Leahy brings the law (For those of you that insist all dems have been spineless or ineffective)

[cali]

Published: Sunday, September 16, 2007
By Erin Kelly
Free Press Washington Writer

WASHINGTON -- In the furor over the fate of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy never joined his fellow Democrats in calling for Gonzales to resign.

"It's not my way of doing things," said Leahy, 67. "I wanted to build my case."

So, month after month, the former prosecutor collected evidence, gathering documents from the White House and bringing Gonzales and his former colleagues before the committee, where they presented often-contradictory testimony about the controversial firing of nine U.S. attorneys deemed disloyal to President Bush.

Gonzales' poor performance before Leahy's committee was widely cited by Republicans and Democrats as turning Congress against him. The attorney general announced his resignation Aug. 27.

"Pat Leahy knows how to cross-examine his witnesses," said Ralph Neas of People for the American Way. "Other senators spend 10 or 20 minutes making speeches when they're supposed to be asking questions. Senator Leahy doesn't waste time. He's after answers."

Leahy's relentless questioning of the Bush administration on everything from the fired prosecutors to its domestic spying program has been a hallmark of his Judiciary Committee leadership since he took over as chairman in January when Democrats assumed control of Congress.

The senator has held more than 50 hearings, many of them aimed at challenging White House policies. They have included sessions on Congress' constitutional authority to end the Iraq war, the alleged misuse of the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law by federal authorities, civil liberties concerns about the administration's plan for a national identification card, and restoring habeas corpus rights to allow people detained by the government as suspected terrorists to challenge their detentions in federal court.

<snip>

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070916/NEWS01/709160307/1009

[spanone]

1. K&R

[cali]

2. Now if you'd written something, I'd have

an excuse to respond and kick it up, but since you didn't, I will anyway. Thanks for the k&r, spanone.

[Toots]

3. And he has actually issued subpoenas which the Administration laughed in his face over

Unless he does something to see that those subpoenas are enforced it would appear all his hearing are nothing but a farce....

[Green Mountain Dem]

7. Maybe.....

But if you look at many of the people who have received subpoenas..they have now resigned and are spending more time with their families. The indictments will come but until then do Leahy has effectively accomplished the immediate objective...get them the fuck out of office so they can do no further damage! Go Pat!

[cali]

9. He will. And did you even bother to read the article

He's held 50 hearings into vital issues and the malfeasance of bushco. He's a former prosecutor, and he's building a case. Sorry, that doesn't happen by waving a sparkly wand.

And please note that many, who are actually in the know, attribute gonzo being forced out, to Leahy's hearings into his conduct.

Leahy ain't flashy. Never has been. But he is solid.

[Horse with no Name]

17. I like sparkly wands..... n/t

[terip64]

4. Watching Leahy question Gonzales was a beautiful thing. K&R

Especially when he asked him for a certain document, I don't remember what it was now, and Gonzo didn't have it. He responded, "Get it," and just kept right on going. Every word he said meant something. He reminded me of my father, a long time dem from CT with the same no nonsense attitude, God rest his soul.

Leahy, Waxman, Conyers, they give me hope, which we all need desperately.

[Richard Steele]

5. K&R

[mmonk]

6. Gonzales resigning as I stated earlier

was not the dems doing their job but was his clean get away.

[cali]

11. That's simply not true.

A. He never would have resigned had he not been forced out by the dems. They put bushco in a totally untenable position.

B. He hasn't gotten "clean away". Leahy has pledged REPEATEDLY that he will pursue investigations into all of Gonzo's malfeasance, and he got the JDIG to open an investigation.

[mmonk]

21. I support Leahy's efforts.

Resignation isn't helpful when substituted for justice.

[cali]

22. But you have given no evidence that the resignation

is a substitute for justice, and you're refusing to look at the evidence to the contrary. Leahy has said ad nauseum that he has no intention of dropping his investigation.

[mmonk]

23. People have stated that resignations are proof

of success. A process whereby there is consequences delivered or public information of misdeeds is needed. Therefore, I support any attempt by Leahy to get justice. Otherwise, their always dubious reasons for resigning are given creedence by some.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Why isn't Leahy calling for an investigation on Bowman?

