Miers, Bolten contempt article

My take is here. Closing grafs

"There has been no attempt to gather this information through alternative means," Keller said. "For example, the White House has made Harriet Miers available to talk about any communications that she had with DOJ officials, members of Congress or outside sources on an informal basis. They've turned down that interview opportunity. Similarly they're seeking the documents for Josh Bolten. Josh Bolten said, 'I will provide you with any documents regarding this situation between the White House and DOJ as well as any documents between the White House and Congress or other third parties.' They've turned down that ... as well."

Though no Democrat at the hearing specifically questioned his assertions on this point, Keller ignored the fact that the president's offer is contingent upon a host of restrictions, including a refusal to provide the committee with any internal White House correspondence and a refusal to participate at all thereafter. Conyers addressed those restrictions in the 52-page memo.

"On March 20, 2007, White House Counsel made a 'take it or leave it' proposal, under which the Committee was offered limited availability to some documents and limited access to witnesses, but without any transcripts and under severe limitations as to permissible areas for questioning," the memo read. "The White House also insisted that a condition of its proposal was that the Committee commit in advance not to subsequently pursue any additional White House-related information by any other means, regardless of what initial review of documents and informal discussions should reveal."

If the court does not overrule the executive privilege claims and hold Miers and Bolten in contempt -- or if it refuses to hear the citation in the first place -- House Democrats will face some difficult choices. One option would be to pursue citations of inherent -- as opposed to statutory -- contempt of Congress, and try Bolten and Miers before the full House of Representatives. That would require dispatching the House Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the pair and holding them in jail, an option House aides have suggested Democrats have little appetite for. Failing that, they could begin impeachment proceedings against the president himself, or any Senate-approved appointee involved in the obstruction. Or they could do nothing at all. If that happens, it may well end the congressional inquiry into the U.S. Attorney scandal forever.

Comments

[jubeu]

The link isn't working. URL?

[JimPortlandOR]

link works for me. good summary article, brian.

Well, if the House Dems don't have the stomach for inherent contempt, they sure are unlikely do impeachment, since even if the House voted a bill of impeachment (functioning as a Grand Jury) with a 50% majority, the Senate tries the case, and with Joememtum voting as a Repub and no other likely crossovers would never take up the bill due to Repub. filibuster, (or far less likely, even if they did debate in the Senate, they'd never get the 2/3rd majority required to convict and remove).

The founding fathers didn't consider political parties (not mentioned in the Constitution), and didn't foresee that a 2/3rd majority being required for conviction in the Senate on impeachment could become the vehicle for allowing a totalitarian President to do anything he wanted, supported by party line voting by the President's political party.