There are currently 5 users and 191 guests online.
Contempt of Congress
Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 12:50am.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 223 to 32 today to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt. They were ordered to appear before Congress nearly a year ago and have not. Miers was nominated to the Supreme Court as a brushback pitch setting up Roberts, and Bolten was the chief of staff during the U.S. Attorney firings. Both are wanted to testify about their roles in firing several federal prosecutors and manufacturing allegations to cover the actual reasons for the dismissals. Bush has offered to have them testify without transcripts or oaths.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also approved contempt citations for Bolten and Rove, but the full Senate has not acted.
Florida Rep. Wexler is determined to have Cheney before him under oath in the coming year, and this is a good step in that direction.
Both are wanted to testify about their roles in firing several federal prosecutors and manufacturing allegations to cover the actual reasons for the dismissals. Bush has offered to have them testify without transcripts or oaths.
Gee, I wonder why W doesn't want them under oath or have their testimony documented? Can anyone think of any possible reason? Is this like "FISA is critical to security but I'll veto it anyway if you don't grant immunity to the telcos?" I can't possibly imagine a self-serving motive here 'cause I'm so naive.
i want Dick "go f*ck yourself" Cheney under oath myself. I'd like to see that mechanical monster cry.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 9:29am.
email excerpt from Rep Wexler's office:
I am pleased to inform you that today's legislation allows Congress to bypass the Attorney General (who has stated to me this week that he would not enforce contempt) and immediately take action in the courts. (Click here to see me confront the Attorney General on contempt last week.)
Today, Congress finally defended the Constitution and our rights as an equal branch of government.
Gee, I wonder why W doesn't want them under oath or have their testimony documented? Can anyone think of any possible reason? Is this like "FISA is critical to security but I'll veto it anyway if you don't grant immunity to the telcos?" I can't possibly imagine a self-serving motive here 'cause I'm so naive.
i want Dick "go f*ck yourself" Cheney under oath myself. I'd like to see that mechanical monster cry.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
email excerpt from Rep Wexler's office:
Visit us at
Wearybottom Associates
Post new comment