"Come and get me ya sissies!"
Posted on 03/28/2007 8:41:45 PM PDT by CyberAnt
The current projectile-sweat-the-Republic-is-in-danger-of-collapse issue is whether the President will respond to subpoenas issued by the House and Senate Judiciary committees which would require (at a minimum) Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify under oath about the firing of those eight previously unknown US Attorneys.
SIDEBAR
Let's be clear about this. The Democrats will spend some portion of their day, every day until 12:01 pm on January 20, 2009 trying to get Karl Rove to testify under oath about something so they can ask him about everything. As far as the Democrats are concerned, Karl Rove is Darth Vader, Voldemort, and Professor Moriarty all rolled into one.
END SIDEBAR
This tug-of-war between the Executive and Legislative branches of government is not that new. In fact, according to an essay on the Findlaw.com website by Columbia University professor of law Michael Dorf: In 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material.
Not long after, according to Professor Dorf, President Thomas Jefferson refused a demand by Chief Justice John Marshall that he produce a document demanded by the attorney for Aaron Burr (who was on trial for treason).
Jefferson refused to comply with the order of the Chief Justice, but decided provide the document "voluntarily" thus preserving the rights of the Presidency.
If you think these ancient and obscure examples are not relevant, think again. From Dorf's essay: Thus, President Clinton negotiated the terms under which he appeared before Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury, rather than simply answering a subpoena directing him to appear.
Cool, huh?
Usually, an accommodation is reached. According to an article by John Dean (yes, THAT John Dean): During the Reagan Administration, Martin Anderson took charge of the Office of Policy Development and refused to testify. The House then refused to give him any money. Anderson met "informally" with the subcommittee, and his budget was restored.
But let's assume no accommodation is reached. What then? According to Washington attorney Alan Baron, if a subpoena is issued (which has not yet happened) and if the President decides to defy (or ignore) it; the next step is for the House and/or the Senate to declare, by majority vote, that the person who has been ordered to appear is in contempt of Congress.
Leaving aside the notion that the Congress - not matter which party is in control - is often eminently contemptible, the U.S. Attorney's office must bring the contempt case before a grand jury to decide whether the person who has ignored the subpoena should be charged with the crime of ... ignoring the subpoena.
If the grand jury indicts, then the case goes to trial and the U.S. Attorney - acting on behalf of the Congress - must prove the case.
Are you still with me?
Because here's the really interesting part: Let's say Karl Rove is subpoenaed by the Dems and the President orders him not to comply. The House votes that he is in contempt and the case goes to the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney convenes a Grand Jury which indicts Rove.
To use the Scooter Libby case as a guide: The criminal investigation about the leak was opened in September, 2003. Mr. Libby was convicted in March 2007 - three and-a-half years later.
Even assuming things move along at an extraordinarily fast pace, a trial in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse will be scheduled and, guess what? The President invokes his power of the pardon; pardons Rove and the bidding for the book deal begins.
That is the absolute outer edge of the end of the current subpoena battle but, in the end, Nancy Pelosi loses because neither Rove nor Miers ever testifies under oath.
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: A link to the Dorf and to the John Dean essays; also a Mullfoto which will help you understand why I don't have many friends and a Catchy Caption of the Day.
ALL THAT PLUS - The latest edition of Dear Mr. Mullings. New Today!
--END--
Copyright ©2006 Barrington Worldwide, LLC
And Pres. Bush could just keep firing the US Attorneys as the case is assigned to them. BWAHAHAHA! Neat, I think.
I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall on that day!! :-)
Can't wait until the time arrives (it must arrive eventually) when Bush is so close to the end of his term that he can tell the whole pack of idiots to go take a nap on the railroad tracks.
The Congress also has the power to impeach, convict, and remove the President and Vice-President of the United States for any of the several "high crimes and misdemeanors" that he has committed (in the exclusive opinion and judgment of the Distinguished Members of Congress involved). Winking the wrong way could suffice. Evidence is unnecessary. Nancy Pelosi has the votes to impeach, and Harry Reid almost certainly can amass the votes to convict on any serious charges or perhaps even petty charges like ignoring subpoenas. If the political position of the President deteriorates further, he could lose his office on such ridiculous or silly charges as vetoing acts of Congress, choking on a pretzel, employing those who suffer from cancer but oppose socialized medicine, having a cycling accident, or exhaling carbon dioxide as a Republican.
The point: Bush should fight the subpoena battle only to the extent that his engagement in it does not endanger his presidency. Perhaps he should compromise, "Strike the surrender clause, and I'll send you whoever you want under whatever conditions you may demand." The White House operates from a position of extreme weakness, and the President cannot afford the political fallout from such scandalous conduct as violating the unconstitutional Tenure of Office Act, repealed a century ago.
