Senate subpoenas White House, Cheney on eavesdropping

ViolaLee

ViolaLee

We are not amused
Hold on tight, here it comes.

How does this work, the White House refuses to testify in front of the Senate and then the court date is set?

Senate subpoenas White House, Cheney on eavesdropping
By Laurie Kellman

The Associated Press
Senate subpoenas White House, Cheney on eavesdropping

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office today for documents relating to President Bush's controversial eavesdropping program that operated warrant-free for five years.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply, according to a statement by Leahy's office.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program, which Bush put under court review earlier this year.

"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said in his cover letters for the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."

In fact, the Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans — Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa — sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.

The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.
Click to expand...

Seattle Times
 
ViolaLee said:
Hold on tight, here it comes.

How does this work, the White House refuses to testify in front of the Senate and then the court date is set?



Seattle Times
Click to expand...
Not only could it end up in the courts. but obviously will. Further, this could be the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to impeachment of either person.
 
The best thing that could happen to this country is to deal with theses assholes while they are in still in office.

I truely hope congress keeps a backbone and faces full on this coming constitutional crisis.

Its what the country needs.

If it just gets "waited out"
until they are out of office the trust in government in this country will suffer an even greater blow.
 
ViolaLee said:
Hold on tight, here it comes.

How does this work, the White House refuses to testify in front of the Senate and then the court date is set?

Seattle Times
Click to expand...


How does this work, the White House refuses to testify in front of the Senate and then the court date is set?

There's a problem here, I hadn't considered until recently. Congress has no authority to prosecute anyone for comtempt of congress. All they can do is refer the alleged infraction to the Justice Department. And the Justice Department has the authority to decide whether to press charges. The actual prosecution of contempt of Congress charges is the responsibility of a U.S. Attorney. Ooops!

Now, it's all becoming clear: the politization of DOJ. DOJ is not bloody likely to seek prosecutions in court, for contempt of congress. They'll make the case that this is a political fight, that the courts can't decide. It's for the two other branches to figure out and resolve.


Congress does have authority to press forward on inherent comtempt of congress (in contrast to statutory contempt). Under Inherent comtempt, Congress can actually have someone arrested by the Capitol Police and dragged before congress. But, this is rarely done. And it raises the prospect of the Capitol Police and the Capitol Sargeant at Arms being physically barred from entering the White House to make an arrest, by the Secret Service.

That would be awesome! lol
 
That is the real crux of the problem isn't it Desh. Congress is s spinless wussy bunch.
I guess you get that way after selling your votes so often to lobbyists.
 
Many are , they should force it to the point where Cheney and Bush cant leave the WH for fear of arrest.
 
ViolaLee said:
So they can't take it to court unless the DOJ initiates that process?

.
Click to expand...

Yes.

I just assumed, when Dems won congress, that any government official - including the white house - would comply with a congressional subpena. As a matter of principle.

I never assumed they would just blow it off. And thus, I never thought about the process for getting someone to actually comply with a congressional subpena if they blew it off.

It's totally up to DOJ. The Karl Rovian plan all makes sense now ;)
 
They can't press charges for contempt, but they do have the power to start impeachment proceedings, Cy. It may come down to that.
 
ib1yysguy said:
They can't press charges for contempt, but they do have the power to start impeachment proceedings, Cy. It may come down to that.
Click to expand...

good impeache the basterds... then the left will have their revenge for gore and clintion ... but then again, what diffrence will it make... the next will be just as bad no matter what party they are from.... nothing good will happen until both the repubs and the dems no longer have control
 
is it me that's confused, or the Whitehouse. I thought this problem had to
do with the firing of those Attorneys, then I hear that it has to do with the Warrantless wiretaps. Now it is back to being the Attorney problem and not offering up whitehouse communication. If it is about the Attorneys, how does Harriet Myers fit in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top