The whole "Contempt of Congress" Bushco loophole

[BluePatriot]

Let me get this straight...if Rove/Miers refuse to testify before Congress under oath they can be found in contempt of Congress. And then, the US Attorney from DC can choose to pursue the matter (or not)

Problem: that USA is a GONZALES APPOINTEE.

"Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on September 22, 2006. He was sworn in and took office on September 29, 2006.

From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales, where he handled a broad array of matters, including oversight of the Department’s national security, terrorism, and criminal litigation and policy, as well as the operations of the Department’s law enforcement components."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/US_Attorney/index.html

So, uh, isn't there some kind of conflict of interest thing going on? If USA Taylor decides not to prosecute, is this whole thing a done deal? What happens then?

[Sir Jeffrey]

1. First things first...

the issuance of subpoenas will go before a federal court. Bush will argue that executive privilege gives him the right to refuse the subpoenas. Congress will argue that e.p. does not apply to this case.

That issue has to be decided before the courts before we can guess what the next step will be. Everything else is speculation.

[BluePatriot]

5. *nods*

The above scenario was on Olbermann last night and it did make me wonder if it was appropriate for this USA to be hearing any case related to this scandal. He is probably an impartial guy, but, who knows anymore? I guess that proves Gonzales has really screwed up the DOJ's credibility by ranking everyone on a political level. Even if this USA just happened to be appointed there for innocuous reasons everyone will wonder about him.

[Bandit]

10. He was given the rating as a "Loyal Bushie"

If that makes him impartial..:shrug:

[BluePatriot]

11. Exactly.

Gonzales' rankings and opinions on this guy sure have created a conflict of interest here. Note that the USA didn't actually take a loyalty test, he was just ranked by outsiders (although his connections do make it obvious he must be a loyal Bush guy) I just wonder if it can be gotten around somehow legally (the USA recuses himself, Dems demand he recuse himself, special prosecutor...latter looking like best bet)

EDIT: plus, that whole ranking by outsiders thing has really screwed up the USA pool. Say a special prosecutor is appointed. Should Dems insist on a "disloyal" one? Repubs a "loyal" one? Etc. (I hope to god they ranked someone straight in between...choose them!) Gonzales' office politicizing these USA guys is going to make things nuts when trying to get justice.

[Bandit]

8. No I think the issueing of Subpoenas is done by Congress alone

I don't think a court has to do it. If the Whitehouse fails to respond to the subpoenas then Congress will vote on Contempt of Congress charges by majority vote. After Contempt charges have been filed, it goes to Dept of Justice. Then and only then does the court get involved if and only if Justice decides to pursue it. It is when it is in the court that the Whitehouse gets to make their argument, if it goes to court.Congress has authority to issue subpoenas...Remember when the Republicans were howling "No one is above the Law" Apparently they have very short memories. I do believe they feel Bush* and his whole Cabal are indeed above the Law or as Delay put it "I am the Law"

[BluePatriot]

13. "if Justice decides to pursue it"

There's the rub...WILL they decide to pursue it? Who at Justice makes that call? A Gonzales-appointed USA? Is a Special Prosecutor allowed to pursue it instead? (And aren't these guys usually picked from the ranks of....USAs?)

//I'd sure like to know

[northzax]

19. the last recourse, actually

if there is no action, and the AG refuses to appoint a Special Counsel, is to then investigate why there is no movement on the prosecution. we are then down to the investigation of an investigation into an investigation. wheels and wheels.

if Taylor doesn't act, the Judiciary Committee drags him in front of them and asks why. if he refuses to answer, or they aren't happy with his answers, they cite him for contempt.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Yeah, and who in the AG's office then prosecutes Taylor for contempt

WHEN he refuses to answer? Yet another "loyal Bushie" of course.

[Sir Jeffrey]

14. I wasn't arguing that Congress had no power to subpoena...

I didn't mean to give anyone that impression.

Congress will most likely issue subpoenas. Bush is expected to refuse them on the grounds of e.p. That issue must first be resolved before anything else is done. E.p. is a murky legal concept that has not been litigated very often. I think Bush is hoping that his courts will define e.p. broadly.

