Karl Rove Refuses Subpoena

[rugcat]

The house Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify concerning allegations he was involved in influencing prosecutions by the Justice Department in order to target Democrats, specifically former democratic governor Don Siegalman of Alabama.

Citing executive privilege, Rove has made it known that not only will he not testify, he will not even show up at the hearing.

If Congress has any spine at all, (which they don't) they will hold him in contempt and throw him in jail. But they have no stomach for a fight with the executive branch, so he'll simply walk away.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Rove_wont_appear_before_House_Judiciary_panel.html

[mscelina]

Just out of curiosity, how in the hell can Karl Rove claim executive privilege? yeah yeah...I know that Bush claims that it applies to all former and current White House aides and employees but I just can't wrap my brain around how ANYONE would be incapable of shooting that down in a court of law. This lawsuit has been going on for what? Four years? Three?

And you're right about Congress. They might get come sort of anti-Republican campaign mileage out of it, but Pelosi and her groupies will not have the balls to tell Bush to jump of a cliff. Rove will sit in some fatcat office giggling his ass off, and the Judiciary Committee will sit there with blank looks on their faces and looking to the stars for guidance.

Ridiculous.

[Plot Device]

So ... what ever happened to checks and balances?

Is the Great Experiment blowing up in our faces?


http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/843/20472290.JPG

[Joe270]

I would rather see the congress get to work rather than continuing to engage in what I see as gop smear campaign from it's onset. It's a counterproductive witch hunt.

Wilson outed his wife himself in Who's Who, as early as 1999.

[InfinityGoddess]

I would rather see the congress get to work rather than continuing to engage in what I see as gop smear campaign from it's onset. It's a counterproductive witch hunt.

Wilson outed his wife himself in Who's Who, as early as 1999.

If he had done that, he would have been arrested for treason. Seriously, now.

Furthermore, it's Congress' job to oversee what the President does, which is hardly a "witchhunt". One branch checking another and it's not just the Plame case Conyers wants info on. It also has to do with the US Attorneys and the shady business going on there.

Here's hoping Conyers can try to pull out the Inherent Contempt card, a power not used by Congress in years. But I'm not holding my breath on this happening any time soon.

[rugcat]

I would rather see the congress get to work rather than continuing to engage in what I see as gop smear campaign from it's onset. It's a counterproductive witch hunt.I really disagree. We're talking about a possible felony involving his actions with the justice department.

But the important thing is this -- if Rove and the Bush administration get away with refusing to be subpoenaed by congress, it sets a precedent. It means that no one, in any administration, can ever be held accountable for criminal behavior. We, the public, can never even know what it is. We're talking secret government, unaccountable to anyone. Surely as a good conservative, you find this troubling.

[kuwisdelu]

Furthermore, it's Congress' job to oversee what the President does, which is hardly a "witchhunt". One branch checking another and it's not just the Plame case Conyers wants info on.

I see criticism of this (calling it a "witchhunt") as just another symptom of the harm our two-party system have given us. When it comes to this kind of thing, politicians no longer become individuals, but representatives of their party--for good or bad. Anything a Democrat does, the Democratic Party has done; anything a Republican does, the Republican Party has done. These are individuals that need to be held accountable. It shouldn't matter whether it can be construed as an attack on the GOP, and I don't think the Democrats should profit from it either--it's just that politicians are individuals who need to be held accountable.

[Cranky]

I would rather see the congress get to work rather than continuing to engage in what I see as gop smear campaign from it's onset. It's a counterproductive witch hunt.

Wilson outed his wife himself in Who's Who, as early as 1999.

Here's the thing, for me at least, Joe. At this point, it's not even about that anymore. Partisan politics or no, I don't think allowing Rove to basically spit in Congress' eye on this sets a good precedent. *hat tip to rugcat here*

He should show up. If he doesn't, I think they should throw him in the slammer. *shrug*

[Joe270]

Furthermore, it's Congress' job to oversee what the President does, which is hardly a "witchhunt".

It becomes a witchhunt when the congress sees this quest as its only job.

I'll come back with some documentation, etc., but I read that this congress (the possibly lowest rated one ever, and one of the most ineffective ever) has taken up more investigations than any other congress ever.

They are too busy playing politics and not doing the work needed for our country.

Right now I have to proofread a paper for submission tomorrow, but I'll be back.

As Arnold would say.

[Joe270]

I'm gonna have to cry 'Uncle' with this one because I can't find the links I need right now. I won't be able to get back into this until this evening because I gotta work. I don't want to stymie the debate between now and then.

So let me temper it with: it's my perception that congress is wasting lots of time on their investigations, including baseball players, etc.

But the important thing is this -- if Rove and the Bush administration get away with refusing to be subpoenaed by congress, it sets a precedent.

My problem is with the congressional hearings, which haven't had a stellar track record. (Reference the McCarthy Hearings) Congress isn't checked in its power to drag anyone they want up for a public lynching without a shred of evidence, and I just don't have the same respect for their use of it as others here have.

I'll rejoin this when I can. It's bound to be an interesting thread.

Then again, I did just ban Susie, so I might never see the light of day again. (In the banning game thread, but still, it was Susie. I'm doomed.)

[Robert Toy]

I really disagree. We're talking about a possible felony involving his actions with the justice department.

But the important thing is this -- if Rove and the Bush administration get away with refusing to be subpoenaed by congress, it sets a precedent. It means that no one, in any administration, can ever be held accountable for criminal behavior. We, the public, can never even know what it is. We're talking secret government, unaccountable to anyone. Surely as a good conservative, you find this troubling.
Unfortunately, the precedent has already been established going back as far as G. Washington, to the current administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

It is a pissing contest that happens every now and then between the two branches and has never really been settled.

[LimeyDawg]

I'm not sure why this raises the spectre of surprise. Congress has always taken care of its own. Rove knows this. He does it because the Congress refuses to police itself, and has a different set of rules for the powerful and priviledged. YOU try ignoring a subpoena.

[LimeyDawg]

Good points all. For me, it's much simpler. It's a subpoena, and from Congress, no less. A nation of laws shouldn't have loopholes to bypass those laws. I'd love to see what you suggest actually happen. But him not showing up is giving the judicial process the finger, and since regular people aren't allowed to, he shouldn't be allowed to either.

[rugcat]

I am going to change my tune and say that Rove should show up. And as soon as John Conyers starts in on Rove "allegedly" or "possibly" being involved with the supposed leaking, Rove should wait until he's finished his diatribe (every member of some committee, be they Dem or Rep will bloviate for a while before actually letting someone answer), then calmly reading from Robert Novak's article where he names the guy who leaked the name: Richard Armitage.

He should even read from this Novak column. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html) Everyone should read it. It's the truth of what happened by the guy who started the whole thing, Robert Novak, who first published Valerie Plame Wilson's name in an article on July 14, 2003. It's been almost 5 years to the day since that column appeared, and still people insist that it was Rove that was the leaker. I think several posters are conflating two things: allegations that Rove was involved with the Plame affair, and allegations that he was involved in prosecutions for political purposes with the justice department. The first is simply about his lies, but the second is about possibly committing felonies. And the question to me is not whether these allegations can be proven, it's whether Rove can simply refuse to testify, no matter what congress says.

As far as Bob Novak goes, he's hardly a pillar of journalistic ethics. And you'll notice that in his column, he states only the Rove was not the primary source of the leak. (My bold) He never asserts that Rove wasn't involved. Not that it matters.

If Rove is ever forced to testify under oath, he'll end up in the same place as Scooter Libby, because he'll be caught out in his lies. Oh, wait, Scooter's been pardoned. Never mind.

[InfinityGoddess]

It becomes a witchhunt when the congress sees this quest as its only job.

I'll come back with some documentation, etc., but I read that this congress (the possibly lowest rated one ever, and one of the most ineffective ever) has taken up more investigations than any other congress ever.

They are too busy playing politics and not doing the work needed for our country.



Unfortunately, they've had to do all these investigations because the Republican Congress did literally nothing to oversee the activities of the Bush Administration. It's roughly five years worth of investigations they're trying to squeeze within the past two years. It's a huge backlog.

Had the Congress before this one done its job of oversight, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Patrick Leahy, and co. wouldn't have had so much work to do in the first place. There's not much they can really do about legislation, because Democrats have a very slim majority in the Senate as it is. It's not "playing politics", that's reality.

