Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."Keep in mind that we knew this was coming. Contempt charges leveled by Congress have to be enforced by the Department of Justice, and this is not the first time the DOJ has refused to do so. That's why Congress instituted another form of contempt: Inherent contempt. Such charges are enforced by the Capitol Hill Police under the direction of the Sergeant at Arms for either the Senate or the House. As I've noted earlier, the President can be arrested during the State of the Union.
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.
A confrontation between the Capitol Hill Police and the Secret Service would be one of the most dramatic and unpredictable encounters in the history of this country. Nobody wants to see such a event. But the administration seems to be intent on forcing it.
(The marvelous Marcy Wheeler takes the argument in a similar direction, but goes a step or two further.)
On another topic: Did you know that your printer can be used to spy on you? Suggestion: Print out your black and white documents without the color cartridge in the machine.
5 comments:
I'm going to take respond to a couple of readers here. But understand that this is NOT your opportunity to debate with me on the subject of trannyism. That time has passed, and I've received far too much guff to feel anything but fury toward you.
A reader asked me how I could be "open" to what Daniel Hopsicker has to saw while rejecting the things Alex Jones and Jim Fetzer have to say. The dividing line is PSEUDOSCIENCE.
(Well, there's also the fact that Daniel does field research, while Fetzer is an idiot who has brought discredit to every topic he has ever addressed.)
I will say it again, even though I convey the message every single day: The collapses of the World Trade Center began AT THE POINTS OF IMPACT. Not a single expert in controlled demolitions in the world believes this nonsense.
In fact, the journal of real CD experts -- it's called "Implosion World" -- has printed a definitive refutation of these pseudoscientific theories. (Yes, I know that there have been tranny responses to the IW reports. File those responses alongside the "responses" you sometimes hear from holocaust deniers, global warming deniers and creationists.)
I am personally persuaded, but cannot prove, that trannyism is a ploy to divert attention from the real issues to arise out of 9/11. The things discussed in "911: Press for Truth" have received none of the publicity given to Jim Fetzer and his space lasers or Steve Jones and his non-existent thermite bombs.
Trannies, in short, are not just wrong-headed -- they are evil.
By the way, Brad Friedman asked me to do a guest-writing stint on his blog not long ago. I was glad to help -- until I realized that every time my byline appeared on his site, my inbox would be inundated with tranny hate mail. Apparently, I was "infiltrating." So I had to tell Brad I could not write for him anymore.
I don't know why the trannies fixate on me. Most left-wing bloggers feel as I do on the subject, although the others take an "ignore them and they'll go away" attitude toward the trannies. But the trannies will not ignore ME. As I've said before, some of them act as though they would rather convert Cannon than convert Congress.
Say what you like about me, but say it elsewhere. I am not paid to keep this site going, and I will not allow it to become a forum -- even momentarily -- for a point of view I honestly consider to be evil. I have found through hard experience that if I allow the trannies to have their say, they will insist that I write the equivalent of an entire book in one night. And since they never read what I have written previously, I have to write the SAME book night after night. The name "Sisyphus" comes to mind.
Well, I tried doing the Sisyphus thing, last year. Those days are over.
Zealous trannies are the reason why we have to have comment moderation (which I hate) on this site.
Also, let me make another point clear. I could not give even half a shit if you tell me that you won't read this site anymore. To paraphrase a line from Ninotchka, I want fewer but better readers.
Let's put it this way. In order to make money form advertising, I'd have to have something like five times the readership I do. And I know the kind of effort I'd have to put into this site to achieve that goal. I don't want to put in that effort. And I certainly don't have the radio skills that someone like Brad Friedman has. So this blog is, and will remain, a labor of love. And if the trannies make me dread visiting my own site, the love ain't there.
Thus, I would prefer to have about half the readers that I do now.
Now, before you set yourselves to typing, remember: I am DONE with engaging you in dialog. I tried that once, and, as noted above, found myself playing the Sisyphus tole. So I will scan your letters of comment and the moment I catch a whiff of trannyism, I will delete without reading further.
Save yourselves the effort.
I'm glad you brought up the "Inherent Contempt" argument. It's simple, constitutional and easy for the average citizen (that includes me) to understand. Politics be damned. Judging from the recent - yet under reported - outrage over the Libby commutation, I believe the time is ripe for this action. The whole purpose of the Sergeant of Arms is to prevent a Constitutional Crisis, altogether. The people have spoken. The House should represent this voice.
Note to a certain reader: I've lost two friends of nearly twenty years' standing over this -- people who have done more for me than you can guess.
But I would spit on my own brother if he started to wear a swastika.
No, the comparison is NOT overwrought. You still have no concept of just how much harm you have done to this country by turning all discussions of 911 into exercises in pseudoscience.
"Evil" is precisely the right word, and I will not apologize for using it. The most evil people in this world are the well-meaning folks convinced of their own rectitude.
Does conflict of interest enter any of the pictures - given the sworn oath to Bush rather than to the Constitution?
Miss P.
Post a Comment