Under Penalty of Punishment

That's a translation of subpoena: Sub Poena: Under Punishment. And if you or I refused to obey a subpoena we would certainly be under punishment.

In fact, it used to be that laws in this country could be applied to everyone, even presidents. When President Richard Nixon refused to comply with subpoenas from a prosecutor, the Supreme Court told him he had to. When Nixon refused to comply with subpoenas from Congress, the House Judiciary Committee passed an article of impeachment against him. Nixon claimed "executive privilege," and the Supreme Court and Congress both told him to take his privilege and stick it in a helicopter home.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have refused to comply with numerous subpoenas, have instructed current and former staff not to comply, and have refused to enforce contempt citations arising out of their refusal to comply with subpoenas. They have also instructed current and former staffers who testified to refuse to answer certain questions, and to claim "executive privilege." On Thursday John Yoo, former member of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, refused to answer questions in a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing claiming "executive privilege."

When the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed White House Political Director Sara Taylor and Deputy Political Director J. Scott Jennings a year ago, they showed up and refused to answer questions. A complete list of witnesses who have thus refused would be quite long.

In many other cases, the Bush-Cheney gang has simply refused to produce documents or witnesses at all. Subpoenas not complied with at all include:

--A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents from the Department of Justice, issued April 10, 2007;

--A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for the testimony of the Secretary of State, issued April 25, 2007;

--A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, issued June 13, 2007;

--A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, issued June 13, 2007;

--A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and testimony of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, issued June 26, 2007;

--A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents from the White House, Vice President Richard Cheney, the Department of Justice, and the National Security Council. If the documents are not produced, the subpoena requires the testimony of White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Chief of Staff to the Vice President David Addington, and National Security Council executive director V. Philip Lago, issued June 27, 2007;

--A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for testimony of Lt. General Kensinger;

--A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena for documents from the Environmental Protection Agency, issued April 16, 2008.

This is a partial list based on no sort of thorough research whatsoever. And not all subpoenas are ever publicized. So, who knows what the full extent of this pattern of behavior comes to? The list already dwarfs Nixon's and is probably much longer. And, remember, these are actual subpoenas. These don't include rejected requests not in the form of subpoenas, or votes by committees to approve subpoenas that the chairman never bothers to send. And remember, too, that a number of these subpoenas are for unnecessary evidence related to crimes and offenses already solidly documented. Congress members, afraid to produce articles of impeachment, have produced subpoenas instead, and then discovered that with impeachment removed from the table, the subpoenas have no teeth.

We are in completely uncharted waters. The White House has reduced the Congress to a debate club or a gang of court jesters, and Congress has gone along with the complete removal of its power.

But do Republicans want the power to subpoena the Obama administration? Do Democrats want the power to subpoena the McCain administration? Do any congress members with decency that reaches outside a party want the power to hold any future administration in check?

If so, then we need impeachment, even if it's on this issue alone.

When your Congress member comes home next week, ask them to introduce this article of impeachment. They can copy Congressman Dennis Kucinich's 27th article already introduced. Or they can borrow from the third article passed against Nixon. Or they can give up the pretense of being an actual member of the U.S. government. Perhaps you can begin your conversations this way:

"So, Congressman, how does it feel to be impotent?"

When they drag one of the clowns in kicking and screaming for their testimony, then the others might learn from the object lesson. But until Congress grows a spine and fangs, they'll be ignored.

Ameicans have truly lost track of what, exactly, was different about America at it's inception.

If I could recommend - I "don't have enough comments"!

:shrug:

-Hoot

I don't remember - did the full house vote on it, or was the contempt citation issued from the House Judiciary Committee?

Would the full house have to vote on inherent contempt?

AFAIK, yes, the full house votes on inherent contempt, simple majority wins.

-Hoot

wouldn't it follow that inherent contempt would pass too? Do you recall the tally for the contempt citation?

The result of an inherent contempt charge is that the Sargent At Arms gathers up some Capitol Police and go and arrest the party, returning them to Congress to testify.

-Hoot

the consequences to be? Did they expect it would never be enforced, and that's why they voted for contempt?

/confused

As far as my Rep goes, he voted against, as expected being republic. I've never heard a straight answer as to why from any of them. On a lot of issues. I don't believe Nancy has adequately explained why impeachment is off the table.

-Hoot

not contempt

contempt is where they send a piece of paper to the department of injustice and then take them to court and then sit back and hold a farting contest for a coupel of years

inherent contempt is where they send the Capitol Police to slap handcuffs on someone and hold them for questioning

impeachment is where they follow the Constitution and throw criminals out of office

Or just the Judiciary Committee?

Sure, it makes for interesting discussion. But sending armed men to arrest people would likely just draw armed men to "protect them from unlawful arrest."

Remember, these thugs don't need a real reason -- just something to say. They actually have (very warped) spines.

On the other hand, the talk of it may well get it through some hazy heads that there is only impeachment -- or total dereliction of Constitutional duty.

--

:kick:

Them: Sir, you have not paid your Federal Income Taxes!
Me: SO?

Them: Sir, you have not spent your Economic Stimulus Incentive!
Me: SO?

Them: Sir, you have not complied with this subpoena to testify against your neighbor!
Me: SO?

Them: Sir, you are using strong encryption to make your emails unreadable by your benevolent protectors from ATT-Blackwater!
Me: SO?