[Magdalen]

Here's the thing, for me at least, Joe. At this point, it's not even about that anymore. Partisan politics or no, I don't think allowing Rove to basically spit in Congress' eye on this sets a good precedent. *hat tip to rugcat here*

He should show up. If he doesn't, I think they should throw him in the slammer. *shrug*

Hey Guys! Hat tip to rugcat dittoed!

Is the uptick in cynicism so many of us feel the result of so many years of "Cowboy Justice"? I rallied for impeachment more than a year ago (during the scooter trial) when others said it was too late, too costly, etc. and I finally conceeded that impeachment was unlikely but I held out the hope that crimminal charges may yet be brought up, post-administration. I do believe that John Conyers is truly "mad as hell and doesn't want to take it anymore" (I've heard him speak on CSpan) and I hope that spirit prevails.

[icerose]

Good points all. For me, it's much simpler. It's a subpoena, and from Congress, no less. A nation of laws shouldn't have loopholes to bypass those laws. I'd love to see what you suggest actually happen. But him not showing up is giving the judicial process the finger, and since regular people aren't allowed to, he shouldn't be allowed to either.

Exactly. A subpoena is a requirement to attend whether you voluntarily go or are drug in kicking and screaming by the police. I don't care if he's innocent or not. I don't care if they're having a pissing match.

If he's subpoenaed he'd better be forced to attend. Period.

[Plot Device]

Exactly. A subpoena is a requirement to attend whether you voluntarily go or are drug in kicking and screaming by the police. I don't care if he's innocent or not. I don't care if they're having a pissing match.

If he's subpoenaed he'd better be forced to attend. Period.

Ditto. If MJ was forced to go to court, so too should Rove.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/01/2acksoncourt_wideweb__430x301,1.jpg

[dgiharris]

Good points all. For me, it's much simpler. It's a subpoena, and from Congress, no less. A nation of laws shouldn't have loopholes to bypass those laws. I'd love to see what you suggest actually happen. But him not showing up is giving the judicial process the finger, and since regular people aren't allowed to, he shouldn't be allowed to either.

I love Keep It Simple Stupid

Congress gives you a subpoena,
You need to show up.

Simple is as simple does.

Great point and insight

Mel...

[Plot Device]

For the record, I was very much in favor of the whole Clinton/Monica Lewinski Cngressional Hearing thing. I feel Clinton dishonored the Presidency by what he did --that is how high I believe the standards should be upheld for that office. So if Clinton was allowed to be roasted alive in the Congress for a blowjob, so too should Rove for overturning the Justice Department.

Rove needs to get his Republican ass down there and face the music, just like Clinton got his Democrat ass down there eleven years ago and faced it.

[Robert Toy]

For the record, I was very much in favor of the whole Clinton/Monica Lewinski Cngressional Hearing thing. I feel Clinton dishonored the Presidency by what he did --that is how high I believe the standards should be upheld for that office. So if Clinton was allowed to be roasted alive in the Congress for a blowjob, so too should Rove for overturning the Justice Department.

Rove needs to get his Republican ass down there and face the music, just like Clinton got his Democrat ass down there eleven years ago and faced it.
Not taking sides, but the big difference is that Clinton lied, and Rove has kept his mouth shut.

[Magdalen]

Awful lot of agreeing going on for "Hardcore". Could somone post nekkid pictures of Karl and Dick?

[Robert Toy]

Karl's what?

[Don]

Awful lot of agreeing going on for "Hardcore". Could somone post nekkid pictures of Karl and Dick?


Well, since this is Hardcore and I've got no kekkid pics...

If the 545 had any integrity in the first place, they'd all go crawl in a jail cell somewhere for violating their oath of office. Expecting anything other than another round of partisan politics as usual is probably self-defeating. The Blue Team is on offense this time, and the Red Team is on defense. Sometime next week there will be a turnover.

[InfinityGoddess]

Again, how did he lie? He said he wasn't involved. Novak, who's column started this whole mess, said the Rove wasn't involved. But that's not enough. People on the left are screaming, "But he has to be involved!!! He's Karl "Freaking Rove!!!!" Facts aren't enough, are they?

Just because he denies being involved, doesn't mean that the possibility doesn't exist that he was. Scott McClellan seems to think that he was, and he sure as shootin' is no lefty.


Executive priviledge has been a part of every President's adminstration since Washington, as someone else pointed out correctly. Its not going to stop, and its not something that Bush and Rove just cooked up in the last 8 years either.

Executive privilege is usually reserved for people who are currently working for the President, not those who have resigned or were fired. Furthermore, "executive privilege" does have the exception in cases where a criminal investigation is taking place and is not an excuse for no-showing when Congress (or a court, for that matter) issues a subpoena. Rove has no option but to show, and if he so chooses, can take the fifth. No biggie. Otherwise, it's a contempt of Congress citation for him.

Scooter Libby wasn't pardoned. His sentense was commuted. But that's neither here nor there. He's still a convicted felon. And he wasn't convicted of leaking anyone's name, but rather of perjury.

He was convicted of perjury because he lied about his involvement in the Plame case and was caught in that lie. Because he lied, we have no idea how knee-deep he was in it.

[blacbird]

And do you mean that you don't believe that our justice system is correct? That a person should not be considered innocent until proven guilty?

That's exactly what the subpoena is about, isn't it? To ascertain some facts about potential guilt or innocence and decide whether or not further legal action is justified. Scott McClellan has testified, under oath, that he believes Rove was involved in the Plame mess. So, either he's lying, in which case he's put himself in serious jeopardy the same way Scooter Libby did, or Rove is lying, which he hasn't done in sworn testimony and therefore, so far, hasn't technically perjured himself.

So, if McClellan's lying and Rove isn't, why is Rove so resistant to testifying under oath? I don't see how Congress at this point has any credible recourse other than to charge him with contempt if he doesn't appear, now that the subpoena has been issued. It involves more than just this specific incident with Rove; a huge constitutional and legal principle is at stake here, and if the precedent gets set that anybody can ignore a Congressional subpoena because the President says so, we have a real snakepit on our hands for the future of legal governance in this country.

caw

[blacbird]

I agree completely blacbird... he should testify, tell everyone what really happened, and put the whole matter to rest. But, I'm afraid that even if he says what happened, and blows the whole "Rove lied, Rove's behind it all!" theories out of the water, there are some who (either through political motivation, or just blind hatred of anyone with an R behind their name) will not believe him, even under oath.

First, just as personal opinion, I don't believe Rove was "behind it all". I think Cheney was. But Rove was in Cheney's corner wielding the towel and the endswell and plenty of smoke is being blown from there. Libby, who as far as I can tell is a standard Washington political hack and lackey, was induced to fall on the sword for the mess, in exchange first for an implicit sentence commutation, and second (watch closely about next January 19th), I'd bet my second-best cat he will receive a Presidential pardon.

As for people believing or not believing Rove's account (or lack of it, as he's never really said doodlysquat about much), that's inconsequential. What isn't inconsequential is a determination of real factual information, if that's possible. Which, again, is why the subpoena has been issued.

caw

[Robert Toy]

First, just as personal opinion, I don't believe Rove was "behind it all". I think Cheney was. But Rove was in Cheney's corner wielding the towel and the endswell and plenty of smoke is being blown from there. Libby, who as far as I can tell is a standard Washington political hack and lackey, was induced to fall on the sword for the mess, in exchange first for an implicit sentence commutation, and second (watch closely about next January 19th), I'd bet my second-best cat he will receive a Presidential pardon.

As for people believing or not believing Rove's account (or lack of it, as he's never really said doodlysquat about much), that's inconsequential. What isn't inconsequential is a determination of real factual information, if that's possible. Which, again, is why the subpoena has been issued.

caw
It's like peeling an onion; the folks who don't like Bush (many) are trying to peel each layer in an attempt to get at Bush.

As for issuing subpoenas, like the old saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich.

[robeiae]

Since everyone is in such a lovely state of agreement, I would appreciate it very much if the subpoena power enjoyed by Congress was shown to be applicable in this kind of situation.

Let's be clear, here: Congress is not an investigatory body, except with regard to legislative issues. Congress is not a part of the justice system. Congress has no authority to enforce anything.

Should Rove show up? Sure, why not. Can he invoke executive privilege? With respect to the way in which Congress is overstepping its authority with this kind of subpoena, I think he'd win a challenge in the Courts, so sure, why not.

[blacbird]

Since everyone is in such a lovely state of agreement, I would appreciate it very much if the subpoena power enjoyed by Congress was shown to be applicable in this kind of situation.

