so good old harriet, "he's really cool", miers got to skate, huh?

[Javaman]

color me surprised.

Dems in congress, the clue phone is ringing for you. Please for the love of god and everything that is good, will you pick the fucking thing up????

:banghead:

[HughMoran]

1. Throw her in jail

And let's hope her life is ruined - who's going to want to associate with here except other neocon morons.

[Atman]

2. Uh...no. She's in contempt. They have five days to decide what to do next.

No one has skated anywhere yet. Although I wouldn't be surprised to find a private jet fueling up for a flight to Paraguay in a day or two.

.

[Javaman]

10. This reminded me of the scene from the life of brian where the

various political groups rebelling against the romans are constantly calling meeting for meetings.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

3. Did I miss something? My computer crashed just before the end of the hearing but I thought

they were going to cite her for contempt.

[BlackHawk706867]

4. No she didn't, she will be facing "Contempt of Congress" charges! eom ww

[Drum]

5. I thought that today's hearing

resulted in a majority finding that there's a contempt citation coming...probably by extension involving Bush and Rove et al. I would think that this will go to the Supreme Court. From there...who can say, but it seemed like progress to me.

Am I totally off in thinking this? Did you see the same hearing I did?

[Kagemusha]

6. I'll just say this and not post to these threads anymore today...

Being ordered to honor the subpoena within 5 additional days or face action in court is not "skating". I don't know what you're expecting, an order to the Sergeant of Arms to seize Miers and physically drag her to the Hill? That's what you want to see, a not particularly young woman being manhandled on TV? This is not skating. It's delivering an ultimatum to follow the law, like people are expected to do in an actual civilized country.

[Bluebear]

9. You could post to them without sarcasm and educate us if you know.

In the other thread you accuse me of wanting to "break the rules", why not just educate each other?

[Kagemusha]

12. I just responded to that. Sigh.

Because I can't take what I heard second hand as fact, that's why. I don't personally know the senate rules. I know that there is no precedent for um... actually I have no idea what the original poster wants to see done. But that's different from knowing the rules myself, personally, as my own authority.

I have read enough history to have the understanding that this is how it is done, that Congress has never just commanded someone arrested instantly for not showing up after having been given a dubious claim of why it's not necessary. People are given an opportunity to 'come to Jesus' and if they don't, i.e. if they persist in contempt, that's when the law comes down hard. It has never been faster, ever. Why it should be now, I don't understand. Five days compared to the history of the Republic is nothing.

But harp on how I'm a know-nothing moron all you like. I'm out of here.

[Bluebear]

13. Who called you a know-nothing moron?

Good gravy, I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities. I'll be "out of here" too, discussion and education is a lost art these days. Mata ne.

[Javaman]

14. so in essance what you are saying is that they held a vote to have a future vote???

pretty much what I expected.

she doesn't show, and is ordered by moron* not to show, both of which are against the law, so what do they do? let's have another meeting in 5 days!!! weeeeee....

[Kagemusha]

16. ... Fine, one last post.

No, they held a vote upholding the chair's ruling that Miers has no legal leg to stand on and that the subpoena will be enforced. Miers has 5 days to show up. No further vote is required. If Miers doesn't show, THE COMMITTEE GOES TO COURT TO HAVE THE SUBPOENA UPHELD BY A COURT OF __LAW__.

The essence of what I am saying is that they held a vote to back the Hammer of God coming down, provided there is not unconditional surrender within 5 days, because the chair ruled that Miers has absolutely no valid legal grounds to refuse. Among these grounds: the President's WH counsel can't assert executive privilege; only the President can, and the President has not bothered to do so.

[Javaman]

18. Thanks for the clarification, but why didn't they just use

inherent contempt?

From what I understand they can just go arrest her, considering that she willfully refused to show and bush forbid her to show.

sorry, I'm just frustrated beyond words by this whole mess.

[Kagemusha]

26. Well, the House has a rule requiring at least 72 hours' notice.

Of course that's the House but surely the Senate has something similar...

"
(N) Contempt Procedures.—No recommendation that a person be
cited for contempt of Congress shall be forwarded to the House unless
and until the Committee has, upon notice to all its Members,
met and considered the alleged contempt. The person to be cited for
contempt shall be afforded, upon notice of at least 72 hours, an opportunity
to state why he or she should not be held in contempt,
prior to a vote of all the Committee, a quorum being present, on

the question whether to forward such recommendation to the
House. Such statement shall be, in the discretion of the Chairman,
either in writing or in person before the Committee."

