We note with pleasure the return of our royal friend and colleague Simbaud to the active throne. He points us to Scott Horton’s post at Harper’s, “Congress Cites Bolten and Miers for Contempt — But Is the Issue Really Impeachment?”. We certainly hope it is.
Horton’s point is that the House vote this week to hold in contempt the contemptible Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten seems gratuitous, in that there’s next to no chance of it being enforced. No Attorney General working for Dick Cheney will ever prosecute Republican lawbreakers, no matter what law they break; and a court case, which the House can mount even if main Justice opposes it, will show no results before the eagerly awaited January 20, 2009.
But past experience indicates that John Conyers does not act gratuitously, and Horton’s sources tell him that the DoJ investigation into the firings of US attorneys like New Mexico’s David Iglesias are likely to conclude that the firings were politically motivated.
Now the Justice Department’s investigation focuses only on Alberto Gonzales, Paul McNulty and a handful of other senior political appointees, almost all of whom have left. It does not have the jurisdiction to address staffers in the White House like Rove, Miers and Bolten, nor indeed, President Bush.But they are clearly within the jurisdictional remit of the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, if the Justice Department’s report implicates not just Rove, Miers and Bolten, but also Bush in the decision to fire for improper reasons — a conclusion which is now looking extremely likely — then it will be up to Conyers’s committee to press the investigation forward. In so doing, he is entitled to conduct hearings on the footing of impeachment. If he does, the executive privilege objection interposed by the White House and backed in another Constitution-defying opinion of the Attorney General, would not apply.
It’s even possible that the obviousness of White House influence in the firings would overcome the well-known resistance of the Speaker to anything that might hurt the Republican administration. We can hope, at least.
America is counting on John Conyers.
Posted by: Michael on February 18, 2008 4:54 AMWe can always hope. Conyers, who was holding faux-impeachment hearings in the Capitol basement when he didn't have the power to act, has done nothing about impeachment since he gained the power.
The Democratic "leadership" has utterly failed to recognize that ONLY by impeaching the dastardly duo can they accomplish anything worthwhile. The neo-fascists dominate 2 of the 3 branches of government and have effectively blocked the legislative branch from acting. Maybe if Conyers hold impeachment level hearings and forces the Bushits to testify under oath in public on television to their criminal behavior, the American people will finally rise up and demand the restoration of the Republic.
Posted by: Charles on February 18, 2008 8:32 AMTrue, Conyers has done nothing to move impeachment along since the Democrats took over, but that's Pelosi's fault, not Conyers's.
Seems to me that Pelosi, Reid, and the other so-called leaders have a clear set of goals, but those goals are based on the concept of holding power for themselves. Doing what the country needs, and the Constitution requires, is not on the list. That's why I rag on Pelosi, and don't vote for her. I did once, long ago, when I'd just moved here and didn't know what I was doing.
I think the population at large already wants impeachment, but Pelosi, Reid, et.al. think that would hurt their chances in November, and what's more important than that?
Posted by: Chuck Dupree on February 18, 2008 3:33 PM