Let's be clear, here: Congress is not an investigatory body, except with regard to legislative issues. Congress is not a part of the justice system. Congress has no authority to enforce anything.

So, in your view, Congress had no business investigating the Watergate scandal?

caw

[blacbird]

It's like peeling an onion; the folks who don't like Bush (many) are trying to peel each layer in an attempt to get at Bush.

As for issuing subpoenas, like the old saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich.

A subpoena is not an indictment. It's an investigatory tool, used to determine matters of fact via sworn testimony. Those may or may not lead down the road of indictment.

caw

[rugcat]

Again, how did he lie? He said he wasn't involved. Novak, who's column started this whole mess, said the Rove wasn't involved. But that's not enough. People on the left are screaming, "But he has to be involved!!! He's Karl "Freaking Rove!!!!" Facts aren't enough, are they?Rove said he wasn't involved. Whether that is a lie or not is exactly the question. And you seem to have completely ignored the fact that Novak never said Rove wasn't involved. He deliberately skirted the issue. He said Rove was not his primary source.How is Novak untruthful or not ethical? Can you point out one instance where he's been unethical? "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."

A column with unnamed sources "Agents of Sen Hillary Clinton" reporting on rumors, stated as fact. Fine journalism.

Now I'll admit I don't care for Novak in any case. He's that type of far right "cultural conservative" who refers to pro choice organizations as "The abortion industry."

He's really not worth much discussion, imo.

[Robert Toy]

A subpoena is not an indictment. It's an investigatory tool, used to determine matters of fact via sworn testimony. Those may or may not lead down the road of indictment.

caw
True

[blacbird]

Frankly, Novak should have been indicted long before Libby was. I have no idea why he wasn't. That, in itself, would be an interesting question to look into.

caw

[InfinityGoddess]

Let's be clear, here: Congress is not an investigatory body, except with regard to legislative issues. Congress is not a part of the justice system. Congress has no authority to enforce anything.

Should Rove show up? Sure, why not. Can he invoke executive privilege? With respect to the way in which Congress is overstepping its authority with this kind of subpoena, I think he'd win a challenge in the Courts, so sure, why not.

Um, technically, they are an investigatory body. Congress is not overstepping its authority at all; it is Rove who is overstepping Congress by snubbing them.

Also, there is that power they have called Inherent Contempt, which gives them the authority to send the Sergeant-At-Arms to the person who is defying their subpoena and arrest them. They will be forced to use that if they can't get the help from the judiciary to enforce their subpoenas.

[Robert Toy]

I wonder what Obama would think about the nulling of executive privilege?

[robeiae]

So, in your view, Congress had no business investigating the Watergate scandal?

caw
What kind of investigating did Congress actually do?

The Watergate burglary needed to be investigated, alright. And it was. It resulted in prison time for a number of people. The Watergate Committee went to work after those men were tried and convicted, based on evidence collected by actual law enforcement agencies. That was the basis for the hearings.

What do we have, here? Libby convicted of lying--but that's unrelated to the subpoena being issued.

I think it's pretty clear that this is politically motivated. I see no end-game, other than shoring up dem support in the coming election season.

But tell me, do you actually think Congress is an investigatory body? Cite the Constitutional clauses that give Congress such powers, please.

[blacbird]

I wonder what Obama would think about the nulling of executive privilege?

Nobody is suggesting doing away with Executive Privilege. Only that it be used within the limits of which it has historically been applied. Richard Nixon tried to use it to cloak the Watergate cabal in protective armor, and Congress had the cojones to call his bluff, successfully. George W. Bush has extended the use of Executive Privilege far beyond even what Nixon tried to do with it. He got away with it for six years because he had a compliant majority in Congress; he doesn't have that now, and I'm dismayed that the Dem majority isn't standing up to him on this issue. The business of the Rove subpoena is aimed precisely at the kind of thing they need to make an example of. If they don't, they should never have issued the subpoena in the first place. And if Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand or have the stomach for that, she needs to be replaced as Speaker right quick.

caw

[robeiae]

Um, technically, they are an investigatory body. Congress is not overstepping its authority at all; it is Rove who is overstepping Congress by snubbing them.Don't say "technically" when you aren't sure of your facts, Ig. Technically, IT IS NOT. Technically, it is a legislative body. What article in the Constitution gives Congress investigatory powers?

Also, there is that power they have called Inherent Contempt, which gives them the authority to send the Sergeant-At-Arms to the person who is defying their subpoena and arrest them. They will be forced to use that if they can't get the help from the judiciary to enforce their subpoenas.It's an implied power, btw.

[robeiae]

Frankly, Novak should have been indicted long before Libby was. I have no idea why he wasn't. That, in itself, would be an interesting question to look into.

caw
For WHAT?

[rugcat]

Let's be clear, here: Congress is not an investigatory body, except with regard to legislative issues. Congress is not a part of the justice system. Congress has no authority to enforce anything.

Should Rove show up? Sure, why not. Can he invoke executive privilege? With respect to the way in which Congress is overstepping its authority with this kind of subpoena, I think he'd win a challenge in the Courts, so sure, why not.True, they have to do some finessing in order to investigate anything. That's why the office of the Independent Counsel was created, when Nixon was riding roughshod over congress with his claims of executive privilege. Great idea, back then, thought Dems, until Ken Starr appeared on the scene.

And think Rove has a good chance of ultimately winning the executive privilege argument as concerns Valerie Plame, esp with the makeup of the SCOTUS these days. In any case, it would be drawn out forever.

But as concerns the Justice dept investigation, where he has already said he never talked to the pres about anything having to do with that, it might be a lot harder to make the case.

And sure, executive privilege has been around for quite a while, and makes some sense. But Bush seem to have expanded it to include anyone who has ever worked for the White House, in any capacity, on any subject whatever, whether or not it has anything to do with presidential decisions or actions.

This expansion of the concept is what needs to be looked at, and hopefully curtailed.

[robeiae]

This expansion of the concept is what needs to be looked at, and hopefully curtailed.
I agree. But I think the continued extension of Congressional authority--through the the use of the media--by both parties is far more worrisome.

Congress has a great deal of work it is supposed to be doing. Setting up committees to investigate anything that will give members good TV face-time is not a part of that work, imo.

[blacbird]

I think it's pretty clear that this is politically motivated. I see no end-game, other than shoring up dem support in the coming election season.

Fine with me.

But tell me, do you actually think Congress is an investigatory body? Cite the Constitutional clauses that give Congress such powers, please.

Your interpretation of "investigatory" is so narrow that it seems to me to exclude about 90% of the subjects Congressional Committee hearings have taken place over for two centuries now. While I'll grant there are more than enough hearings that are just plain silly and a waste of time and money (the baseball steroid ones, most recently), a lot of them are clearly appropriate. The justification for holding them is to determine matters of fact that may, and often do, affect the drafting of legislation. The one under discussion here is no different, in my view.

And, in the early days of the Republic, Congress did in fact have people arrested and thrown in the pokey for refusal to appear under subpoena. It was a power given to the Sergeant-at-Arms, I believe.

caw

[InfinityGoddess]

Don't say "technically" when you aren't sure of your facts, Ig. Technically, IT IS NOT. Technically, it is a legislative body. What article in the Constitution gives Congress investigatory powers?

I'm very sure of the facts, otherwise Conyers and Leahy would be appointing another party to be investigating the Bush Administration rather than doing it themselves.

Article I, Section 8 gives them this:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To which I assume that the "tribunals" refer to compelling people to testify to the Congress about specific issues of the day.


It's an implied power, btw.

Tell that to Jonathan Turley and other constitutional lawyers. They don't seem to think that it is.




And, in the early days of the Republic, Congress did in fact have people arrested and thrown in the pokey for refusal to appear under subpoena. It was a power given to the Sergeant-at-Arms, I believe.

caw

They still have that power. They just haven't put it to use in a long time, though it looks like they may have to dust it off sometime in the near future.

[blacbird]

To which I assume that the "tribunals" refer to compelling people to testify to the Congress about specific issues of the day. . .

Tell that to Jonathan Turley and other constitutional lawyers. They don't seem to think that it is.

Certainly nobody questions the authority of Congress to call people to give legally sworn testimony.

Except maybe Robs.

caw

[robeiae]

I'm very sure of the facts, otherwise Conyers and Leahy would be appointing another party to be investigating the Bush Administration rather than doing it themselves.

