about his own privledge... until the issue is raised in court or the subpoena retracted.
Unless someone shows me differently, I think it was pretty shitty of the Republicans to not enforce the subpoena, and to largely oppose it now.
---- http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iBnUf1TO7w4L8FKPASjWkHX8tZBwD8UQCG800
House Holds Bush Confidants in Contempt
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Thursday to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with an inquiry into whether a purge of federal prosecutors was politically motivated.
Angry Republicans boycotted the vote and staged a walkout.
The vote was 223-32 to hold White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt. The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings.
Republicans said Democrats should instead be working on extending a law — set to expire Saturday — allowing the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails in the United States in cases of suspected terrorist activity.
"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," said Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.
"Let's just get up and leave," he told his colleagues, before storming out of the House chamber with scores of Republicans in tow.
The vote, which Democrats had been threatening for months, was the latest wrinkle in a more than yearlong constitutional clash between Congress and the White House. The administration says the information being sought is off-limits under executive privilege, and argues that Bolten and Miers are immune from prosecution.
Democrats said they were acting to protect Congress' constitutional prerogatives.
If Congress didn't enforce the subpoenas, said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, it would "be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial presidency, above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances."
The White House said the Justice Department would not ask the U.S. attorney to pursue the House contempt charges. However, the measure would allow the House to bring its own lawsuit on the matter.
It is the first time in 25 years that a full chamber of Congress has voted on a contempt of Congress citation, and the White House quickly pointed out that it was the first time that such action had been taken against top White House officials who had been instructed by the president to remain silent to preserve executive privilege.
"This action is unprecedented, and it is outrageous," Dana Perino, Bush's spokeswoman, said in a lengthy and harshly worded statement after the vote. "It is astonishing and deeply troubling that after months of delay on passing a bill that will help our intelligence professionals monitor foreign terrorists who want to kill Americans, the House has instead turned its attention to the silly, pointless, and unjust act of approving these contempt resolutions."
If Democrats bring suit to press the contempt charges, Perino added, "they will be met with opposition at the courthouse door and at every step of the way."
House Republicans argued that there had been no evidence of wrongdoing in the prosecutors flap, and called the vote a waste of time that would actually damage Congress' standing.
"We don't have evidence that we can give to the U.S. attorney. What we're giving to him is the desire to continue a witch hunt which has produced up to today zero — nothing," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.
Under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department officials consulted with the White House, fired at least nine federal prosecutors and kindled a political furor over a hiring process that favored Republican loyalists.
Bush's former top political adviser, Karl Rove, has also been a target of Congress' investigation into the purge of prosecutors, although Thursday's measure was not aimed at him.
Fred Fielding, the current White House counsel, has offered to make officials and documents available behind closed doors to the congressional committees probing the matter — but off the record and not under oath. Lawmakers demanded a transcript of testimony and the negotiations stalled.
The contempt debate sparked an unusually bitter scene even in the fractious House. Democrats accused Republicans of marring the Capitol memorial for their fallen colleague Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., by interrupting it with a protest vote. GOP leaders shot back that it was Democrats who were responsible for dishonoring Lantos, by calling the House into session for the contempt debate before the service had ended.
It's not clear that contempt of Congress citations must be prosecuted. The law says the U.S. attorney "shall" bring the matter to a grand jury.
In 1982, the House voted 259-105 in 1982 for a contempt citation against Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Anne Gorsuch, but the Reagan-era Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.
The Justice Department also sued the House of Representatives in that case, but the court threw out the suit and urged negotiation. The Reagan administration eventually agreed to turn over the documents.
The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt of Congress citation was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former EPA 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 Thursday, three Republicans joined 220 Democrats to support the contempt resolution, including Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland, who was defeated this week in a primary. One Republican, Rep. Jon Porter of Nevada, voted "present."
|
dill705
Amazed



Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: johnm214]
#8023623 - 02/14/08 05:58 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think that the fact that the Republicans walked out is the biggest joke. If they want to be taken seriously in November they can't walk out of session like little egocentric babies who think they are right. 
Anyone who's taken a debate class knows that the first person to get pissed off and leave is the loser by default.
-------------------- My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end. -Icelander- I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW! ~dill705~
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: johnm214]
#8023679 - 02/14/08 06:10 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The Republican party is imploding and splintering, the powerhouse alliance of fiscal conservatives and the religious right is no more.
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
#8023696 - 02/14/08 06:13 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
did u no that the UN sanctions killed half a MILLION iraqi children fucking nuts man!
--------------------
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 2 hours, 17 minutes
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: Coaster]
#8023800 - 02/14/08 06:30 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Hopefully Ron Paul will have a drug decriminalization bill ready for the next time the republicans stage a walkout.
