WOOHOO!! GAME ON!!! CONYERS THREATENS INHERENT CONTEMPT!!!!

In response to Miers refusing to appear Conyers released the following:

"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."

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=571

:woohoo:

http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

Phone: 202-225-3951

The highlight was Dean asserting that Libby could be given immunity and then be called up to testify before Congress. He would not be able to invoke the 5th amendment.

But now Junior has commuted his sentence to keep him out of jail, and it is abundantly clear that he will give him a full pardon later. So Lord Vader has shown his hand and now it's a good move to give Scooter immunity and force him to testify. Then they will claim executive provelege, or Scooter will show up to lie to Congress and get a pardon for that too. Either way the evil junta will be further exposed for what it is.

Just because you give Libby immunity doesn't mean he'll tell the truth..

he can go to jail. That is serious. He has to tell the truth.

haven't we already been there?

Bill

????

So he gets pardoned again. How many times can he go around?

needs to stop threatening and start "doing"...just jail the bitches Mierers and Taylor....I'm tired of blowhard threats...TIME FOR ACTION CONYERS AND IT'S NOW!!!...

:applause::applause::applause: for Conyers!

:eyes:

:eyes:

Stay tuned.

There is too much screwing around.

...translation...it wont happen

can, not for sure....etc., etc, etc.

Let's make book to see how far this really goes...

My guess is at the end of the day (week, month, year) it will go nowhere.

For the life of me, I can not picture the Dems filing contempt charges or displaying leadership, or balls.

If you have so much contempt for us?

My political awareness was created during the Clinton years, so "hardball" moves like unrelenting investigations, the compliant traditional media joining in, and impeachments are things that only republicans have done that I can remember. The Democrats are the ones who pretty much gave the store away in 2001-2, then received only continued Republican abuse for their troubles. 2006 helped a little bit but not enough to imagine Democrats as anything other than too cautious for their own good. Remember, "keeping our powder dry"?

Anywhere we here on DU were going toward saying, Hey, why isn't anything being DONE about this, and John Conyers had his hand moving on it, a book about it or meetings/legislation pending.

He is from the MLK days and that man knows how to get things started.

BUT back before we were the majority, no one paid him any mind. He walked over 1/2 a million signatures up to the White House as the public backing him up on asking for answers about the Downing Street Minutes and they WOULD NOT LET HIM IN THE DOOR.

NOW, the only ones with power to keep him down are our own DEMs, the pRes & darth vader who have set aside their own universe.

Both he and Waxman were doing a lot of work while in the minority. This is just what I've been looking forward to. We'll have to wait to see what will happen but just mentioning inherent contempt and putting that on the table is a very big step in the right direction in my opinion.

over Repug Election Tampering in 04 .....He was a hero when they shut him out he found a way to hold those hearings.

off about anything the could keep pushing on until they finally caught him in a lie that was done to protect his family. They did not bother with rule of law or any of that kind of constitutional ideas.

It may be once burned twice shy.

I was "here" and in the streets during Vietnam. I was "here" in January, February and March of 2003, protesting and writing and begging anyone and everyone who would listen, that war in Iraq spelled disaster.

I was "here" while Jeff Gannon/Guckert slipped in and out of the White House and in and out of the press briefing room.
I was "here" in DC for all of the protests
I was "here" during the 2000 election mess and the 2004 Ohio election mess
I was "here" during the Roberts confirmation hearings
I was "here' during the Alito confirmation hearings......writing, calling, begging for a filabuster.

I like everyone else has been "here".

I am "here" at DU, because somewhere, someone understands my heartache for this country, and how inept our public servants are.

Where are the voices of reason? Where is the leadership?

What difference does it make if Bush, Rove, and the whole bunch of thugs in the White House keep throwing sand in our faces.

Convience me of the success, and I will apologize.

But there are still a few good ones on our side who will act, and the very Honorable John Conyers is one of them. Pelosi had better not try to muzzle him again, and I'm not sure he'll let her this time around.

If I sound negative, it is because i have had so much experience having my hopes dashed.

Good guys like John Conyers's work like hell to get the Turkey's into the over, and he has to fight his own party to get the matches to light it, and turn up the heat.

