Well, it looks like what we have here is a constitutional showdown:
Go into your corners and come out fighting!
Can you impeach Pres and VP at the same time or do separate trials follow.?
That would be touchy, because if they impeach Bush AND Cheney, then Pelosi becomes POTUS. No Republican in Congress, no matter how dangerous it is to their re-election chances, is going to approve a Pelosi presidency, even a lame-duck one. Not to mention that at that point, it starts to look like a (legal but shady) coup attempt by the Democrats, which is an impression that they aren’t going to want to give.
Tne Congress has no enforcement powers. Here is an outline of the procedure.
The process can create a conflict of interest in the Executive Department since the US Attorney responsible for deciding whether or not to prosecute is in the Executive Department and can be terminated at will by the President.
Neato, eh?
So, again, tell me about these ‘checks and balances’ that prevent the President from acting like a dictator/emporer. And do not give me ‘well, after eight years and numerous disasters, he can’t be elected anymore’. :rolleyes:
This particular brouhaha just might result in a revision of the law on contempt of Congress which was enacted in 1857.
Actually, there is no automatice, foolproof method for government. They all rely on the participants acting in good faith and for the public interest. I’m not sure Bush is aware of either of those terms.
Yes, the contempt of Congress procedure is kind of clunky, and requires executive branch officials to institute a court proceeding potentially against other executive branch officials. However if the President or Attorney General interferes too blatantly in the prosecution of a contempt of Congress claim, Congress has the impeachment power. As the Wikipedia article points out:
If either side took this to the mat, it would be an interesting Constitutional crisis. But with the Supreme Court having decided U.S. v. Nixon (which dealt with executive privilege in a judicial proceeding, not a Congressional investigation) the last time something similar was in play, I think the administration would ultimately lose.
Interestingly I can understand the position perfectly.
Roughly translated it is: ‘we are perfectly willing to talk to you, but only privately so we don’t have to have some grandstanding git do a Perry Mason on us’
It strikes me as a reasonable offer.
Listening to that plonker interrogating Clinton, and having recently read about the Oppenheimer ‘security clearance’ hearing has left me with the impression that the US goes in for adversorial rather than inquisitorial hearings - not very civilized.
If the hearing is in private then it is likely to be a lot more polite.
To be honest, I would expect them to be a lot more candid in private.
Roughly translated this is:“Get at the truth.”
Why the hell would you expect that? They’ll have a hard enough time telling the truth when facing criminal prosecution for lying; why wouldn’t they lie when there are no consequences for it.
No. Roughly translated it is: We are willing to discuss the matter with you on these conditions-it is done in private, we are not under oath, you may not record or discuss what is said, and you may not question anything we say.
It strikes me as obstruction of justice.
I don’t imagine that impeachment is really feasible at this late stage in the game. It would cost too much and take too long. At this point the administration is only getting phantom pains from their masculinity, so going through the national pain of an impeachment gets us nowhere. It is, however, essential that we restore the equalibrium to the checks and ballances before we go any farther.
A wooden stake into Karl Rove wouldn’t break my heart either
It strikes me that they are unwilling to go through a courtroom drama, but quite willing to discuss things rationally.
They could be pulled in front of a committee and humiliatingly interrogated by a reincarnation of Joe McCarthy - regardless of whether or not they have a private chat.
Probably they want to explain that it was a cockup
- I doubt that they are naive enough to imagine that they’ll not be taped
While I don’t approve of what they did, because it was stupid, I think that they would be even more stupid to volunteer themselves for a public lynching.
Sometimes going nowhere is preferable to going somewhere else. A protracted battle which paralyzes the top levels of justice may be the best we can hope for til 2009.
The missing emails, whether found and released, or guarded and hidden may ultimately determine what course we end up taking.
I have no doubt they would like avoid the drama of public testimony, but that does not excuse them from it. Being under oath and on the record is central to public transparency and the constitutional oversight responsibility of Congress. And what gives you the perception that this request is rational, and not an attempt to avoid accountability?
Volunteer? If they are subpoenaed, there is nothing voluntary about it.
That’s worth a thread in itself: Would Rove break a sweat when lying?
Heh, well under subpoena I would submit my replies in writing
- after I had taken 24 hours to consult counsel
I might even develop Taurrette’s syndrome
There is a legitimate objection to public testimony – the “grandstanding git” problem mentioned by FRDE above.
And testifying under oath runs the risk that the questioners will veer off into forbidden territory in order to score political points.
However…
…I believe that, given the track records of the players thus far, the administration is not in a position to refuse to testify under oath in private on such speculative grounds. I believe they should agree to transcripts and testimony under oath, in private. If the Democrats then abuse this position by moving the questioning away from the agreed-upon grounds, the administration may withdraw. But the White House’s insistence now, before any chicanery is even hinted at, that there be no oath strikes me as… improvident.
Failure to appear in person when subpoenaed to do so by Congress is a crime. Perhaps your counsel can get you window cell in the penitentiary.
this is a completely reasonable compromise – the most important part in my mind being the recorded transcript (A lie is a lie, whether under oath or not, and will be judged as such) – and your impression of improvidence is one I share.