Call the Doctor, Gonzo

|

Congressional Democrats are holding the White House in contempt for not participating in the US Attorneys hearings.

The House Judiciary Committee, in a straight party-line vote, approved a contempt resolution against White House Chief of Staff John Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, setting up a consititutional battle between the Bush administration and Congress over executive privilege.

After several hours of skirmishing over whether to send a contempt resolution to the House floor, the committee voted by a 22-17 margin to approve the measure.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders will now have to decide if and when to hold a vote by the full House on the resolution. A vote could take place as early as next week, said Democratic insiders.

Radley Balko on the scandal here; my take here.

NEXT: Dying for Lifesaving Drugs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That Balko guy sure knows what he’s talking about.

  2. I’d never have guessed that this Whitehouse would have contempt for Congress. Never.

  3. Correction: Josh Bolten not John Bolten.

  4. Ah, second terms…you gotta love ’em.

  5. IMPEACHMENT! IMPEACHMENT!

    Months of Washington doing nothing!

    If he’s convicted — we win!

    If he’s acquitted — we win!

  6. This wouldn’t happen if we’d listen to Terry and get that whole libertarian militia thing going.

  7. I can’t believe that not a single Republican was willing to stand up here.

  8. I’m a Republican, but my chair is awfully comfortable.

  9. What, exactly, do Democrats think they are going to accomplish with this? It is fairly clear that the Executive branch is going to win this battle, and even ignoring that the issue won’t be resolved before Bush is out of office.

    Helpful hint of Democrats: Bush isn’t up for re-election in 2008, you can’t run against him again.

  10. SA Miller,

    If I recall correctly, Bush ran against Clinton’s policies in 2000. Pro-life, humble foreign policy, no nation building, medical MJ, etc…

  11. SA Miller,

    Purely as political theater, this allows the Democrats to highlight just how deep in Bush’s pocket the Republicans in Congress still are.

  12. Yes, and the 2008 election will be about things like: Iraq, Immigration, Healthcare, etc

    No one is going to give a fuck about US Attorneys being fired. (Unless of course HRC/Obama/Edwards are going to say that they think the President shouldn’t be able to fire USAs.)

    This is a big waste of time.

  13. I’m all in favor of anything that might lead to criminal charges against the Junta.

    I want to see Gonzales marched off to prison. With Bush and Cheney.

    And I want them housed in the general population.

  14. thoreau,

    I smell reality show…

  15. I like the live feed idea, but I was thinking more like documentary.

    “Here we’re witnessing a standard gang initiation. Notice that the tattoo is not done in sanitary conditions.”

  16. Update from this morning. Apparently Gonzo also lied about whether the “Big 8” were briefed on TSP (aka Warrentless Wire Taps) before he went to Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to override Comey.

    Link

  17. SA Miller,

    The 2006 elections are going to be about Iraq, Immigration, and Health Care. No one is going to give a shit about some Congressmen hitting on pages.

    If the corruption and power grabs of the Repubicans, and the erosion of the government’s ability to do its job competantly and fairly because of partisan politization, weren’t already major themes in contemporary political discourse, the US Attorney scandal and the related DoJ perjury scandal wouldn’t matter much. But they are, so they do.

  18. “””I can’t believe that not a single Republican was willing to stand up here.”””

    I’m not surprised Joe, politics prefers covering their own party’s ass over honesty. If the Republican’s did the right thing, it would be spun as a Democratic victory, the Republicans won’t let that happen. It’s shameful that they would ignore being lied to because they don’t want the other team to win. Party first politics.

  19. I’m willing to bet that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is really the Total Surveillance Program renamed to skirt around the law that prevented the funding.

    SA Miller,

    Is it OK for the AG to commit prejury? And if there is the appearance of prejury, shouldn’t we investigate it? Many people don’t get the issue here, including some on the committee. The issue is not the firing, but an AG that may have lied about it under oath.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.