What good is a turkey in the oven, if it doesn't get cooked???

Splain that to me, Desi.

I've been disappointed just as much as you have. I was around in the Nam years, too. When the Dems caved to Bush on Iraq I got so p*ssed that I couldn't watch news or read DU for a few weeks. Now I'm back to hounding Pelosi & Reid and my Congress critters.

I guess hope springs eternal that these neo-con bastards will eventually end up at the Hague. I can dream, can't I.

:bounce:

Sure Tigress. The term isn't mine - I picked it up right here on DU!

Congresscritters...

Yep...sure does.

although he may not have originated it.

http://www.jimhightower.com/

was from Molly Ivins...

I wish she were still around to tell us where she got it...

I applaud your post and your disgust with many of our elected leaders who need to actually lead now that the shit is hitting the fan.

the person DUers and the whole country NEEDS. It's not something to keep to yourself. There are men being maimed and killed in Iraq, so don't dare hold out. We need to KNOW! I can't remember the last time any of you naysayers was right.

You don't get by on DU spouting your own putative credentials. You earn your authority now. And that goes for any public board. Someone calling himself Big Al or Big Fred could be very vertically and horizontally challenged. There's no way of us knowing.

I was "here" when we didn't get that indictment on Rove.

I was "here" when they affirmed the bogus 04 election (my worst moment because we had such high hopes that somehow the election wouldn't be affirmed.)

You are so right on the money !

when the Dems actually DO SOMETHING.

Fer gawd's sake.

Everytime I see the democrats back off and act so civil, it makes my blood boil. I remember how the GOP went after Clinton with such blood lust and Clinton mostly complied. Now I see is an admin. that turns their nose up and is never held responsible for any of their actions. I want the democrats to get fighting mad. Get down and dirty with the Admin. If they are allowed to get away with these crimes, our country will never ever recover.

doesn't mean that I have ceased to be a Democrat or to value Democratic principles. Your comment was entirely out of line.

i'm tired of this bunch of crooked asshats in dc , ya could count on both hands and your toes who are doing a good job for the people , big money has the most of them by the ass and they can't seem to get loose

Thank you, Doctor!

(Actually, I just borrowed the movie on DVD...oughta go watch it....)

are right the comment was entirely out of line. I feel the same way, I am a Dem & for the same reasons as you, I value Dem principles but I feel the Dem leadership has given us some reasons to not agree or be disgusted with the way they have handled the leadership so far. Very weak.

by his noodly appendage. I'm not a big Church-basher or anything, but I LOVE the FSM. I guess the two have little to do with each other really.

Where did you get this person had contempt for us? The point, based on past experience, is extremely valid as is the opinion. You must not be "us", you know, have the ability to not mis understand statements "us".

If you underestimate John Conyers it's only because you are ignorant.

God give him energy...His own wife couldn't get him to sign on to impeachment, even when her organization did thanks to her leadership. Conyers already told Bush, "I'm not going to impeach anybody" in response to how he would get the WH to comply with his subpoenas. How smart was that. Some body had to explain caging to him and show him lists and how it was used. Just point him in the right direction though and off he goes. It's the reality...eventually we all get old.

I saw Conyers on ABC and Conyers didn't answer the question either way. I read on a left wing site that Conyers swore off impeachment at that same interview. That's a lie.

BECAUSE he didn't think this congress should spend their entire time being stonewalled. John is a lawyer and he probably has an idea of exactly how long it will take to get the job done.

NOW even if he doesn't bring up articles of impeachment, he may provide the evidence (via H.R. 635) that leads the reThugs to demand their fearless leader step down.

http://www.democrats.com/node/11840

<snip> Conyers Explains Why Impeachment is "Off the Table"

"They've been angry that impeachment is off the table."

He pauses, purses his lips, then nods his head, agreeing, saying, "They have lots of good reasons to be angry. But, you know, the presidential race is coming, in 2008.. and it's already 2007. If you know a way to take care of all the domestic issues, to successfully prepare to take the whitehouse, to investigate and prosecute and impeach-- tell me..."

