July 25, 2007
Contempt, Indeed (Ron Christie)
Is it any wonder why the American people hold Congress in lower regard than President Bush these days? After campaigning on their “Six in '06” slogan last year, Democrats have instead claimed they received a “mandate” from the American people to pull troops out of Iraq and investigate the living daylights out of the Bush administration. I don’t remember much of that on the campaign trail, do you?
Just a few minutes ago, the House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize criminal contempt of Congress charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. Their alleged crimes? Refusing to disclose internal deliberations and documents that the president of the United States asserted were protected by executive privilege. The notion of executive privilege, of course, is that the president should be able to have confidential discussions with his closest advisers in full candor without fear of their being hauled up to Congress on fishing expeditions.
Never mind that the dismissal of the nine former U.S. attorneys in question was entirely proper and permissible for the president to do for any reason or no reason at all. While Justice Department explanations on this topic have been clumsy at best, the president is able to hire or fire political appointees entirely at his pleasure or discretion. Should the president dislike their tie — gone. So they have bad breath? Hit the exits, please.
Yet congressional Democrats have alleged that there must be something nefarious behind these firings. Something that warrants the kind of constitutional showdown on which the courts have previously sided on behalf of the executive branch: The president can hire or fire certain employees for any reason or no reason at all.
So here we are. There’s a war on terrorism being waged bravely by our servicemen abroad and serious issues here at home for the Congress to address. Instead, today’s vote shows true contempt for the American people by showing more interest in scoring partisan political points against the president than doing the job these members were elected to do. For shame.
18 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Just let the Reid/Pelosi troops show their true colors. If the idiots are as confused on Iraq and I have been saying, even not being able to lie coherently, can they be geniuses on what's good for their own political survival? This is a good country that over the years improved itself. It will get over the evil wave that took over Congress recently. The echoes of the early 70s when the scum forced a global retreat on the US culminating in 9/11 will die down and sanity and national self-interest will return.
Comment by Igor R. — July 25, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Ron;
Miers and Bolten are lucky Conyers is the Chairman instead of me. If they had blown off a supeona on me I would've issued an "Inherent Contempt" charge and had teh Sergant-at-Arm send folks to bring them in. I would have perp-walked them in front of the camera into the house chambers. How dare they not obey a supeona. You and I cannot do that and in teh USA no one is above the law, even your old boss Cheney.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 25, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
TRANSLATION FOR THE ABOVE EASILY-DEBUNKED BLATHER
Wah, Wah, Wah
It just must really aggravate that your party got smacked around so badly last November, but deal with it lake an adult for a change
Since W is going to veto any legislation coming from the Dems, there's really not much else for them to do besides investigate the living Hell out of this Chickenhawk infested Administration
Funny, but the fact that Gonzales' stories keep changing every time a new batch of documents and e-mails is released doesn't indicate honesty in the least, it indicates someone with something to hide
If this Administration isn't breaking the law, then why does it need to claim Executive Privilege at every turn?
BTW-Clinton waived Executive Privilege during the disastrous-for the GOP at least-impeachment, and he didn't pardon those directly related to Whitewater-Jim & Susan McDougal-when they were serving prison time
I notice you didn't mention the poll which shows that most US citizens favor Congress overseeing the disastrous Iraq occupation instead of W
I also don't hear the GOP talk about eliminating filibusters anymore via the so-called "Nuclear Option", but just like their elitist, ivory-tower moral-relativism natures dictate, hypocrisy is a seemingly ingrained trait with the GOP
And let us also not forget just which party actually filibustered AGAINST properly-rested, properly-deployed, properly-equipped and properly armored US troops, the GOP, which puts them firmly on the side of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Usama bin Laden
But if a bunch of terrorist sympathizers like the Senate GOP-with the exceptions of Hagel, Snow & Smith-are who you wish to stand with, then by all means, proclaim your allegiance to the terrorist sympathizers known as the Bush Jr Administration and GOP
And since I love raining on fact-free parades, W is NOT free to fire the US Attorneys for any reason, he's free to do it for any LEGAL reason
If the Atty's were fired because they refused to go after only one political party, then guess what, that's clearly illegal
But as we saw during the 5 years of GOP non-oversight of this clearly out of control and delusional Executive Branch, clearly illegal actions are alright as long as they're carried out by W, his Administration and GOP Enablers
When the GOP starts believing the rule of law applies to it's members and this Administration, that'll be something truly worth writing about
Spin away all you want, but none of it is going to rally this country around the GOP or W again, no matter how fervently you wish or tell yourself otherwise
One other thing
This Administration and and its GOP enablers clearly know the Iraq debacle is a lost cause, as they used to talk about what "victory" would supposedly look like, but are now talking about the horrors and consequences if the US were to withdraw
Comment by KingCranky — July 25, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Americans voted against Bush. A blind Christie can see with his cane that this is true. It is about time that Congress gets back their oversight. Their ratings will go up. That is your big fear isn't it Christie? I already view you as one of the most unethical persons on the planet. You add to that conception daily in your posts here. I would say you would be entitled to an opinion but you are such a liar on so many issues, you deserve the "praise". BTW John Bolton was a PNAC person, and advocated a new Pearl Harbor. He wants America to control the wealth and oil and petrocurrency throughout the world. He is evil to the core. You think he doesn't deserve anything?
