A legal battle over "executive privilege" is looming, after the US House of Representatives cited Harriet Miers and John Bolton for contempt of Congress. This action was taken because of their refusal to testify about the firings of several US Attorneys, which Congress has no purview over, in the first place. Here's an excerpt from the hill.com (link):
Ahead of the vote, Republicans had walked out in an effort to show that they want to work on a permanent update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) rather than be part of a "partisan fishing expedition," as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) put it.
The contempt vote raises the stakes between the White House and Congress in the battle over the fired U.S. attorneys and could set up a constitutional showdown between the legislative and executive branches.
The matter will now be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
If the fight comes to a head without a compromise having been reached, it could pit Congress's power to hold White officials in contempt against the president's right to assert executive privilege.
Democrats passed two resolutions through the adoption of a single rule, a procedural tactic that limited the time of debate, angering Republicans. One resolution holds Bolten and Miers in contempt. The second sets the stage for a civil suit the House would file against the administration to compel it to force Bolten and Miers to testify.
This is going nowhere fast, folks. Bolton has been a target of Democrats throughout his career, and Miers, who was the White House counsel when the firings took place, is a "target of opportunity." The Dems remember the backlash over Bush naming her to the Supreme Court, and figure she won't have alot of GOP defenders.
By the time this thing works it's way through the process, Bush won't be in office anymore. Do the House Dems realize that they have lower approval ratings than Bush because of just this kind of stunt? If Bolton and Miers are in contempt of Congress, they join the majority of Americans who feel exactly the same way.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 28 ( 1 removed by Christopher K. Leavitt )
laws are useless if they arent enforced. I saw throw em in congressional jail until they spill the beans.
Ps. Teresa- Irans leader might do better than Cheney..
Everything the Democrats try to do the repugniCONs obstruct.
This will change in January when we truly control all branches.
Same place those family values are when it's time to feed the hungry, and justice is when it's one of their guys committing the crime, and pro life is when it's time to murder innocent civilians in another country . . .
Under the separation of powers, the power of hiring and firing US Attorneys rests solely with the executive branch. Congressional oversight does not extend to executive hiring and firing practices, except for the "advice and consent of the United States Senate," which only applies to the hiring. The US House of Reps has no power, or business, over their hiring or firing.
Even the GOP-controlled Congress didn't try this stunt when Pres. Clinton fired all of the US Attorneys, several of whom were investigating people close to him. Executive privilege will be upheld, in this case.
People are starving, LHP? What does that have to do with Bolton and Miers' contempt of Congress? Still, it's nice to see how much you care. I'm sure that's why you're "voting for Obama."
The investigation that brought this about was not merely about who gets to hire or fire US attorneys. That has never been in question. The investigation surrounded the numerous white house LIES about it, and their utter refusal to turn over documents and testimony pertinant to the case. The white house is NOT above the law, believe it or not, and that's what this contempt vote is about.
Why do you people have to be so thoroughly dishonest about this? Do you REALLY not know that ALL incoming presidents typically fire ALL acting US attorneys when they take office, and that both Bush's did the same when they first entered office, without either party's congress raising hackles over it?
This isn't about presidents hiring and firing US attorneys. This is about a president that fired specific US attorneys for purely political reasons, and replacing them with incompetent cronies, who would carry out political misdeeds, such as aggressively inventing fraudulent investigations to attack democrats with, during campaigns, while at the same time, totally ignoring obvious cases of fraud and corruption on the part of GOP politicians.
The white house politicized the DOJ, in order to attack their political enemies and provide cover for their own party's massive corruption. That is simply not acceptable in a free society. We don't live in the Soviet Union or communist China. Our leaders are NOT supposed to be above the law.
Therefore, when congress, which absolutely has oversight authority over the executive branch, is confronted with what is obviously corrupt politicization of the DOJ, and begin to ask questions, only to be responded to with lies and obsfucations, as well as utter refusal to testify or turn over documents, the constitutional remedy is for congress to hold said white house in contempt.
Btw, you do realize, I'm sure, that the white house is also in violation of two federal laws, regarding those mysterious missing 5 million emails, right? How remarkably coincidental that those were all during the period of these firings and hirings, among other very serious white house scandals, hmmmm?