I replied, "Me, personally, I'm not worried about impeachment. I'm trusting you to pursue investigations that will turn up lots of dirt... You are starting them, aren't you?"

Congressman Conyers replies that they've already set the gears in motion and they will be under way soon, and that he hopes to see new revelations uncovered, after years of coverups.

Then I continue, "I'm not worried about impeachment because I think that once your hearings start, you'll turn up stuff that will send the Republicans to the Whitehouse demanding that Bush and Cheney leave."

He smiles, nods again and says, "That's been done before, you know. They did that with Nixon."

It doesn't say anywhere in it that John Conyers put impeachment permanently off the table.

.. it's just saying that "HE" won't be impeaching anyone personally.

It isn't saying Nancy Pelosi won't change her mind some time or Barbara Boxer or Dick Durbin might not impeach anyone. He is just quoted as saying he isn't gathering this information as a part of impeachment proceedings.

And I don't see that anyone said it was a "permanent" thing either.

However, try this link for a clearer understanding of why I think John Conyers isn't pursuing it directly... facts must be nailed down.

http://www.democrats.com/please-john-conyers
Submitted by Bob Fertik on March 3, 2006 - 9:19pm.

Please John Conyers: Impeach Bush NOW

<snip>



My question was not meant as an attack on Conyers, who is far and away my favorite Member of Congress, and has done more than any other Member to make impeachment a genuine possibility, however remote it seems. But Conyers was a bit exasperated.

"I'm not going to impeach anyone" is a GREAT weasel...

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

"weasel" (defined as "a statement that is technically true, but intended to mislead")


Weasel's are not necessarily bad...

:woohoo:

:kick:

Thank you Congressman Conyers and thanks to you as well Beetwasher!
:thumbsup:

.

Throw 'em all in jail! Frog-marches for everyone in the executive branch! :bounce:

Conyers has been a true hero for years now.

Thank you, Congressman Conyers! You are a hero and a patriot!

Send a convincing message.

it could backfire.

You want congress to have the power to arrest and hold members of the executive branch? imagine if the republicans in the 90s had done it with Clinton's administration.

It's just that they only exercise it very rarely.

That being said, Miers is no longer in the executive branch, she's a private citizen who is refusing a subpoena. Anyone who refuses a subpoena SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL. PERIOD.

Failure to enforce a subpoena is tantamount to admitting it has no legal force.

there are precious few court decisions on this issue. First, courts often don't get involved in what they consider a "political matter". Second, neither side WANTS a decisive court decision on the issue.

So, as a result, these situations are almost always negotiated. What will likely happen is that Miers will testify, not under oath, maybe behind closed doors. That's the likely outcome, no matter how unsatisfying it may be.

Also, when the Republicans were having their witch hunt Clinton didn't claim executive privilege, from what I understand. Another example of the differences between the parties. If they are going to push, we better start pushing back twice as hard.

"Also, when the Republicans were having their witch hunt Clinton didn't claim executive privilege"

Um, actually he did, and it was denied by the courts. It's not analagous though since it was a Grand Jury and not Congress.

that Clinton gave up his executive privilege. Maybe they meant when he had to... ;)

As to the analogy, I wasn't actually trying to compare the situations as I was the attitudes.

No it doesn't. Who says they won't enforce it? Only pathetic whiners who think Congress can snap their fingers and make things happen immediately. That is a naive view of reality. And here you have Conyers threatening to use it. I suspect if she continues to defy congress he WILL use it, I can practically guarantee it. He wouldn't bring this up lightly. Seriously, some people need to get a grip on reality. Congress doesn't have magic powers. There are proper ways to do things and Conyers is doing it the right way. The Dems are not like the Repubs who wantonly ignore laws and procedure and do whatever the fuck they want. As much as you might want him to do things YOUR way, I think he understands what needs to be done and how to do it much better than you ever could.

But hey, thanks for the condescending lecture.

I'm good at condescension! Seriously, if I misunderstood your post, I apologize, but I've seen far to many whiners complaining that "nothing is happening RIGHT NOW WAHHHH!!!"

they are NOT above the law!

but the testimony sought relates to her time in the executive branch.

