Majority disapprove of commutation.

[Ilvane]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A majority of Americans and nearly half of all Republicans disapprove of President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence, according to a new American Research Group poll out Friday.

Fully 64 percent of all Americans and 69 percent of voters said they disapproved of the commutation in the new poll. Broken down by party affiliation, 76 percent of Democrats, 47 percent of Republicans, and 80 percent of Independents said they disapproved.

Meanwhile, 84 percent of all adults and 84 percent of voters said they oppose a full presidential pardon for Libby. Broken down by party, 82 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of Republicans, and 97 percent of Independents oppose a pardon.

Defending his decision to grant Libby clemency, Bush indicated on Tuesday he hasn’t ruled out granting the former White House aide a full pardon.

“I made a judgment, a considered judgment, and I believe it’s the right decision to make in this case. I stand by it,” Bush said. “As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out,” he said as he left a visit to Walter Reed Medical Center.

Libby’s prison time was imposed after a federal court convicted Libby of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators in the probe of the leak of the name of a CIA operative.

A commutation is distinct from a pardon, which is a complete eradication of a conviction record and makes it the same as if the person has never been convicted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Gan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A majority of Americans and nearly half of all Republicans disapprove of President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence, according to a new American Research Group poll out Friday.

Fully 64 percent of all Americans and 69 percent of voters said they disapproved of the commutation in the new poll. Broken down by party affiliation, 76 percent of Democrats, 47 percent of Republicans, and 80 percent of Independents said they disapproved.

Meanwhile, 84 percent of all adults and 84 percent of voters said they oppose a full presidential pardon for Libby. Broken down by party, 82 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of Republicans, and 97 percent of Independents oppose a pardon.

Defending his decision to grant Libby clemency, Bush indicated on Tuesday he hasn’t ruled out granting the former White House aide a full pardon.

“I made a judgment, a considered judgment, and I believe it’s the right decision to make in this case. I stand by it,” Bush said. “As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out,” he said as he left a visit to Walter Reed Medical Center.

Libby’s prison time was imposed after a federal court convicted Libby of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators in the probe of the leak of the name of a CIA operative.

A commutation is distinct from a pardon, which is a complete eradication of a conviction record and makes it the same as if the person has never been convicted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So they polled ALL Americans?

I dont recall getting a phone call...

[Celephais]

The population is stupid. Polls are stupid. This commutation was stupid. A poll of the populous about the commutation is about the stupidest thing imaginable.

[CrystalTears]

But this is real news.

[DeV]

Oh God.

Lol.

[Xaerve]

Oh whatever. I can go find some retarded link to people saying that its fine that he did this or a link highlighting the fact that he has the lowest number of commutations in like the last 50 years or something. These article's aren't news, as someone above stated.

[Ilvane]

The poll, conducted on July 3-5, interviewed 1,100 adults and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Ilvane]

This is the politics folder, and this is related to politics.

News or not, it's politics. Thanks.:P

Angela

[Xaerve]

Actually, she's allowed her opinion, in my opinion, on the retarded opinions that are expressed in that biased and useless poll. Read about the situation and draw your own conclusions. I just don't see what made this news article newsworthy...

[Xaerve]

The poll, conducted on July 3-5, interviewed 1,100 adults and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Where did they call?

What time did they call?

All of this stuff matters, etc. These polling companies make "polls" to sell them to the news and produce jibberish like this. CNN is one of the worst. In a world of 24/7 News, news has to often be created in order to satisfy the needs of the demanding viewers, imho.

[Ilvane]

Well, if you read here, all you ever hear is about how no one cares he got a commutation, and if this was a poll the other you bet your ass it would be on this page as news.

So, I put it here. And it's on topic in the Politics folder.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

1000 people represent all of America?

I think I'm going to adjust my signature to say someone saying something Ilvanian.

[Ilvane]

It wasn't done by CNN, if you read the top of the article.

"New American Research Group poll"

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Here's your details on some of your questions anyway.

[Xaerve]

I didn't says it was CNN, I guess you could misread my message as that... but CNN is not a polling company. I know the companies well and they're far from academic polling agencies.


Edit: look at their website... lol

[Back]

1000 people represent all of America?

I think I'm going to adjust my signature to say someone saying something Ilvanian.

Does this mean its over between us? <------ SARCHASM!!!!

As for Libby its funny to see the hypocrites who screamed for Paris Hilton to serve time now have the audacity to claim Libby shouldn’t.

I’m not getting into the poll debate again.

[Gan]

Well, if you read here, all you ever hear is about how no one cares he got a commutation, and if this was a poll the other you bet your ass it would be on this page as news. So, I put it here. And it's on topic in the Politics folder.

Angela
ROFL

Hillarity.

I would tell you that you should know better than to post things in the politics folder... but I like the comedy relief. :lol:

[Gan]

As for Libby its funny to see the hypocrites who screamed for Paris Hilton to serve time now have the audacity to claim Libby shouldn’t.
Yes, because Libby and Paris have SOO MUCH IN COMMON. When Paris has a history of public service lengthy enough to merit even asking for a pardon or commutation then you can use that as an argument. Until then, expect to get laughed at (more).


I’m not getting into the poll debate again.
Well, at least you're not completely stupid...

[Blazing247]

Quick, someone take her delete key!

[Back]

Yes, because Libby and Paris have SOO MUCH IN COMMON. When Paris has a history of public service lengthy enough to merit even asking for a pardon or commutation then you can use that as an argument. Until then, expect to get laughed at (more).

Well, I guess they aren’t comparable. Libby perjured a grand jury in an attempt to obstruct our Constitutional system and did not have to serve what is a normal term for that crime while Paris drove with a suspended license and got the full brunt of punishment.


Well, at least you're not completely stupid...

I do have my moments.

[Kembal]

Yes, because Libby and Paris have SOO MUCH IN COMMON. When Paris has a history of public service lengthy enough to merit even asking for a pardon or commutation then you can use that as an argument.

Do you really want to make this your argument as to why Libby's commutation is ok?

His length of public service?

Because besides the fact the perjury and obstruction of justice conviction directly related to how he performed his public service duties, I can point to cases to where someone has served in public service just as long or longer, got convicted of perjury (not in relation to their duties!), and have similar or longer sentences.

In fact, I'll point to one right now: Victor Rita. Just lost his case in the Supreme Court on June 21 (on an 8-1 vote) saying that his 33 months for perjury was too harsh, because of his length of service in the military (Vietnam and the first Gulf War) and the federal government (at least over 20 years, if not 30), along with his medical condition. The Supreme Court said his sentence was reasonable under the federal sentencing guidelines.

The President hasn't commuted his sentence. Why did he commute Libby's?

Unless you can provide an actual distinction, Ganalon, all your arguments don't fly.

[Gan]

Do you really want to make this your argument as to why Libby's commutation is ok?

His length of public service?

Because besides the fact the perjury and obstruction of justice conviction directly related to how he performed his public service duties, I can point to cases to where someone has served in public service just as long or longer, got convicted of perjury (not in relation to their duties!), and have similar or longer sentences.

In fact, I'll point to one right now: Victor Rita. Just lost his case in the Supreme Court on June 21 (on an 8-1 vote) saying that his 33 months for perjury was too harsh, because of his length of service in the military (Vietnam and the first Gulf War) and the federal government (at least over 20 years, if not 30), along with his medical condition. The Supreme Court said his sentence was reasonable under the federal sentencing guidelines.