To which I assume that the "tribunals" refer to compelling people to testify to the Congress about specific issues of the day.
You assume wrongly.

The power to constitute "tribunals" is the power to create lower federal courts.


Tell that to Jonathan Turley and other constitutional lawyers. They don't seem to think that it is.Sorry, no. They also know it's an implied power, one that the Supreme Court spelled out as exactly such.

Perhaps you are confused in this regard. "Implied power" refers to a power not directly given, but which is clearly needed to fulfill the specific duties assigned.

[robeiae]

Certainly nobody questions the authority of Congress to call people to give legally sworn testimony.

Except maybe Robs.

cawExcept that's not what I said. Perhaps you just don't know enough about this subject. Read up on it and tell me where--exactly--in the Constitution this power is given. Failing that, tell me where it may be implied and what the scope of it would be.

[dgiharris]

.. Read up on it and tell me where--exactly--in the Constitution this power is given. Failing that, tell me where it may be implied and what the scope of it would be.

My limited understanding of the constitution as relates to the powers of the three branches is that it is a framework and not an absolute. In effect, the powers of each branch are constantly being defined, redefined, expanded, and retracted. Many times, current powers are merely so due to a precedent set in the past.

I say this as I feel it may be a mistake to say, "Well, the constitution doesn't say they can do it, therefore they cannot!"

I think in terms of the constitution, the constant interpretation is always to the spirit of the constitution. Otherwise, their would be no growth, the consititution would not be the living document the founding fathers intended.

The spirit of the constitution and our entire system of government is for the branches to act as an effective 'check and balance' to the other branch.

This entire issue boils down to respect for me. If the top of the Executive Branch wishes to discuss an important matter with a senior member of the Judicial Branch, the Executive branch should have the authority to compel the other branch member to show up and discuss said item. And vice versa. Checks and Balances.

I find it extremely disturbing that any branch can claim a right to thumb their nose at any other branch. If Congress wishes to order a senior member from the Executive branch to discuss any issue that Congress deems appropriate, then the Executive branch should respect that decision and authority and vice versa.

Pointing to the Constitution and saying, "Show me the line of text that gives you the right..." is somethign that I think is against the spirit of the consititution. And it is the Spirit that is the true authority, not the words--that is, the words try to meet the intent of the spirit. And that spirit is equality for all, freedom, liberty, and checks and balances.

My two cents.

Mel...

[InfinityGoddess]

You assume wrongly.

The power to constitute "tribunals" is the power to create lower federal courts.

Very well, then. Nevertheless, it is written somewhere that they can investigate the activities of the Executive if it becomes necessary. You know, the whole "checks and balances thing". Otherwise, the President is a king accountable to no one. Part of it is written within the impeachment powers, that much I know.


Sorry, no. They also know it's an implied power, one that the Supreme Court spelled out as exactly such.

That's not what I've heard John Dean or Jonathan Turley say each time they've talked about it.

[Don]

Except that's not what I said. Perhaps you just don't know enough about this subject. Read up on it and tell me where--exactly--in the Constitution this power is given. Failing that, tell me where it may be implied and what the scope of it would be.
Perhaps I don't either, but a quick review of the word tribunal give me this:

Tribunal is a generic term for any body acting judicially, whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title.

I don't see where Congress' charge
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court

is limited to creating lower federal courts. A tribunal of either house or both houses in concert seems to meet the terms of Article 1, Section 8 on a surface reading. I've not investigated the backstory of this particular clause, however, so I'm not conversant with the Founders' intent. It sounds like a worthwhile course of study, however.

[blacbird]

My limited understanding of the constitution as relates to the powers of the three branches is that it is a framework and not an absolute. In effect, the powers of each branch are constantly being defined, redefined, expanded, and retracted. Many times, current powers are merely so due to a precedent set in the past.

I say this as I feel it may be a mistake to say, "Well, the constitution doesn't say they can do it, therefore they cannot!"

This is exactly why the Framers gave us a Supreme Court.

caw

[blacbird]

tell me where--exactly--in the Constitution this power is given.

Tell me where--exactly--in the Constitution the power is given to you to legally drive a car. Even Antonin Scalia isn't as skeletally legalistic about the Constitution as you, in your deep legal expertise, are.

caw

[Don]

Tell me where--exactly--in the Constitution the power is given to you to legally drive a car. Even Antonin Scalia isn't as skeletally legalistic about the Constitution as you, in your deep legal expertise, are.

caw
Personally, I think the right to travel is found in the Ninth Amendment. That does NOT preclude states' involvement, however. Unfortunately, the 545 who like to make up rules for the rest of us decided that the 'Interstate Commerce' clause gives them broad sweeping powers over whatever they want.

That's why for many years there were no licenses, no registration, and even today there's no such thing as a US Driver's License, since licensing to drive is considered a state issue. The 55 MPH speed limit was not a national law; the states were held ransom for certain monies if they chose not to institute it, however, and the courts ruled that extortion was a valid form of legislation.

[rugcat]

The 55 MPH speed limit was not a national law; the states were held ransom for certain monies if they chose not to institute it, however, and the courts ruled that extortion was a valid form of legislation.There's talk we will see that again, as an enforced type of conservation.

Since flying is now a nightmare, I imagine a lot of people will be staying closer to home.

[Don]

My limited understanding of the constitution as relates to the powers of the three branches is that it is a framework and not an absolute. In effect, the powers of each branch are constantly being defined, redefined, expanded, and retracted. Many times, current powers are merely so due to a precedent set in the past.

I say this as I feel it may be a mistake to say, "Well, the constitution doesn't say they can do it, therefore they cannot!"

I think in terms of the constitution, the constant interpretation is always to the spirit of the constitution. Otherwise, their would be no growth, the consititution would not be the living document the founding fathers intended.

I have yet to see any documentation that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be a living document. On the contrary, Thomas Jefferson made plain that he intended no such thing.
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791.

"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

Provisions for amending the Constitution are provided; those provisions are difficult to meet for any number of valid reasons, not the least of which was King George's ability to legislate at random and at will.
The spirit of the constitution and our entire system of government is for the branches to act as an effective 'check and balance' to the other branch.

This entire issue boils down to respect for me. If the top of the Executive Branch wishes to discuss an important matter with a senior member of the Judicial Branch, the Executive branch should have the authority to compel the other branch member to show up and discuss said item. And vice versa. Checks and Balances.

I find it extremely disturbing that any branch can claim a right to thumb their nose at any other branch. If Congress wishes to order a senior member from the Executive branch to discuss any issue that Congress deems appropriate, then the Executive branch should respect that decision and authority and vice versa.
Absolutely, and contempt is a valid charge to level for failure to appear.
Pointing to the Constitution and saying, "Show me the line of text that gives you the right..." is somethign that I think is against the spirit of the consititution. And it is the Spirit that is the true authority, not the words--that is, the words try to meet the intent of the spirit. And that spirit is equality for all, freedom, liberty, and checks and balances.



"It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

[robeiae]

Tell me where--exactly--in the Constitution the power is given to you to legally drive a car. Even Antonin Scalia isn't as skeletally legalistic about the Constitution as you, in your deep legal expertise, are.
See? This is exactly the point.

The Constitution is about defining government, not rights. It is a limiting document. If the Constitution doesn't give the feds the power to do something, or authority over a particular thing, the feds are not supposed to be able to merely assume that power or claim that authority. Scalia knows this full well.

So, you are essentially saying that you don't know why Congress should have this power, but you are willing to accept that they do have it because...why? It seems to make sense...at the moment?

Welcome to the Road to Tyranny. Enjoy your stay.

[robeiae]

Perhaps I don't either, but a quick review of the word tribunal give me this:

Tribunal is a generic term for any body acting judicially, whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title.

I don't see where Congress' charge


is limited to creating lower federal courts. A tribunal of either house or both houses in concert seems to meet the terms of Article 1, Section 8 on a surface reading. I've not investigated the backstory of this particular clause, however, so I'm not conversant with the Founders' intent. It sounds like a worthwhile course of study, however.
Congress cannot--by definition--assume judicial powers. It can only create the court system. A tribunal with legal authority controlled by Congress would be absolutely unconstitutional. No one would argue differently, imo.

[robeiae]

That's not what I've heard John Dean or Jonathan Turley say each time they've talked about it.
I'm not sure what to tell you. This power does not exist in the Constitution. It is, by defnintion, an implied power. Any Constitutional scholar would know this.