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 25, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
This is one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read since I stopped reading Glenn Reynolds. Do you REALLY don't think that the congressional sea change of '06 was a mandate for congressional oversight? If not, perhaps punditry isn't the right field for you.
Your framing of the issues here is confusing to lay people. No one has ever suggested that the president lacks CONSTITUTIONAL authority to remove political appointees for any/no reason. That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's AN ABUSE of that authority to replace United States Attorneys (who aren't mere "employees," as you call them, but are rather principal officers of the United States government who have expansive powers) for certain reasons. Indeed, I would submit to you, sir, that while the president may remove political appointees for no reason at all, there are certain reasons that MAY NOT or SHOULD NOT motivate such a decision and that the American people have a right to know why and how such decisions are made.
If certain deliberations between the president and his counsel are privileged, Ms. Miers (or whoever the witness happens to be) is free to assert said privilege in response to particular questions. But to simply ignore a congressional subpoena, to treat it as a mere invitation to chat, it contemptible behavior.
Unlike the late Republican Congressional majority, this congress has this funny notion that they represent a coequal branch of government that is entitled to respect. Go home, read Article I of the constitution, then go back to your computer and write a better blog post because this is simply awful.
Comment by Nicholas Rogers — July 25, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
I wish the Republicans would do some investigations of Democrats.
Perhaps an investigation of Harry Reid's land deal and links to Jack Abramoff. Maybe an investigation into the campaign finance irregularities of Ms. Hillary Clinton.
There was no mandate in the 2006 election. It was the result of a massive propaganda campaign between the Democrats and news organizations.
Where did Mark Foley go? Why, he magically disappeared immediately after the 2006 elections!
Why did pro-Iraq War Joe Lieberman, who ran as an Independent after being booted by the DFL, get re-elected again?
Where's the mandate in that?
LOL!
Comment by DFAL — July 25, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Look at how the left wingers are trying to insist on laws that don't exist.
"The issue is whether it’s AN ABUSE of that authority to replace United States Attorneys …for certain reasons. Indeed, I would submit to you, sir, that while the president may remove political appointees for no reason at all, there are certain reasons that MAY NOT or SHOULD NOT motivate such a decision and that the American people have a right to know why and how such decisions are made."
No, the American public has no Constitutionally nor statutory right to know why the attorneys were fired.
Just as the DFL tried to steal the 2000 election by rewriting existing law, they are trying to write law on the fly in this instance.
The fact the DFL has wasted so much time and resources on this non-issue is proof of what frauds and phonies they are.
Comment by DFAL — July 25, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
"[T]he American public has no Constitutionally nor statutory right to know why the attorneys were fired."
Hear no evil, see no evil (unless a Democrat does it). This is the Republican mantra.
Comment by Nicholas Rogers — July 25, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
And the GOP sheeple still bleat and blather away, and really, no comment shows their desire to let others do their thinking for them than this little gem
"No, the American public has no Constitutionally nor statutory right to know why the attorneys were fired."
Only a President with something to hide needs to worry about claiming "Executive Privilege"
Just what is it about upholding the rule of law and thinking for yourself that scares the GOP lackeys so much?