The President hasn't commuted his sentence. Why did he commute Libby's?

Unless you can provide an actual distinction, Ganalon, all your arguments don't fly.

Either you have short term memory loss or have short term reading comprehension skills... or both.

Go back and read my thoughts on the commutation of the sentence again, and how I feel about any pardons. Now look at why I brought up the length and type of service Libby has as compared to Paris Hilton.

Bottom line, I dont agree with any pardons. However, since its Bush's constitutional privledge then he's allowed to grant a pardon or commutation to ANYONE he chooses. Period.

With regards to Rita. I'd watch the pardon list this next year and see if Bush doesnt pardon him before he leaves office. He's a likely candidate.

[CrystalTears]

Does this mean its over between us? <------ SARCHASM!!!!
Nope. The love is long and strong. ;)


As for Libby its funny to see the hypocrites who screamed for Paris Hilton to serve time now have the audacity to claim Libby shouldn’t.
I don't know about anyone else, but pardons are rather insulting to me, because it just means that you'll get away with breaking the law depending on who you know. I'm not for it, but if that's what Bush wants to do because he can, oh well.

[Kembal]

Either you have short term memory loss or have short term reading comprehension skills... or both.

Neither. You fail to comprehend the implications of your argument.


Go back and read my thoughts on the commutation of the sentence again, and how I feel about any pardons. Now look at why I brought up the length and type of service Libby has as compared to Paris Hilton.

Bottom line, I dont agree with any pardons. However, since its Bush's constitutional privledge then he's allowed to grant a pardon or commutation to ANYONE he chooses. Period.

What you are arguing is that President has a legal right to do this. That is not disputed. (save for obstruction of justice, which isn't being discussed at this point) What you are not considering is the moral implication of the President's actions: he has selectively chosen one person to be above the law, using reasoning that he has had his Administration stridently argue against. (the Administration has argued against Victor Rita and anyone else getting reduced sentences based on mitigating circumstances, such as length of public service)

So when the President contradicts the arguments that he has had his Administration make in legal cases in deciding to commute Scooter Libby's sentence and explicitly does so with his reasoning for the commutation, one must question his moral fitness for the office. A public official cannot brazenly contradict the arguments he makes in public regarding law and order because he does not wish them to apply to someone he knows. Yet that is exactly what the President did. Considering this President specifically campaigned on "restoring honor and dignity to the White House" in 2000, it's not hard to see that this commutation, far from restoring honor and dignity, has shamed the office of the President.


With regards to Rita. I'd watch the pardon list this next year and see if Bush doesnt pardon him before he leaves office. He's a likely candidate.

If Bush were smart, he'd pardon him the same time he pardons Libby. However, I believe Bush has been fairly consistent about not pardoning anyone currently serving a sentence. (I don't know the details about all 113 pardons that he's made, so there is a chance I'm wrong.) I don't expect Rita to get a pardon, because he'll still be in jail at the end of Bush's term.

[Clove]

I thought the poll was an interesting sample so I showed this thread to 20 of my coworkers. 70 percent of them thought Ilvane was full of shit and from that we conclude that 70 percent of Connecticut residents think Ilvane is full of shit (+/- 3% error).

[Back]

I thought the poll was an interesting sample so I showed this thread to 20 of my coworkers. 70 percent of them thought Ilvane was full of shit and from that we conclude that 70 percent of Connecticut residents think Ilvane is full of shit (+/- 3% error).

Damnnit. Here we go again...

I just took a poll on if you were a lame twit. 1 out of 1 people agreed. 0 margin of error.

[Kembal]

Nope. The love is long and strong. ;)


I don't know about anyone else, but pardons are rather insulting to me, because it just means that you'll get away with breaking the law depending on who you know. I'm not for it, but if that's what Bush wants to do because he can, oh well.

A question for you: Why do you say "oh well"? Why do you think it should be acceptable for any politician to act in this way, and that he shouldn't be called to account for it?

I truly don't understand that mentality. President Clinton rightfully got called out on his pardon of Marc Rich due to the circumstances around the pardon, and there were hearings in Congress regarding the pardon in order to investigate whether he acted properly. (Interestingly, and I didn't know this until today, President Clinton waived executive privlege and told his aides to testify. There was no battle regarding subopenas.)

Something else I found out today: After that hearing, there were processes set up by President Bush to supposedly make sure there would be no appearance of impropriety surrounding any pardons or commutations. Those processes were ignored in his commutation of Libby's sentence.

Why is any of this acceptable?

[CrystalTears]

Because I don't believe that the people saying they're against it will cause him to change his mind. The man has nothing to lose. But should they put up a bill or law to vote on to take that ability away, I'll gladly vote for it.

[TheEschaton]

Errr, long, distinguished career of public service? Does that include or not include being Paul Wolfowitz's* right hand man?

*Paul Wolfowitz being, of course, the devil in sheep's clothing.

[Back]

Because I don't believe that the people saying they're against it will cause him to change his mind. The man has nothing to lose. But should they put up a bill or law to vote on to take that ability away, I'll gladly vote for it.

Ok, stop. Just stop it right now.

The second coming of Jesus Christ is today. The lion and the lamb agree.

[Kembal]

Because I don't believe that the people saying they're against it will cause him to change his mind. The man has nothing to lose. But should they put up a bill or law to vote on to take that ability away, I'll gladly vote for it.

It would require your vote in an indirect manner, I think, depending on how your state chooses to ratify a constitutional amendment. (that's what this would require)

I don't think anyone expects the President to change his mind. However, why should we be letting ourselves get stepped on if we feel his action was wrong?

He's the President, not King.

[LMingrone]

The real problem here is that the original intention of pardoning and commutation (which is even worse since he can now Plead the Fifth) was to maintain the balance of power within the government. What Fs that all up is when the person doing the commutation/pardoning (C/P) upsets this balance. Judge Jury Executioner

Any decision to C/P any persons this close to the President should pass through Congress. Hopefully this will cause this major loophole to be closed. It probably won't though.

[Sean of the Thread]

QQ

[CrystalTears]

I don't think anyone expects the President to change his mind. However, why should we be letting ourselves get stepped on if we feel his action was wrong?

He's the President, not King.
What do you propose we do then?

[Kembal]

First step, hearings. Determine exactly what went on, what discussions were had, etc.

This assumes the President will be at least honorable enough to waive executive privilege in this matter. (If Clinton was willing to do it in regards to Marc Rich, then Bush really doesn't have a leg to stand on if he tries to claim it)

If the hearings produce evidence of something improper, then it needs to be acted on.

[Parkbandit]

Improper? What the fuck.

Just because you don't agree with Bush's decision.. why all of a sudden is it something that is improper? I'm sure you didn't have a problem with Clinton breaking the Pardon Barrier in his terms.

[Kembal]

Improper would likely equal obstruction of justice in this case. For Clinton, improper would've meant official corruption, if the hearings had found that. (they didn't.)

Do I know if that happened here? No. But that's what the hearings are for.

And next time, before trying to stick words in my mouth regarding Clinton's pardons, maybe you should read what I said about the Marc Rich pardon, oh, I dunno, 10 posts ago?