I think you just don't know the terminology, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherent_contempt

[InfinityGoddess]

Congress cannot--by definition--assume judicial powers. It can only create the court system. A tribunal with legal authority controlled by Congress would be absolutely unconstitutional. No one would argue differently, imo.


Compelling people to testify to Congress is perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. No one is on trial; they are simply answering questions within the realm of the concerns of the issues of the day. In many cases, it helps when it comes time to Congress having to make laws based on those issues. In others, it's to ensure that the Executive is not overstepping the bounds of legal procedure.

Furthermore, the impeachment powers are a form of tribunal. Are you saying that Congress doesn't have the right to impeach because it's unconstitutional?

[Don]

Congress cannot--by definition--assume judicial powers. It can only create the court system. A tribunal with legal authority controlled by Congress would be absolutely unconstitutional. No one would argue differently, imo.
Your argument rings true to me, but I just read all of Article I again and can't find specific prohibition, other than they may not hold other civil positions while in office. Article III was no help either. Can you point me somewhere?

[robeiae]

Your argument rings true to me, but I just read all of Article I again and can't find specific prohibition, other than they may not hold other civil positions while in office. Article III was no help either. Can you point me somewhere?
Article III. - The Judicial Branch

Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.



NO judicial power is vested in Congress.

[robeiae]

Compelling people to testify to Congress is perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. Show me why it is so, and to what extent it extends.

Can a particular Congressman force me to testify as to why I didn't vote for him?
rmore, the impeachment powers are a form of tribunal. Are you saying that Congress doesn't have the right to impeach because it's unconstitutional?
Impeachment is a specific power and it is given expressly in the Constitution. It exists independent of the power you cited.

[blacbird]

Absolutely, and contempt is a valid charge to level for failure to appear.

Not according to Robsie.

caw

[robeiae]

Not according to Robsie.

caw
So, you've given up completely? You have no idea why Congress assumes this power, but that's just fine by you?

[Don]

Article III. - The Judicial Branch

Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

NO judicial power is vested in Congress.
But it's vested 'in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.' No prohibition of ordaining a tribunal of congresscritters for some reason. :Shrug:

Your interpretation still 'feels' right to me, but I hate that 'feeling' as justification. :D

[InfinityGoddess]

Show me why it is so, and to what extent it extends.

I've just explained it. It's useful for information for when they make a law and for checks and balances purposes. No one is on trial; they are simply testifying on a particular issue.

Can a particular Congressman force me to testify as to why I didn't vote for him?

Of course not. That would be silly. They can force you to testify if there is suspected illegal activity within the Executive branch, or if there needs to be a hearing on everyday issues, such as environment, economy, law and order stuff, and that kind of thing.

Impeachment is a specific power and it is given expressly in the Constitution. It exists independent of the power you cited.

Not necessarily, though yes, it is a power that is specified within Article I. It is a form of tribunal, in that the President or members of his cabinet are on trial in the Senate, after the House brings the impeachment proceedings. It is very much akin to putting a criminal on trial, except the defendant doesn't necessarily go to jail but does lose his job if convicted and can no longer be allowed to serve public office again after that.

Therefore, your argument that Congress isn't allowed to hold tribunals has a bit of a hole in it at best. They even have their own police force (known affectionately as the Capital Police and the Sergeant-at-Arms) that absolutely has the power to put people in jail. They simply just can't cross over into the realm of the "separation of powers" is all.

[blacbird]

This, from Wikipedia (yes, I know, I know; but it appears fairly straightforward and factual to me; dispute it as you please):

In the late 1790s, contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" of the legislature. Early Congresses issued contempt citations against numerous individuals for a variety of actions. Some early instances of contempt of Congress included citations against:

* Robert Randall, for an attempt to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795.
* William Duane, a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions in 1800.
* Nathaniel Rounsavell, another newspaper editor for releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812.

In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn,[1] which held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[2] The historical interpretation that bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.

[edit] Subpoenas

Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[3] the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area which have been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[4] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.

caw

[LimeyDawg]

Here's the article, and the text found in a little digging.

http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress?cat=biz-fin

Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution's grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.

The most famous use of the congressional subpoena occurred in 1973, when the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (popularly known as the Watergate Committee) subpoenaed the tape recordings that President Richard M. Nixon had secretly made of White House conversations. This was the first time that Congress had ever subpoenaed a President. Nixon tried to withhold the tapes, claiming executive privilege (the right of the President not to release internal documents of the administration to the Congress). The courts ruled that the President could not use executive privilege as blanket protection, but the White House then released only a heavily edited version of the tapes. In June 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege was a limited power and that the President must turn over all of the requested tapes to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate incident. The opening of these tapes led Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the President, causing Nixon to resign.

[LimeyDawg]

What's also really interesting in all this discussion is the idea that Congress will do the right thing. If you've been paying attention, you know that congress has never had the nuts to police itself. (Watergate, anybody?) It's the same here. Rove will get a relative slap on the wrist, or nothing at all, because the system looks after its own. There isn't a single period of our history where this hasn't been true.

[InfinityGoddess]

Here's the article, and the text found in a little digging.

http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress?cat=biz-fin

I figured that was the purpose of Congressional hearings.

[blacbird]

What's also really interesting in all this discussion is the idea that Congress will do the right thing. If you've been paying attention, you know that congress has never had the nuts to police itself. (Watergate, anybody?)

Not quite sure how your Watergate reference supports your contention. For one thing, the Watergate episode wasn't about Congress policing itself; it was about Congress investigating Presidential misconduct. And it seems to me to prove exactly the opposite, that once in a while Congressional efforts do come to fruition in a serious and meaningful way.

caw

[robeiae]

But it's vested 'in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.' No prohibition of ordaining a tribunal of congresscritters for some reason. :Shrug:

Your interpretation still 'feels' right to me, but I hate that 'feeling' as justification. :DYes there is, because no one can be a member of both the judicial and legislative branch at the same time.

Look, the meaning of the word in the sense it is used in the Constitution is "court." This is unambiguous and accepted across the board. The courts are the judiciary. Congress can create the judiciary, but it cannot control it, nor can it assume the powers of the judiciary.

I'm a little fuzzy on why I even need to argue this point, but I'll find the relevant sources if you guys want me to.

[robeiae]

I've just explained it. It's useful for information for when they make a law and for checks and balances purposes. No one is on trial; they are simply testifying on a particular issue.
That's not an "explanation," that's a "justification." Point to where this power is delineated or implied in the Constitution and explain what the extent is.



Of course not. That would be silly. They can force you to testify if there is suspected illegal activity within the Executive branch, or if there needs to be a hearing on everyday issues, such as environment, economy, law and order stuff, and that kind of thing.
Very vague, no?


Not necessarily, though yes, it is a power that is specified within Article I. It is a form of tribunal, in that the President or members of his cabinet are on trial in the Senate, after the House brings the impeachment proceedings. It is very much akin to putting a criminal on trial, except the defendant doesn't necessarily go to jail but does lose his job if convicted and can no longer be allowed to serve public office again after that.

Therefore, your argument that Congress isn't allowed to hold tribunals has a bit of a hole in it at best. They even have their own police force (known affectionately as the Capital Police and the Sergeant-at-Arms) that absolutely has the power to put people in jail. They simply just can't cross over into the realm of the "separation of powers" is all.There is no hole, here. You are citing the wrong clause for the implied power of Congress that we are talking about.

I believe blacbird has now linked to a wiki article that sources the correct clause.

[robeiae]

This, from Wikipedia (yes, I know, I know; but it appears fairly straightforward and factual to me; dispute it as you please):



caw
That's right, now make the case that this subpoena fulfills the requirements.

This is like pulling teeth...

[InfinityGoddess]

That's not an "explanation," that's a "justification." Point to where this power is delineated or implied in the Constitution and explain what the extent is.

It was already pointed out a few posts up. I'm not going in circles on this.


There is no hole, here. You are citing the wrong clause for the implied power of Congress that we are talking about.

You were saying that Congress can't have the powers of the judiciary, which is false. Impeachment is a trial format procedure that is brought up in the House and then tried in the Senate.

I believe blacbird has now linked to a wiki article that sources the correct clause.

Yes, he has.