"Executive privilege will be upheld, in this case."
Actually, that's probably not likely. In order for this claim to be upheld, the white house is required to demonstrate their justification for it. They have refused to do so. Merely having them claim the privledge does not automatically grant that to them. Again, checks and balances...we do still have a tiny shred of a constitution left. Thank GOD, the spineless pussycrats finally found a moment to stand up for it. Now, if we can just get them to do the same with regard to retroactive immunity for illegal domestic wiretapping, and holding the architects of an illegal invasion and occupation accountable for their crimes...
Why even bother to comment on something that you obviously know absolutely nothing about? Your comments make no sense, because you've launched them from a position of pure ignorance.
First of all, yes, actually congress DOES have EVERY right to question these people about this issue. It's called "constitutional obligation." Read your constitution sometime. Congress has oversight of the executive. Therefore, they have the constitutional authority to question ANYONE in the white house about ANYTHING that they damn well please, ESPECIALLY when the white house has been caught in numerous LIES about the issue at hand.
The white house CAN claim executive privledge in some cases, BUT they MUST state their claim, and it MUST be a worthy justification. They cannot simply shield themselves from congressional oversight with claims of executive privledge, simply based upon their desire to hide facts from congress. That is called "contempt of congress." It is also called "obstruction." They have no constitutional authority to do this.
Secondly, how is a congressman's refusal to answer your question "contempt?" What constitutional authority do you have for oversight of congress, other than to cast a vote every two years?
And again, you people on the "right" are completely missing the entire point of this investigation. This wasn't about hiring and firing of attorneys. It was about LYING about that hiring and firing, and then refusing to turn over documents, and refusing to testify before congress during their investigation. It is, in the purest sense, about obstruction of justice.
Sadly, that's a crime that you folks seem to have little sense of wrong for. In the BushCheneyCorp era, lying and obstruction of justice has become a badge of honor, to be held in high regard. What a shameful, disgraceful, disgusting legacy. No wonder the GOP is in such utter shambles. You've completely lost all sense of values and principles.
Teresa, That's right! Those that can't intelligently discuss an issue call names (like Don).
Clark, Good to hear from you, despite your usual name calling (see above). Perhaps you do not fully understand "Executive Privilege" which has been claimed in this case. EP allows those who work for the President to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Perhaps you also don't know that US Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, who can fire them at will unless he is obstructing justice. After a year of political charges, the Democrats in Congress have not presented a shred of evidence of obstruction - they are just playing a political game. That's why polls rank the popularity of Congress lower than that of the President.
Actually, I don't wonder. I already know the answer to that.
"... the firings of several US Attorneys, which Congress has no purview over, in the first place."
Congress has no purview over the actual decision-making, but they most certainly do have a responsibility to perform oversight of the Executive, and that includes the power to investigate whatever the hell they want for any damn reason they want. And when someone's a no-show for a Congressional subpoena, then they're in contempt, period.
Bush can claim Dictator Privelege -- which he has consistently apt to do, what with his peculiar take on the Constitution and all ("It's just a G@#damn piece of paper") -- but that doesn't mean that the other co-equal branches of government are supposed to just lay down.
Personally, I would much rather Congress drop this silly nonsense, and draft some Articles of Impeachment in response to some slightly more egregious crimes -- you know; things like knowingly falsifying and manipulating intelligence, the mass murder of Iraqi's, institutionalizing crimes against humanity, and blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy of innocent Americans, those sort of things.
"Do the House Dems realize that they have lower approval ratings than Bush because of just this kind of stunt?"
Yeah, well, don't make the mistake of thinking that the majority of those who disapprove do so for any reasons similar to why you disapprove; which basically has nothing to do with their performance, and everything to do with the letter "D" that comes after their names.
I don't approve of the 110th Congress either, but it's because they're a bunch of spineless, cowardly hacks who refuse to do the right thing and would rather waste time and taxpayer money on bullshit and Big Government boondoggles than what the Constitution commands they do: protect freedom -- not because I'm so deluded that I think politics is a team sport and that the other team is the least bit better.
