John Dean: Congressional Tools Dems Can Use to Force Bush Admin to Cooperate

[babylonsister]

Lots of info here, from someone who just might know.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4675

The Arsenal of Tools Congressional Democrats Can Use To Force the Bush Administration To Cooperate
by John W. Dean

big snip//

Congressional Subpoenas and Contempt Powers

There is nothing subtle about the use of subpoenas, which can be used against Executive Branch officials or private individuals. If the witness claims the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent because of self-incrimination, the Congress can grant the witness either "use" immunity, precluding the use of the witness's testimony or its fruits in a criminal prosecution, or full immunity, which precludes criminal prosecution for stated charges on any evidence, no matter how it is discovered.

The difference between use immunity and full immunity, however, is often immaterial. In high profile cases - such as that of Oliver North, who provided immunized testimony during Iran Contra - it is virtually impossible to prosecute the witness, for the testimony may have influenced potential jurors. Prosecutors, and the Congress, generally understand that the Congress's right to information can preclude the government prosecuting in many situations - though sometimes they do try to indict anyway.

snip//

Unique House Tools: Resolutions of Inquiry and the "Seven Member Rule"

There are a few tools only the House can use. For example, a House resolution of inquiry makes a direct "request" of a president, or a "demand" of other Executive Branch officials, to produce information. It is a tool that allows any member of the House to seek information.

The resolution is privileged, and if it is not reported back from the committee with jurisdiction within fourteen days (with the report stating their approval or disapproval), the member introducing it can file a motion to discharge the committee, and this is a privilege motion -- which means it is always in order to file it. Typically, the House debates a resolution of inquiry for one hour, and then votes it up or down.
snip


The Executive Privilege Shield

snip//

Members of Congress thus face a serious problem when a president exerts executive privilege, demonstrating that he (or she) is willing to spend the necessary political capital, and suffer the inevitable parallels to Nixon. In this situation, there is really nothing the Congress can do - short of impeaching the president on the theory that his improperly withholding information amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor, which itself could, of course, be a reach.

Suppose the 110th Congress does find itself being stonewalled by Bush and Cheney's claims of executive privilege. Does it then have no recourse?

====================
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY
4 OR 5 PARAGRAPHS FROM THE COPYRIGHTED
NEWS SOURCE PER DU RULES.

[niceypoo]

1. Time to bring the hammer down on an out of control presidency

It's quite obvious that Bush will continue his rampage across the constitution and planet regardless of what the democrats or populace think. I think that he and Cheney believe that because he is the commander in chief and head of armed forces that they can do anything. I think they believe they can get away with a sort of military coup, with the military siding with them against the congress. I can see it coming. If he is subpoenaed he will most likely attempt to just say "fuck you, I'm not cooperating, what are you going to do about it?" The shit will be hitting the fan very soon.

[Rose Siding]

2. It isn't clear to me that the "7 member rule" carries much of a punch

I knew I'd heard the term before so I searched for it. It's been used a couple of times over the last few years by dems to no great impact, as far as I can tell (so far, anyway) The first time the 1928 provision was ever used was by Waxman in 2001, and the court upheld it's use, finding that the feds *did* have to release to him the census data he was seeking at the time. How likely is a court to find the same way when the admin throws the National Security Boogeyman into the mix?

Here are two other examples, the outcomes of which I haven't seen-

January 27, 2004
Waxman testing 7-member rule for access to lobbying files
By Klaus Marre
House Democrats are testing the seldom-used seven-member rule to get information about lobbyists’ influence on the Bush administration’s health and energy policy....
http://www.hillnews.com/news/012704/waxman.aspx

June 22, 2004
CONTACT:
Brendan Daly
202-225-0100
Congressional Leaders Call on President, Republican Leaders to Investigate Medicare Bill Allegations
Washington, D.C. -- In two letters sent today, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, and other Congressional Leaders demanded a response from the President and the Republican leaders in Congress on allegations that the Medicare Chief Actuary was forced to withhold Medicare cost estimates from Congress last year. These allegations include charges that the Bush Administration violated federal law.
...
(from one of the letters-)
We understand why the White House would not want these charges investigated. The Administration has refused repeated requests by members of Congress, including requests under the Seven Member Rule, to release the actual cost estimates.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:FPinf80JfLIJ:democraticwhip.house.gov/in_the_news/press_releases/index.cfm%3FpressReleaseID%3D735+democrat+%22seven+member+rule%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14

[napi21]

3. John Dean is always a great source of information. The things

he did not include in THIS article are the many provable times that Shrub has ignored the Constitution! I've heard Johnathan Turley (professor of Constitutional law at Georgetown)enumerate many of Shrubs offences, and those are the things I believe the House would be able to draw up a Bill of Impeachment for. All of the things Turley mentioned have already been publically admitted to by Shrub, so there would be no need to even have any real investigative process. Dean has also mentioned many of these offences in previous articles.

Signing statements are unconstitutional, as is:

Blatently ignoring the FISA law

Disregarding the 4th ammendment

and Turley has mentioned many others.

We are all depending on Waxman, Conyers, and Pelosi. So far, the new Dems have done very well in their first days. I sure hope they don't let us down on THIS!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. what about Contempt of Congress?

Can they be thrown in jail if they refuse to comply with a subpoena duces tecum (requiring documents) and refuse to testify?

Christie Whitman was held in contempt (Must have been by a federal judge) when she was head of the Dept of the Interior, for refusing to account for billions of dollars of mineral revenue from Indian lands, since the 1870s, since the Bureau of Indian Affairs is part of that Dept. But she never went to jail.

[babylonsister]

5. Hey, I live in concrete sprawl in TX, too.

I refer to it as 'entering/leaving construction'.

I hope the Congress tries everything in their power to put a stop to this maniac. Other than articles like this, I don't know much and am not a lawyer. There's got to be something that can be done.