Mukasey won't enforce Contempt Citations

Here is your Friday News Dump™. And boy howdy, is it the sort of thing a failed administration would really try to release after the east coast network news broadcasts.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Friday rejected referring the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey says they committed no crime.

Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers were right in refusing to provide Congress White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Mukasey for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Speaker Pelosi requested a grand jury investigation yesterday (Thursday) and gave Mukasey a week to reply. He wasted no time in responding, because he only had one crack at the news dump. Had he responded on Thursday of next week, it would have been THE STORY all day Friday and going into the weekend.

Pelosi is pissed, and apparently prepared to make good on her threat to file a federal civil suit if the attorney general dug in his heels and refused to act as the attorney the people of this country instead of the president.

Mukasey, taking a very Nixonian position, has maintained that Miers and Bolton were right to refuse to appear because Bush told them not to. And acting on the orders of the president means they committed no crime. Like I said - Nixonian, like when he said to David Frost "[W]hen the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Folks, this is exactly why we need to ITMFA right now. Because if aWol is not impeached, he can pardon the whole lot of them, putting them out of reach of a future Justice Department. But a president under impeachment can't pardon a thanksgiving turkey.

UPDATE I - PALE RIDER

Say we're sitting here a year from now--and Attorney General John Edwards has just refused to investigate whether some Presidential aides to President Obama have to appear before Congress because some Republican Congressman thinks they might have something to say about why all of the deleted E-Mails suddenly appeared after a few very talented people were able to retrieve them from some tape backups that were found under Bradley Schlozman's cookie cabinet in his old office. How shrill do you think these hypocritical bastards are going to be? And how loud are we going to be laughing at them for being so shrill?

I wonder what precipitated this?

After years of blowing off requests by Henry Waxman to appear before the Oversight Committee, which he has chaired since the 110th congress was seated in January, Condi has finally acquiesced.

I noticed this morning when I checked the committee schedule that the following entry had been quietly added:

Upcoming Hearings and Meetings

Hearing with Secretary Rice on Iraq

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Thursday, October 25, 2007, 10:00 AM at 2154 Rayburn House Office Building

I've been on pins and needles, awaiting this with bated breath.

But why the sudden change of heart after all this time? Rice's MO has been blatant contempt for Oversight, refusing to acknowledge that Representative Waxman's committee even has the right to question her.

I wonder if Henry let her now on the sly that he tired of her shenanigans, and if she didn't climb down off her high-horse, she would find herself hauled in front of the committee by the Sergeant of Arms? I can't imagine she had a Constantine-type conversion on a bridge.

Congress, are you out there?

Congress? Are you going to take this?

"The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability." Tony Snow, March 22, 2007

I heard that, and you could have knocked me over with a feather.

I would refer Mr. Snow to Article. I. Section. 3. of the Constitution of the United States, which concludes:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

And Article. I. Section. 3. of the Constitution of the United States:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Please follow this link to an official Senate publication that explains Congressional oversight better than I can. Here is the summary:

Congressional oversight of policy implementation and administration, which has occurred throughout the U.S. government experience under the Constitution, takes a variety of forms and utilizes various techniques. These range from specialized investigations by select committees to annual appropriations hearings, and from informal communications between Members or congressional staff and executive personnel to the use of extra congressional mechanisms, such as offices of inspector general and study commissions. Oversight, moreover, is supported by a variety of authorities—the Constitution, public law, and chamber and committee rules—and is an integral part of the system of checks and balances between the legislature and the executive.

Would someone please explain to me just what the hell that is, if not oversight ability?

If congress doesn’t spike that right back over the net, we need a whole lot of new representation in two years. Both committees voted for subpoena power, and Republican Senator Charles Grassley specified he wanted to be on the record with his support of the authority.

Use as necessary. Contempt of Congress?

That qualifies.

[originally posted at Watching Those We Chose]