Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/11/fired.prosecutors.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/07/11/fired.prosecutors.ap/index.html</a> So exactly when is this crap from the White House going to stop? From the link: "President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings. "Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning. Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, that Miers would not show up Thursday to answer questions about the White House role in the firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter. Conyers, who had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee' subpoenas, revealed the letters after former White House political director Sara Taylor testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. ---------------------- Fielding, the Bush lawyer here, has an interesting if checkered past. From wikipedia: "He served as Associate Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1970 to 1972, where he was the deputy to John Dean during the Watergate scandal. He was the Counsel to the President for President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1986. Fielding has also served on the Tribunal on the U.S.-UK Air Treaty Dispute (1989-1994), as a member of the president's Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform (1989), as a member of the Secretary of Transportation's Task Force on Aviation Disasters (1997-1998) and as a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission)." Yeah, just how did that Watergate thing turn out? Fred apparently doesn't remember history.
Originally Posted By jonvn When will it stop? It won't. It did not stop with Nixon until the Supreme Court told him to hand over his tapes. In this instance, he can pull that same thing over and over again for every single subpoena that comes his way. Make each one go to a federal court, and then he can still ignore it. It's impeachable, but they won't do that, so he has ultimate power, doesn't he.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.british-israel.ca/you_reap_what_you_sow.htm" target="_blank">http://www.british-israel.ca/y ou_reap_what_you_sow.htm</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "Do you believe that a person gets what's coming to him or her every single time, without fail?" No, I don't.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Does Congress have the independent ability to enforce a subpoena? I would imagine they normally use an executive agency to do so, such as the US Marshals Service, but what if the executive branch chooses not to cooperate? It looks like the US Capitol Police is the only Congressional branch law enforcement agency. I wonder if they could locate her and make her appear? Note that according to reports, the President has advised her not only to not answer questions regarding her service in the White House, but to totally disregard the subpoena and not even appear. I find it hard to believe that he has the authority to do that.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> "Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," - White House Counsel Fred Fielding << Interesting statement. The white house is asserting that anybody they say has "absolute immunity" regarding "any matter occuring" during their tenure within the administration. We've known for some time that this administration believes themselves to be above and beyond the rule of law, and that they have no accountability to anybody, but we've known this through their actions. Now they're coming right out and saying it. In public no less. What audacity. This repeated "in yer face" arrogance begs for comeuppance. Unfortunately they may indeed get away with it. Why? Those same GOP congressmen who may privately believe that this administration is overstepping their authority, but their allegience to their party outweighs their responsibility to represent the public - "us". Even today the GOP senators succeeding in blocking a measure that would make it harder to return military units back to iraq after they've returned home. NOT out of support for the war, but out of blind loyalty to their party. They're certainly not going to support investigations into corruption within the executive branch, even though they know it's rampant, and even though they know that oversight is one of the most important functions of the legislative branch. Which makes them part of corruption. They would rather abdicate their own responsibilities in order to protect their party from scandal. So the biggest problem is still the bush administration, but the republicans within congress are actively enabling and abetting this corruption, and thus are nearly as much of a problem. Which leads back to the people that vote them into office in the first place - presumeably because they believe that republicans are the party of "morality" and "fiscal responsibility". Oh the irony.
Originally Posted By jonvn The truth is that the President can grant a full pardon to anyone he wants to for anything. So, if she is cited for contempt of Congress, he grants her a pardon, and that's it. The only thing that can trump this is an impeachment, but the Dems in congress don't have the guts to do it. So he gets away with whatever he wants to do, legal or not.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The truth is that the President can grant a full pardon to anyone he wants to for anything. So, if she is cited for contempt of Congress, he grants her a pardon, and that's it. >>> But until such time as the President grants a pardon, my question still stands.
