Captain's Quarters -

Absent any evidence of criminal conduct, the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to grant the legislative branch free rein to pursue contempt charges or to undo executive privilege. Nancy Pelosi will in all likelihood force a ruling that will firmly establish executive privilege and leave Congress with less power than it has had, after having finally called its own bluff.

And thus, the worst Congress in the history of America finds yet another way to sink to new lows. 14% and falling...

"If the main body of Congress is foolish enough to endorse this course of action, then it will set the stage for its diminishment."

They apparently won't stop until their public approval rating drops to single digits. They want to proudly proclaim, "We're number 1!"

This isn't Congress and it isn't the Judicary Committee. It's Democrats proving they do not work and play well with others.

"Up to now, smarter leadership in the Legislature has carefully wielded the threat of contempt to compel greater cooperation on matters of national interest."

I suppose White House documents related to dismissals at the White House travel office falls under "carefully wielding" the threat of contempt? I mean seeing as how in 1993 Republicans voted to bring contempt of Congress charges against one current and two former Clinton White House aides for not yielding the documents.

The amount of rank hypocrisy the GOP and it's supporters are participating in to keep from this administration to have to show any type of accountability is just staggering. The whole "Clinton did it" street runs two ways. If Clinton had just summarily used "Executive Privilege" for every matter including the Whitewater and Lewinsky issues the collective screaming of every conservative politician, writer, tv and radio commentator would have been earsplitting.

Yet now Congress wants to ask some simple questions regarding whether or not Republican appointees in the Justice Department were fired for not being partisan enough and all they get is Gonzalez tripping all over himself, his underlings running scared, and now Bush telling people point blank to ignore Congressional requests. If they did nothing wrong why can't they go in front of congress? If they get asked a question they feel might violate executive privilege why can't they say it when that question comes up?

Stonewalling and running scared are not the typical responses of people that have nothing to hide.

"Absent clear evidence of criminality" is something pretty difficult to ascertain since all the investigative power is vested in the Executive. Without the power to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony, how do you expect the Congress to conduct an investigation? And you should remember that any limits you now place on the Congress will remain in place should the majority later return to the other party.

As the old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for."

Perhaps Congress approval ratings are so low because people are frustrated with the Republican members seeing to it that nothing gets done. Made possible by them enacting a historically unprecedented amount of filibusters.

Dwight must have been born yesterday to asert that current Republicans have enacted an unprecedented amount of filibusters.

You haven't been paying attention, Dwit. I think that honor belongs to the Democrats prior to 2006.

It's unfortunate that the Democrats chose to pursue this course. Even though I believe that Alberto Gonzales should resign for incompetence, no one has established any criminal conduct at the DoJ,

well no wonder captain, people with the "in" knowledge are either lieing, not testifying at all, or only agreeing to talk in private, not under oath, or with no record of the meeting.

Don't you think the Clinton machine is anticipating its return to power and don't you think it remembers the pain of the travel office incident.....I think a lot of people are underestimating the strength, long term planning and strategic efforts of these people.

Bush is creating a "perfect storm" for the coming elections in November 2008.

As the contempt citations wind their ways through the courts,

As the Iraq war continues to worsen,

As Gonzo continues to be Gonzo,

As Libby exhausts his appeals,

As Rove's misuse of his political office becomes more apparent,

and on, and on, and on . . .

These all will come into play for the neocon Republicans in 2008.

In comparison, November 2006 will be remembered as a gentle breeze by the current group of neocon Republicans as Bush's incompetence sinks the rest of his Republican party.

Bush is creating a "perfect storm" for the coming elections in November 2008.

As the contempt citations wind their ways through the courts,

As the Iraq war continues to worsen,

As Gonzo continues to be Gonzo,

As Libby exhausts his appeals,

As Rove's misuse of his political office becomes more apparent,

and on, and on, and on . . .

These all will come into play for the neocon Republicans in 2008.

In comparison, November 2006 will be remembered as a gentle breeze by the current group of neocon Republicans as Bush's incompetence sinks the rest of his Republican party.