[Gan]

By hearings you mean witch hunts and fishing expeditions....

Yes, we all know what kind of 'hearings' would take place. ;)

[Ilvane]

You mean the same kind that went on during the Clinton administration?

Hmm, interesting.

Angela

[Gan]

You mean the same kind that went on during the Clinton administration?

Hmm, interesting.

Angela

What a wonderful thought. Then we could do this with the next president, and the next, and the next... with the justification of precedence!

:clap:

YOU NEED TO BE RENAMED THE PC POLITICAL PUNDIT!

[Kembal]

By hearings you mean witch hunts and fishing expeditions....

Yes, we all know what kind of 'hearings' would take place. ;)

I see no reason why this should be treated any differently from the Marc Rich pardon in terms of congressional investigation. And that was by a Republican House committee, so it'd be equivalent.

Congressional oversight has its place in terms of checks and balances. This is one of those places.

[Gan]

I see no reason why this should be treated any differently from the Marc Rich pardon in terms of congressional investigation. And that was by a Republican House committee, so it'd be equivalent.

Congressional oversight has its place in terms of checks and balances. This is one of those places.

And you actually think the hearings would be conducted in that manner?
:lol:

[Kembal]

Sadly, your attempts at mockery fall flat, considering how much of a partisan witchhunt the Republicans went on with their hearings against President Clinton.

In fact, define what would be a partisan witchhunt in terms of hearings looking into the Libby commutation. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

[Ilvane]

I think thankfully we have a balance right now. I shudder to think what kind of mess we'd be in otherwise.

While people may not agree with all Democrats or Republicans..it's much better when they are balanced.

Angela

[TheEschaton]

No Congressional hearing, no matter how hard Democrats try, could possibly rival the witchhunt the Republican Congress from 94-00 put the American people through. Democrats just aren't that bloodthirsty.

-TheE-

[LMingrone]

They are all career politicians. That is all.

[thefarmer]

The current Dem congress also doesn't have as much political power or popularity as the Rep congress back then.

[Daniel]

You people are what makes politics stagnant in America.

[Gan]

Sadly, your attempts at mockery fall flat, considering how much of a partisan witchhunt the Republicans went on with their hearings against President Clinton.
And you're argument saying that its ok because the GOP did it isnt flat either? Please...


In fact, define what would be a partisan witchhunt in terms of hearings looking into the Libby commutation. I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Since there was no law broken on the commutation, why would you need hearings? The fact that you want hearings for something that was legally done is a pure example of a witch hunt.

[Tolwynn]

Reading the website and the results of the other questions they asked of the same 1100 people is kind of interesting as well.

I'd be willing to bet that almost half of the country doesn't believe impeachment prceedings should start against the President, but by gosh, 45% of the 1100 polled (and apparently by extension, all Americans) said they did.

I'm sure a student of statistics could point out in what ways this polling method was flawed, but it seems to me a representative sample should at least attempt to model the overall population it was drawn from.

I'd also be willing to bet a full 33% of Americans don't register as Independents either.

So, yeah.

:jerkit:

[LMingrone]

Clinton allegedly pardoned people who helped him out financially. Bush allegedly commutated someone so they wouldn't open their mouth in the future. Why can't they both be wrong?

[Ilvane]

They are both wrong, but then you can't tell these guys anything, they don't really listen. They'd probably tell you I supported Clinton's pardons, just because I lean liberal.

I didn't support all his pardons.

Oh, and by the way, Libby still wasn't pardoned, he was only given a commutation of sentence.

Angela

[Xaerve]

So, I'll take the bait... Which "pardons" did and did you not support? I'd love to hear this.

[Gan]

So, I'll take the bait... Which "pardons" did and did you not support? I'd love to hear this.

She can pick and choose since Clinton had over 400 during his presidency.

Either way it will be comedy gold. ;)

[Ilvane]

He did a commutation for Dorothy Rivers who was a democrat who stole quite a bit from Rainbow/PUSH. She stole about a million from the fund, and spent it on vacations and things for her and her friends. Jesse Jackson reccomended, but not so much..in my opinion.

Mark Rich.

Dan Rostenkowski.

There are a bunch but those are the ones off the top of my head.

[Methais]

The poll, conducted on July 3-5, interviewed 1,100 adults and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.



WASHINGTON (CNN) – A majority of Americans and nearly half of all Republicans disapprove of President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence, according to a new American Research Group poll out Friday.

lol wut?

[Kembal]

And you're argument saying that its ok because the GOP did it isnt flat either? Please...

Hmm. I don't recall ever saying a partisan witchhunt is ok. I said hearings were ok. You have decided to equate hearings = partisan witchhunt, ignoring the fact that Congress does have an oversight role over the Executive Branch.


Since there was no law broken on the commutation, why would you need hearings? The fact that you want hearings for something that was legally done is a pure example of a witch hunt.

1. How do you know no law was broken on the commutation? I don't. You don't. And there's enough questions surrounding the commutation (like, why the hell did it happen if Libby didn't even file an application for one?) that a hearing is justifiable. Just like it was for Marc Rich's pardon...the fact that his wife had donated to the campaign, etc. presented enough circumstances to justify hearings. So why object to hearings regarding this commutation?

2. Hearings happen on legal activities all the time. It's called Congressional oversight.

[Gan]

Hmm. I don't recall ever saying a partisan witchhunt is ok. I said hearings were ok. You have decided to equate hearings = partisan witchhunt, ignoring the fact that Congress does have an oversight role over the Executive Branch.
ROFL. When you can prove a law was broken, then you can have the hearings. Until then its either a witch hunt or a fishing expedition.




1. How do you know no law was broken on the commutation? I don't. You don't. And there's enough questions surrounding the commutation (like, why the hell did it happen if Libby didn't even file an application for one?) that a hearing is justifiable. Just like it was for Marc Rich's pardon...the fact that his wife had donated to the campaign, etc. presented enough circumstances to justify hearings. So why object to hearings regarding this commutation?
ROFL at your conspiracy theory. As soon as you can prove that there's a money tie between the pardoner and the pardonee then you can have a hearing. DONT MAKE ME GET OUT THE HAT!!! :lol: (you realize how many conspiracies that are floating around Clinton and some of the people he pardoned arent you?)


2. Hearings happen on legal activities all the time. It's called Congressional oversight.
Again, congressional oversight has its limitations just as executive privlege/executive powers has its limitations.

[Kembal]

ROFL. When you can prove a law was broken, then you can have the hearings. Until then its either a witch hunt or a fishing expedition.

Now that's just idiotically dumb to say.

1. That's the point of hearings...to investigate whether a law was broken or not.

2. The hearings for the Marc Rich pardon ended up proving no law was broken. So then are you going to say those were a partisan witchhunt?


ROFL at your conspiracy theory. As soon as you can prove that there's a money tie between the pardoner and the pardonee then you can have a hearing. DONT MAKE ME GET OUT THE HAT!!! :lol: (you realize how many conspiracies that are floating around Clinton and some of the people he pardoned arent you?)

Nice sidestep. Should apply to work for Tony Snow. I said nothing about money...I said there were questionable circumstances. Questionable circumstances deserve to be investigated.


Again, congressional oversight has its limitations just as executive privlege/executive powers has its limitations.

Please state these limitations in regards to oversight of the pardon/commutation power and the source of information that you are citing.

