Back in December when the administration blew off the Baker-Hamilton report, I wrote the following.
The Iraq Study Group put to a permanent end all the happy talk, spin, and talking points over Iraq. It’s a disaster. Even if Bush listened to the ISG’s recommendations it would still end in disaster. But, in that scenario, Bush would at least be able to buy some time. His refusal to take the gift is putting the Washington Establishment in a bind. The Brits are freaking out, the Republicans and Democrats are freaking out. They cannot and will not accept Bush’s stance. Bush does not even have much of a constituency to argue his case. Rick Santorum would be willing to do it, but he is leaving office.
Rumsfeld turned on the war and is gone. Jane Harman lost her seat on Intelligence. Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have very little to gain by sticking with the President.
If Bush doesn’t make a dramatic change of course, he will leave the GOP no choice but to accede to impeachment proceedings. The exact pretext for Bush and Cheney’s removal, and the make-up of the caretaker government, will have to be quietly worked out, but you can be sure that the long knives are out and many power players are going to be spending the holidays plotting out scenarios that will get us out of this nightmare…and fast.
We can talk all we want about where the public is, or how we’d do better to focus on other things, but that is utter, total, hogwash. Nothing can be done until Bush recognizes that Iraq is a total loss and begins to act rationally. If he won’t, and there are no signs that he will, then it won’t be the Dems that are the leading force behind impeachment…it will his own father’s people. It will be the big business Republicans. They don’t give a damn whether the rank and file bought all that propaganda about Islamofascism or not. They’ll send out the signal and the media will get on board.
All the Dems have to do is provide the direct constitutional crisis that leads to articles of impeachment and the rest will take care of itself.
You cannot ignore the wisemen of Washington on matters of urgent foreign policy.
Later in the month I wrote The Inexorable Logic of Impeachment wherein I explained why the Republican Establishment would eventually conclude that Bush and Cheney must be removed from office because of their position on Iraq. Looking back I was probably too optimistic about how the Republican Establishment would react. I really thought Lugar and Warner and Hagel would band together and take a hardline position much earlier in the process. Even now, they are not doing enough. Yet, all along, in all my impeachment articles, I always said that the Dems would have to provide a ‘direct constitutional crisis’. I never thought that Bush and Cheney could be removed for their past crimes, but only for refusing to cooperate with subpoenas that would expose those past crimes. And, for that strategy to be effective, the Dems had to plausibly ‘take impeachment off the table’ and take the abuse of the angry left.
Well…they’ve done it. We have reached the breaking point. The administration won’t turn over documents related to Pat Tillman, they won’t turn over RNC emails, they won’t let Harriet Miers testify before the House Judiciary Committee, they won’t let Karl Rove testify, and they severely limited what Sara Taylor was able to say in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. All of this is based on dubious assertions of Executive Privilege which must not be acceded to.
The public, meanwhile, is thoroughly convinced that the Dems are not seeking impeachment and, looking at the polls, it seems to take a dim view of that position. But, even now, the time in not quite right for opening impeachment hearings.
First we must exhaust the possible remedies for compelling the information we seek. The first thing that will happen is that the full House Judiciary committee will vote to find Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress. Then the whole House will vote to find her in contempt of Congress. They may also find Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Sara Taylor, and others in contempt of Congress, but let’s keep this simple for now.
Once Miers is found in contempt, the House has a decision to make. John Dean does a pretty good rundown on the options, risks, and likely outcomes. Basically, the House has three main options. Ordinarily, they would have the US Attorney for the District of Columbia impanel a grand jury. The grand jury would quickly indict Miers and charges would be brought. But the US Attorney works for Alberto Gonzales and his department has already advised that Miers does not have to comply with the subpoena. So, this is not an option that will provide relief.
A second option is to, as Dean says, ‘institute a civil legal action by seeking declaratory judgment from a federal court to compel enforcement of their subpoena.’ But this is also unlikely to bring relief. First, it would be a lengthy process that would let the administration run out the clock. Second, if the courts sided with the administration it would permanently weaken the legislative branch of government.
The third option is radical, but is completely justified under the circumstances. Dean:
Finally, if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized “the narrow principle of necessity” or “self-defense” of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said “the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively.”