[LimeyDawg]

Not quite sure how your Watergate reference supports your contention. For one thing, the Watergate episode wasn't about Congress policing itself; it was about Congress investigating Presidential misconduct. And it seems to me to prove exactly the opposite, that once in a while Congressional efforts do come to fruition in a serious and meaningful way.

caw
Really. Given that, due to testimony following the Watergate scandal, it was learned, among other things, that Nixon's campaign received millions in illegal contributions from companies such as Gulf Oil, ITT, and American Airlines, yet Nixon avoided jail, I'd say it proves the contention quite well. Perhaps the fact that Nixon himself used millions of dollars ($10 million, give or take) on his homes, illegally, in the name of security, and even took an illegal tax deduction of $576,000 for some of his papers, yet never saw a day of jail proves the point quite well. All of this, and more, came out after the Watergate testimonies.
Nixon had authorized the illegal bombing of Cambodia without the authorization of Congress. It goes on.

The point is that Nixon was impeached, but that was it. Nothing else. It should piss you off to no end. Try stealing from the government. Try taking bribes. Even those who got jail terms got it in the most lenient, country-club jails available. Richard Kleindienst, for example, received a fine of $100 and a sentence of one month in jail, which was suspended.

Congress will not, cannot, police itself. The government is not here for the benefit of the people. It exists for the purpose of enriching the elite. It's a point we are blinded to, but one that has been proven time and again. The Karl Rove affair is just another in a long line of examples. I'm willing to be proved wrong.

[rugcat]

Look, the meaning of the word in the sense it is used in the Constitution is "court." This is unambiguous and accepted across the board. The courts are the judiciary. Congress can create the judiciary, but it cannot control it, nor can it assume the powers of the judiciary.So straighten me out here.

Lets suppose there is an allegation that a company, oh, say Halliburton just for fun, has been inflating costs on government contracts, not providing contracted services, and collecting money with no oversight.

Congress forms a committee to investigate, and invites the CEO to testify about the situation. The CEO says, sorry, not interested.

Are you maintaining that Congress has no power to issue a subpoena and no power to enforce it were it to do so?

Or are you simply saying that power is not enumerated in the Constitution?

If they do not have this power, what exactly is Contempt of Congress? (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress)

As is stated in the link, there is this caveat:

"Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate."

But surely that covers a very broad area of investigation.

[robeiae]

So straighten me out here.

Lets suppose there is an allegation that a company, oh, say Halliburton just for fun, has been inflating costs on government contracts, not providing contracted services, and collecting money with no oversight.

Congress forms a committee to investigate, and invites the CEO to testify about the situation. The CEO says, sorry, not interested.

Are you maintaining that Congress has no power to issue a subpoena and no power to enforce it were it to do so?No. It has been recognized by the Court that such a power is needed and implied.


Or are you simply saying that power is not enumerated in the Constitution?
It's not, per above.

As is stated in the link, there is this caveat:

"Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate."

But surely that covers a very broad area of investigation.Yes, very broad. Too broad, perhaps.

Regardless, the case should be made--openly---by Congress before it begins subpoenaing witnesses on any matter, imo. Is that too much to ask?

[Don]

Yes there is, because no one can be a member of both the judicial and legislative branch at the same time.

Look, the meaning of the word in the sense it is used in the Constitution is "court." This is unambiguous and accepted across the board. The courts are the judiciary. Congress can create the judiciary, but it cannot control it, nor can it assume the powers of the judiciary.

I'm a little fuzzy on why I even need to argue this point, but I'll find the relevant sources if you guys want me to.
That makes it a little clearer. I really wasn't intending to argue the point, but was trying to understand where the position comes from. I even tried to say that a couple of times, but I guess I was unclear. Frankly, it makes a lot more sense than what I first conjectured, and I appreciate your walking me through the rationale.

[dgiharris]

This is a very interesting and educational thread.

This is a very small taste of how complicated a court (or any place that tries to interpret the constitution) can be.

Very interesting

Mel...

[LimeyDawg]

Regardless, the case should be made--openly---by Congress before it begins subpoenaing witnesses on any matter, imo. Is that too much to ask?
But do you trust Congress to do the right thing, or to spend its time taking care of its own? Motive is important. I doubt they're going to subpoena people willy-nilly. I'd suspect, rather, that they subpoena people because its in their political interest to do so. They're not going to invite Bubba the street thug to congress to discuss the merits of not dealing drugs on a certain street corner, but if Bubba happens to be connected in Washington, and his screw ups are about to expose the ineptitude and corruptness of our elected leaders, then whooaaaaa, nelly, get that sucker a seat and put on a pot of coffee. We need to talk.

[Joe270]

Okay, back in for a little while.

First, in defense of my 'witch hunt' comment:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/witch-hunt

an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover disloyalty, subversive political activity, etc., usually conducted with much publicity and often relying upon inconclusive evidence and capitalizing on public fear of unpopular opinions

I consider a witch hunt to be an investigation, politically motivated with publicity, which serves to attempt to uncover unknown criminal or unethical activity with little or no facts to support the investigation in the first place. In essence, they are 'fishing'.

Perhaps my personal definition isn't valid, but it sure seems valid to me.

That's exactly what the subpoena is about, isn't it? To ascertain some facts about potential guilt or innocence and decide whether or not further legal action is justified.

Compelling people to testify to Congress is perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution. No one is on trial; they are simply answering questions within the realm of the concerns of the issues of the day.

These two statements support my position that congress has gone 'fishing for answers' and is conducting a witch hunt.

It's my opinion that it's for political gain, but it is, after all, an election year, so I seriously doubt anyone can claim the motives are pure.

As Rob has done the heavy lifting with the constitutionality of congressional hearings, and, although I intended to challenge congress handling judicial issues, I take issue with congress investigating supposed criminal activity.

Which is, supposedly, what this is all about.

Congress is not the FBI. They do not have the power to investigate crime. They can investigate the reasons behind it, or the ramifications of it, but congress has no right to investigate crime. It is absolutely not the job of the legislative branch.

Sure, there are some small blurring of the lines at the edges, like enforcing their own security needs, ethics violations, etc.

Congress has no investigative abilities short of asking people questions. There's no CSI Congress.

Our three branches of Government constantly vie for more of the power pie. Some say Nixon greatly expanded presidential power, and in many ways he did. But his failed bid to exclude the tapes from a congressional subpoena expanded congresses power into the Executive branch. The court system and the Judicial branch has greatly expanded its power through environmental judgments, which I find very troubling.

This subpoena should get snubbed, and congress should lose some power. It's time for all the endless parade of people testifying over baseball, communists in our midst, music lyrics, etc. to stop.

[Joe270]

But do you trust Congress to do the right thing, or to spend its time taking care of its own? Motive is important. I doubt they're going to subpoena people willy-nilly. I'd suspect, rather, that they subpoena people because its in their political interest to do so.

Motivation? Election year, lowest congressional rating in history (now down to single digits), still pissed over the 'stolen' election, need I go on?

[LimeyDawg]

Motivation? Election year, lowest congressional rating in history (now down to single digits), still pissed over the 'stolen' election, need I go on?
Nope. I see we're on the same page.

[rugcat]

Congress is not the FBI. They do not have the power to investigate crime. They can investigate the reasons behind it, or the ramifications of it, but congress has no right to investigate crime. It is absolutely not the job of the legislative branch.

Congress has no investigative abilities short of asking people questions. There's no CSI Congress.The question of whether there has been an abuse of office, whether influence has been used for political purposes, is technically a crime, but it's one that Congress should be looking into. It's not like they're trying to find out who committed a bank robbery.

And asking people questions under oath is a fine way of getting to the truth of the matter. If they lie, and are caught, they can be sent to jail -- which makes them have a personal interest in telling the truth.

As for fishing, I see that as a circular argument. Congress should not be asking questions unless they have facts to back them up. But congress should also not be allowed to ask questions that could elicit the facts. Very neat.

Karl Rove is not avoiding testifying for any principled reasons. He knows full well that if he were required to testify under oath, some very bad behavior, possibly criminal behavior, would see the light of day -- not only for him, but for others.

Scooter was willing to fall on his sword to protect his superiors, but I really doubt Rove would do the same. And it's true that in part it's politically motivated -- but when the Republicans controlled congress, Rove could operate with total impunity, free from any possibility of being held to account for his actions.

It's about time he was, and it's about time we found out what really went on in this administration.

[blacbird]

Really. Given that, due to testimony following the Watergate scandal, it was learned, among other things, that Nixon's campaign received millions in illegal contributions from companies such as Gulf Oil, ITT, and American Airlines, yet Nixon avoided jail, I'd say it proves the contention quite well.