[Gan]

Now that's just idiotically dumb to say.
Only because you think its idiotic.


1. That's the point of hearings...to investigate whether a law was broken or not.
And yet you still think that you can legally compell people to participate without any evidence justifying the subpoena? In what court system do you propose to justify this?


2. The hearings for the Marc Rich pardon ended up proving no law was broken. So then are you going to say those were a partisan witchhunt?
Again, LOL at your "BUT THEY DID IT!!!!" excuse. I thought you were going to actually move forward with this... And look how fruitful the *hearings* for the Marc Rich pardon were. Do you think there would be a lesson learned in that?




Nice sidestep. Should apply to work for Tony Snow. I said nothing about money...I said there were questionable circumstances. Questionable circumstances deserve to be investigated.
Questionable circumstances deserved to be investigated, legally. You forgot the last part. ;) If the questions dont stand up to legal requirements, then they are only questionable ethically, no?
As for your money issue... yes you did: see below...


1. How do you know no law was broken on the commutation? I don't. You don't. And there's enough questions surrounding the commutation (like, why the hell did it happen if Libby didn't even file an application for one?) that a hearing is justifiable. Just like it was for Marc Rich's pardon...the fact that his wife had donated to the campaign, etc. presented enough circumstances to justify hearings. So why object to hearings regarding this commutation?


Please state these limitations in regards to oversight of the pardon/commutation power and the source of information that you are citing.
Surely you know the difference between implied and expressed powers laid out by the Constitution? The nature of congressional oversight of the executive branch is implied by the constitution. Not expressed as the powers of pardons and commutations are in the executive branch. The only addition to the implied powers was the reinforcement by the USC rulings: McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177 (1927). Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959) [Note: the cases just listed only document precedence insofar as between congressional investigations and private citizens, not between the branches of government]. Furthermore if you want precedence regarding direct conflicts between Congress and the executive branch you can go as far back as Washington when he refused to turn over documentation regarding treaty negotiations in 1796. Or you can look at Andrew Jackson and John Q. Adam's battles over executive privledge with Congress.

There has yet to be any ruling by the USC expressly stating that Congressional oversight trumps executive privledge with regards to responding to *hearings or investigations, especially on the basis of something carried out within the bounds of the powers expressed and with no evidence of malfeasence. Precedence demonstrates that all previous instances 'cooperative' in nature, not 'required' by any legal precedence.

So until you can demonstrate a law showing that oversight trumps executive privledge then you have find another means of proceeding with your *investigations and opportunities for impeachment. And for God's sake, quit banging on the conspiracy drum, at least until you can find further evidence to back up your theory. ;)

[Kembal]

Only because you think its idiotic.

And yet you still think that you can legally compell people to participate without any evidence justifying the subpoena? In what court system do you propose to justify this?

Here's the following from Congressional testimony by Morton Rosenberg of the Congressional Research Service in 2002 (emphasis added by me):


We are aware of no court precedent that imposes a threshold burden on committees to demonstrate, for example, a “substantial reason to believe wrongdoing occurred” before they may seek disclosure with respect to the conduct of specific open and closed criminal and civil cases. Indeed, the case law is quite to the contrary. An inquiring committee need only show that the information sought is within the broad subject matter of its authorized jurisdiction, is in aid of a legitimate legislative function, and is pertinent to the area of concern.

There's your legal requirements for a Congressional subopena.


Again, LOL at your "BUT THEY DID IT!!!!" excuse. I thought you were going to actually move forward with this... And look how fruitful the *hearings* for the Marc Rich pardon were. Do you think there would be a lesson learned in that?

Still didn't answer my question. Did you think those were a partisan witchhunt or not, seeing as there was no proof that lawbreaking occurred?

(And yes, I think those hearings were a little fruitful, as they caused a process to be set up by Bush to remove the appearance of impropriety around any pardons/commutations. Said process was ignored by Bush in the Libby commutation.)


Questionable circumstances deserved to be investigated, legally. You forgot the last part. ;) If the questions dont stand up to legal requirements, then they are only questionable ethically, no?
As for your money issue... yes you did: see below...

1. Read the above quote I posted.

2. I cited money as a questionable circumstance in regards to the Rich pardon. WTF does have to do with Libby? Seriously, that showed lack of reading comprehsion there.


Surely you know the difference between implied and expressed powers laid out by the Constitution? The nature of congressional oversight of the executive branch is implied by the constitution. Not expressed as the powers of pardons and commutations are in the executive branch. The only addition to the implied powers was the reinforcement by the USC rulings: McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 177 (1927). Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959).

There has yet to be any ruling by the USC expressly stating that Congressional oversight trumps executive privledge with regards to responding to *hearings or investigations, especially on the basis of something carried out within the bounds of the powers expressed and with no evidence of malfeasence. Precedence demonstrates that all previous instances 'cooperative' in nature, not 'required' by any legal precedence.

So until you can demonstrate a law showing that oversight trumps executive privledge then you have find another means of proceeding with your *investigations and opportunities for impeachment. And for God's sake, quit banging on the conspiracy drum, at least until you can find further evidence to back up your theory. ;)

There's never been a case on point, as you've said. But you're conflating two things here:

1. The power of pardon/commutation (an explicit power)

2. The power of executive privilege (an implied power)

A battle of subopenas vs. executive privilege would be an implied power vs. another implied power....not an implied vs. an expressed. It would depend on the type of executive privilege claimed as to whether Congress or the President would win. (there's two types.) The explicit pardon/commutation power would have no bearing on the case in regards to whether subopenas have to be followed or not. (incidentally, this will likely get resolved by the U.S. Attorneys issue first, as the White House just invoked executive privilege in order to not produce documents)

But why are you automatically assuming a stonewall via executive privilege? If Bush has nothing to hide, why not do what Clinton did and waive executive privilege?

[Gan]

Here's the following from Congressional testimony by Morton Rosenberg of the Congressional Research Service in 2002 (emphasis added by me):



There's your legal requirements for a Congressional subopena.
So you're saying that simple testimony is legal justification? :lol: Are you serious? Make it a ruling, or a law then you'll get my attention. Until then its just :blah:.




Still didn't answer my question. Did you think those were a partisan witchhunt or not, seeing as there was no proof that lawbreaking occurred?
Speaking of reading comprehension... Yes, for the love of pete. Yes they were a witchhunt. How can you not think that I consider them a waste of time with my views on the constitutional powers of the executive branch and the fact that I treat ALL pardons as something I dont like. But because I dislike it doesnt mean its wrong, or that its illegal. Thats something you might consider more.


(And yes, I think those hearings were a little fruitful, as they caused a process to be set up by Bush to remove the appearance of impropriety around any pardons/commutations. Said process was ignored by Bush in the Libby commutation.)
Wow, a process. Boy that looks good on paper! Thats like saying he had a process for wiping his ass with his right hand, but since he chose his left... THEN HE VIOLATED THE LAW!!! A process, :lol: give me a break.




1. Read the above quote I posted.

2. I cited money as a questionable circumstance in regards to the Rich pardon. WTF does have to do with Libby? Seriously, that showed lack of reading comprehsion there.
It has everything to do with how you seem to be setting up the Libby commute conspiracy.




