Judge: Why Litigate When You Can Arrest? A U.S. District Judge asks the obvious as congressional democrats drag their feet while pretending to get to the bottom of, I dunno, something. TPM Muckraker reports: In a motion hearing in federal court today, U.S. District Judge John Bates questioned why Congress didn't simply arrest former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten after both refused to respond to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee...
Because the congressional democrats are engaging in political kabuki, that's why Judge Bates. The judge promised a quick decision, but there will be appeals which, no doubt, won't be resolved until after the new president is inaugurated. But I'm sure that congressional democrats won't sit tight and they'll see to it that Miers and Bolten.........
The democrats are complicit. That's why impeachment is off the table.
They're acting just like they did during Vietnam. No one could have anticipated this. That's why the MSM incanted the administration meme "This isn't like Vietnam" at the beginning in 2003. The differences of note is 50 year old white soldiers who volunteered through the reserve for what turned out to be indefinite peonage and massive employment of mercenaries as opposed to turning our young black men into involuntary cannon fodder. Oh, and zero MSM coverage of the deaths and injuries to them and to the civilian populace. We're waiting not so much for Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy this time as for national consciousness of the pointless slaughter and the subjugation of the middle class. Who runs on that will win without much triangulation. Obama cheers me only because he may be the first black president and he's not Bush, not because his politics and social policy positions are that much less right of center than McCain's. The war won't end swiftly if he's elected and the Dems - including him -already think it's OK to place our interests behind those of the corporate owners and the whiphand of a totalitarian executive. Change may come to this state of affairs but it's slow aborning. Fuck. Jesus H. Fuck.
Posted by: JDM | June 24, 2008 at 07:49 AM
Just a bit of clarification, the Congress can't arrest. Miers and Bolton were held in contempt, the Executive Branch is required to arrest those people. Instead Gonzales said he would not enforce the contempt order - thus they never got arrested.
Posted by: John J. | June 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Inherent_contempt
John J - it appears from this link that Congress does have the power to "arrest" subpoenaed individuals who refuse to testify. However, they must be found in "inherent contempt" which may or may not be different from Contempt of Congress. I don't know. Not that Wikipedia is a trusted source, but back in March I attended a speaking engagement given by Congressman Wexler here in NY where he responded to an audience question about inherent contempt and stated that he would pursue it for Meiers, Bolton and Rove. I guess we're still waiting?
I agree with gmb... most of the democrats are complicit, in a silence-is-consent sort of way.
Posted by: Spartacus | June 24, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Thanks Spartacus, I misunderstood something I had heard a few months ago when all this was started.
Posted by: John J. | June 24, 2008 at 12:24 PM
JDM: Ain't that the truth. Nader was right. Obama's just a young, better looking, less obviously venal version of what DC's been selling for years.
John J.: Congress has inherent authority to enforce the subpoenas and can send the Sargeant at Arms (I believe that's teh title) to grab Harriet and Josh if they are in DC. There must be some mechanism to grab them if they are outside of DC. So, yeah, congress could act, but it won't.
Spartacus: Right again, my friend. GMB
Posted by: gmb | June 24, 2008 at 06:07 PM