![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/05/GR2005120501681.gif)
House Mulls Contempt Votes Against Bolten, Miers
After months of delay, House leaders are considering bringing contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and ex-White House counsel Harriet Miers to the chamber floor for votes Thursday.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said this morning that it was "possible" the citations would be on Thursday's schedule, saying there was "space on the calendar" because a planned debate on an energy bill had been punted until after the President's Day recess. Hoyer also emphasized that the issue for Democratic leaders was not specifically about Bolten or Miers, but rather about protecting Congress' ability to get information from the executive branch.
The House Judiciary Committee voted last July to hold Bolten and Miers in contempt of Congress after they refused to comply with subpoenas from the panel during the investigation of the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys. Since then, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has been trying without success to press the Bush administration for more information and for consent to have the two officials appear.
If the House approves the citations, they will be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, though it is not clear whether the Justice Department would actually enforce them. It is also not clear why Democratic leaders would decide to move forward on the citations now after six months of delay.
Liberal activists have been pressing for action since last year, and -- coincidentally or not -- grassroots Democrats have also stepped up pressure on Conyers in recent days to hold impeachment hearings against Vice President Cheney.
By Ben Pershing |
February 13, 2008; 12:48 PM ET
Branch vs. Branch
,
Dem. Leaders
,
Ethics and Rules
Previous: House Leaders Endorse McCain |
Next: In Clemens's Corner: Dan Burton
Posted by: PIT | February 13, 2008 1:34 PM
So, expanding on Richard Nixon's famous pronouncement "If the President does it, then it's not a crime" to "If the President, or anyone directly advising him, or anyone the President believes may have in the past, present or future, advise him, are exempt from criminal prosecution."
Sounds fair. At least we still have the 2nd amendment.
Posted by: TheFrog | February 14, 2008 12:02 AM
The House needs to use the its Inherent Contempt power and turn the matter over to its Sargent-At-Arms.
Posted by: Paul C | February 14, 2008 1:33 PM
The Problem is SPENDING by the GOVERNMENT when they print Trillions of dollars to Give Iraqi Freedom and Bailout Bush Buddies from their FRAUD on each other. Covering up their criminal acts with more criminal acts. When the president and congress lie cheat and steal, it set the example for Investment companies, Banks, investors and borrowers. All this spending and corruption, caused the Arabs to look at the real value of dollar. Devalued the Dollar which is why the Oil price shot up. Call it the "Oil Standard" with the falling dollar it could go to $200/bbl. Almost 10 times what it was when Bush took office. Thus the price of everything imported went up the same amount, because we are buying with dollars that are worth less. Your House, stocks, retirement funds everything tied to the dollar is worth less 50% less in 7 years. Thanks to Bush and Congress. Impeach Bush and Congress. Elect Ron Paul s. http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/14/the-best-explanation-of-the-subprime-mess-ive-ever-seen/
Posted by: Daniel Dinsmore | February 14, 2008 6:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
It's about time. I don't know why Roger Clemens should have even shown up if Congress doesn't have the guts to punish those who don't testify. Now if they'd only go after Alberto Gonzales for lying repeatedly...