"PANEL PUSHES CONTEMPT ISSUE" ??!
WHAT the hell does that mean?
For a real-life translation, let's pretend that President Clinton were still in office.... here's how the Sun-Sentinel headline would read:
"PRESIDENT CLINTON ORDERS STAFFERS to DEFY CONGRESS; OBSTRUCTS Congressional Subpoena"!!
That the "major media" can portray the serial, criminal, obstructionist conduct of the Bush-Rove-Cheney White House under such anemic, wishy-washy, muddy headlines, illustrates how callow, vacillating, and enabling the Democratic 'leadership' is.
But just because the Democratic 'leadership' is weak, anemic, and willing to throw its own under the bus, does not give the American press-media the 'right' to distort, divert, and misinform readers.... (except that, in the real-world of hard-ball politics, it does).
==============================================
Panel pushes contempt issueBush's ex-aides are likely to face vote in full House
By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times
July 24, 2007
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-flaattorneys0724nbjul24,0,925935.story
WASHINGTON The House Judiciary Committee said Monday that it would move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against President Bush's chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas pertaining to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
The panel's chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said the committee would vote Wednesday on a resolution to hold both Bolten and Miers in contempt for refusing to turn over documents and testimony sought by the panel in the politically charged case.
The decision ratchets up a battle between Congress and the White House in which the Bush administration has sought to invoke executive privilege to keep documents about the firings under wraps. The resolution would go to the House floor for a vote if, as expected, the committee approved it.
Only twice since the Watergate investigations of the mid-1970s has the full House voted to hold an administration official in contempt of Congress. In 1982, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Anne Gorsuch refused to turn over documents; a year later another EPA official, Rita Lavelle, refused to appear before a House committee. The Justice Department refused to prosecute Gorsuch, and Lavelle was acquitted in court.
"This investigation, including the reluctant but necessary decision to move forward with contempt, has been a very deliberative process, taking care at each step to respect the executive branch's legitimate prerogatives," Conyers said.
"I've allowed the White House and Ms. Miers every opportunity to cooperate with this investigation, either voluntarily or under subpoena. It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position, and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter," he said.
Congressional investigators have reviewed thousands of pages of Justice Department documents and testimony, but the investigation has hit a wall at the White House, which has declined to make officials available for public questioning under oath.
The administration has offered to make some officials available for private questioning without a transcript and without the opportunity for follow-up questions. Legislators have said those conditions are unacceptable.
"It seems now that we have a fishing expedition that's woefully short on fish," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday. "This is one of these things where Congress can get its facts and do its due diligence without having to get to this point, and we continue to hold open the possibility of accommodation."
Under federal law, being in contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, and cases are referred to the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia for prosecution. The penalty is one to 12 months in jail and $100 to $1,000 in fines.
The Los Angeles Times is a Tribune Co. newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment