As everyone knows by now, Harriet Miers, acting under orders from the President, has refused to appear before Congress in defiance of a subpoena. In so doing, she has placed herself completely at the mercy of the House Judiciary committee — if John Conyers is on the ball, anyway.
No one disputes the power of the President to issue orders to employees of the executive branch and, in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the military, to military personnel. Whether he really has the power to order executive branch employees to defy a congressional subpoena is something that would have to be settled by the courts, but there is one thing that is absolutely and completely beyond dispute: the president has no authority whatsoever to give orders to civilians not under the employ of the executive branch.
Harriet Miers has not been employed by the executive branch since the end of January. Ergo, Bush’s instructions to her are rendered moot, and she is therefore defying the Judiciary Committee on her own initiative.
There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of the Committee ordering her arrest, and nothing standing in the way of the Committee insisting on her incarceration until such time as she agrees to comply with the law. Her only defense at that point would be a presidential pardon.
And of course, if Bush does that, he is plainly obstructing justice, and that is grounds for impeachment.
Will Pelosi blink first, bowing to the Broderite calls against this, causing Conyers to then blink.
Pelosi can be removed far more easily than Bush. The Republicans don’t even get a say in the matter of who serves as Speaker of the House.
I don’t think that Pelosi will blink. She has not had an issue that could easily convince the nation that impeachment was a reasonable course of action. Until now. Now Bush has put himself into a PR trap.
In ordering Miers not to testify, he has both exceeded his authority (not a hard case to make to the public.) If she is declared in contempt, and the President orders her not to testify, then he is obstructing the proper functioning of the Congress. He and she are both liable to contempt of Congress. After that, either Miers testifies and Bush is exposed for criminal actions in the U.S. Attorney purge, setting off impeachment hearings, or Bush tries to Pardon her.
Then that sets off the impeachment process, since a pardon of a contempt of Congress resolution can be defined by Congress as a high crime or misdemeanor. The definition of what is a high crime or misdemeanor is Constitutionally entirely within the jurisdiction of the Congress. The court would declare in a political issue outside their jurisdiction or face impeachment themselves.)
Even David Broder, if he is still breathing and not just a stuffed head somewhere, would have to face the fact that Bush has thrown down the gauntlet by keeping Congress from investigating a likely crime.
The trick is to force Bush to continue making mistakes in order to keep himself from being investigated. He is already doing that, and I don’t think that either Pelosi or Reid will defend him from himself. Bush has taken the steps to put himself on the road to resignation, impeachment, or total paralysis.
By letting him continue, Pelosi and Reid look much better. Why should they defend him? They would just be buying into Bush’s political suicide themselves. The problem with them hasn’t been that they either have a political “tin Ear” in the Bill Frist fashion. It has been they they were too aware of political directions to appear out of the mainstream. Letting Bush drown himself, and occasionally throwing him an anchor, is clearly mainstream down-the-middle politics. And Bush is really doing it soooo very nicely now.
This is both right and wrong. I am going to write about this soon. But, in short, there are plenty of obstacles if Conyers wants to go to court.
I was thinking, actually, that the committee could bypass court altogether and use — what are they calling it? — inherent contempt?
Yes.
They could do that. And it would be a big circus with a trial in the House.
Conyers is apparently considering inherent contempt. From Kagro X at the Next Hurrah: “A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.” [Underline mine. RB]
inherent contempt on its own without having to deal with the Senate’s version of numbers, this would be doable.
I wrote a long letter with legal references to my congressman, Bart Stupak. Now, at times I’ve wanted to hang him when he voted against stem cell research. But he actually responded with something that made sense.
He said that Conyers had initiated investigations two years ago, and let them hang. Now, he was following the new investigations carefully and was looking to see where they led.
Now he hasn’t signed on as co-sponsor of an impeachment bill yet, but if every member of Congress would simply say: “I’ll go where the evidence leads…” it would be a strong start.
It would indeed.
Impeaching Cheney and Bush is a moral imperative.
a felony? Forbidding Miers to respond to a subpoena obstructs or impedes the inquiry of Congress and is punishable by a fine and or up to 5 years in prison, according to federal law 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505
See the article in Talking Points Memo.
Anyone care to charge him?
Actually, her name nowadays is No Impeachment Nancy….
She’s the one who declared after the 2006 elections that impeachment was off the table–no matter what Bush or Cheney had done or would do.
Exactly what does she plan to do to punish Bush and Cheney for “high crimes and misdemeanors”?
64% of the American people favor impeaching Cheney.
It’s the will of the people.
Why is Nancy Pelosi obstructing the will of the people? I thought she was supposed to enact it.
I wish you were right:
If you’re talking about statutory contempt, which requires a referral to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, then you’re wrong.
First, the US Attorney might refuse the Congressional order to take the contempt charges before a grand jury. I mean, Alberto Gonzales IS the Attorney General, right, and he’s packed the US Attorney offices with Bush loyalists. If the US Attorney for DC wants to keep his job, he won’t take the Miers contempt case before a grand jury. And Congress can do nothing about that.
Second, even if the US Attorney does is job, it’s simple–Bush pardons Miers. He has the power to do it and has shown he will abuse that power to save his own hide.
If you’re operating on the batshit-crazy theory now being circulated on the Internets by the increasingly irresponsible DKog characters Kagro X and Major Danby that Bush can’t issue a pardon for “inherent contempt”, you’re wrong.
In “inherent contempt”, Congress would order Miers arrested and tried in Congress. That power hasn’t been used since 1935, but appears to have been upheld in court.
There are major problems with the “inherent contempt can’t fail” idea:
1. Constitutionality. Miers’ attorneys can make a serious separation of powers argument that Congress can’t subsume the duties of the judicial branch (trying a case that has criminal and civil penalties) nor the executive branch (prosecuting the case). Yes, I know the Supreme Court appears to have upheld “inherent contempt”, but that was 70 years ago and in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a majority of Bush loyalists sitting on the Supreme Court now. Bush v. Gore, the 2000 case which handed Bush the presidential election, was a very, um, “unique” interpretation of Constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court, in other words, might eventually be asked to rule on this matter, and would have to rule that (a) inherent contempt is a Constitutionally viable concept and (b) the President has no power to pardon someone convicted of inherent contempt.
2. Political practicality. The Democratic majority is not of one mind on this strategy, and employing it is going to solidify Republican opposition and split the Democratic Party.
In other words, when you say that holding Miers for “inherent contempt” cannot fail, you are saying:
I wish you were right, and that Congress is going to stand up to Bush. But Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have taken impeachment off the table, so neither Bush nor Cheney can be threatened with that.
It was the height of arrogance, not to mention foolishness, for Pelosi and Reid to reject all possibility of impeachment no matter what Bush or Cheney had done or would do.
In other words, Pelosi and Reid, by removing the possibility of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors:
1. Abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities;
2. Gave Bush open license to do whatever he damn well pleases during the balance of his term.
Witness Bush’s minions, like Miers, openly defying Congressional subpoenas. Miers is one of Bush’s Untouchables, and she damn well knows it. She can’t be fined, nor imprisoned–she’s above the law because of her loyalty to The Leader.
That’s fascism.
Who has helped make that fascism possible?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.
Rep. Conyers should contact the Texas Disciplinary Administrator for the Texas Bar..as a lawyer Miers is usually compelled to honor a supoena,due to her status as a lawyer. I’m sure a contempt order from Congress would reflect on character and fitness to practice law.