Bush is creating a "perfect storm" for the coming elections in November 2008.

As the contempt citations get slapped down by the courts,

As the Iraq war continues to improve,

As Harry & Nancy continue to be Harry & Nancy,

As Libby wins his appeal,

As Clinton's misuse of his political office comes back from the memory hole,

and on, and on, and on . . .

These all will come into play for the neocopperhead Democrats in 2008.

In comparison, November 2004 will be remembered as a gentle breeze by the current group of neocopperhead Democrats as congressional Democrats' incompetence sinks the rest of the Democrat party.

(snicker)

Ah, com'on Fred, at least show some originality.

Are you unable to think an independent thought, or show some individual creativity?

Just because your fellow neocons don't show any imagination, doesn't mean that you can't.

Have confindence in your abilities and break out of that mould. (BTW - You forget to mention Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office.)

DwightKSchrute said:

"I suppose White House documents related to dismissals at the White House travel office falls under "carefully wielding" the threat of contempt? I mean seeing as how in 1993 Republicans voted to bring contempt of Congress charges against one current and two former Clinton White House aides for not yielding the documents"

Hi Chelsea!

Really now, Bush's has really extended the use of executive privilege, beyond precedent. Why are people tolerant of this? Do you want all subsequent administrations to do everything he is doing?

And please, enough of these incompetent Gonzales excuses. He knows damn well what he is doing: he is covering for the White House.

Finally, congress's low rating may be a nice sounding salve, but the primary driver of those ratings is dissatisfaction with the Iraq war. And which party is going to take the brunt of the blame for inaction there?

Just like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi put their hopes and their dreams on a total American loss and surrender in the Iraq War, to try and revive the Democratic Party, this House Judiciary Committee had sugar plums and pictures of a Watergate scandal dancing through their heads on this one.

It's all about payback. And for those of you that think elephants have long memories...well, donkeys whose President was brought up on Impeachment charges have memories that last forever.

Apparently, what Congress doesn't get (on both sides of the aisle) is the American people can see the difference between a fight over policy and a fight over a pail of sand at the beach.

Ed:

With due respect, I think you are quite wrong.

You should rea dthe recent CRS Report on the subject.

The White House is the institution which could very well weaken executive privilege in ways not to your liking.

Really now, Bush's has really extended the use of executive privilege, beyond precedent.

Five previous administrations have made the same finding in the last fifty years, including the JFK and Clinton administrations. It's hardly "beyond precedent." Indeed, in the case at hand, what is being held as privileged is exactly what is supposed to be covered by executive privilege--the internal discussions of the executive in making decisions that are explicitly the executive's to make.

What's unprecedented is Congress demanding some imperial right to breach that privilege when it is clearly within the established scope of said privilege. Or Congress demanding that they hold the power to mandate to the executive and/or judiciary.

But the current majority doesn't seem to have anything else to do but put on a dog & pony show, complete to the stock circus clowns. Sad.

What I find amusing about this is that all Congress can do is refer the matter to the US Attorney, who will presumably then decide if he wishes to bring charges or not. The US Attorney, of course, can be fired at will and the AG could do so if the D.C. US Attorney decided to play along with Congress' game. Which is where we all came in right? Because some lawyers got fired. That's right, lawyers. To take off on an old joke, what do you call 8 fired lawyers? A good start. (just a joke, people, I know the US Attorney is a valuable cog in the wheels of justice).

Hey Bitter Pill this might be a tough one for you to swallow, but GOPers in this congress are indeed filibustering at a record rate

Dwight Schultz said:

"Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation"

LOL! "Threat of a filibuster" doesn't mean the same thing as "filibuster". As least not here on Planet Earth.

By the way, it was the Democrat Party who moved the goalpost to 60 votes, not the other guys. Which is what makes this so funny to watch!

This Administration has set clear precedents for secrecy and Executive Privilege.

Bloggers on this site will welcome President Hillary Clinton's use of this power, and will tell Congress: "Hands off Hillary!" and tell the media, especially bloggers, "There is no information that President Hillary Clinton has done anything wrong, so let her work in silence and secrecy."