The technical term for this is Inherent Contempt. Congress hasn’t used this power since 1934 and it would be a spectacle. The Congress would have the sergeant-at-arms arrest Harriet Miers and then she would face a trial in the House. The Department of Justice would not be involved. Inherent Contempt can be invoked in either house of Congress, so the Senate could do the same thing to Sara Taylor if they so desired. In the 1934 case the Senate convicted the postmaster general to 10 days in prison. He appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.
This is the beginning point to impeaching the president. Bringing Inherent Contempt charges against Miers will provide the kind of exotic storyline that will crystallize the extreme crisis that we are in for the public.
Dean made a point about the administration’s strategy:
By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush’s White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers, to the advantage of the White House.
In short, the Bush White House is not bluffing with this act of defiance. Rather, the White House truly wants to test, and attempt to expand, presidential power.
But they didn’t count on Inherent Contempt. They didn’t count on Congress standing up for themselves and using their own police and their own jail and their own court.
It is only when the battle becomes clearly a battle, not between parties, but between branches of government, that the Republicans will stand up and remove a president that they really have no use for. They won’t remove him for torture, or illegal spying, or kidnapping, or voter fraud, but they’ll consider it for usurping the powers of Congress. And if the president is going to stay the course in Iraq, they may well compel him to turn over the documents that will seal his fate.
Also available in orange.
that the metamorphosis in which the Democratic Party collectively finally “grows a pair” and confronts this dangerous and malignant outlaw presidency in a forceful and unambiguous manner is nearly at hand, perhaps no more than one Friedman Unit away, or possibly two. Of course, at the end of that time it may be necessary to re-evaluate and postpone the moment of truth for perhaps one additional F.U., but I’m quite certain in my own mind that the ultimate Day of Reckoning cannot possibly lay more than three F.U.’s into the future, or conceivably four or five, at the absolute farthest, outside extreme.
There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is. — Ohio political boss and U.S. Senator Mark Hanna, 1895
.
President Nixon ordered Cox to make no further effort to obtain tapes or other presidential documents. Nixon got into deep trouble after firing Archibald Cox and the resignation of Richardson and Ruckelshaus.
Watergate and the Constitution
Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski advised the grand jury that in his opinion a sitting President could not be indicted. In his view, the House Judiciary Committee was the appropriate body under the Constitution for examining evidence relating to the President.
The House Judiciary Committee pursued its constitutional mandate and drew up five articles of impeachment, three of which they approved in the summer of 1974. When the President was forced by the Supreme Court in August 1974 to surrender tape recordings that revealed his knowledge of the cover-up, even his staunchest supporters in the House admitted that they would have to vote in favor of impeachment. On August 9, 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency and became citizen Richard Nixon.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I’m sorry, Boo, but seeing is believing. I’ll believe the House or Senate is ready to stand up for themselves only after I see the inherent contempt citation issued and Miers or Taylor or Rove or whomever placed in a lock up facility. Until then, I will continue to expect retreat and timidity by this Congress.
For what it’s worth, I do have a source on the committee staff and they have read Dean’s piece and believe that he has correctly stated the options.
They seem to have some other creative options that they can’t share with me. But they are in the thinking phase, getting the best legal advice they can find. I don’t get the feeling that they intend to sit on their hands.
But they are not yet sold on inherent contempt either.
Boo and Steve – go say hello, a little promo and encouragement to diaryist btchakir and Bill Moyers.
If Bruce Fein is on board, finds Bush’s actions worrisome more grave than Clinton, every congress critter should be standing for the people and voting The Articles of Impeachment, George W. Bush.
July 16. 2007 would not be a day too early.
we’d all have a Merry Christmas.
l’m with steven on this one…never. gonna. happen.
john dean, among others, has been advocating action for over 3 years, the voting public overwhelmingly rejected the policies of this administration last november…and then pelosi and reid took impeachment off the table…the rats are going to go down with the ship, and the dlc is licking it’s lips at the prospect of having all the power.
BushCo™ is going to one up nixon. they’re going to run the clock out…“I don’t give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up, or anything else, if it’ll save it, save the plan.”
Richard Nixon
we are well and truly fucked
lTMF’sA
Yo dada. Remember that admonition, Never say never. Please read my comment upthread.
