They know where he is. Send the Sargeant at Arms to frogmarch his ass to jail.

[Oy]

If it is not worked out by then and he is in any serious danger of having the Sgt. at Arms coming to get him in Buffalo, I think he will be conveniently ill and forced to stay in Switzerland or Monaco or wherever for that debate.

Yeah, I do think it’s odd he’s debating in public. Especially now, when I’d think it would be in his interest to keep a low profile.

[E-Sabbath]

Congress may not always go out of session. Remember, they had a guy hanging around last time to make sure Bush didn’t make recess appointments?

[Rhythmdvl]

@E-Sabbath

Congress may not always go out of session. Remember, they had a guy hanging around last time to make sure Bush didn’t make recess appointments?

How’d I miss that? Have a link to a story?

(not doubting or calling cite, just really curious and feel like an idiot for missing something like that)

[Cervaise]

@Rhythmdvl

How’d I miss that? Have a link to a story?

CNN

Harry Reid’s kind of a milquetoast, but this was definitely a good piece of parliamentary arm-twisting he pulled off.

[Rhythmdvl]

Thanks!

Deft move, but commenting on it would stray from the frogging o’ Rove topic.

[E-Sabbath]

Well… if they want to get Rove, does Congress have to be in session to have him arrested? Or can he be arrested and held on the pleasure of Congress as a flight risk?

[Bricker]

@E-Sabbath

Well… if they want to get Rove, does Congress have to be in session to have him arrested? Or can he be arrested and held on the pleasure of Congress as a flight risk?

Congress must be in session, and the detention can only last as long as Congress is in session.

[BrainGlutton]

Of course, the whole House is running for re-election. The designated member who hangs around to keep the House in session would have to have one heck of a safe seat.

[Cervaise]

Should it come to that, here’s one.

[jayjay]

@BrainGlutton

Of course, the whole House is running for re-election. The designated member who hangs around to keep the House in session would have to have one heck of a safe seat.

I’ve never been really clear on this. Obviously, the Senate must stay in session to block recess appointments. Does someone have to do pro-formas for the House, as well? In other words, do both chambers have to remain in session to keep Congress out of recess? Because all I ever actually hear about is the Senate pro-formas.

[Bricker]

@jayjay

I’ve never been really clear on this. Obviously, the Senate must stay in session to block recess appointments. Does someone have to do pro-formas for the House, as well? In other words, do both chambers have to remain in session to keep Congress out of recess? Because all I ever actually hear about is the Senate pro-formas.

The House can’t force the Senate to stay in session; the Senate can’t force the House to stay in session. From a parliamentary standpoint, there must be a presiding officer to gavel the day closed in each body.

It’s not necessary for the House to be in session to block recess appointments, since they must be confirmed only by the Senate. And it’s not necessary for the Senate to be in session to continue the confinement of a person arrested by the House Sergeant-at-Arms.

[Oy]

But a single Representative could do it? sigh. Unfortunately, mine is a Republican. Other than being fanatically anti-abortion, which I can respect even if I don’t agree with him (as long as they’re not killing people or throwing pseudo-bloody dolls into people or berating girls who really aren’t terribly thrilled about getting abortions anyway, he’s a pretty good guy (yes, there are some good Republicans, kind-of), but I don’t think he’d agree to stay in D.C. to get Rove. He has sheep to raise, about twenty-five miles north of here, and like Hal about fifteen miles south of me, I approve of sheep (although not really romantically) (nor do I think Rep. Chris Smith necessarily approves of sheep romantically) (nor, for that matter, Hal Briston - necessarily :D)

[MovieMogul]

<Copyrighted article removed>

[Rhythmdvl]

In the NYT today:
Judge Rules White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed
Not too long ago I wouldn’t have reacted with, well, glee. Underneath it all, the situation itself is Not a Good Thing, and even if the frogmarching commences, there is still a lot of damage done to the Justice Department and by extension, society. I don’t see hiring decisions being reversed, nor can I see any likelihood of calling applicants back in for a second round of unbiased interviews. Assuming the allegations are correct, those responsible for this are unpatriotic, reprehensible, restrained tyrants. Evil. Vile. Cocknocker. Un-American.

Despite my general repugnance for posts that gloat over the cancer or disease of political opponents, it occurs to me that Rove would likely change my mind over that. I find him that base. I have to go spit now.

[BrainGlutton]

@Rhythmdvl

Despite my general repugnance for posts that gloat over the cancer or disease of political opponents, it occurs to me that Rove would likely change my mind over that. I find him that base. I have to go spit now.

Oh, that poor tumor!

[fluiddruid]

ArchiveGuy, short quotations are allowed, full articles are not. Please feel free to repost accordingly - I deleted your article.

[MovieMogul]

@fluiddruid

ArchiveGuy, short quotations are allowed, full articles are not. Please feel free to repost accordingly - I deleted your article.

It wasn’t the whole article–I excerpted it–but apologies if it was still too long.

From Salon:

The Bush administration and its radical theories of executive power suffered yet another blow today from the judiciary, as a Federal District Judge, John D. Bates of the District of Columbia District Court – a Bush 43-appointed Judge, former Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation, and a generally very pro-administration judge – held in a 93-page ruling (.pdf) that Bush aides Harriet Miers (former White House counsel) and Josh Bolten (White House Chief of Staff) are not entitled to absolute immunity from Congressional subpoenas…

In unusually strong language, the court pointed out that the President’s claim that his aides enjoyed absolute immunity from Congressional investigations was “unprecedented” and “without any support in case law” (p. 3). Like so many perverse claims of absolute presidential authority, this claim was plainly contrary to the core principles of how our country has long functioned: “Federal precedent dating as far back as 1807 contemplates that even the Executive is bound to comply with duly issued subpoenas” (p. 31). To underscore how frivolous the administration’s claim here was, the court emphasized (p. 78):

The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. That simple but critical fact bears repeating: the asserted immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by case law. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors to not enjoy absolute immunity.

…The court did note, in several places, that Congress likely has (again, at least in theory) the inherent authority to arrest and detain Executive Branch officials who refuse to comply with their Subpoenas. But they have demonstrated no appetite for exercising that power, and short of something truly threatening like that, it is difficult to envision Bush officials being meaningfully forthcoming in any Congressional investigation.

[/quote]

[Steve_MB]

@acsenray

Does the privilege extend only to non-disclosure of privileged communications or does it extend to a right to refuse to appear before a tribunal that has issued a legal subpoena?

Obviously, it can only include the former. If it includes the latter, it is a blanket license for anyone who’s ever talked to the President to ignore any and all laws, which is preposterous on its face.

[MovieMogul]

@Steve MB

Obviously, it can only include the former. If it includes the latter, it is a blanket license for anyone who’s ever talked to the President to ignore any and all laws, which is preposterous on its face.

The judge agrees:

2. Second, the court recognizes that the principal argument in favor of the Administration’s absolute immunity claim was the theory that communications of close presidential advisers are categorically privileged, at least as against congressional inquiry: Why should such an advisor have to appear, reasoned DOJ, if she could legitimately assert privilege as to every question involving what she did and her communications with others? Judge Bates rejects this notion, too, at pages 83-86: “At bottom,” Judge Bates explains, “the Executive’s interest in ‘autonomy’ rests upon a discretited notion of executive power and privilege.” Even the President himself “is entitled only to a presumptive privilege,” and therefore “his close advisers cannot hold the superior card of absolute immunity. . . . Presidential autonomy, such as it is, cannot mean that the Executive’s actions are totally insulated from scrutiny by Congress. That would eviscerate Congress’s historical oversight function.”