Once again, we are proving the old adage: Bad facts make bad law.

Captain: I beg to differ on one point - Congress may very well be able to make out a prima facie case for lying under oath. That was after all, what got Clinton impeached - only he was caught lying about sex.

From an ex-lawyer's perspective:

At the very least, our AG AG appears unable to tell the same story as any of his subordinates. He also appears unable to give a consistent explanation for his conduct. Actually, I'm not sure we have even heard his full account of his behavior (owing to a smaller memory than my old TRS-80). But it does seem every time he gives a detail, someone within his own agency contradicts him.

Let's enter a time warp, and flip the party affiliation of the president and Congress. Go forward or backward in time - I don't particularly care and it doesn't make a difference. Suppose he GOP wants to investigate possible perjury by the senior law enforcement official in the nation in the face of Democratic stonewalling. How do they do it?

Since the Constitution specifically assigns impeachment powers to Congress, I argue that Congress has the DUTY to investigate before impeaching - after all, why subject the nation to the disruption of impeaching before establishing whether there is even probable cause for impeachment.

What are they supposed to do when no one has corroborated the AG's version of events? Gee, logically, they should issue subpoenas and do legal type stuff to investigate. After all, they can't very well ask the AG to investigate himself, can they?

How are subpoenas enforced? By contempt power. Otherwise, they may as well be tissue paper.

Would you really expect a GOP Congress to behave any differently were the parties reversed? If you said yes, I have a $2 mil condo in South Florida to sell you with a 2/28 ARM - no money down.

Now here is the conundrum.

Our moronic AG has managed to throw our public interest in an effective presidency (which is the justification for executive privilege) into direct conflict with our public interest in having integrity in our public officials.
(There's the bad facts leading us towards bad law)

Be honest, and think about having President Obama or President Hillary in office. Kinda tips the scales towards enforcing integrity, doesn't it? Remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

At this point, I expect this to wind up in front of the Supremes, and it is not guaranteed that they will back executive privilege.

Even if they do back the president, how are you gonna like it when Pres Hillary or Obama uses the precedent to pull unbelievably stupid crap like this and get away with it?

This extreme behavior of pushing everything to the limit is paralyzing the government and alienating the nation. Our republic is pretty strong but the structure will break if you keep kicking at the pillars.

Open message to both parties:
KNOCK IT OFF!

What a mess this White House has become. It's eating itself with it's inability to talk, explain itself and stop fighting against itself with one of its branches vs. another. This is certainly Bush's fault. He is choosing some of the wrong battles here. Fighting back against the combined MSM/DNC fight against him is something he should have done years ago. Maybe too late now.

continuum wrote:

"Ah, com'on Fred, at least show some originality.

Are you unable to think an independent thought, or show some individual creativity?

Just because your fellow neocons don't show any imagination, doesn't mean that you can't."

My lack of originality is not as bad as your lack of sanity, continuum.

(double snicker)

Seven months, one worthless bill (raise minimum wage for 2 dozen pimple faced losers), 300 investigations ( witch hunts) launched with no results. This is worse than a 'do nothing' congress. This is a congress that has wasted millions, if not billions, of dollars and their only accomplishments is to turn traitor and aide the terrorists to set the country up for several attacks that will kill thousands of Americans. A pre-school class could do more than the democrat led congress has or ever will. Evidently the democrat party wants to be the party of dead people. I won't forget the traitors and i'll teach my grandchildren about them so they can take revenge when the time comes, and it will come.

Captain,

The courts have traditionally been hesitant to intervene in battles between the other two branches of governments. Generally, they will instruct the two sides to stop acting like children and just work out their diffences on their own without dragging the judicial branch into it.

I don't think this will be any different. Eventually, after a lot of grandstanding, some compromise will be reached.

They apparently won't stop until their public approval rating drops to single digits. They want to proudly proclaim, "We're number 1!"