Bastille Day…l won’t hold my breath, however.
lTMF’sA
A very well-written piece on how things can move. However, I feel that what’s lacking right now is the will. Democrats that can do, are in fear of the public. When does that fear end? When the poll numbers warrant it? By then it could be too late.
I’m more optimistic about impeachment since the Libby commutation. Before Libby, impeachment talk was strictly conspiracy talk amongst good friends, now I hear it discussed everyday. Yesterday such a conversation broke out between total strangers while standing in line at Starbucks…
A few months back, I took to listening to Ed Schultz on the local progressive station. I’ve always regarded Big Ed as generally center/right excepting union issues. I remember after Pelosi took impeachment off the table, Big Ed mostly refused to engage callers with impeachment talk. Over the last couple of days though Big Ed’s callers are literally ranting (and raving) about the need to impeach…
Imagine, everyday people expounding on the need to remove this President. Can Congress be far behind?
Methinks somewhere a bar has been lowered…
between the inaction of Congress in the face of overwhelming high crimes and misdemeanors by this president and his administration and the LA community who won’t “snitch” in spite of witnessing the shooting of an innocent child in their own community?
I do.
May they have the law enforcement protection they deserve, and may we have the protection of our rights that we deserve — until they band together and take their information to the police en masse and we vote the do-nothings out of Congress.
Oh, pretty please go the Inherent Contempt route! I’d just love to see the House Sergeant at Arms face M1 tanks and AC-130 gunships! I’ll bring the popcorn.
The real point of impeachment is to establish precedent that no future president can overreach the way this administrtion has.
agree. btw I thought that was Nancy Pelosi’s point in the Mike Stark interview – setting up a constitutional crisis we can win. guess it’s here. hope we win.
constitutional confrontation – crisis has been with us for a while; link to mike stark nancy pelosi discussion
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/30/05731/7541
This is a simple question of curiosity andlogistics were contempt charges brought: if Meirs was declared in contempt and was not physically anywhere near DC how does the Sgt.-at-Arms arrest her? Would this have been a consideration why she was not even allowed to show up when sent a subpoena?
I’ve wondered the same thing.
Reminds me of all the hypothetical questions we used to ask each other in like third grade: What would happen if gravity suddenly quit working?
When there’s the slightest hint that this might actually become relevant, THAT will be the time to worry about the logistics. (AFAIK there’s never been a precedent since we’ve never really had a president who didn’t recognize the existence of the Legislative Branch before.)
“This is a simple question of curiosity andlogistics were contempt charges brought: if Meirs was declared in contempt and was not physically anywhere near DC how does the Sgt.-at-Arms arrest her?”
Oh hell, that’s easy — and I’m not even a lawyer. Then she’s not only in contempt of Congress, she’s also a fugitive from justice. Perhaps they can get some help in finding her…
FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE – [federal] Any person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding. 18 U.S.C.
well the analysis is compelling and i certianly hope that you are right. and just one further comment, you wrote:
“..Looking back I was probably too optimistic about how the Republican Establishment would react…”
exactly. the problem here – remember, the republican party above all else is an Authoritarian Party, meaning that people follow the leader. Regardless of REALITY. one could go back and quote some of these neo-cons and administration figures even saying that they were going to create reality, not have to respond to it blah blah… but I still think that lugar, hagel, warner and many other “moderates” dragging their heels on iraq and the subponea issues clearly indicates that we are far from any situation where these guys will support impeachment. or even break substantially with cheney’s overall agenda. the Right Wingers still rack up the votes on their side and hold the line I mean are able to stall in the senate most legislation the Democrats have offered.
i think as much as the elder republican party leadership hates to see it, they’ll stick with Bush (of course offering amendments and legislation that appears to go against the boy Emperor) and run out the clock. not because it’s a rational course of action for themselves or their party, but because of the nature of the authoritarian beast and their deference to the wishes of the King. they are all monarchists at heart. and that’s where we’re headed in america now…to the unitary executive, regardless of who wins in 2008
My questions on Inherent Contempt:
Will the Sergeant-at-Arms be armed?
Will he be able to deputize a “posse” in case he needs backup?
What if the Secret Service/White House Security deny him/them entrance?
Would the Secret Service or White House security put up a fight?
Will Sergeant-at-Arms back down or will he be compelled by the Constitution to use force to extract them.