And with regards to Lieberman, please do try to remember that during the General Election he ran a VERY anti-Iraq occupation campaign, he also promised oversight of the Feds shameful response to Katrina
Of course, as soon as he was re-elected, with overwhelming GOP support-at the expense of the GOP's ACTUAL candidate-the anti-occupation and pro-accountability platforms Lieberman campaigned on were tossed in the nearest trashcan
And let's not forget just how slimy and hypocritical Lieberman was in condemning Bill Clinton way back when, but then begged for the Slick One's support to be reelected
But hey, if that's who you want to ally yourself with, it's a free country, no matter how much W, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Usama bin Laden and the GOP may wish otherwise
Comment by KingCranky — July 25, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
You wacked out neocons could only get it (extent of filth and corruption) if there was sex involved in the story, I see. But then again, maybe that was just because Clinton was a D and not an R. How can you ever consider yourselves 'objective'? Oh yea, you're neocons.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 25, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
I apologize, it was Josh Bolten, not the PNAC guy John Bolton, who was charged with contempt.
You know Igor, that we were losing Vietnam. You know that and yet you continue to be angry at the Dems for saving lives and stopping the madness. And while I am on the subject of war, Igor, please note that 3 percent of the insurgents are Al Qaeda and 97 percent are freedom fighters who don't want the US companies stealing 70 percent of the oil, just like Iran didn't want us to steal oil back in the 50's so we put in the Shah. Wake up Igor, Igor, Igor.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 25, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Can't quite connect the dots there, huh Ron? Is it all too fuzzy to you?
What will it take for you to realize that the Attorney General, of the USA, is a lying lacky? Is that just too much to get your brain around? Is it ok to just let Gonzo "slide" this time around?
Ron, last time I checked, 'lying to congress' is a felony punishable by imprisonment and/or financial penalty. Is 'lying to congress' legal in your alternate, neocon universe? Perhaps you see things in full bias?
Ron, I have kids and grandkids, do you? How do you explain and engage them in this "lying to congress" topic? Put your head in the sand? Flash your hands in front of thier faces so they can't see for themselves?
Ron, did you support Clinton's impeachment?
Comment by Lester Fields — July 25, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
I think there is nothing so disgusting or demeaning than a black man who still serves a master. Christie is nothing more than a token servant to the GOP and should be ashamed. He probably can do more meaningful work and very likely could if he hadn't just sold out.
Comment by hdhouse — July 26, 2007 @ 6:57 am
There's that neocon vocabulary again. It's the one word that comes up when the liberals have nothing of substance to bring up.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 26, 2007 @ 8:18 am
Ron, just let the Democrats and their liberal lunatics "investigate" (aka. witch-hunt) themseleves right out of their majorities in Congress and we will all be better for it.
Gary Anderson–do you have any more anti-US conspiracy theories to share with us? They are always good for a laugh
Comment by Andrew Clark — July 26, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
RR;
That "neocon vocabulary" goes right to the heart of most of these arguments. The Neocon thought that they could run the country as a monarchy by having a terrorist attack on the US,(real PNAC quote "We need another Pearl Harbor"), rally the country around an imperial attack on some poor country(Iraq) and reap the rewards from no-bid contracts. In the beginning it worked but then things didn't go as planned. First all of the people who could pull it off were either fired or resigned in good conscience. The only ones left were yes men and people who had never done this before. In the first few glory days after Bagdad fell, every one was on our side but they also said that since we got rid of Saddam, it was now time to leave. Well we didn't leave and like a good friend that stays too long, the native got restive. The military began doing dumb things like shooting and killing innocent civilians, breaking down doors in the middle of the night.(That's something that Saddam didn't even do.) Basically we made ourselves out to worst than Saddam and support for out invasion fell faster than Lindsey Lohan on a bottle of wine. Now the only reason we're still there is because of the oil law. The law that gives majority control of Iraq's oil to ExxonMobil, Texaco and other oil companies which the Iraqis don't like. So in short, this was all about stealing oil and they couldn't do that right. So you see RR, in the Neocon vocabulary, failure has become linked to neocons and their ilk because everything they touch turns to sh!t.
Comment by Mike Coleman — July 26, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
To HD House: What kind of an idiot are you? Christie expressed his right to free speech and you attack him based on his race and serving as a slave to a master? Your comments disguest me.
Comment by John Robinson — July 26, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
hdhouse, what you said is terribly offensive. I am against political correctness, but your statement is just such pure hatred, it stands out.
Comment by Igor R. — July 26, 2007 @ 5:28 pm