"Come and get me ya sissies!"
Well .. I think you're delusional. Try your DU speech on somebody else .. it's not working on me.
Nowdays, people who invoke the 5th, look like they have something to hide.
Yeah, I thought that was a great idea too.
I agree with you.
I don't know .. I've been wondering that myself. Maybe I'll see if Mark Levin can answer that one.
Thats silly
Bush should fight to the bitter end. The rats have been all about getting him out of office ever since he was selected, er, elected. It dont matter what he does. There will always be someone out to hang him for something. Same for the rest of the Bush cabinet.
The demoRats ssame ol dirty dozen has been taking turns almost daily with some accusation or another.
So let congress attempt to impeach Bush. Then we can have President Cheney run things for awhile. I don't think they want that succession. But then again, Rats have pretty small brains.
I love it!! Can't remember the name of the movie, but I always liked him as an actor.
Thats Cagney in White Heat ..."Top of the world!!!"
"And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Pelosi couldn't get two-thirds to vote for adjournment on Christmas Day, let alone impeachment of an innocent President.
I thought he was the anti-Christ.
Anyway, this is a silly battle the dims have chosen. Executive privilege is legitimate in this case, especially in the absence of any criminal activity, which no one including the dims are alleging. Therefore, executive priv will rule the day. And then of course that DC US Attorney, is a Bush appointee. It seems to me that it would be within his discretion to bring a contempt action against anyone, especially if he believes the subpoena was not proper.
I wouldn't put it past this Congress to try to override executive authority in the name of ...heck, whatever it is they swear by, cause it sure ain't the Bible. They promised "A New Direction" during the election...no impeachment hearings! No time-wasting investigations!!
So far, all they've shown is that they are a bunch of liars who can't be trusted as far as you can throw them, and not even that far!! >:-(
Then we move to the Senate. Please recall it takes the "concurrance of 2/3's of the members present" to convict. That means Harry Reid would have to get 67 votes. You think Vegas Harry can convince 16 Republicans to convict Bush on trumped up charges? I think not.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
bump
"A New Direction"
Shoot, I thought they promised 'a nude erection'...
I question whether Democratic senators from red states would survive voting to convict Bush of doing the job of POTUS to which a majority of their constituents elected him. And I certainly question whether the Democrats would pick up any Senate seats in '08 with such a record.Even Harry Reid probably would tell Nancy to cool it, before it got that far. I would question whether even the Democrats could muster more than half of their own senators for such a meretricious fool's errand as that. It's not the same thing, of course, given the assymmmetry of Big Journalism - but the Republican senators weren't even unanimous to convict Mr. Clinton, and he was guilty as sin.
Harry Reid almost certainly can amass the votes to convict on any serious charges or perhaps even petty charges like ignoring subpoenas
They can call for impeachment on just about any grounds. They may even get the votes to impeach, but I doubt vey seriesly they'd ever convict. Heck, they couldn't convict x42, and he bold faced lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury, and obstructed Justice in the case. Now, I must admit, having the Dems in charge of the Senate gives me pause, but even the RINOS didn't vote to convict x42, I don't think they'd vote to convict President Bush of anything, and without the RINOS, the Dems won't win it, because not ALL the Dem senators are idiots.
"Nowdays, people who invoke the 5th, look like they have something to hide."
That is why everyone subpeonaed should take the 5th. Everyone, and it should be an announced policy. Tell the country that the Administration has no responsibility to participate in political show trials.
In addition, the President should invoke executive privilidge for all his senior aids. The judicial history of the courts rejecting subpeona's from congress is pretty long and it takes the issue out of a partisan hearing and into the courts where the issue can be delayed for years.
The Senate can convene and vote on an impeachment charge with a minimal quorum of a mere 51 members; the minimum number of distinguished Senators necessary to convict on impeachment therefore is just 34. One of the remaining 17 presumably could filibuster the move, and invoking cloture would require 60 votes. A 51-0 unanimous consent resolution, however, could move the question and defeat any filibuster, so Harry Reid therefore only needs 34 Senators supporting impeachment and 51 not opposed to it. That move would require a bit of strategic thinking on the part of Democrats to send the Republicans collectively to a special caucus meeting in the bathroom. But I don't doubt that the Democrats are sufficiently devious to pull off such a conviction despite their ubiquitous insanity.
The Dems don't really care about Rove physically testifying. They want a long drawn-out drama so the predictable court of opinion works for them.
Well .. yes, but what they really want is a charge of PERJURY!
Why .. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CLINTON GOT!! It's all about payback! Proving to me they are a bunch of little children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.