I understand the desire to see people punished. I'm asking people to think about the bigger issues involved here, and how they could be turned around on Dems.

and refuse subpoena's,
etc.
etc.
etc.
like this bunch does;
then I would hope they too would be brought up on charges!

Nobody --Democrat, Republican, Independent or other-- should be above the laws of this land.

While I don't like the idea of Congress arresting members of the Executive Branch (most of the time), I believe it would be worse for our system if the Executive Branch had no reason to be held accountable and answer questions asked by Congress.

for over 200 years, and won't be resolved any time soon.

Threatening to hold Myers in Contempt of Congress is the only card Congress can play at this time, right? It's a pretty powerful card too if the courts refuse to get involved so I hope Myers and/or the WH are smart enough to comply. I would expect the WH to try to negotiate a compromise though right before the handcuffs are slapped on her.

Whatever they're holding back on must be pretty bad for Bush to force his good friend into this situation. It's not like him to throw people from the inner circle to the wolves so I'm very interested in seeing how this plays out.

they're usually negotiated. That's the likely outcome in this case, too.

So lets just roll over then eh?

We will not actually issue subpeonas because the white house might fight them (and look like the criminals they actually are).

We won't bother doing 'the impeachment thing.'

What else can we just weasel and hem and haw at?

I said to expect a negotiated settlement to this.

This is the judiciary committee and it is already part of judiciary powers is to hold someone in contempt who will not respond to subpoena and who will not speak on the record during a legitimate investigation.

GW has already given himself the powers of a dictator.

If Clinton had hidden his staff behind executive privilege so they could hide his illegal actions, I think it would have been fair to do the same.

"If Clinton had hidden his staff behind executive privilege so they could hide his illegal actions, I think it would have been fair to do the same."

He tried to but it was denied. It's not really analagous here though.

Still, WE investigate our own and if we know they did a bad thing we drop them on their head, let them pay their own legal fees and don't go begging for people to go "easy" on them.

We investigated Clinton for getting a bj under his desk at work. They looked at every scrap of evidence available and could not find anything else. Still, we said if the man did this he needs to face the music.

fibbing about a bj is not the same as lieing and obstructing legitimate Congressional inquiries.

I am so tired of people counseling us to beware what the rePIGlickers might do.

that the constitution does NOT give them this power. The whole separation of powers and all.

There is a legitimate constitutional question here.

That includes subpoenaing any required witnesses and or papers/documents.

One could argue the world is flat too,
that does not make it true or a valid argument.

but the constitutional and legal questions involved are a bit more complicated than you seem to believe.

In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821) which held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."

to the resistance, arrogance, secrecy and out-in-the-open-shameless-lawlessness?

No.

And, as has been pointed out, Congress ALREADY has that power since 1787.

You know what? If the next President, hopefully Gore or Edwards, or their cabinet begins refusing legal subpeonas, then I suppose they too should be held in Contempt of Congress.

I am not afraid of their bullshit. I refuse to cower to Nazi-lite thugs and bullies.

Now is the time to stand-up and show what this country stands for.

Now is not the time to be afraid of what these felons will do. They are going to do it ANYWAY!

in the Lewinsky affair, but against a grand jury, not the congress. He lost in court.

You can call it horse manure, but there really IS such a thing as executive privilege.

by Bushler. Particularly as it dircetly relates to coverup of multiple felonies (dozens of Hatch Act violations, to name one of many) committed by him, Darth, and his henchpersons.

If true (and I don't have a link handy either way, if you do, please share so I can understand the exact nature of what he used it for), it changes little. The "Lewinsky Affair"...how self important and overblown a title for a sordid little sexcapade.

We are speaking here of literally the restructuring of the entire Executive Branch of Government to closely resemble the Soviet Union of the 70s. My God, look at what Carmona has said they DID to him (and what a little wuss for taking it without resigning and speaking out)...political officers rewriting everything, orders to mention Bushler THREE TIMES A PAGE in his speeches, making him fudge and suppress data.

But back to the issue at hand: the level of damage Clinton inflicted on the nation with his sexcapade and his non-felony, as well as the direct conflict of interest and criminal coverup, there's simply no comparison.