Someone posted this on a previous thread that had been started not long before you started this one. (Edit: Though the post was well after your original post here.)

But the bottom line is, the rules are set by each house on their own with their constitutional authority; they could always change them. The real REASON for not 'just go arrest her' is because Congress itself would appear to be contemptuous of the rule of law, the liberty of the citizens of the country, and orderly continuance of the peace. In other words, it's to not look unreasonable to the point of arbitrary abuse of parliamentary power, the sort of which other countries have been known for in the past, including England.

I realize that is not a very satisfying answer but, I want to put this in perspective: Bush has escalated this past the level any previous President has dared to, directly ordering people who aren't even working for him anymore to not even show up, WITHOUT having personally claimed executive privilege. He's essentially asserting a form of royal privilege that does not exist in American law. Five days before bringing the Hammer of God down on this just to look like they're giving a fair chance to "come to Jesus" is nothing when compared to the 200+ years of the history of the Republic that Bush is defying.

[helderheid]

7. What the hell are you talking about? They found her in contempt!

[Javaman]

19. from what I'm reading it's a yes and no thing...

yes they did, but they allowed her 5 days to show up, but to me that is skating.

If they invoked inherent contempt, as I understand, they could have gone and arrested her and tried her on the spot.

[Zensea]

20. In a dictatorship, yes

but in a civilized society with due process you go through the established channels.
Just because Bushito refuses to do so is no reason to respond in kind.

[Javaman]

22. Actually, when inherent contempt is invoked they can go an arrest her.

that's not dictatorship that's part of the house rules when someone refuses to answer a subpoena.

[Zensea]

24. Post 12 and 8

are my response to that.

[helderheid]

21. I think they are following the rules - something the Republicans can't seem to do.

[shraby]

8. This is what Christy Smith has to say about it at Firedoglake

"They voted to enforce the subpoena — they’ve given Miers and/or the WH 5 days to respond and, depending on the response, they will either haul someone’s ass into court or issue a contempt citation. They are following the procedure as required to issue a contempt citation if and when it is necessary — there are parliamentary rules in the House that have to be followed for something like this, as I understand it. But they got the vote they needed to move forward toward a contempt citation - and Miers has five days to show cause why it shouldn’t be issued."

[helderheid]

11. Thank you - that deserves its own thread. Everything happened so fast and I had to step away from

my computer.

[karlrschneider]

15. I thought it was odd Cannon didn't demand a roll call vote

since he did it twice earlier on taking down someone's words...maybe he knew he didn't have the votes?

[Moochy]

25. This is the rule from the 109th.. cant find the 110th

House Committe Rules from last congress (109th)

http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/rulesofcomm/109_rulescomm.pdf

(N) Contempt Procedures.—No recommendation that a person be
cited for contempt of Congress shall be forwarded to the House unless
and until the Committee has, upon notice to all its Members,
met and considered the alleged contempt. The person to be cited for
contempt shall be afforded, upon notice of at least 72 hours, an opportunity
to state why he or she should not be held in contempt,
prior to a vote of all the Committee, a quorum being present, on

the question whether to forward such recommendation to the
House. Such statement shall be, in the discretion of the Chairman,
either in writing or in person before the Committee.

[Forkboy]

17. Um...in a word,no.

[SoCalDem]

23. Dear Committee,

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-11-07 12:50 PM


Please excuse Harriet from her "meeting" with you. She has a hairdresser's appointment .... doctor's appointment ...... lockjaw .....amnesia

sincerely,

Fred Fielding (Harriet's guardian)

[Disturbed]

28. The House could have her arrested if they file Inherent

Contempt Charge. That won't happen. They will file plain Contempt. If that passes a vote the charge will go to a Court. If the Court uphold the charge it will be appealed by the Exec. Lawyer and then go to the SC. This will take about a year. That route is useless! I bet that is the route that is taken.

[brentspeak]

27. Wow. You must WANT to look dumb in posting an OP like that.

The Democrats hold Miers in contempt of Congress, and you, like an Einstein, say that they "let her skate".

Um, uh...duh?

[Disturbed]

29. The OP was correct. The plain Contempt Charge will

accomplish nothing. She will never be forced to testify. By the time her situation is resolved the Busholini Regime will be out of office.

[halobeam]

30. gees ... and YOU must NOT want to look like a nice person.

[BlooInBloo]

31. Things don't happen as fast as we can *talk* - that's just the way it goes.