There's never been a case on point, as you've said. But you're conflating two things here:

1. The power of pardon/commutation (an explicit power)

2. The power of executive privilege (an implied power)

A battle of subopenas vs. executive privilege would be an implied power vs. another implied power....not an implied vs. an expressed. It would depend on the type of executive privilege claimed as to whether Congress or the President would win. (there's two types.) The explicit pardon/commutation power would have no bearing on the case in regards to whether subopenas have to be followed or not. (incidentally, this will likely get resolved by the U.S. Attorneys issue first, as the White House just invoked executive privilege in order to not produce documents)
You're correct that we'll see a resolution on the executive privledge issue with the Attorney case refusal thats just hit the news. Funny thing its not the first time this has happened. And yet Congress is still fighting the same fight as before...

And you're forgetting that for subpoenas to be lawfully issued they have to have not only a lawful reason (using the act of commutation as a basis for the subpoenas wont fly because Bush was lawful in granting it); but also the subpoena must have relevance to that particular comittee issuing the subpoena. Everything you're using to justify why the subpoenas CANT be refused fail the lawful point because of what Bush did was indeed lawful. ;)


But why are you automatically assuming a stonewall via executive privilege? If Bush has nothing to hide, why not do what Clinton did and waive executive privilege?
Considering the direction and tone of the investigations that are coming at him, why would he not refuse if he's not lawfully required to comply? You seriously cant be that blind can you?

[TheEschaton]

Well, considering the tone Clinton faced, he did more than the bare minimum and outright waived privilege to prove his innocence. Bush refuses to do so, making his credibility shot.

As for the whole implied vs. express powers thing, the USC has continually reinforced that implied powers are very potent in the law. Just look at the Dormant Commerce Clause line of cases.

(although I agree, the challenge of congressional oversight of the executive branch is better played out in the subpoenas Bush failed to answer about the US Attorney firings, today, and the legal challenges there.)

-TheE-

[Kembal]

So you're saying that simple testimony is legal justification? :lol: Are you serious? Make it a ruling, or a law then you'll get my attention. Until then its just :blah:.

It's the head of the Congressional Research Service. You know, the nonpartisan part of Congress that's supposed to research various issues for Congress? And heck, his testimony is about the rulings that would govern the power of a Congressional subopena.

I don't have access to WestLaw or anything else for that matter that would let me look up rulings easily.


Speaking of reading comprehension... Yes, for the love of pete. Yes they were a witchhunt. How can you not think that I consider them a waste of time with my views on the constitutional powers of the executive branch and the fact that I treat ALL pardons as something I dont like. But because I dislike it doesnt mean its wrong, or that its illegal. Thats something you might consider more.

Ok, on point question, on point answer. We're getting somewhere. I actually disagree that the hearings on the Rich pardon (as opposed to say, the 19 for Whitewater) were a partisan witchhunt. But you've established that your standard must be proof of illegality before hearings.


Wow, a process. Boy that looks good on paper! Thats like saying he had a process for wiping his ass with his right hand, but since he chose his left... THEN HE VIOLATED THE LAW!!! A process, give me a break.

Again, I consider it a questionable circumstance. Why ignore your own processes?


It has everything to do with how you seem to be setting up the Libby commute conspiracy.

Here's a possible way how it's laid out:

1. Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, because he doesn't testify truthfully about his role in the Plame outing. Left unanswered because of his mendacity is whether the President or the Vice President had any role to play in the outing. (unlikely for the Pres., much more likely for the VP )
2. Libby does not call the VP to the witness stand during the trial, which his attorneys had said they were going to do, but reversed course at the last minute. The VP's role would've come up during cross-examination.
3. President does not pardon Libby, which frees him to answer questions before Congress without fear of prosecution (thus leaving him no way to not tell the truth), but commutes his sentence. Libby still can refuse to testify in front of Congress, citing his pending appeal and his 5th Amendment rights. Establishes a quid pro quo in conspiring to further obstruction of justice.

See, no money involved. Just a bunch of questionable circumstances that need to examined.


You're correct that we'll see a resolution on the executive privledge issue with the Attorney case refusal thats just hit the news. Funny thing its not the first time this has happened. And yet Congress is still fighting the same fight as before...

It's likely the President will lose on this. The Chief Justice should have to recuse himself, as he worked for Fred Fielding (current WH counsel) during the Reagan Administration and specifically worked on questions of executive privilege. Assuming a 4-4 split then (I have no idea which way Kennedy will go, but I'll assume he'll side with the President), that would mean the D.C. Appeals' court ruling would stand...and they've not exactly been nice to the President on the past few rulings in the three-judge panels.


And you're forgetting that for subpoenas to be lawfully issued they have to have not only a lawful reason (using the act of commutation as a basis for the subpoenas wont fly because Bush was lawful in granting it); but also the subpoena must have relevance to that particular comittee issuing the subpoena. Everything you're using to justify why the subpoenas CANT be refused fail the lawful point because of what Bush did was indeed lawful. ;)

While I dispute the "lawful" point (got a citation?), the Judiciary Committee would easily be relevant.


Considering the direction and tone of the investigations that are coming at him, why would he not refuse if he's not lawfully required to comply? You seriously cant be that blind can you?

In this case, the argument is that Clinton did it, even with the direction and tone of investigations against him. :)

But if Bush refused, the only way to bypass executive privilege (if Congress lost in the courts) would be to open an impeachment inquiry. No, I don't think that'll happen, but who the hell knows in 6 months?

[Gan]

It's the head of the Congressional Research Service. You know, the nonpartisan part of Congress that's supposed to research various issues for Congress? And heck, his testimony is about the rulings that would govern the power of a Congressional subopena.

I don't have access to WestLaw or anything else for that matter that would let me look up rulings easily.
Until its a court ruling or a law, its not enforceable. Period.



Again, I consider it a questionable circumstance. Why ignore your own processes?
Because there's no law that says you cant.



Here's a possible way how it's laid out:

1. Libby is convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, because he doesn't testify truthfully about his role in the Plame outing. Left unanswered because of his mendacity is whether the President or the Vice President had any role to play in the outing. (unlikely for the Pres., much more likely for the VP )
2. Libby does not call the VP to the witness stand during the trial, which his attorneys had said they were going to do, but reversed course at the last minute. The VP's role would've come up during cross-examination.
3. President does not pardon Libby, which frees him to answer questions before Congress without fear of prosecution (thus leaving him no way to not tell the truth), but commutes his sentence. Libby still can refuse to testify in front of Congress, citing his pending appeal and his 5th Amendment rights. Establishes a quid pro quo in conspiring to further obstruction of justice.

See, no money involved. Just a bunch of questionable circumstances that need to examined.
B+ for creativity. However, no where in that discourse is there proof of any illegal acts by anyone except Libby, which he has been tried and found guilty for. I would hazard a guess to say that isnt even enough to merit a probable cause warrant an most if any courts.



It's likely the President will lose on this. The Chief Justice should have to recuse himself, as he worked for Fred Fielding (current WH counsel) during the Reagan Administration and specifically worked on questions of executive privilege. Assuming a 4-4 split then (I have no idea which way Kennedy will go, but I'll assume he'll side with the President), that would mean the D.C. Appeals' court ruling would stand...and they've not exactly been nice to the President on the past few rulings in the three-judge panels.
Has there every been a USC Justice recuse him/herself on a writ?