Nixon avoided jail only because Gerald Ford pardoned him. How exactly does this indict Congress for a failure to act?

caw

[blacbird]

Regardless, the case should be made--openly---by Congress before it begins subpoenaing witnesses on any matter, imo. Is that too much to ask?

This makes no sense whatever. The case gets made precisely through methods such as subpoenaing witnesses to testify under oath. You want "the case" to be "made--openly"? How? Via leaks to the press, perhaps? They are doing exactly what they should be doing; I hope (without much real faith, mind you) that they will carry the procedure through, and charge Rove with contempt of Congress. You subpoena him, you make him testify under oath, or you arrest his ass and let him sit in a 6X9 for a while, eating rancid mac&cheese every noon, and let him consider his options.

caw

[Joe270]

As for fishing, I see that as a circular argument. Congress should not be asking questions unless they have facts to back them up. But congress should also not be allowed to ask questions that could elicit the facts. Very neat.

It's not a circular argument, it is what these congressional investigations do.

Can you argue that the McCarthy hearings were justified? So those who were imprisoned deserved it because they 'defied' congress? The lives which were destroyed was just part and parcel to discovering the truth about the red menace?

My point is that many here have supported these congressional 'hearings', I don't. I don't think congress should have this power. They are legislative, not investigative.

They have abused it in the past, and, IMHO, they are abusing it now for political gain.

I don't know if Rove is guilty of anything, but if he is, it's the Federal B.I. that should be going after him, or the whole damn Dept. of Justice.

Can anyone here argue that this subpoena would be issued if the GOP was in the majority in congress? Nope. No one.

I rest my case. It's political.

[rugcat]

I don't know if Rove is guilty of anything, but if he is, it's the Federal B.I. that should be going after him, or the whole damn Dept. of Justice.

Can anyone here argue that this subpoena would be issued if the GOP was in the majority in congress? Nope. No one.

I rest my case. It's political.Well, one of the issues is whether the DOJ, supposedly non political, was stacked with Rove approved prosecutors. If one of the questions is his conduct with regards to the DOJ, it's kind of difficult to have them leading the investigation.

And if your case is that if the republicans who turned a blind, if not approving eye to questionable behavior when they were in charge would still do nothing -- well yes, i'd have to agree.

Which would also mean that any administration, no matter corrupt and immune to investigation could make the same claim when the opposition gained control and demanded accountability. Which is what you seem to be doing.

And don't forget, it was the very public nature of the McCarthy hearings that exposed him for who he was and led to his downfall. Public hearings are not such a bad thing for bringing out the truth.

BTW, if the FBI wanted to talk to Rove, he wouldn't have to give them the time of day, just like any other citizen.

[InfinityGoddess]

My point is that many here have supported these congressional 'hearings', I don't. I don't think congress should have this power. They are legislative, not investigative.

They have abused it in the past, and, IMHO, they are abusing it now for political gain.

They should (and do) have that power, if only to put a check on the Executive, which is part of why they have that power. Unless you want a king and not a President.

There is no question that it was abused in the past, but it's not being abused now. I trust that Conyers isn't doing this because he likes it, but that it's the right thing to do.


I don't know if Rove is guilty of anything, but if he is, it's the Federal B.I. that should be going after him, or the whole damn Dept. of Justice.

You really think Bush would send the FBI or the Justice Dept after an old buddy of his? Really?

Can anyone here argue that this subpoena would be issued if the GOP was in the majority in congress? Nope. No one.


They wouldn't, true, but not for any principled reason. That's the part that's political. John Conyers is simply doing what he's supposed to do. That is all.

[Robert Toy]

This makes no sense whatever. The case gets made precisely through methods such as subpoenaing witnesses to testify under oath. You want "the case" to be "made--openly"? How? Via leaks to the press, perhaps? They are doing exactly what they should be doing; I hope (without much real faith, mind you) that they will carry the procedure through, and charge Rove with contempt of Congress. You subpoena him, you make him testify under oath, or you arrest his ass and let him sit in a 6X9 for a while, eating rancid mac&cheese every noon, and let him consider his options.

caw
In other words punish him until he talks?

Neat

[rugcat]

In other words punish him until he talks?Send him to Gitmo.

[Joe270]

They should (and do) have that power, if only to put a check on the Executive, which is part of why they have that power. Unless you want a king and not a President.

Repeating it doesn't make it true, IG. This is the second time you've posted this same thing in this thread.

You really think Bush would send the FBI or the Justice Dept after an old buddy of his? Really?

The Executive branch does not control the FBI.

They wouldn't, true, but not for any principled reason. That's the part that's political. John Conyers is simply doing what he's supposed to do. That is all.

I see it as political in-fighting and retribution. I also think you'd have a tough time proving it otherwise, especially in an election year.

I hope (without much real faith, mind you) that they will carry the procedure through, and charge Rove with contempt of Congress. You subpoena him, you make him testify under oath, or you arrest his ass and let him sit in a 6X9 for a while, eating rancid mac&cheese every noon, and let him consider his options.

So why don't they just waterboard him while they're at it? Seems to me like they are looking to get the answers they want no matter what method they employ, despite what the truth may or may not be.

Would you sanction the same treatment for the baseball players? The rock stars? The writers in Hollywood blacklisted?

This is an unchecked power of congress which has no foundation in the constitution and this should not be happening.

Congress has the power to investigate pending legislation by interviewing citizens. It does not have the power to be a kangaroo court.

This is dangerous territory for our country. It should have gone away forever with McCarthy, but it didn't. The congress is taking more power than they have a right to, and it's a really bad thing.

This congress in particular has used this 'power' a record number of times. It has gotten out of hand, and it needs to stop.

[Robert Toy]

Repeating it doesn't make it true, IG. This is the second time you've posted this same thing in this thread.



The Executive branch does not control the FBI.



I see it as political in-fighting and retribution. I also think you'd have a tough time proving it otherwise, especially in an election year.



So why don't they just waterboard him while they're at it? Seems to me like they are looking to get the answers they want no matter what method they employ, despite what the truth may or may not be.

Would you sanction the same treatment for the baseball players? The rock stars? The writers in Hollywood blacklisted?

This is an unchecked power of congress which has no foundation in the constitution and this should not be happening.

Congress has the power to investigate pending legislation by interviewing citizens. It does not have the power to be a kangaroo court.

This is dangerous territory for our country. It should have gone away forever with McCarthy, but it didn't. The congress is taking more power than they have a right to, and it's a really bad thing.

This congress in particular has used this 'power' a record number of times. It has gotten out of hand, and it needs to stop.
Ghee, I thought they were doing this because of the lack of oversight by the old Republican majority house.

[robeiae]

This makes no sense whatever. The case gets made precisely through methods such as subpoenaing witnesses to testify under oath. You want "the case" to be "made--openly"? How? Via leaks to the press, perhaps? They are doing exactly what they should be doing; I hope (without much real faith, mind you) that they will carry the procedure through, and charge Rove with contempt of Congress. You subpoena him, you make him testify under oath, or you arrest his ass and let him sit in a 6X9 for a while, eating rancid mac&cheese every noon, and let him consider his options.

caw
You're not following me.

Rugcat noted that:


As is stated in the link, there is this caveat:

"Before a Congressional witness may be convicted of contempt, it must be established that the matter under investigation is a subject which Congress has constitutional power to legislate."

But surely that covers a very broad area of investigation.
Your own link noted that: As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[3] the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area which have been authorized for investigation.
What legislative matter is being served, here? Make. The. Case.

Not the "case" against Rove or anyone else, but the case that Congress is actually doing something it should be doing, something related what it is authorized to do and what it is supposed to do.

Perhaps a root canal...

[Plot Device]

Legislative.

Judicial.

Executive.



These three branches are SUPPOSED to carry the load TOGETHER. And they're also supposed to kick each other in the ass from time to time just to keep any one branch from getting crazy.

I see this as a case of the Legislative Branch leaning over the shoulder of the Executive Branch and asking: "What the hell are you doing?" which is the correct job of the Legislative Branch. If it's not THEIR job, then whose?

[LimeyDawg]

Nixon avoided jail only because Gerald Ford pardoned him. How exactly does this indict Congress for a failure to act?

caw
Because Ford pardoned him for exactly the reason of allowing him to avoid jail time. It tied congress' hands to act further, but remember, Ford was a member of Congress prior to his appointment, and he knew the game. This is my point. Just because Ford was now president doesn't take the ball out of Congress' court for Nixon serving no jail time. His acts were patently, blatently criminal, and on a scale that dwarfs 99% of other crime committed by anyone else during that time. Congress, THROUGH Gerald Ford, gave Nixon the get out of jail free card. This is information that's readily available.