Posted by: arb at July 25, 2007 5:01 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Nothin' cold be sweeter...

LOL! How sweet it is!!!

So all these Dims are volunteering to answer to the nation for squeezing Conservatives out of jobs??? For setting up the PC structure???

If the main body of Congress is foolish enough to endorse this course of action, then it will set the stage for its diminishment.

The only thing that's truly being diminished here Ed are members of the motley crew of the Bush White House, for refusing to even show up before Congress when lawfully subpoenaed by the House to give testimony pertaining to matters that directly concern it in the Department of Justice.

Hey scrapiron, I'm gonna teach my grandchildren how the neocons lied us into the Iraq fiasco. I'll tell them how bush saw it was a disaster, but because he was too stubborn to admit failure he kept sacrificing American boys. Thats a war criminal mister! Your kind will wind up in the scrap heap of history. Bush is dangerous and pathetic. Your kind will follow Bush and Rove right off a cliff, so be it.

Outer Space Cow-Pie said:

"The only thing that's truly being diminished here Ed are members of the motley crew of the Bush White House, for refusing to even show up before Congress when lawfully subpoenaed by the House to give testimony pertaining to matters that directly concern it in the Department of Justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

Some polling figures:

July 24
Congress WaPo/ABC Approve 37%, Disapprove 60%
Cong. GOP WaPo/ABC Approve 34%, Disapprove 64%
Cong. Dems WaPo/ABC Approve 46%, Disapprove 51%

Don't know where the 14% Congressional approval ratings come from but it's not accurate. And apparently the American people know who is at fault.

From McClatchy

"Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office."

Here is a chart showing how the Senate is on a pace for almost triple that number of legislation killing cloture votes (to 153) by the end of the term.

It's been reported that the Repub strategy is to go home during the August recess and criticize Dems for their do nothing congress. If you ask me it's a really dumb PR strategy to stop every bit of legislation you can and then try to claim it's the Dems fault for not getting anything done. It's also just as dumb to use up every arrow in your quiver on this strategy early when Dems will be able to make hay out of it in the months to come.
Almost as stupid as scrambling the military's rotation schedule that was strained to the max in the first place in a desperate bid to escalate troop strength in Iraq. It's just weakened our diplomatic hand in the region when it's obvious that another 30,000 troops isn't going to change the outcome and time isn't on our side.

I laugh at congress’s stupidity. They call for receiving private conversations of the executive but when Rep. Jefferson’s congressional office was raided, both Democrats and Republicans screamed foul; even when this was a criminal investigation. I wonder how many people in congress want to have lobbyists they have dealt with subpoenaed by the DoJ to hear what was said in private meetings about legislation.

Del Dolemonte, when you're asked to answer a question before Congress, simply declining to answer isn't an option. Gonzales tried to fob off Schumer yesterday by mealy-mouthing something about a question pertaining to Gonzales' "time at the White House" (whatever that means), but it isn't acceptable for anyone in the White House to try and evade answering a question from Congress by sloppily invoking executive privilege every time they don't have some other evasive answer handy. That makes 'executive privilege' subject to nothing more than the whim of the White House.

I'm afraid I'll have to wait to get worked up about how Bush is abusing the principle of the separation of powers, and executive privilege... until after someone's made even a PASSINGLY reasonable charge of actual wrongdoing... past Gonzales being a twit.

How many more hundreds of hearings that find no real evidence that anything criminal even took place... before someone on the left side of the fence realizes they're tilting at a windmill?

Allowing Congress to go on willy nilly fishing expeditions to bring charges on ham sandwiches, for political purposes... is something to be avoided regardless of who is in office. If there was a real air of wrongdoing here I'd have a different opinion. But the facts just aren't there.

Watching this over the last few months, I keep being left with the same question over and over. "Are you guys ever going to get anywhere CLOSE to approaching a point to all these investigations?"

Till they do... I'm sorta of the opinion making the best contribution of any Congress in the last 50 years, but not actually accomplishing a bloody thing. Because every day they burn up in useless fishing expeditions is a day less that their focused on picking my pocket for their own pet projects.