I have no problem at all with the concept of Executive Privilege, but it does not apply to coverups of felonies...MULTIPLE felonies, and this expanded use even without the criminal aspect is unacceptable.

the felonies exist and have already been proven. That is not the case.

But what you or I think won't matter - it'll either be negotiated or a judge will decide. But anybody expecting to see Miers dragged out in cuffs tomorrow is going to be disappointed.

However, I believe quite a bit of circumstantial and other "smoking guns" are laying all over DU. I will not bother to recount them all, there are dozens. And I will reiterate, what makes the Busheviks uniquely different from the criminalities of other Presidents (like Nixon, for example) is the utter shamelessness and openness with which these felonies have been performed.

In other words, they have proudly stood behind the felonies, even Gonzales' repeated perjuries, existing now as part of the public record. Six or seven direct instances of perjury (and not just about a BJ, but about violations of the Hatch Act and Sovietizing the DOJ) that could easily be tried.

But you need someone with the guts and will to do so. The Busheviks are so like Hitler in that they get their felonies retroactively made legal or simply plod along as if nothing happened. If the FBI doesn;t show up with the cuffs at the White House (or at the very least to seize computers as evidence in an ongoing investigation), then it's "legal".

Further, while the judiciary has by far been the branch with the most integrity (that is no prize, being the worst of a very bad lot in terms of resisting tyranny) and has taken it's job most seriously to protect and uphold, we have seen a number of unprincipled and lawless Buskevik Operatives who make decisions not based on precedent but on serving The Party.

So the idea of going to a increasingly corrupt judiciary headed by an absolutely corrupt and lawless "Supreme" "Court" (certainly 4 or 5 of the "justices" fall into that category) is difficult and becoming moreso as the Busheviks have purged honest people as fast as they are able.

Thus, the Democrats have already exposed felonies, and the Libby evidence points to the Bushies directly.

To be honest, I expect nothing, least of all Meirs in cuffs or any of the Royal Bushie Courtiers.

And I will say it again, and go to impeachbush.org or other sites to get the full story: demonstrable, provable felonies ALREADY EXIST all the way up the line, the most obvious being Gonzales' for multiple counts of Perjury One, the Cheney-Bush outing of Valerie Plame another, plus there's so much more (the RNC e-purges of 51 accounts relevant to an investigation... what, no crime there, eh?). The reason being they, like Hitler and Caesar before them, KNOW the opposition for various reasons lacks the spine and will to do anything meaningful, even though the evidence is laying all around.

So I say again, I expect nothing. Caeser won, and Rome was never free again. Hitler won, and if he had not tried to take over the world he likely would have had a long rule and may well have extreminated a goodly portion or all of the Jews. Bush is close to the Hitler/Caesar tipping point. The felonies are real, demonstrable, and provable. If they aren't yet they could be with just the tiniest bit of investigation (witness how the attorney's scandal so quickly unraveled at just the tiniest scratch of the surface, how much more then lies beneath if so much has come out so fats and so easily).

If a felony falls in the forest and everyone is too scared to prosecute, did the felony happen...did it make a sound?

No.

Thus, in the absence of such, my assertion will ALWAYS remain speculation, as the Death Camps did...until they were discovered.

Yet hardly anyone sees this without someone like you or me trying to beat them over the head with this uncomfortable but very obvious fact. It's the old elephant in the living room thing. It's pooping in the place, breaking the furniture and smashing the knick knacks yet people would rather throw a sheet over it and clean up around it instead of doing the obvious thing, which is to recognize the fact that there is an elephant there and then remove it.

There are no judges involved, only the body of congress that bring the charge against an individual who refuses to comply with a congressional subpoena. If Ms Miers defies the subpoena, then the congressional master of arms will arrest her, and the congress will try her.

It's interesting stuff, you should read up on it.

and it's not clear that it can be used against the executive branch.

