So when they continue to ignore the subpoenas, and the justice department refuses to charge the AG

[still_one]

with perjury, what will happen?

[DCKit]

1. Can we outsource it? n/t

[Sapere aude]

2. And the SCOTUS puts party before the constitution, we can thank the wing nuts for

destroying democracy in this country. Or should I say destroying the republic as they like to call it.


Lady, "What kind of government do we have?"

Founding Father, " A republic until W gets his way."

[tridim]

4. Impeach the SCOTUS then.

It's OVER BushCo. Resign!

[kenny blankenship]

3. Bush will pardon them for good measure

[KitchenWitch]

10. Right you are, Ken!

Sorry, could not resist the reference!

:hide:

[Buns_of_Fire]

14. Don't forget the Medal of Freedom!

OFFICALLY presented by the OFFICIAL resident of the White House, and OFFICIALLY struck on OFFICIAL metal! Limit four per customer. $29.95 plus S&H.

[frogcycle]

5. these are just necessary steps

to assure i's are dotted and t's crossed. build the case.


this admin is coming down. Somehow, some way. It might eventually be multiple impeachment, might be something else. If/when they get the real goods there may have to be some sort of emergency extra-Constitutional remedy. Like imagine, say, that they learned that one of the top skunks ordered the assassination of a former football player, but even with that info 40-plus puke pugs still refused to vote for impeachment. And the stacked SCOTUS refused to support contempt.

That would be a demonstration of an abject failure of the system the Founders designed.

The Congress has the authority to arrest them all for inherent contempt and hold them for the duration of its term. To make such a move, it absolutely has to have overwhelming public support. So it keeps giving them more and more rope to hang themselves. If something does not give before it gets to that point, well, stand by for fireworks.

[still_one]

7. I understand that, but when the Justice department refuses to prosecute

what can we really do?

[frogcycle]

12. DoJ does not prosecute Inherent Contempt

we need to get them to refuse, repeatedly, to prove emphatically that the system is as broken as we all know it is

Then have the Sgt-at-Arms round them up and try them in Congress. In Inherent Contempt congress is both prosecutor and judge. And it does not require 67 senators to convict. Nor 60 - just a simple majority. It may or may not require both houses - there seems to be some disagreement on that, but if it does, then it only requires 51 Senators.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/03/dusting_off_inh.html

A few astute commenters observed that Congress has another weapon in its arsenal for backing up the subpoena power: the long-dormant "inherent contempt" process, described below in the Congressional Research Service's "Congressional Oversight Manual" (PDF):

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.

[PA Democrat]

6. Congress could pass legislation to re-institute the

Office of the Independent Counsel. The law authorizing this was allowed to expire after the abuse of the position by Ken Starr.

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

[still_one]

8. Actually that is plausable. However, why would the republicans go for it /nt

[PA Democrat]

11. The stench of corruption may eventually get to them as well.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find too many Republican members of Congress willing to support Gonzales, by voting against the bill. My guess they would make a late night visit to "persuade" Alberto to reconsider the advantages of spending more time with his family.

[still_one]

16. Specter definitely is not pleased, and if they really thought of the consequences

they should jump on board, but I am still skeptical

[PA Democrat]

18. Arlen Specter? Didn't you hear that he's a Democrat now?

At least according to FOX News.:evilgrin:

Seriously, though, I think the tide is turning. Smart Republicans will not blow their chances for reelection by associating with someone as sleazy as Gonzales. Just that story about the hospital visit to Ashcroft will give most Americans the creeps. Top that with the torture that he's condoned, the wiretapping, etc. Most Americans haven't been paying all that much attention to this story because the media hasn't covered it all that much up until now. I think they'll cover the ensuing fireworks if the Democrats go this route.

[guitar man]

17. cue Larry Flynt??

:shrug:

:evilgrin:

[reichstag911]

15. They'd never get cloture. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Assuming Congress does their jobs...

they'll go through with impeachment, those who ignored subpoenas will go to jail, and Bush will be removed from office.

If he refuses that too, then we'd have the sort of constitutional crisis that kept us up at nights during Watergate. That the Commander-in-Chief will arbitrarily decide to stay in power and use his forces to ensure it, i.e. a military coup.

[NewJeffCT]

13. They then go to inherent contempt

and have the House or Senate Sergeant-at-Arms physically go to arrest them and drag their asses to Congress, where they stand trial and may get tossed into jail.

Then, Bush will pardon them.

[Disturbed]

19. "Then, Bush will pardon them"

He cannot do so.