It would have been a great opportunity to pass a wiretap bill that required judicial approval and didn't give telecom companies retroactive immunity for breaking the law.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: Coaster]
#8023826 - 02/14/08 06:36 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I thought they walked out because of inaction on FISA
Quote:
House Republicans have walked out to protest the Democrats’ refusal to consider senate-passed FISA legislation that would enable America’s intelligence agencies to effectively monitor terrorists who are plotting to attack. While Democrats can’t find time for that, they did find time to debate the merits of specific individuals on the Administration staff. This is an outrage - our first duty is to protect America. Democrats refuse to take that seriously.
http://www.ericcantor.com/blog/
THEN the Dems did this. The thread title also references the wrong Bolten (i.e. NOT Bolton)
I think Congress is overstepping, that some people here don't seem to understand the process of judicial review (only after Congress acts for contempt, until then there was nothing to bring), that Saddam could have ended sanctions at any time, and that this is a lie.
Quote:
did u no that the UN sanctions killed half a MILLION iraqi children fucking nuts man!
--------------------
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: zappaisgod]
#8023887 - 02/14/08 06:49 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The Dumbass Democrats are just Pissing in the Wind....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: zappaisgod]
#8024009 - 02/14/08 07:09 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I think Congress is overstepping, that some people here don't seem to understand the process of judicial review (only after Congress acts for contempt, until then there was nothing to bring),
this isn't true
The president could sue for declaratory judgment or petition for injunction
In fact, after the subpoena is flouted, and a prosecution begun (if the house turns it over to the justice department and the justice department persues it) there really isn't much defense avaialable at that time (though the court would probably make an exception in a case like this).
Quote:
If a witness refuses to comply with a Congressional subpoena, any mistake of law, including, reliance on the good faith but mistaken advice of counsel, is not a defense in a later criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. See, e.g., Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 123 (1963)
Really it comes down to the fact that the individuals had no basis to refuse to testify or appear. The president holds the executive privledge, not the individual. Similar to how a lawyer cannot claim privledge to avoid testifying/ producing documents, he can only do so on behalf of a privledged client.
While zappa is right in that it is next to impossible to get a court to quash a congressional subpoena (due to constitutional provision of authority to the body) in the case of the president it would seem to be an exception, as the two branches are co-equal. If the president has the authority to withold tesstimony under the constitution, then surely the speech/debate clause can't compell it, presuming the sought testimony is properly related to Congress's role.
I'll try and find something directly on point when president asserts privledge against congressional subpoena.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: johnm214]
#8024076 - 02/14/08 07:23 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: House holds Bolton and Miers in contempt (finally). Ron Paul joins democrats. [Re: johnm214]
#8026641 - 02/15/08 10:41 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I think Congress is overstepping, that some people here don't seem to understand the process of judicial review (only after Congress acts for contempt, until then there was nothing to bring),
this isn't true
The president could sue for declaratory judgment or petition for injunction
In fact, after the subpoena is flouted, and a prosecution begun (if the house turns it over to the justice department and the justice department persues it) there really isn't much defense avaialable at that time (though the court would probably make an exception in a case like this).
Nonsense. Are you saying that the Executive would lose the right to redress after a harm because they didn't pursue a preliminary injunction? No, I don't think so. The Executive would have no cause UNTIL the Legislature overstepped. If they don't overstep it's moot anyway.Quote:
Quote:
If a witness refuses to comply with a Congressional subpoena, any mistake of law, including, reliance on the good faith but mistaken advice of counsel, is not a defense in a later criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. See, e.g., Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 123 (1963)
Really it comes down to the fact that the individuals had no basis to refuse to testify or appear. The president holds the executive privledge, not the individual. Similar to how a lawyer cannot claim privledge to avoid testifying/ producing documents, he can only do so on behalf of a privledged client.
They did and do have basis and that is what will be determined now. It is in fact the Executive branch claiming executive privelege. Congress has no business prying here as it is 100% the Executive branch's prerogative to hire and fire these attorneys.Quote:
While zappa is right in that it is next to impossible to get a court to quash a congressional subpoena (due to constitutional provision of authority to the body) in the case of the president it would seem to be an exception, as the two branches are co-equal. If the president has the authority to withold tesstimony under the constitution, then surely the speech/debate clause can't compell it, presuming the sought testimony is properly related to Congress's role.
I'll try and find something directly on point when president asserts privledge against congressional subpoena.
Look, the whole thing here is that the Executive branch has absolute and unfettered authority over the hiring and firing of these attorneys for any reason it sees fit. Any. The Republicans certainly could have done this to Clinton when he was in office but they seem not to be such grandstanding assholes. Which is unfortunate. I'd like to see them stop being so conciliatory.
--------------------
|
|