It also is a highly symbolic gesture and most likely will not get close to the SCOTUS before the Nov. election. So why pursue it? The self righteous and morally depraved Republican troop sent Ken Starr on a slime crusade to disgust America with Clinton and render his last days in office as ineffective as possible. Clinton was not actively pursuing national disaster in war and economics at the time. Bush is. It is in the American interest Dubya and his minions spend as much time as possible circling the wagons and fending off subpeonas. The world will be a safer place and perhaps the economy will pick up. It will also reveal just how dirty a Repub dominated government is and provide very good reasons to the electorate to throw out their Repub congressman in Nov.
I referred to those who argue vociferously against this legitimate Congressional oversight as rightwingers. If that's your version of name calling, grow a thicker skin. Or cease using derogatory terms for those with whom you disagree.
As for Randy's request for some facts so you can take me seriously, how about Bush's unconstitutional use of signing statements as a line item veto? The Supreme Court held in Clinton vs NY that a president must sign or veto the entire law, not just the parts that he disagrees with (such as those that exercise oversight). Yet Bush acts like a dictator in that he effectively says "Pass whatever law you want, I'm not going to obey it."
I could give hundreds more examples, but somehow I think it wouldn't matter.
Joe, I mentioned that the Republicans didn't try this kind of action, when Clinton fired all of the US attorneys. On the FISA walk out, the GOP was saying that the actual bill should be brought to a vote, not a 21 day extension. They just finished a 6 month extension, and the Senate had jussed passed the new bill, not an extension. If anyone wasn't doing their job, it was the Dems.
It's not huge, centralized, arbitrary government that's the problem; the problem is the letter "D" that comes after the names of the people in charge of it right now.
As soon as we have huge, centralized, arbitrary government run by politicians and bureaucrats with an "R" after their names, we'll be good to go.
Congress does have the authority to question apparent lying by the Executive branch, and commonly does so. Just as commonly the Executive branch asserts its executive privilege rights. It's part of the process on which our tripartite government was designed and is necessary to maintain appropriate checks and balances. Of course, both sides use it for political gamesmanship as well. So in practice there tends to be less tension when the same party is in control of Congress and the Presidency, and more tension when the power is split, and even more when there is the divisiveness that has run rampant during the past two presidential residencies spanning nearly 16 years now (i.e., G.W. Bush and W.J. Clinton).
It's likely that the tug of war will continue without any real resolution until election day gets close enough to overwhelm any other issue. After election day, of course, the whole thing is moot.
There is not "another" American government which protects you from tyranny and corruption. It is utterly irrational to speak as if the government can endlessly move toward unConstitutional disruption of it's functioning, and never arrive at the end of Constitutional government. It can happen. Really.
I am reminded of one of the very first "story" jokes I can remember hearing. In those bygone days, it was cast as what was non-maliciously referred to as a "Pollock" joke, but now might be better cast as a "blond" joke (since I'm "blond in the summer, I'll take that liberty);
A big four engine passenger plane shudders, and drops a bit, suddenly. The pilot comes on the intercom, and says;
"Sorry for the bumpy ride, it's nothing to worry about, we just lost one of our engines, it happens quite often, and we can easily cruise safely with the other three. Our flight will merely be delayed slightly, perhaps 15 minutes, by the reduced optimum speed we will now be flying. Relax and enjoy the rest of your flight".
A few minutes later, there is another disturbance, and again the pilot;
"Sorry again folks, but another engine has malfunctioned. We are still quite safe, and can proceed just fine on the two remaining engines. The flight will be delayed somewhat, about 30 minutes, but there's no reason not to relax and be patient, I have dealt with this sort of thing many times, we'll be fine".
Shortly, still another odd vibration, and a pronounced drop, and;
"Well folks, a very unusual thing has happened, and we are left with just one engine. We can still fly, and our destination is the closest landing sight, our arrival will be delayed by an hour now, but I am confident we will be alright, please remain calm, we are doing what we can to get you there safely."
Blond leans over to the passenger next to her, and says;
"Gee, if that last engine goes out, we'll be up here all day."
To take comfort in the fact that the improper functioning of our government is far advanced, and multifaceted, is virtual insanity.
I appreciate all the comments, especially Clark's, and the critical ones. I want everyone to know that it is fine to disagree with me, criticize me, and even to attack my "ideology," if you must. I thank all of you for keeping it enjoyable, and interesting.
Bruce