I found this pdf from the senate.gov site that explains e.p. and congressional investigations:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf

snip

"Government lawyers are not expected to provide advice to Presidents
on private financial and legal matters, and certainly not on the same confidential
basis as a private attorney. Lloyd Cutler, when he was appointed Special Counsel to
President Clinton, explained: “When it comes to a President’s private affairs,
particularly private affairs that occurred before he took office, those should be
handled by his own personal private counsel, and in my view not by the White House Counsel.”104 Moreover, communications between a government attorney and an
executive official lack the confidentiality that exists between a private attorney and
an executive official. Under law, any government attorney who learns of “ny
information, allegation, or complaint” involving government officers and employees
shall report such matter to the Attorney General, with certain exceptions.105 Aware
of that statute, government attorneys should alert officials in the government, “even
the President, . . . not to expect counsel to keep confidential what a private counsel
would in such a situation.”106"

Sounds like Bush will lose.

[307 MMS]

12. E. P.

There is no "executive privilige" in the US Constitution. It comes from the ideology of the "unitary executive" that started with Nixon. We know what eventually happened to him. If the Repukes don't get wise, like they did when they "saw the light" with Nixon, their party is going to take a nasty hit that'll last for years. As to what they did to Clinton and their screaming about "rule of law", they must think the public has a very short memory. Talk about a double standard....sheesh!

[Uben]

2. a grand jury must hear the case

...if they are in COntempt of Congress!

[BluePatriot]

9. *shrug*

I thought the local USA had to decide whether or not to allow a grand jury to hear the case, though?

[TahitiNut]

28. Grand Juries are required for all federal felony indictments.

Nothin' special there. :shrug:

[bullimiami]

3. then you impeach the prosecuter for starters.

[merh]

4. Can you say "SPECIAL PROSECUTOR"

think of the dems version of Ken Starr.

Or maybe appoint Fitz to act as special prosecutor.

[BluePatriot]

7. Yeah,

that's probably what would happen. The Dems should insist on it.

[northzax]

17. no can do

there is no recourse in the law for a special prosecutor or independant counsel.

the best result is to have the AG appoint a special counsel under 28 CFR 600. I can find no citation allowing Congress to appoint a special prosecutor/counsel or anything else.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Which is an angle the WH has already figured out

and no way will they allow a special prosecutor. I'm getting nervous about this showdown.

[merh]

22. what is to stop them from passing a law that will allow for

a special prosecutor? They do write the laws, don't they?

or, to simply ask the US Attorney to appoint a special counsel under 28 CFR 600?

[riderinthestorm]

23. I don't think the AG will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this. Do you? nt

[merh]

24. Fitz was appointed as a special prosecutor to investigate

the Plame matter, which included investigating the White House.

It could happen.

[riderinthestorm]

25. Because Ashcroft recused himself and his Deputy appointed Fitz

There is no way the WH is going to let this happen again. Ever. Especially over this.

[merh]

26. Who knows

all sorts of things can happen.

[northzax]

27. with veto proof majorities?

or do you think Bush would sign that?

Also, this would the post facto, a bill passed after the fact. never work.

[merh]

29. It wouldn't be an ex post facto law

It would not change the legal consequences of acts committed (as in it wouldn't make the actions of the DOJ/admin more criminal) nor would it alter any legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to passage of the bill. Congress could pass legislation that would set up independent counsel by finding that the interests of justice would be better served if an independent investigation of the DOJ be conducted by an independent office - the public need would be sufficient, imho.

What constitutional right would the creation of an independent counsel violate?

[malaise]

6. The more you examine Bushco's operation

the more you question how separate is the so called separation of powers.

[BluePatriot]

15. Sep of powers has been gradually dismantled

...with no one paying attention due to its complicated and gradual, fine-print nature...DU excepted, of course.

:scared:

[riderinthestorm]

16. Who will argue the WH case in the first place? Taylor?

Does anyone know?

And would Gonzo (or his office) be the one to appoint a special prosecutor (which I suspect will never be allowed to happen)?

[shadowknows69]

20. This is the kind of thing a lot of us were screaming at Dem leaders

so they could block this joke from being our Atty. General in the first place. Good rule of thumb Senators and Reps. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.