Any day that happens... is a happy day in Congress.

I agree with the Captain. Remember the brou-ha-ha over the so-called "nuclear option" regarding filibusters? I'm sure that more than one Republican senator breathed a sigh of relief when the Dems took over that they had not dispensed with that particular tradition.

I can just imagine what would happen if President Hillary or Obama tried some of the crap that Bush is pulling. Would you really allow her to let people meet with congress with no transcripts, no oaths, etc... Because I'm guessing that she is hoping that Bush wins this one.

As far as congressional investigations go, remember the 100 hours worth of hearings that Republicans held over the Clinton's Christmas card list or Dan Burton shooting pumpkins to prove that Hillary had Vince Foster killed? Puh-lease.... The Dems have not even begun to compete with that level of silliness.

I don't see how a claim of executive privilege makes any sense because the WH has claimed that Pres. Fredo had nothing to do with the firings.

Captain,
Just like with with Dubai Ports, you are being played by dhimmies on this issue.
The AG has done exactly what?
Been involved with firing people who were open to being fired. Fought to keep ongoing intel tools - which were legal- going. Given confidentail advice to the President that is legal to keep confidential.
Has he acted as Bush's private attorney? No. Has he obstructed justice or used the DoJ to do the same? No. Has he covered up the theft of FBI records by Admin appointees? No. Has he used the IRS to audit political enemies? No.
All that is happening here is that a lot of conservatives are getting talked into enabling the dhimmie's agenda of weakening this nation, losing the war and hurting this Administration.
I think it would be prudent to stop enabling a sick group of people. We have already hurt the nation far too much by enabling democrats as much as we have.

Dwit, you're showing your nutroots again.

Citing from a leftwing moonbat website doesn't really strengthen your argument.

But you aren't interested in objectivity, are your cupcake?

Hold on a moment. Consider that a large number of the nutroots citizenry already think SCOTUS illegally handed George Bush his initial election victory. If the issue goes to the Court, the obvious result will look like another conspiracy. Democrats are content to destroy the public's trust in every level of government in their lust for power. They make arsonists look like saints...

Hey, where's MY contempt-of-Congress citation? I'm at least as contemptuous of them as anyone in the Bush administration!

Teresa posted:

I agree with the Captain. Remember the brou-ha-ha over the so-called "nuclear option" regarding filibusters? I'm sure that more than one Republican senator breathed a sigh of relief when the Dems took over that they had not dispensed with that particular tradition.

Yet, right here, on this board, countless of the wing nut followers railed non-stop against the gang of senators (half of which were GOP) who "stopped" this nuclear option from going thru. Off with their heads come election time was the wing nut cry ... now they should all line up and give indeed their first born for showing just how stupid their thought process was. Wingnuts ... never able to think ANYTHING through.

Of course none of those wingnuts will talk about that issue now.

Yeah, just wait until those 08 elections - those neocon Rove/Bushies are digging their own grave and it's gonna be a bloodbath by gosh!!! I mean, that neocon Bush's chances of getting re-elected are........oh.....

Wait a minute....um.......oh yeah, I just remembered - in spite of you lefty trolls wet dreams, here's a newsflash: Hillybama WON'T be running against BUSH.....and Bush's war, Bush's Attorney General, Bush's "compassionate conservatism," Bush's evil VP, Bush's evil VP's hunting trips, Bush and his VP and Rove's secret planning and execution of 911, Bush's masterful stealing of the 2000 election, Bush's outing of that poor girl spy, Bush's (oooh, Scary!!) Christianist Talibanist religious faith, Bush's "Lied and Thousands Died" WMDs, Bush's National Guard dental records, Bush's JumpSuit on the aircraft carrier, Bush's resistance to passing the Kyoto Protocal which Clinton and all the Dems supported in the 90's (snort!! Haha, Bush's "neocon" (anti-semitic code word for non-liberal JOOS?) advisors, Bush's racist genocide of tens of thousands of innocents in New Orleans after Katrina, (snort), etc, etc.

