by Frank James
Remember that whole tempest over the fired U.S. attorneys? It died down somewhat after Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general who seemed not to know a whole lot about what was happening inside the Justice Department he was running, exited the scene, stage right.
It's still a live issue on the Hill, however. The House Judiciary Committee unleashed today an 862-page report spelling out why, the House as a whole, should approve contempt of Congress charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.
The panel wants them found in contempt for their failure to turn over subpoenaed documents House Democrats want in order to probe the firings. Democrats have long believed certain White House officials (especially a former one with the initials K.R.) orchestrated the firings because the dismissed federal prosecutors weren't as partisan in their prosections as was desired.
The White House has claimed the documents, including e-mails sought by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, are protected by executive privilege.
Since the curent U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, acting for the Bush Administration, would eventually have to bring the charges before a federal court before Miers and Bolten could be officially found in contempt, the chances of this behemoth of a document actually accomplishing its purposes are about nil.
Here's a good explainer found on the MSNBC website of the contempt-of-Congress process.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
As I read the article in the post relative to this story I couldn't believe the writer had sadi it isn't clear because of the word 'shall'. below is the official definition according to Encarta. I point out definition #3 as most appropriate. I'm I wrong here is isn't it as clear as day that shall means will?
shall [ stressed shal, unstressed shəl ] (2nd person present plural shalt (archaic))
CORE MEANING: will happen in the future, or intended to happen
I shall as president promote measures that keep families whole.
modal v
Definition:
1. future events: indicates that something will or ought to happen in the future
2. determination: used especially in formal speech and writing to indicate determination on the part of the speaker that something will happen or somebody will do something
If you want to behave like that you shall certainly not do it here.
3. rules and laws: indicating that something must happen or somebody is obliged to do something because of a rule or law
The department shall issue an account number to the vehicle owner.
4. offers and suggestions: used to make offers and suggestions or to ask for advice ( used in questions )
Shall I arrange it for you?
What shall I do next?
5. certainty: indicating the certainty or inevitability of something happening in the future
If you want a new outfit that badly then you shall have one.
Posted by: David Linder | November 5, 2007 4:57 PM
Question to Dana Perino:is your article of faith that "they know that it won't go anywhere" because you know that Bush's attorneys will simply invoke "executive privilege" to quash the entire issue?
Just wondering.
Posted by: C. Deliostro | November 5, 2007 6:02 PM
It took a House Panel and how long to figure this one out? That is the real head-scratcher.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | November 5, 2007 6:09 PM
Def;
NewSpeak;
A rhetorical technique used to render English meaningless. (Eric Blair)
Posted by: C.Morris | November 5, 2007 7:08 PM
Contempt of Congress? Get to the end of the line...and it's a long line.
Posted by: Santerini | November 5, 2007 7:30 PM
"Bring it on," we've got the Supreme Court wrapped up for the next 20 years.
Posted by: Jerry White brother | November 5, 2007 7:53 PM
Complaint;
The posting times are very very slow.
What's up with that?
Posted by: C.Morris | November 5, 2007 8:23 PM
Children I'll parse it for you. John Conyers doesn't have the powers he seeks.This whole exercise is to embarrass the Peesident. Conyers can't make W give him something that is excluded from executive powers of the President. Conyers won't get any where this is his dream. Remember, separation of powers it's in the Constitution. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | November 5, 2007 8:56 PM
That's hilarious, congress with an eleven percent rating claiming others are less than pure. hahahahahahahahahahahaha
We are one of the most corrupt nations on the planet as so9ooo many of our actions prove, especially our totally corrupt congress and whitehouse--or should I say brownhouse.
LOOK OUT, THE IRAQI'S ARE GONNA SEND A MUSHRROM CLOUD OUR WAY, KILL EMN ALL. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Posted by: Boy Scout | November 5, 2007 8:58 PM
LOOK OUT, THE IRAQI'S ARE GONNA SEND A MUSHRROM CLOUD OUR WAY, KILL EMN ALL. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Posted by: Boy Scout | November 5, 2007 8:58 PM
Right on Boy Scout...I think maybe huh?
Bush/Cheney
Impeach & imprison!
Posted by: slippery slope | November 5, 2007 9:51 PM
Remember, separation of powers it's in the Constitution. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Ummm, someone needs to remind president cheney and vp bush of the separation of powers. They seem to think they are more important than congress and the sc combined. More hypocritical bs from the 26% dead enders.
Posted by: rncbs | November 5, 2007 10:30 PM
Ummm, someone needs to remind president cheney and vp bush of the separation of powers.
Posted by: rncbs | November 5, 2007 10:30 PM
Repeal the bill of rights and the 22nd amendment!!!
Bush/Cheney in 2008.
Waterboard dissent.
Freedom of speech just watch what you say!!!
Posted by: Aung San Suu Kyi | November 6, 2007 10:02 AM