Laws Are For Little People

Will the Congressional GOP stage an emotional meltdown over contempt citations for Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten? All signs point to yes. Note that there isn’t any meaningful question about whether Miers and Bolten flouted the law. They both refused to answer subpoenas by citing privileges that don’t exist. Believe me, I would love to cite blogger’s privilege if the need should arise. Too bad I can’t do that, and unless Harriet Miers has some supercitizen status that I’m not aware of neither can she.

Of course, Harriet Miers is a Republican and therefore innocent until George Bush personally says otherwise. It always amuses me when those firm law-and-order Republican principles run and hide when the wrong kind of people get caught breaking the law.

***Update***

And like that it’s done. Will Attorney General Mukasey have the spine to resist White House pressure to subvert the unambiguous will of Congress?

Ha ha, I can’t believe I just said that.






35 replies
  1. 1

    Yeah, I’ve been hammering Jeff Sessions’ office on this point (particularly with respect to the telecoms, but it’s really the bigger issue that incenses me): “more loyal to the Republican party than to his constituents or to the rule of law.”

    Not like it does a flying damn worth of good, but at least I can say I did my civic duty or something.

  2. 2

    I don’t get it. Don’t the just have to appear and answer questions? And if they think something falls under the purview of executive privilege, then they can refuse to answer the question? A bunch of Bush officials have done exactly that, right? The “privilege” claimed may not be justified, but they get away with it anyway. So why can’t Meirs and Bolton do the same thing?

  3. 3
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    It’s a total abuse of power! It’s wrong, wrong I tells ya!

    [Chris Crocker]Leave Miers and Bolton alone![/Chris Cocker]

  4. 4
    cleek says:

    GOP: Amnesty is for Us, not for Them

  5. 5
    janine says:

    That’s just a little lawbreaking, crime is something the poors do.

  6. 6
    pharniel says:

    the entire operation (and captian ed’s response to fisa) sound a hell of a lot like the white trash at miejer who are standing next to thier pregnant 14 year old on her thrid child raising kids on her own because her baby-daddy is doing 15-20 for meth trafficing, whilst talking to said babby-daddy’s step-mom from the second marrage about how brittny is unfit to raise a child.

  7. 7
  8. 8
    Stoic says:

    There’s only one kind of “criminal” in their lexicon and those come with a (D-) at the end of their names.

  9. 9
    SpotWeld says:

    Okay… someone correct me here.
    If Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten did appear as instructed and in the process of questioning (or preemptively before it could begin) invoked executive privilege… would that imply that Bush is specifically aware of what they’ve done and that it was done under his direct approval?

    To me, that means the only reason for them not to appear *at all* is to shield Bush from the appearance of having knowledge of their activities.

    It’s all just political theater so that Bush can state ignorance at some later date should someone turn “deep throat” on him?

  10. 10
    Echo without Bunnies or Men says:

    fucking wankers, the GOP, every single one of them.

  11. 11
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    There’s no possible way this can please their constituents. I’m sure some of them have some knuckle-dragging constituents, but most of them are going to see a bunch of jackasses walking out on holding someone accountable. The “this is less important than national security” isn’t going to fly. Contempt of Congress is actually something serious.

    I mean, could you imagine if Roger Clemens was in contempt of Congress?? I mean, we’d never allow baseball players to skip out of their government-mandated face time.

  12. 12

    […] What do the simple folk do when served with a subpoena? They show up in court at the appointed time, or go to jail. But, as Tim F. reminds us, those rules don’t apply to Republicans: … Note that there isn’t any meaningful question about whether Miers and Bolten flouted the law. They both refused to answer subpoenas by citing privileges that don’t exist. Believe me, I would love to cite blogger’s privilege if the need should arise. Too bad I can’t do that, and unless Harriet Miers has some supercitizen status that I’m not aware of neither can she. […]

  13. 13
    Zifnab says:

    And like that it’s done.

    It’s like trying to get a two-year-old to brush his teeth. “Nooooooooooooooo! I dontwanna! Youcantmakeme! Imtoobusy! Nononononononononono!” Congress hedged and feinted and maneuvered around this vote for six god-damn months, so they could wrap it up in, what? A few hours? Wtf, people. I mean, come on.

    Ironically, the Republicans decided to outdo the Democrats in pre-school theatrics.

    We will not stand for this and we will not stay for this. I would ask my House Republican colleagues and those who believe that we should be here protecting the American people to not vote on this bill. Let’s just get up and leave.

    ~John Boner, Minority House Dick

    Fortunately, someone in the Democratic Party was doing something right.

    What’s happening with these contempt resolutions is that a single rule will, by its adoption, deem both H. Res. 979 and H. Res. 980 to have been adopted. So it’s not necessarily the classic example of a self-executing rule in that it doesn’t amend an underlying bill, but it’s very closely related in that it has the effect of disposing of substantive matters without having a separate vote on them.

    Why do something like this? In all likelihood, they’ve opted to go this way to minimize opportunities for Republican mischief making. Voting to hold the White House Chief of Staff and the former White House Counsel in contempt of Congress isn’t going to be a popular vote with the Republicans, and they’ll want to do everything they can to spike it, even though the resolutions pose extremely important questions about the constitutional powers and prerogatives of the very body to which they’ve been elected. But as we know, Republicans tend not to give a crap about things like that.

    ~Dkos

    We won’t have the pleasure of seeing another grand Republican Hissy Fit for a little extra while longer.

  14. 14
    gypsy howell says:

    The only thing that gives me any pleasure at all about this, is that somewhere, deep in their dark hardened fascist little hearts, Bush & Cheney must not be *absolutely positive* yet that they’re going to get away with all of this.

