WOW! Bush prevents Justice from Pursuing Contempt Charges

The following document is two years old, but has a laundry list of laws which have been violated, or which may have been violated and further investigations have been stonewalled.

[rquoter]
There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.

[/rquoter]

The Constitution in Crisis

If you can still try to claim that the case is clear that the administration has broken no laws and this is all political theater, your head is further up your posterior that I believed. If Bush was really so above the fray and wholesome, why is he dancing as fast as he can to keep the legitimate bodies of oversight from finding out anything at all? That, after all, is the entire freaking point of this thread. It is called "Bush prevents Justice from Pursuing Contempt Charges", remember? It is all about Bush blocking the pursuit of justice?

 

Hmmm..... praise from T_J? Ok jo mama you are totally correct.

Lets all say it together.

Impeachment is a political and not a legal procedure.

 

how so texx? you are going to need to elaborate a little further.

but texx, you can and should impeach if the president commits crimes, which this one has. where did i say that i want to impeach simply b/c i oppose his policies? i am talking about criminal behavior. you are misrepresenting my position and i will not tolerate it. CONSIDER THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING! i am el_rushbo, i mean the_conquistador, i mean jo_mama.

please let me know where i have identified myself as a liberal, b/c thats news to me! or do you now think 70% of the country are liberals? i repsect sishirs opinion and posting style, but i disagree w/ his statements on these issues and he appears to be misinformed on certain key things. i know it is a difficult concept for bush supporters to understand, but just b/c we are both against bush doesnt mean that we automatically agree on every issue. we arent like little nazis or bush supporters, marching lock-step on everything.

in texx's brown-shirted world opposition to bush makes one a "liberal". is there really any thing else that makes me a "liberal" to you other than the fact that i think this administration is totally criminal? call me alanis 'cause i wanna know!

furthermore, as a bush supporter, for you to call others a liberal is a joke. you really need to get beyond all this b.s. "liberal vs. conservative" crap that you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by. it means nothing anymore.

im mad texx, but i never said that was a reason to impeach. you impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, which this administration has committed more than its share of.

 

I suck at politics. And I'm Canadian.

But it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me to impeach a president for ruining his country. Sounds a hell of alot more solid then "let's impeach the president for getting a blowjob!!!11111"

 

I do think gross incompetience is a basis for impeachment. People should be fired for being a crappy leader.

Many people aren't opposed to his policies, but rather opposed at his ability to lead and make intelligent decisions. The man procedes in a reckless and irresponsible way, and his decision making reflects a lack of consideration, consensus, and discussion. The mistakes he has made are serious. He has also serverely damaged the balance of power between the congress and the executive branches.

I think those are grounds for impeachment. It won't happen, there's not enough time, but there should be a penalty to pay for what he has done.

 

July 25, 2007, 12:45PM
House panel OKs contempt citations against White House aides

link



By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press


WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee voted contempt of Congress citations today 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 for 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 accuses 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.

 

This was inevitable. President's have been reaching for more power since day 1.

Bush maybe a crappy president but other than the Iraq war and the WOT he hasn't done much of anything to screw me personally. Its hard to get that excited about. Should we leave Iraq? yea, should we have a more transparent government? yea, but this isn't the end of the world or anything.

With moves like these, Congress is just trying to appeal their moonbat base--nothing more.

 

Care to explain how congress is the one making "moves" here?

 

The contempt charges Congress passed today. Isn't that what this was in response to?

 

70% of the country are "moonbats"

 

no, crazy people on the internet who believe in their own personal "spirit guides" but not Jesus and believe the USAF is attempting widespread mind control by poisoning us with chemtrails are moonbats.

Go to democraticunderground.com. That place is like moonbat central.

 

So as long as it doesn't affect you day to day life whatever the President does is OK?

 

not ok, just not enough to get me standing up in the front row yelling for impeachment.

 

Interesting...

As some will tell you, I'm about as moonbat, libpig crazy as you'll find here and I've never heard of that site.

anyway

I think your logic that this isn't a big deal is a little off. An out of control president that has no oversight is what scared the founding fathers the most when they framed the constitution and bill of rights.

 

that's because you are a small man. personally, i'm fortunate in that i'll probably never have a problem providing for my family. however, i am seething mad that our country is so unjust and getting worse.

 

Don't get me wrong. If Bush clearly broke a law and it was unavoidably obvious, like lying under oath, I'd be all for his impeachment. The problem is everything that has been brought out that is so "clear cut," really isn't when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it. That's the only reason I believe it hasn't already happened.

Impeaching someone because of stupid policy decisions, or debatably (sic?) overstepping ones power, doesn't do it for me. Now if Bush declares martial law tomorrow (which I don't think would happen) or decides to sell Alaska back to Russia (or something equally extreme. You get my point) I'd be all for it.

I don't doubt the democrats will win the next election and they'll have plenty of time to make stupid mistakes of their own.

 

so in your mind congress' base is "crazy people on the internet who believe in their own personal "spirit guides" but not Jesus and believe the USAF is attempting widespread mind control by poisoning us with chemtrails are moonbats"?

ok, have fun with that.

 

he did and it is

wiretapping of american citizens is illegal, authorizing torture is illegal, funding fake news stories and propaganda w/out disclosing that you are doing just that is illegal and starting wars based on lies is illegal.

furthermore, i would argue that bringing this country into the north american union is a violation of our sovereignty, which presidents swear an oath to uphold. the concept of "free speech zones", the military commissions act of 2006 and the denial of habeus corpus go against the very foundations of what the founders fought for.

 

What's the north american union? I'll assume this is something that is not NAFTA.

 

unavoidably obvious?

that's good...

You forgot outing a CIA agent in a time of war.