While I dispute the "lawful" point (got a citation?), the Judiciary Committee would easily be relevant.
Common knowledge that there has to be a great preponderance of evidence or probable cause to merit a warrant or subpoena from a grand jury. Show me a warrant or subpoena that has not been required to show a lawful or valid reason warranting it. Now show me a court that will ride the line with what conjecture you have demonstrated thus far involving the two players it represents. I daresay you wont find a court willing to go there without hard evidence.




But if Bush refused, the only way to bypass executive privilege (if Congress lost in the courts) would be to open an impeachment inquiry. No, I don't think that'll happen, but who the hell knows in 6 months?
As much as Sheehan wants impeachment to happen, it wont.

[TheEschaton]

Common knowledge that there has to be a great preponderance of evidence or probable cause to merit a warrant or subpoena from a grand jury. Show me a warrant or subpoena that has not been required to show a lawful or valid reason warranting it. Now show me a court that will ride the line with what conjecture you have demonstrated thus far involving the two players it represents. I daresay you wont find a court willing to go there without hard evidence.

Err, you're mixing up warrants and subpoenas. Warrants need some sort of reason behind them.

Subpoenas? Hell, subpoenas are nothing. For example, today I was pouring over this guy's accounts, who we're possibly gonna indict on embezzlement charges. I see all these charges going in and out of his personal account, and I know the company names, but that's it. So what did I do? I subpoenaed all those companies to produce their records pertaining to this guy.

What's my preponderence of the evidence? I think there's a mere possibility he may have funnelled money through this company. But I have not an inkling of proof - I merely have a suspicion.

And yanno what would happen if any of those companies dare to not turn over their records? They'd be in contempt of court, and subject to fines and possible imprisonment.

The subpoena power is supposed to be very powerful - and it is. It requires no evidence of anything, just a suspicion.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

U.S. Garbage list
1)Taxes
2)Law
3)Health care (.b of taxes)
4)Liberals

[Gan]

Actually subpoena's were referenced in two ways, which seem to have blended in conversation.

Subpoena's as referenced in the Attorney Firing hearings.

And potential hearings with results of subpoenas in the commutation of Libby's sentence.

For the former, the only way a subpoena can be postponed is when its awaiting a ruling of appeal on its legality, which in this case its legality is being challenged by executive privledge.

The latter is still a hypothesis based on the conclusion that holding hearings are even justified in the Libby commutation. Albeit the justification doesnt appear to require a rule of law, just the approval of the oversight comitte to initiate. Once hearings are initiated (if they ever are) then the legality of the subpoena of records that result can be argued (again with executive privledge) and then if testimony is heard through successful subpoena, will warrants ever be produced and if so, on what legal basis... Its here, that I hold fast that there was no law breached by Bush in commuting Libby's sentence. And its here that the issue will fail the aim of the comittee providing it makes it past the executive privledge argument.

If you ask me, both seem to be fishing expeditions which will result in a confrontation of the two branches of government with the third giving a ruling on it.

[TheEschaton]

Subpoenas in general are fishing expeditions. It's how most investigations done, legally. It's just that we, as prosecutors, have an affirmative duty to not to A) use any information not pertaining to illegal behavior against the defendant, and B) make shit up.

-TheE-

[Kembal]

Actually subpoena's were referenced in two ways, which seem to have blended in conversation.

Subpoena's as referenced in the Attorney Firing hearings.

And potential hearings with results of subpoenas in the commutation of Libby's sentence.

For the former, the only way a subpoena can be postponed is when its awaiting a ruling of appeal on its legality, which in this case its legality is being challenged by executive privledge.

Technically, it's legality is not being challenged. What's going to be challenged as to which is the higher compelling state interest: the power of Congressional oversight, or the right of the President to receive candid advice from his advisors. The subopenas are, in all ways, legal.


The latter is still a hypothesis based on the conclusion that holding hearings are even justified in the Libby commutation. Albeit the justification doesnt appear to require a rule of law, just the approval of the oversight comitte to initiate. Once hearings are initiated (if they ever are) then the legality of the subpoena of records that result can be argued (again with executive privledge) and then if testimony is heard through successful subpoena, will warrants ever be produced and if so, on what legal basis... Its here, that I hold fast that there was no law breached by Bush in commuting Libby's sentence. And its here that the issue will fail the aim of the comittee providing it makes it past the executive privledge argument.

Hearings are starting on Wednesday in the House. Don't know what warrants have to do with anything...if via subopenas, Congress finds evidence of wrongdoing by the President, its only direct course of action is impeachment. (I don't think referring a criminal case to the U.S. Attorney for DC would work very well.) Or it could do censure (a.k.a. do nothing), which is what I think will happen.


If you ask me, both seem to be fishing expeditions which will result in a confrontation of the two branches of government with the third giving a ruling on it.

TheE has pretty much stated it, but that's really what a subopena is.

[Clove]

Well, considering the tone Clinton faced, he did more than the bare minimum and outright waived privilege to prove his innocence. Bush refuses to do so, making his credibility shot.
-TheE-

Hold on. I take exception to this. He's expected to waive privilege and prove his innocence? I thought our legal system was based upon the presumption of innocence?

[TheEschaton]

It was, until George Bush started indefinitely detaining prisoners without charges in Guantanemo.

See how I flipped it on you?

[Kembal]

Because there's no law that says you cant.

No, but how many people ignore the process that they themselves have set up? Add in the fact that he's only done it this one time, and that this one time, it was a member of his Administration. Those circumstances add up. (And there's a lot more of them.)


B+ for creativity. However, no where in that discourse is there proof of any illegal acts by anyone except Libby, which he has been tried and found guilty for. I would hazard a guess to say that isnt even enough to merit a probable cause warrant an most if any courts.

Umm...Bush giving the commutation establishes the quid pro quo.


Has there every been a USC Justice recuse him/herself on a writ?

Yes. The requirements for recusal have nothing to do regarding the type of matter before the court...just whether the court has ties to one of the parties, or in the case of the Supreme Court, has stated their position previously outside of a court ruling. Scalia had to recuse himself on some free-speech issue a while back (I want to say flag-burning, but might be something different) because he said in a speech that he opposed flag-burning. (if it was flag-burning)


As much as Sheehan wants impeachment to happen, it wont.

Yes, she's insane and/or obsessed at this point.

[thefarmer]

If a president uses executive privilege to hide his (and his staffers) misdeeds is there a legal way to find out if he's guilty if the only people who know are protected by the privilege? Outside of say random papers or emails left in an office.


How many see a multi-book/tv 'reporting' contract for Sheenan coming up? If she doesn't already have one.

[Sean of the Thread]

Most of you might as well be pissing on the constitution with your arguments.

[Clove]

It was, until George Bush started indefinitely detaining prisoners without charges in Guantanemo.

See how I flipped it on you?

"Officer... you didn't give that guy a speeding ticket, why am I getting one?" I expected better from you E.

[Sean of the Thread]

It was, until George Bush started indefinitely detaining prisoners without charges in Guantanemo.

See how I flipped it on you?

We should extend American rights to the entire world of terrorists!!!!

[Back]

Intresting FAQ on Contempt of Congress. Its a bit long.

