Monday, November 05, 2007

Conyers and contempt

John Conyers has made his ninth and (he says) final request for documents from Josh Bolten and Harriet Myers on the U.S. Attorney scandal. If they refuse -- and they will -- charges of contempt are the only recourse. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino:
I'm just amazed that the Democrats actually think they've accomplished so much on behalf of the American people that they can now waste time again on another diversion...
In other words, she thinks that alleged Democratic inaction is the reason why the American people will not tolerate Democratic action. Whenever the WH Press Secretary accuses the Dems of wasting time, the Dems are actually starting to do something.

One big problem facing Conyers is that a contempt citation must be enforced by the Bush Department of Justice. Which won't enforce it.

Conyers could (conceivably) ask for "inherent contempt" charges, a rare move that has not been attempted since 1934. Such a charge would give the House Sergeant at Arms (a fellow named Wilson Livingood) the authority to arrest Bolten and Myers -- during the State of the Union speech, if need be. I wonder how quickly the public would turn against Congress for taking that action?

Well, it won't happen. Not that way.

Conyers will seek "normal" criminal contempt charges, if I may use that term. The Republicans are already aiming their heavy weaponry at any Dems from conservative districts who might vote for such a resolution. ("We don't need those DINOs!" the progressives will scream. Yes we do.) Getting the votes for criminal contempt will be tough enough; getting the votes for inherent contempt is probably impossible.

What if a criminal contempt resolution succeeds? The DOJ will probably do nothing, and the American people will blame the Dems, because that is what the American people do. Those on the right will hysterically accuse the Dems of mounting a coup, while those on the left will accuse the Dems of coddling Bushco.

A bad sitch all around. But we can't avoid it.

So what the hell is in those documents?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Now this is how it should be. This is good and logical criticism almost devoid of bias. Well done.