Originally Posted By jonvn I imagine the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress can have someone arrested. But then they have to be held for a reason someplace, and if there is no way to prosecute someone you can't really hold them. It's hard to know, because most Presidents try to actually follow the intent and spirit of the law in good faith, and we have someone here who does not.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Does Congress have the independent ability to enforce a subpoena? I would imagine they normally use an executive agency to do so, such as the US Marshals Service, but what if the executive branch chooses not to cooperate? It looks like the US Capitol Police is the only Congressional branch law enforcement agency. I wonder if they could locate her and make her appear?<< If someone refuses to obey a Congressional subpoena, the chamber (Senate or House of Representatives) which issued the subpoena can vote to cite the person for "contempt of Congress." If someone is sited for contempt of Congress, it's up to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute that person. I don't think any U.S. Attorney has ever failed to prosecute someone cited for contempt of Congress. Failure to prosecute might be an impeachable offense. A President or Attorney General who ordered a U.S. Attorney not to prosecute someone might also be subject to impeachment.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< If someone is sited for contempt of Congress, it's up to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute that person. >>> But there's the problem - the US attorney is an executive branch officer. In this case, there's a dispute between the executive branch and legislative branch. <<< I don't think any U.S. Attorney has ever failed to prosecute someone cited for contempt of Congress. Failure to prosecute might be an impeachable offense. >>> But the President could then issue another executive privilege order, or pardon the US attorney for the offense. <<< A President or Attorney General who ordered a U.S. Attorney not to prosecute someone might also be subject to impeachment. >>> And the President might even be able to pardon themselves. This is what I'm getting at. I think it's one of the reasons that the US Capitol Police is not an executive agency. Congress needs to have its own authority and means of enforcement to carry out its oversight responsibilities over the executive branch, if the executive branch chooses to further abuse its power to cover up an investigation of a previous abuse.
Originally Posted By alexbook ^--That's what impeachment is for. If the President is that far out of control, he can be removed. And he can't pardon his way out of it. And if you believe that Congress doesn't have the guts to impeach the President, then what makes you think they'd have the guts to order their private police force to attack the executive branch?
Originally Posted By alexbook To expand a little: I'm a big fan of our Constitution. The balance of powers among the three co-equal branches was brilliantly conceived. The President can only achieve supremacy over the courts and Congress, if the courts and Congress allow him to do so. If the President (*any* President) arrogates powers to himself which are not based in the Constitution, then Congress and the courts have remedies ready to use. If they refuse to use these remedies, then can we really fault successive Presidents for grabbing increasing amounts of power? The founders anticipated that Presidents would assert powers which they weren't entitled to. They failed to anticipate that Congress and the courts would go along. The remedy, as I see it, is to elect some Representatives and Senators with backbone. If a President believed there was a real possibility that he could be removed, he (or she) would moderate his (or her) actions accordingly.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I guess what I'm trying to say is that there should be (and probably is but has never been tested) a mechanism short of impeachment for Congress to be able to perform its oversight functions. Of course, what you say in #16 is absolutely the ultimate remedy against a President that simply chooses not to obey the law. But we're back in the same position if Congress is unable to use its independent authority to gather evidence and compel witness testimony - how would they conduct an impeachment proceeding without these enforceable powers?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>But we're back in the same position if Congress is unable to use its independent authority to gather evidence and compel witness testimony - how would they conduct an impeachment proceeding without these enforceable powers?<< But would it really make sense to have the Capitol Police or the Sergeant-at-Arms rounding up witnesses? Suppose the President orders the Secret Service or the FBI to protect someone who's wanted by the Capitol Police? If it comes down to a show of force, the executive will always have more resources. Congress does have other sticks they can use to penalize an uncooperative President, like censure or cutting budgets or stalling nominations, but the current Congress doesn't seem interested in using them.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The truth is that the President can grant a full pardon to anyone he wants to for anything. << That's true - but that's not what bush is doing here. Instead, he's saying that he can pre-emptively prohibit congressional subpeonas for testimony from anyone who was ever part of an administration. This effectively hamstrings congress from their constitutional responsibility of oversight for the executive branch. This is more than just commuting a sentence after conviction. It's extra-constitutional and probably (yet) another impeachable offense. The problem is that congress has taken impeachment off of the table - which frees up the president to do anything he wants. Even if they don't intend to impeach, it's a foolish policy to say so. The threat of impeachment is the only thing congress has left to reign in bush's excesses.