Harriet isn't getting arrested. There are two routes to enforce a contempt citation -- inherent contempt authority which involves arresting and trying the person before the legislative body and section 194 contempt procedure, which involves referring the contempt citation to the US Attorney for presentment to a grand jury and prosecution. Conyers mentioned both, but it is unlikely in the extreme that they would go the inherent contempt route. Certainly not at first. Rather they will go with the section 194 process, which is the process used by Congress for the last 70 years. The reason that they mentioned inherent contempt was basically to put the US ATtorney's office (and the DOJ) on notice that if they go the 194 route and the US Attorney ignores the direction from Congress to prosecute, the House can and will try to take matters into their own hands.

But the odds are it won't get to that point.

White House Counsel Jack Quinn, White House Director of Administration David Watkins, aide Matthew Moore were cited for contempt by the House Government Reform and Oversigh Committee in 1996. A vote was scheduled in the full House, but cancelled when the subpoena was honored. And Janet Reno was cited for contempt of congress in 1998, also by the House Governement Reform and Oversight Committee and also avoided a vote on the floor when the documents were provided.

and the repukes did...

Empty threats just embolden them.

wait as Conyers has talked the talk a lot but has not yet walked the walk. I hope he doesn't fold this time around.

EDIT: So they DO know what it is.

time to spank that contemptuous lil monkey

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce::bounce: :bounce:v

:popcorn: :popcorn:

subpoena, and nothing has come of it so far. I understand Condi is still a part of the misadministration (unfortunately), but the fact is, Congress to date has done nothing about it.

that will make it easier to compel Rice to follow suit.

This is gonna get good, this will fire Keith Olberman up tonight.

One phoney bag of pure stinking steaming hot shit

What's the hold up? If contempt charges were filed yesterday it wouldn't be fast enough.

I can only imagine how fast he'd pardon Miers once she was convicted of contempt. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worth it, actually that may not be a bad thing either.

§ 194. Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action
How Current is This?

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, rec­ords, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee or subcommittee of either House of Congress, and the fact of such failure or failures is reported to either House while Congress is in session or when Congress is not in session, a statement of fact constituting such failure is reported to and filed with the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it shall be the duty of the said President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be, to certify, and he shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

So it looks like the Congress requests the appropriate US Attorney bring the mater before the grand jury.

As I remember it, declaring someone in 'inherent contempt' allows the House to send the Capitol Police to pick up said person and deliver him or her to the House.

Ah, here it is:

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

That, I'd love to see.

- as

No one is getting arrested. They haven't used inherent contempt authority in over 70 years and they won't use it now. It will be an unnecessary distraction -- everyone will discuss why they couldn't proceed under the section 194 process as they have in all other cases in the past 70 years.

and why it differs from Statutory Contempt of Congress procedures:

A few astute commenters observed that Congress has another weapon in its arsenal for backing up the subpoena power: the long-dormant "inherent contempt" process, described below in the Congressional Research Service's "Congressional Oversight Manual" (PDF):

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.

But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.

I found this info on thenexthurrah:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/03/dusting_off_inh.html


Here is the link to the Congressional Oversight Manual, the key part re Contempt starts on pdf page 42/43:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

The broom closet...?

not her imprisonment.

I hate these damned ass carrots!

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/understandinglife/904

Just do it ...

inherent contempt has never been applied to the executive branch.

I doubt the courts would rule that Congress has the right to arrest the President.

was used 85 times between 1795 and 1934. I gather that most, or all of the times the executive caved in.

The Supreme Court upheld Inherent Contempt, but its been years since they've heard a case.

I think if Bush causes a constitutional crisis that would be what is needed to impeach him.

No

the Congress is never going to be able to arrest the President.

how about never?

I'm fond of the separation of powers.

If you think Congress should be able to arrest the President, then you have to think the President can arrest Congress. Would that suit you?

But I don't think it applies to the president, does it? What would happen for a president to use inherent contempt?

It's not about arbitrary arrests as your post implies.

the charge inherent contempt of congress probably could not be used against the President.

Congress cannot arrest the president, any more than the president can arrest the congress. That's a good thing, in the long view.

can do it. Either John Dean or Jonathan Turley said it is an option for them. And I was responding to you asking if I want the president arresting members of congress when I said I don't think the president has the power to do that.