[LimeyDawg]

This is an unchecked power of congress which has no foundation in the constitution and this should not be happening.

Congress has the power to investigate pending legislation by interviewing citizens. It does not have the power to be a kangaroo court.

This is dangerous territory for our country. It should have gone away forever with McCarthy, but it didn't. The congress is taking more power than they have a right to, and it's a really bad thing.
Dangerous territory? How can we complain about that when we allow our government to operate Gitmo? The government is acting exactly in the manner we allow them to. This is the same congress that voted for the Patriot Act.


This congress in particular has used this 'power' a record number of times. It has gotten out of hand, and it needs to stop.
Hell yes, it needs to stop, but it won't until we begin to speak more loudly about being upset over the issue. Congress won't police itself.

[robeiae]

But do you trust Congress to do the right thing, or to spend its time taking care of its own? Motive is important. I doubt they're going to subpoena people willy-nilly. I'd suspect, rather, that they subpoena people because its in their political interest to do so. They're not going to invite Bubba the street thug to congress to discuss the merits of not dealing drugs on a certain street corner, but if Bubba happens to be connected in Washington, and his screw ups are about to expose the ineptitude and corruptness of our elected leaders, then whooaaaaa, nelly, get that sucker a seat and put on a pot of coffee. We need to talk.
The government--Congress et al--is composed of people and people are flawed. People serve their own interests, first and foremost. I expect the worst from Congress, as a matter of principle. Sometimes, I'm pleasantly surprised.

[LimeyDawg]

The government--Congress et al--is composed of people and people are flawed. People serve their own interests, first and foremost. I expect the worst from Congress, as a matter of principle. Sometimes, I'm pleasantly surprised.
I hear you, but there's a double-whammy for most Americans. Congress is made up of rich people, and when they serve their own self interests, somebody gets screwed. Typically, they're quickest to act when thier buddies are in trouble. Look at how fast they moved to help Bear Stearns, and yet when millions of people are losing their homes, they sit on their hands.

[Robert Toy]

Slight thread drift:

House hearing on toxic FEMA trailers – Live CNN

http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2

Atty General grilled on Torture Issue (+ 50 unrelated items) – Live CNN

http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2

[InfinityGoddess]

Repeating it doesn't make it true, IG. This is the second time you've posted this same thing in this thread.

Funny, it works for Bush. ;P

Seriously now, that's their job; to act as a check to the President. Each of the three co-equal branches do that in order to avoid a monarchy. The Founders thought (and rightly so, after the acts of King George III) that too much power in the hands of one man was not a good idea, so this is the set-up they came up with.



The Executive branch does not control the FBI.

Technically, yes the President does control the FBI. The FBI is an enforcement arm of the Justice Dept, which by extension is under the control of the President.


I see it as political in-fighting and retribution. I also think you'd have a tough time proving it otherwise, especially in an election year.

They've been doing these kinds of investigations since the Democrats took control because the Republican-controlled Congress laid down on the job they were supposed to be doing. And that was back in 2007. Henry Waxman, John Conyers, and Patrick Leahy never struck me as guys who would do things based on political expediency. They've been in Congress long enough to know that's the wrong way to go, hence why there's not an active push on their part to impeach Bush and Cheney. They want to make sure they have all their ducks in a row and then decide if those two need to be pursued on criminal charges.


So why don't they just waterboard him while they're at it? Seems to me like they are looking to get the answers they want no matter what method they employ, despite what the truth may or may not be.

Because waterboarding is torture, thus it's illegal and doesn't often work to get accurate information.


This is an unchecked power of congress which has no foundation in the constitution and this should not be happening.

Congress has the power to investigate pending legislation by interviewing citizens. It does not have the power to be a kangaroo court.

I repeat: No one is on trial here. They are simply trying to get testimony to get to the facts about Plame and the US Attorneys. If they have to, then they will refer the matter to a court.

Secondly, every constitutional lawyer will disagree with you. Congress absolutely has the right to compel people to testify.

This is dangerous territory for our country. It should have gone away forever with McCarthy, but it didn't. The congress is taking more power than they have a right to, and it's a really bad thing.

This congress in particular has used this 'power' a record number of times. It has gotten out of hand, and it needs to stop.

I'm actually more worried that they are ceding power to the President and that he is consolidating his power into the Executive Branch. As far as I know, Congress is basically powerless if they don't turn to the Inherent Contempt power.

[InfinityGoddess]

Dangerous territory? How can we complain about that when we allow our government to operate Gitmo? The government is acting exactly in the manner we allow them to. This is the same congress that voted for the Patriot Act.


Actually, the Patriot Act was passed by a previous Congress. Not this one. Other than that, I agree with you. Unless we make it loud and clear that we won't take BS from our government anymore, they will continue to BS along with no accountability.

[Dawno]

I hear you, but there's a double-whammy for most Americans. Congress is made up of rich people, and when they serve their own self interests, somebody gets screwed. Typically, they're quickest to act when thier buddies are in trouble. Look at how fast they moved to help Bear Stearns, and yet when millions of people are losing their homes, they sit on their hands.

Regarding the wealth of our lawmakers - http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/ is an interesting site. There are some congressmen who seem to have fairly low net worth (as of 2006) but, yes, a lot of them I saw, through refreshing the page and looking at the random display (you can also search by state or individuals), are definitely in the upper middle and upper classes.

Of course the site has numerous explanations and disclosures, for example: "So take what follows with a boulder-sized grain of salt: It's all based on information from the seriously flawed disclosure system used by members of Congress."

[blacbird]

Actually, the Patriot Act was passed by a previous Congress.

Actually, three Congresses ago, with a Republican majority in control, and in the panic mode of the immediate aftermath of 9/11. It took a while for the unintended consequences of some Patriot Act provisions to become evident, and the only people who didn't get disturbed about those were those immediately surrounding George W. Bush. They, on the other hand, have consistently pushed to make the Patriot Act even worse.

caw

[blacbird]

Dangerous territory? How can we complain about that when we allow our government to operate Gitmo? The government is acting exactly in the manner we allow them to. This is the same congress that voted for the Patriot Act.

Congress doesn't "operate Gitmo." The Defense Department, an arm of the Executive Branch, does. In fact, Congress has damn little power to do anything about Gitmo, other than cut defense funding.

The third branch of Government, the Judiciary, has now spoken, however, and spoken pretty clearly. Given that, and the fact that neither major Pres candidate supports the use of the Guantanamo base as a detention facility, its days are numbered, and the number isn't very big.

caw

[InfinityGoddess]

Actually, three Congresses ago, with a Republican majority in control, and in the panic mode of the immediate aftermath of 9/11. It took a while for the unintended consequences of some Patriot Act provisions to become evident, and the only people who didn't get disturbed about those were those immediately surrounding George W. Bush. They, on the other hand, have consistently pushed to make the Patriot Act even worse.

caw

Actually, that was during a time when Democrats briefly held the Senate, when Tom Daschle was the Majority Leader. I remember because Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent, shortly after the fiasco that was No Child Left Behind.

Daschle wasn't going to let the Patriot Act on the floor, but then he and Pat Leahy got a nasty surprise in the mail: Anthrax.

[blacbird]

then he and Pat Leahy got a nasty surprise in the mail: Anthrax.

Ah, yes. Another triumph of our War on Terror, how quickly we arrested the perps in that case.

caw

[InfinityGoddess]

Ah, yes. Another triumph of our War on Terror, how quickly we arrested the perps in that case.

caw

Not to mention we never did get Osama bin Laden. Instead, we let him and his Al Qaeda and Taliban buddies fester and grow like a cancer in Pakistan. Such a wonderful success indeed.

[robeiae]

Perhaps we need some more hearings...

[Robert Toy]

Let the games begin!!

http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/10/rove.subpoena/index.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/07/10/rove080709.pdf

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/07/10/sanchez080710.pdf

[Robert Toy]

Update!!!!

[InfinityGoddess]

Um, okay. Rah, rah! Go Conyers!

o.O That better?

[Robert Toy]

Um, okay. Rah, rah! Go Conyers!

o.O That better?
Did you read both letters as well?

Fun huh?

[InfinityGoddess]

Oh, this is a good one (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/10/rove-avoids-subpoena-by-fleeing-the-country/)...