  15. 15
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Executive Privilege is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

  16. 16
    Fledermaus says:

    Well it seems that conservitism is little more than increasingly tourtured justifications as to why they don’t have to answer anyone’s questions.

  17. 17
    Zifnab says:

    Well it seems that conservitism is little more than increasingly tourtured justifications as to why they don’t have to answer anyone’s questions.

    Conservatives do like their torture.

  18. 18
    cleek says:

    Executive Privilege is the last refuge of a scoundrel douchebag.

    enhanced

  19. 19
    Chris Johnson says:

    Three loud cheers for the THREE REPUBLICANS who voted yea in support of the RULE OF LAW.

    Can I have a FUCK YEAH!

    Let’s THANK those guys. Flood their switchboards with messages of thanks, tell them you’re grateful that they support the rule of law. Say thank you!

    Conservatives traditionally CARE about the rule of law. We’ve got to encourage them to bring it back, it doesn’t take as much convincing as you’d think to get conservatives to support law. Maybe the House republicans are a tough sell but their constituents care about law.

  20. 20

    Maybe the House republicans are a tough sell but their constituents care about law.

    Sure they do, if it’s about their guns, or somebody robbing them, or somebody getting high (not on Oxycotin), or fags getting married, you bet they do. But you’re extending that idea to obscure shit like wiretapping or other “narrow” Constitutional questions? Nope, those wingnut peckerheads will get re-elected, all the moderate and liberal Republicans (whatever that means) will be gone. I don’t think Boehner is in any trouble in Ohio and that’s one slash and burn partisan hack.

  21. 21

    Jesus Babbling Christ! Every time I get pissed at the Democrats for all the stupid shit they do–and don’t do–the Republicans remind me that it could be worse with them in control again.

    Dodd for Majority Leader.

    Obama for President.

    Ship Bush/Cheney/Mukasey off to Gitmo so we can do a scientific study of enhanced interrogation techniques.

    What the fuck happened to this country? About 30% of all branches of government are decent folks, the rest are a bunch of fearmongering pricks or bedwetting sissies.

  22. 22

    Although I’m not a particularly ardent Ron Paul supporter (I’m more who the Libertarian Party nominates, frankly) I note with admiration that Rep. Paul was one of the three Republicans who voted with the majority.

  23. 23
    HyperIon says:

    Three loud cheers for the THREE REPUBLICANS who voted yea in support of the RULE OF LAW.

    ok, but names first, please.

  24. 24
    HyperIon says:

    ok, paul and ??? and ???

  25. 25
    Xenos says:

    I checked the House of Representatives website, and it does not have today’s info on the bill in question.

  26. 26
    Xenos says:

    Strike that. The votes are posted here.

    Paul, Walter Jones (NC) and Wayne Gilchrest (MD) are the sole republicans (look for the italics).

  27. 27
    Chris Johnson says:

    Why am I not surprised that one of them turned out to be Ron Paul? Good on him, then. And good for Jones and Gilchrest.

    Read ‘the authoritarians’- these aren’t necessarily conservatives themselves- they are liable to be ‘social dominators’, but their constituencies are hardwired to consider ‘rule of law’ a good thing. Repub politicians obeying the law won’t upset their constituents- just one less cognitive dissonance to ignore.

  28. 28
    The Populist says:

    Dubya is asking Unka Dick if he can make a signing statement saying that Bolten and Miers are inna-cent (his spelling) and a victim of the “terrists”.

  29. 29

    The world must be coming to an end! The Democrats are showing some spine!

  30. 30
    jww says:

    Hey Tim,

    You should really get over this, it’s not about you or what you think you have the power over. Though the absolute power of government can be limited, it will not be contained. We will only waste money, time, and effort. The resolution will be? Answer: who is in power at the time!

    This shit has been going on for, hmm, 232 years. The power of the elected, can and will make the changes they decide. They do have the elected authority.

    Besides, this is only in media print, other executives have gone too great lengths to purge any branch of those who don’t follow the current beliefs.

  31. 31
    Birdzilla says:

    Liberals make laws just so they can break them and force the rest of us to abide by those rediculous laws

  32. 32
    Tim F. says:

    Now we have the ritual visit by our comically incoherent right-leaning pseudo-blog mascot, and a comment by Birdzilla.

  33. 33
    TenguPhule says:

    We will only waste money, time, and effort.

    Ideally we will next waste money, time and effort disposing of Republicans en masse into the sea.

  34. 34

    […] Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve monthsI see no exemption for “friends of or advisors to the President.” But then, laws are for little people and January 2009 cannot come fast enough. […]

  35. 35
    Redhand says:

    The real legacy of the Bush Administration is executive illegality, and a frightening demonstration of how weak our “separation of powers” government really is confronting a President who behaves like a dictator.

    Finally, Pelosi and the Dems in Congress are fighting back. I enjoyed Bush’s howlings about Congressional denial of his retroactive telecom immunity scheme. Just think of his press conference rationale, which was basically: “I demand you fix this! Even if it wasn’t legal we told them it was!”

    The suit for contempt of Congress should be filed promptly. It’s waaaaaaaay past time to draw the line on this bastard.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve monthsI see no exemption for “friends of or advisors to the President.” But then, laws are for little people and January 2009 cannot come fast enough. […]

  2. […] What do the simple folk do when served with a subpoena? They show up in court at the appointed time, or go to jail. But, as Tim F. reminds us, those rules don’t apply to Republicans: … Note that there isn’t any meaningful question about whether Miers and Bolten flouted the law. They both refused to answer subpoenas by citing privileges that don’t exist. Believe me, I would love to cite blogger’s privilege if the need should arise. Too bad I can’t do that, and unless Harriet Miers has some supercitizen status that I’m not aware of neither can she. […]

Comments are closed.