Contempt of Congress: What is it? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/contempt_of_congress_q_a;_ylt=AtWiaO4G.Y6GUSdc8S2a iN5eW7oF)


Q: What is contempt of Congress, and why would Congress want to use this power?

A: Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: (1) to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and (2) for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.

Q: Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying?

A: It's not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.

Q: Is there any legal underpinning for a contempt of Congress citation?

A: Yes. The Supreme Court said as early as 1821 that without the power to hold people in contempt of Congress, the legislative branch would be "exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."

Q: What is the process for holding someone in contempt of Congress?

A: The procedure can start in either the House or the Senate. The two chambers do not work together on contempt citations. It only takes one chamber to refer a person to be prosecuted for contempt. A contempt citation can start with a subcommittee, a full committee or in the full House or Senate.

If it starts at the committee level and a person refuses to comply with a committee subpoena, the committee has to vote to move a criminal contempt citation forward. It takes a majority vote for the citation to move to the full House or Senate.

Q: What happens next?

A: Once the full House or Senate has a contempt citation, it must be debated by the full chamber like any other resolution. It is subject to the same filibuster and procedural rules as any other House or Senate resolution. It takes a majority vote to be approved.

Once approved, the House speaker or the Senate president pro tem then turns the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to the law.

Q: Is the U.S. attorney required to prosecute?

A: Depends on whom you ask. The law says the U.S. attorney "shall" bring the matter to a grand jury.

However, the House voted 259-105 in 1982 for a contempt citation against EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch but the Reagan-era Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.

The Justice Department also sued the House of Representatives, saying its attempt to force Gorsuch to turn over documents interfered with the executive branch. The court threw the case out and urged negotiation between the executive and the legislative branches. The Justice Department did not appeal the ruling, and the Reagan administration eventually agreed to turn over the documents.

Q: When was the last time a full chamber of Congress, either the Senate or the House, voted on a contempt of Congress citation?

A: The year was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

Q: What is the punishment upon conviction for contempt of Congress?

A: Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in federal prison.

Q: Is the contempt of Congress power used often in fights between the legislative branch and the executive branch?

A: Since 1975, 10 Cabinet-level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt by subcommittees or committees for failure to produce subpoenaed documents. They are Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Commerce Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton in 1975; Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano Jr. in 1978; Energy Secretary Charles Duncan in 1980; Energy Secretary James B. Edwards in 1981; Interior Secretary James Watt in 1982; Gorsuch, known as Anne Gorsuch Burford after a 1983 marriage, and Attorney General William French Smith in 1983; White House Counsel John M. Quinn in 1996; and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.

The White House and Congress came to negotiated agreements in each case before criminal proceedings could begin.

Q: Does the president's executive privilege trump Congress' contempt citation?

A: That's the big question that both sides really don't want answered. In the past, neither side has been willing to let the matter go up to the Supreme Court for fear that their side would lose.

If Congress loses, then it would have a hard time investigating future presidents, Republican and Democrat. If the White House loses, the current president and future ones can expect numerous requests from a reinvigorated Congress, whether controlled by the Democrats or Republicans.

Q: Is there anything the president can do once someone has been convicted of contempt of Congress?

A: Contempt of Congress is a federal crime like any other. The sitting president has the authority as chief executive to commute or pardon anyone of any federal crime.

[Tea & Strumpets]

We should extend American rights to the entire world of terrorists!!!!

A majority of the people in Guantenomo are innocent civilians that were just minding their own business. They should not be arrested until they explode.

[ElanthianSiren]

In response to Backlash -- do you see contempt procedures as simply a way to make Bush pardon more people (last section of your article) and attempt to make the republicans look bad? If so, don't you find that a waste of time, as there will always be individuals that vote republican no matter what and major 2008 candidates have already distanced themselves from these pardons? The whole situation makes both sides look rather childish IMO (We want you to testify NOW, meanies! WELL WE'RE NOT GONNA!! NEENER NEENER NEENER! WELL THEN WE'LL HAUL YOUR ASS IN! YOU'RE NOT ABOVE OUR POWERS! OH YES WE ARE! OH NO YOU'RE NOT! OH YES WE ARE! OH NO YOU'RE NOT -- INFINITY!)

For the lawyers -- if the president is held in contempt of congress, can he pardon himself?

[Kembal]

If a president uses executive privilege to hide his (and his staffers) misdeeds is there a legal way to find out if he's guilty if the only people who know are protected by the privilege? Outside of say random papers or emails left in an office.

An impeachment inquiry. Executive privilege cannot be used to shield anything during those. (An inpeachment inquiry is different than voting on articles of impeachment...it's considered the formal investigation process used to determine whether there are any offenses that could rise to articles of impeachment.)

That's only the legal way I know of to get around executive privilege. Don't think it'll happen though.

[Kembal]

In response to Backlash -- do you see contempt procedures as simply a way to make Bush pardon more people (last section of your article) and attempt to make the republicans look bad? If so, don't you find that a waste of time, as there will always be individuals that vote republican no matter what and major 2008 candidates have already distanced themselves from these pardons?

Backlash's FAQ covered only one type of contempt proceeding...there is a second, called inherent contempt of congress. (hasn't been used in about 100 years or so) In that, the House or Senate Sergeant-At-Arms would phyiscally go arrest the person cited and throw them in the Congressional jail (one wonder if that still exists), and the chamber that voted the contempt charge would hold a trial for the person.

Now that'd be a spectacle, heh.

As far as major 2008 candidates distancing themselves from the pardon...as far as I can tell, all of the major Republican candidates have supported it except for McCain (who's been silent), and McCain's campaign just imploded today.


For the lawyers -- if the president is held in contempt of congress, can he pardon himself?

Not a lawyer, but yes, he can...but not if he's had articles of impeachment charged against him. His pardon powers are suspended during impeachment proceedings. That'd also be a bizarre spectacle.

[Back]

In response to Backlash -- do you see contempt procedures as simply a way to make Bush pardon more people (last section of your article) and attempt to make the republicans look bad? If so, don't you find that a waste of time, as there will always be individuals that vote republican no matter what and major 2008 candidates have already distanced themselves from these pardons? The whole situation makes both sides look rather childish IMO (We want you to testify NOW, meanies! WELL WE'RE NOT GONNA!! NEENER NEENER NEENER! WELL THEN WE'LL HAUL YOUR ASS IN! YOU'RE NOT ABOVE OUR POWERS! OH YES WE ARE! OH NO YOU'RE NOT! OH YES WE ARE! OH NO YOU'RE NOT -- INFINITY!)

For the lawyers -- if the president is held in contempt of congress, can he pardon himself?

I only posted that as general information as opposed to making a particular point. I came across it this morning and thought it would add to the discussion.

My opinion is lets make the rules on successful checks and balances more clear and specifically in this case my feeling is if nothing is wrong there is nothing to hide. I mean... the same could be said for wire-tapping, right?

[thefarmer]

An impeachment inquiry. Executive privilege cannot be used to shield anything during those. (An inpeachment inquiry is different than voting on articles of impeachment...it's considered the formal investigation process used to determine whether there are any offenses that could rise to articles of impeachment.)

That's only the legal way I know of to get around executive privilege. Don't think it'll happen though.

I suppose I could look it up, but people seem to be quick to answer here.

Does an impeachment inquiry require a basis of fact to be started? Or can it legally be done on a whim?

