Skip to main content

View Diary: House Judiciary to Send Rove to Jail on Contempt (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  I can't imagine these Democrats (8+ / 0-)

      taking any substantive action, just pr ones. Your question is the crux of the matter, and decides whether it rates cheers or jeers.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:13:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the problem isn;t it.... (7+ / 0-)

      Aren't there two contempt citations already out there that are completely ignored?  (I forget the names right now)

      Holding someone in contempt is not arresting them and holding them.  That is a separate action that is an inaction at this point.

      Why is this any different?

      Really, WWFSMD?

      by sp0t on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The full committee w/be meeting tomorrow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden

      They will vote tomorrow.  If all of the Dems on the committee vote with Conyers, then it will go to the floor.

      Today's mission is to call ALL members of the HJC, including Republicans, and ask them to vote for bringing Rove before the committee.

      Also, please make those calls to friends and family -get them to this site.

      Go to http://www.sendrovetojail.com.

      This is also a call for former Alabama governor, Don siegelman because the only way to find out if Rove was involved (ah...hummmm) is to bring him before the committee.

      We also need to urge our members of Congress to vote with the committee for justice. We must get every Democrat to vote with us in committee and when they take the vote to the floor. It will be easier now that we have the IG report to verify criminal activity.

      By Direction of the Chairman

      07/30/2008


        Full Committee

      10:15 A.M. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
      To consider: A resolution and report finding Karl Rove in contempt for failure to appear pursuant to subpoena and recommending to the House of Representatives that Mr. Rove becited for contempt of Congress;

    •  Probably Not Inherent (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      victoria2dc, jayden, paul94611

      It's up to the Committee whether they refer regular contempt charges to the "Justice" Department, or inherent contempt charges that the House executes on its own.

      Of course inherent contempt is the one that would possibly be enforced.

      But even pressing regular contempt that dies in the "Justice" Department is better than failing to do anything. Failure sets the precedent that an Executive crony, without even Executive Privilege, can ignore subpoenas with no consequences whatsoever.

      Charges dying in a partisan Do"J", however, can also be used to reform the Do"J". It's not adequate, but it's better than nothing.

      Worth signing, at a cost of 30 seconds, rather than doing nothing and thereby getting nothing done except advancing apathy.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress' power of contempt only exists as long.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skrymir, victoria2dc

        as they are in session.  The inherent power of contempt is only recognized by the courts as an extension of the Congress' power to investigate and when they are not in session they cannot investigate and they cannot then hold anyone in contempt.  Since Congress is about to flee to the four corners, their sabre rattling means nothing, as usual.  The Dems in Congress have sold the American people down the drain.

        "Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." George Bernard Shaw

        by PhotogHog on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Failure to do anything (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, victoria2dc

        will give greater power to foreign courts if they believe that the perpetrators of the more serious crimes, 18 USC 2441 as an example, will never face the bar of justice here.
        If the power that be here continue to shake & bake then there are other courts that could assume jurisdiction.

      •  It is up to the committee... but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DocGonzo, dewley notid

        It's up to the Committee whether they refer regular contempt charges to the "Justice" Department, or inherent contempt charges that the House executes on its own.

        Read what the judge says:

        http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...

        Judge: Why Litigate When You Can Arrest?
        By Kate Klonick - June 23, 2008, 6:35PM
        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:

        They could arrest all three of them since the AG won't refer to a special prosecutor.

        Congress has the authority to hold someone in contempt, U.S. District Judge John Bates said. Did it really need to go to court? House counsel Irvin Nathan said it did.

        Conyers just may do it tomorrow.  If the AG thinks it's going to happen, perhaps Rove will ask for immunity and agree to testify????

    •  I don't know if it's inherent or not... (0+ / 0-)

      that's what Wexler is pushing for, but it doesn't say on the HJC website.

      It must be though... why waste their time because they know that the AG will not refer to either a special prosecutor or to a grand jury for consideration. He already said no. Further, they have the case of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton sitting in the DC courts. The judge is none too happy about it either.

      Here is what the judge said:

      http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...

      Judge: Why Litigate When You Can Arrest?
      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:

      Further:

      Congress has the authority to hold someone in contempt, U.S. District Judge John Bates said. Did it really need to go to court? House counsel Irvin Nathan said it did.

      I guess they want to be sure they still have the power of inherent contempt.  There is an issue on that too.  However, it looks like the judge said that they can do it... and I know Conyers is not taking this lightly (to say the friggin' least!).  How long have we been waiting for the truth about the DOJ?

      Demand no more cover-ups! Time for the truth.

    •  This is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skrymir, victoria2dc, sdgeek

      a vote for contempt.  The title and diary is misleading.  A Contempt vote out of the committee will then go to the full house, at which point it needs a majority which it will get, then the DoJ has to decide to make the USAtty for DC pursue it...if not, the house can sue in the fed cts to make it enforceable.  He isnt going to jail...

      Inherent contempt isnt being voted on here.  

      •  The AG said already that he will NOT (0+ / 0-)

        refer to the USA... that's why Miers and Bolton's case is sitting in the courts.

        •  i know (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          victoria2dc

          which is why this diary is bs...

          quite honestly, I am becoming more and more cynical about this.  US reps and Senators do NOT need phone calls and "DOnations" in order to carry out their most basic functions.

          I am working on a diary on this matter...but I have begun to see "oversight" as synonymnous with "campaigning"...they play good cop/bad cop with the activist left and try to drum up money.

          •  Did you read the TPM story w/Judge Bates (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pooh74

            telling Conyers he has the right to arrest?

            Things are much different now than they were a month ago.

            I'm not betting on Conyers to go for inherent contempt, but he will he if seriously thinks he has the power to do it, which he apparently does.

            Judge Bates tells an interesting side bit somewhere (I read it and don't have the URL).  He says he's damned if he does arrest them and damned if he doesn't. That's why he wants the parties to compromise, which they won't because George is trying to save his legacy... and he doesn't want to go to jail! Don't u think he's scared?

            •  to me its not about (0+ / 0-)

              seeing people I don't like arrested.  I really just want the constitutional powers realigned to reflect a balance.  Without supboena power, the oversight power of the Congress is nothing.  Whatever they do to restore that is fine (within their powers).  

              can u link to the text you mentioned above?  thanks

    •  LOL... who voted NO? (0+ / 0-)

      Must be some trolls around here! Or is it non-believers?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (83)
  • Baltimore (79)
  • Freddie Gray (58)
  • Bernie Sanders (56)
  • Civil Rights (48)
  • Elections (39)
  • Culture (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (28)
  • Education (24)
  • Environment (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site