First it was Ellen Tauscher insisting Gonzales wasn't impeachable (a stance she was forced to correct).
Now, after all our discussion on the subject of inherent contempt and the necessity of keeping it in our toolkit, AfterDowningStreet.org reports this:
Towards the end of the meeting, Dorothy Reik, President of Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains, urged Waxman to use the "inherent contempt" power of Congress to bring criminal charges against Bush and Cheney and their aides, hold a hearing in Congress on those charges, and then hand down the punishment, prison time. Reik expressed frustration with the refusal of Bush administration officials to testify before congressional committees, despite the fact that subpoenas had been issued.
"Your witnesses aren't showing up -- They're ignoring your subpoenas," said Reik, "so it is time for you, Congressman Waxman, to recognize that there is a precedent for members of congress to initiate criminal proceedings."
Waxman said he was unaware of the "inherent contempt" power. In a follow-up letter after the meeting, Winograd emailed him information on the "inherent contempt" precedent.
WTF?
This is the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight.
Do you want to know where I learned about inherent contempt? In the Congressional Oversight Manual (PDF).
Yeah. Tough to find. Starts on page 36 if you know anyone who might be interested in, you know, enforcing their subpoena power.
Now I don't know how accurate that quote -- or rather, paraphrase, I guess -- actually is. But the truth, unfortunate as it is, is that you can never simply assume your Members of Congress know what they're doing. That's why I asked back in April, "Does your delegation know what inherent contempt is?"
Did anybody write Waxman? Or did we just figure he knew?