Nope. So sorry to break the news to you, but Hillybama have to run against Rudy or Mitt. (or maybe Fred, but unlike the other kool-aiders I'm not seeing it). Which based on their debates, they somehow can't seem to get in to their heads. In pandering to the far left's BSD, they all seem to be forgetting that....they won't be running against Bush!

50.001% percent of the voters who end up picking the winner, MAY indeed not prefer Rudy/Mitt over Hillybama - and the SS (secular socialist) party MAY indeed capture the white house.....but........keep on dreaming if you think those voters are going to blame Bush's Iraq war and his evil "neocons" on the Republican nominee - and BSD will be what propels Hillybama in to the white house - if your dreams of a Utopian Period of Western European Socialism are to come true, Hillybama are going to have to be beat Rudy/Mitt/Fred head to head.

Ah, but Jim ... if the GOP candidate (and the front runners appear to be doing so at this time) continues to support the Bush war, it will have the same effect. So ... besides to point out the obvious that the lame ducker won't be running again, they will be running against a candidate who will either standup and support this President's war or oppose it and chance losing the support of the shrinking GOP base that continue to support the war. That sounds like a lose-lose to me for the GOP candidate.

It's a hard sell when you support a policy and a war that is disliked by over 60 percent of Americans, it makes Hillary's 45-48 percent unfavorable ratings pale in comparison!

Monkei - I agree that it will be interesting to see what position Rudy/Mitt take on how "Bush's War" should be resolved - ONCE they have the nomination. Same thing with Hillbama. Both parties candidates are running for their base at he moment ("pull out now" verus "surge is working" camps, right?) to try to get the nomination.

What happens after the conventions will be the key as to how the public views the candidates on this issue, IMO. And I just don't see the voters, no matter how "sour" they may be on the war in general - PINNING responsibilty for their feelings of sourness, on the candidates. Plus, based on recent polls, the anti-war sentiment tide seems to be shifting....so it is early yet.

Neither Hillybama nor RudMitt STARTED "Bush's" war. Somehow I doubt that the Rudmitt position will be a "I fully support everything Bush did and I'm going to see it through HIS way, just as if he would have stayed in office," thereby handing that issue to Hillybama on a golden platter, like you libs fantasize about.

I think it is more going to be a debate along the lines of: "This is how I see us resolving this Iraq war - we need to (fill in the blank depending on candidate)."

I disagree that fully failing to toe the far left : "pull out now; it's another viet nam; we support the troops....who desert to Canada; Bush is a war criminal" line by the Pub candidates translates into a polling negative of "supporting Bush's war." The only Repub candidate who comes even close to issuing a "rubber stamp" on Bush's decisions on Bush's war is John McLame - and his chances of getting the nomination are between slim and none, and Slim's getting ready to leave town.

But dream on anyway, if it makes you happy, Monk.

Some polling figures:

July 24
Congress WaPo/ABC Approve 37%, Disapprove 60%
Cong. GOP WaPo/ABC Approve 34%, Disapprove 64%
Cong. Dems WaPo/ABC Approve 46%, Disapprove 51%

Don't know where the 14% Congressional approval ratings come from but it's not accurate. And apparently the American people know who is at fault.

From McClatchy

"Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 "cloture" votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority's right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office."

Here is a chart showing how the Senate is on a pace for almost triple that number of legislation killing cloture votes (to 153) by the end of the term.

It's been reported that the Repub strategy is to go home during the August recess and criticize Dems for their do nothing congress. If you ask me it's a really dumb PR strategy to stop every bit of legislation you can and then try to claim it's the Dems fault for not getting anything done. It's also just as dumb to use up every arrow in your quiver on this strategy early when Dems will be able to make hay out of it in the months to come.
Almost as stupid as scrambling the military's rotation schedule that was strained to the max in the first place in a desperate bid to escalate troop strength in Iraq. It's just weakened our diplomatic hand in the region when it's obvious that another 30,000 troops isn't going to change the outcome and time isn't on our side.