[Artha]

It has to be voted on, I believe.

[Stretch]

I had toast and jam for breakfast.

[Warriorbird]

Most of you might as well be pissing on the constitution with your arguments.
-Sean2

Given how regularly Bush2 and Clinton did/have done pretty much that...what do you expect?

[Kembal]

I suppose I could look it up, but people seem to be quick to answer here.

Does an impeachment inquiry require a basis of fact to be started? Or can it legally be done on a whim?

As Artha said, the Judiciary Committee (which is where they all start) would have to vote to start one. One would presume that some basis of fact would be necessary to get those votes.

Then again, Andrew Johnson got impeached for violating the patently unconstitutional Term of Office Act, so I dunno.

[Back]

Since we are delving to the impeachment questions... here is an interesting faq I found.

Twenty Questions About Impeaching A Vice President (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1185)



1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office by impeachment?

A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50% plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict.


2. Q: Why is it so simple?

A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.


3. Q: What is an impeachable offense?

A: An impeachable offense can be as nebulous as “He practices cronyism.” We can call this a misdemeanor. According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 4, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” President Gerald Ford was correct when he said in 1970 that, “An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in its history.”


4. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice president based on the notion that the person of greater authority – the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his administration?

A: No, none whatsoever.


5. Q: Would the Senate have to provide such things as reasonable time for the defense to prepare its case, and a close scrutinizing of evidence?

A: No. The Senate is procedurally bound only by the rules it makes for itself. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 5 (2), says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”


6. Q: Doesn’t the accused have rights? Where are the wheels of justice here?


A: Justice does not come into it. Think of it this way: If a congresswoman has done a fabulous job for two years, but fails to win reelection, does she have any redress? Of course not. She holds office at the pleasure of the voters, and they indicate their pleasure every two years. A president takes office at the pleasure of the voters, but he holds onto office at the pleasure of Congress. At any time in our history, Congress could have ejected a president or a vice president.


7. Q: Has this ever happened?

A: Congress has never impeached a vice president, but it impeached two presidents – Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. In both cases, the Senate subsequently failed to convict. Many people mistakenly believe that Richard Nixon, too, was impeached. The House Judiciary Committee had voted three Articles of Impeachment against him, but the matter was never put to the full House for a vote because Mr. Nixon promptly resigned.



8. Q: What does an impeachment trial look like?

A: It is held in the Senate Chamber and looks like a normal Senate session, except that all Senators are sworn in as jurors. Article I, Section 3 (6) of the Constitution says, “When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” The man of the hour may attend or send someone to represent him. He can plead guilty or refute the charges. Each Senator must stand at her place and pronounce her judgment as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ The Constitution requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come over to the Senate Chamber to preside when a president is being impeached. In 1986, the Senate extended this to cover vice presidents.


9. Q: Is it easy to eject a vice president with whom the people are dissatisfied?

A: Yes, it’s a snap. It takes only one House member to propose impeachment. Then, 219 out of the 435 members must agree, if all are present and voting (fewer, if some are absent from the House or abstain from voting). So your question boils down to: Are there 219 House members willing to vote to impeach? The answer is “Yes, if they feel that it is in their interest” - whatever way they may calculate that interest. Part of their calculation may be to look ahead and see if 67 Senators would be willing to convict the vice president.



10. Q: The number sixty-seven seems very high. Would it ever be possible to get that many votes?

A: It is possible to get the full 100 Senate votes if all you are asking about is ‘possibility’. In reality, during President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1867, only a single vote in the Senate spared him from conviction (since there were fewer states then, the two-thirds majority was smaller than 67). At Clinton’s trial, the vote on one of his two Articles of Impeachment was 55-45. On the second one, it was 50-50.


11. Q: Regarding the current vice president, Richard Cheney, are we precluded from impeaching during the time that his former assistant, Mr. Lewis Libby, is facing prosecution for alleged crimes?

A: No. There is no reason to hold back - the Libby case may take years. However, persons wishing to take care not to prejudice Mr. Libby’s trial may wisely urge that any impeachable offense brought forward against the vice president be of a type pertaining specifically to him.


12. Q: Could the president offer a pardon to thwart the process of impeachment?

A: No. The Constitution puts only one restriction on the president’s power to pardon, namely it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.


13. Q: Does this mean that if by any chance Mr. Cheney has committed a crime he can never enjoy a pardon?

A: No, it does not mean that. President Bush, or a later president, could pardon Mr. Cheney. The president is prevented only from interfering in the process of impeachment.



14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?

A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very moment.



15. Q: Are you suggesting that President Bush could pardon a person’s crime in advance of the person being convicted of any crime?

A: Yes. The elder President Bush (president from 1989 to 1993) issued a pardon a few weeks before he left office, for Caspar Weinberger, who at that point had not been convicted of anything. Quite possibly his motive was to avoid being subpoenaed as a witness at Weinberger’s trial. As a witness, Bush could be cross-examined and his own dealings in the Iran-Contra affair could have been revealed.


16. Q: Did the president dishonor the Constitution by doing that?

A: No. He played the Constitution for all it is worth. That is what the Constitution is for. It is not an idealistic statement; it is a scheme for allocating power and controlling power by checks and balances. The Founding Fathers put many restraints on the president but gave him his head when it came to pardons. They probably wanted the president to have bargaining chips that he could use in difficult or dangerous circumstances.



17. Q: Strategically, from the viewpoint of the current vice-president, what would be the best move to make if rumors of impeachment start to swirl?

A: Presuming that Mr. Cheney would hate to lose the position of immense power that he now occupies, his options would be a) to hasten to correct any offending behaviors, or b) to try to get the president ejected from office, in which case he himself would immediately become president.



18. Q: When a vice president leaves office before his term is up, how is he replaced?

A: If a vice president dies, resigns, or is impeached, the president can nominate any American-born citizen, age 35 or older. That nomination must then be confirmed by a majority in both Houses of Congress before the person can be sworn in as the new vice president.


19. Q: How can a citizen start impeachment activity?

A: By ‘talking it up,’ by seeking publicity for the idea, and by persuading a Congressperson to propose it. Since 2001 when President George W. Bush took office, there have been numerous public calls for his impeachment and some of these extend their proposal to include the impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. One proposal that names all of those persons is sponsored by Ramsey Clark, who was Attorney General in the 1960s. So far, 607,000 citizens have signed his petition. Number 16 in Clark’s list of complaints sounds particularly relevant to the vice president, namely “refusal to provide information and records [needed for] legislative oversight of executive functions.”


20. Q: Is Mr. Cheney currently threatened with any prosecutions?

A: The case of Rodriguez v. Bush, names Bush, Cheney, and several others as defendants in a RICO suit. This is not a criminal prosecution, but is a civil suit that asks for criminal penalties, if appropriate. ‘RICO’ stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. A judge recently transferred this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York because it accuses the government of crimes related to September 11th and the U.S. Attorney has decided to coordinate numerous September 11th cases at that court. The mainstream media never mentions the Rodriguez v. Bush case, but it is available on the Internet.

[TheEschaton]

Why must you post FAQS for the clinically retarded?

[Sean of the Thread]

Why do you ask stupid questions.






hehehe

[Parkbandit]

Why must you post FAQS for the clinically retarded?

It's where Backlash gets answers to his stupid questions.