...What about if a throng of ten thousand people put the whole lot of them under Citizens' Arrest. For Treason, obstruction of justice, perjury, war crimes, to mention a few. If a massive group of people large enough were to storm the Whore.. I mean White House, we could arrest everyone in the building. The crowd would have to be large enough so that the police could not contain them. What ten, twenty thousand?

The PEOPLE are in charge in this country, NOT the POLITICIANS! It's about time we made them good and scared of what WE can do. It's about time.


I want to thank Congressman Conyers for all of his efforts. He knows the big picture, and has to inform the rest of his committee of this larger view. At any rate, I think it's only a matter of time, till the Rapeublicans start to call for Bushco, Inc. to resign, or they will not have jobs the next time they face reelection.

but watch out for the guys in suits - they have guns.

when he uses THE office to stop oversight.

:woohoo:

or something

from Conyers, any way, Miers loses.

We go by the rule of law here!

people they do not deserve it.

But the only thing that worries me now is that Bush and Cheney are going to behave like trapped animals. And that gut feeling (gas) from the fema guy says we might get attacked again makes me think they will use nukes this time. I mean Bush Cheney not Iran like they are going to tell us. That way Bush can dismiss the Senate and Congress until he decides to call them back. And they won't be holding invstigations on the firings anymore. This is war to our War Presidunce.

plus their powers to declare another war? (ON US & Iran etc,)

ARREST THE BUSH TERRORISTS NOW!!

CONTACT CONYERS at: http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx Phone:202-225-3951

She was only part of the legal counsel to the President.

Give her a break!

Yeah!!!!!!!!! This is what we need right now!!!!! It is TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!:grr: :nuke: :grr:

Send Taylor and Meiers to jail for Contempt of Congress. Dispatch Federal Marshals to the White House and put the entire administration in restraints. Waterboard them all and then ship them off to secret prisons. Draft the Useless Bush Twins and put them on the ground in Iraq. Imprison all Republican and Corporate traitors and war profiteers for life. Apply the Mussolini Solution wherever and whenever it's warranted. Out nation has been stolen from us. It's time to take it back from these murderous criminals. Use whatever force is necessary. Now.

Sorry folks my faith is waning.

I was in the car back and forth to Ohio all day today -- four hours there and four back -- and heard Randi's show when they play it delayed on our local station. I heard the John Dean and then heard the woman call in with the detailed description of inherent contempt. It's totally the way to go! I'm so glad to hear that Conyers said this.

I can't wait to see the sergeant at arms and the police drag Harriet into the House for a trial!

I think it's finally coming together! Hooray!

I credit this to Congress's recent trips home and talking to their constituents in town hall meetings. Heck...my Congress-critter is John Doolittle and even HE is saying it's time to leave Iraq!

:party:

Miers be held in contempt. It is easy and quick.

on subpoenas and contempt charges. Wonder if Conyers ever got his answer about exactly what the DOJ's policy is to enforce Congressional contempt charges. LOL!

It looks like they may have found a way around the DOJ with this inherent contempt! :woohoo:

"Now is not the right time."

"Look at the big picture."

"Do you want another Republican president?"

Anyone?

YOur logic is flawed. you imply that being tough on the fascists will lead to a republican President. Disagree. many Americans are disappointed at the lack of backbone in the democrats. Always, "not the right time". We must start taking them apart immediately. What do u suggest we wait for? Wait until there is a Demo in the white house? What makes you think they won't bring the Country down before that? Fight now, fight hard, fight forever for freedom.

forgot this

:sarcasm:

the sarcasm. In any event I didn't mean to come down hard on you. I am just sick of waiting and waiting for the right time. Democracy has been badly damaged and they continue their assault everyday. I want action.

we're on the same side. Had enough of excuses.

:thumbsup:

Conyers is acting in self-defense for all of us, lest these bunch of neocons start their martial law concentration camp program (Remember Rex84, Ops Cable Splicer and Garden Plot originally under FEMA but now moved to ICE ?).

Act NOW before the lockups begin; it's either get to them before they get US of the jig is up and Rove has won.

This is such a needed move!

you want them to support inherent contempt for Miers.