[cali]

10. Who? Sorry I don't know who Bowman is, but

I'd sure like to. Please fill us in.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. This is a lazy snippet of the thread where his name comes up.

He sounds like one of those crooked inside men in the FBI that does favors for politically connected people. I can't remember what the term is for them. It's not mole. It's something else. Apparently, cronies do the crooked things they do, knowing that someone inside these law enforcement agencies can be counted on to derail the investigation.

- - - - -


After realizing that the anthrax attacks looked like a domestic job, Boyle called a high-level official in the FBI who deals with terrorism and counterterrorism, Marion "Spike" Bowman. Boyle and Bowman had met at a terrorism conference at the University of Michigan Law School. Boyle told Bowman that the only people who would have the capability to carry out the attacks were individuals working on U.S. government anthrax programs with access to a high-level biosafety lab. Boyle gave Bowman a full list of names of scientists, contractors and labs conducting anthrax work for the U.S. government and military.

SNIP

The alleged destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, Iowa, from which the Fort Detrick lab got its pathogens, was blatant destruction of evidence. It meant that there was no way of finding out which strain was sent to whom to develop the larger breed of anthrax used in the attacks. The trail of genetic evidence would have led directly back to a secret government biowarfare program.



"Clearly, for the FBI to have authorized this was obstruction of
justice, a federal crime," said Boyle. "That collection should have
been preserved and protected as evidence. That's the DNA, the
fingerprints right there. It later came out, of course, that this was
Ames strain anthrax that was behind the Daschle and Leahy letters."

At that point, recounted Boyle, it became very clear to him that there
was a coverup underway. He later discovered, while reading David Ray
Griffin's book on the 9/11 attacks, The New Pearl Harbor, that Bowman
was the same FBI agent who allegedly sabotaged the FISA warrant for
access to Zacharias Moussaoui's computer
prior to 9/11. Moussaoui's computer contained information that could
have helped prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1819437&mesg_id=1819437

[cali]

14. Thanks for the info!

Certainly should be investigated, but I'm not about to dump on Leahy for it. He has his priorities, and I'm not even sure that the JC is the appropriate venue for such hearings. He can't do everything, you realize. He's got plenty on his plate.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Because...

...bullshit from Alex Jones' radio program isn't grounds for a congressional investigation.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. So it's confirmed that it's false information?

[EV_Ares]

12. Credit should be given where it is due and if Leahy has earned it,

he should get credit for what he has done. He cannot do everything alone and unfortunately we do have those in the Dem leadership afraid of their own shadow, so it appears anyway. I really do think the dem party would gain more respect all the way around if they would just stand up and fight, say the things that need to be said, take action where it needs to be taken. Tell the MSM to go f--- themselves, the people will get it and understand what is going on.

Just like this attack on MoveOn, saying the dems need to disavow themselves from the ad is bs.

Leahy does do a good methodical job of questioning. I don't give a dam about the flash and showmanship. I would rather have good solid substance in any investigation like he does which is extremely more effective and gets results.

K&R.

[babylonsister]

20. What you said, so perfectly!

:thumbsup:

[L. Coyote]

16. Leahy is a great American and hero of the day. Quoting Sam Irwin, "If you

If you paint a really good picture of a cow, you don't have to write "cow" on it.

[cali]

18. That's such a great observation.

I've heard it before, but didn't know who said it.

[Cameron27]

24. I don't have much to add, but I've been sending money

to Sen. Leahy every few months for the past year and a half, just because of the hearings he's held and because I trust him. He's on my list that includes Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Wes Clark, votevets, the ACLU and sometimes a few others. It's not much, but I have to send something to show my support, and then of course I get all their email messages which I like.

K&R

[warren pease]

25. When I read "Leahy Brings the Law," I thought...

He had finally decided to use inherent contempt, call in the US marshals and arrest the lying weasels who hide behind executive privilege and laugh their asses off whenever they get another subpoena. Unfortunately...

Not that I don't support his efforts. He seems like he's still got a bit of outrage bubbling through his system and he's a very effective questioner/prosecutor. And if he does, in fact, continue to pursue Gonzales even after his escape, more power to him. If Gonzales doesn't belong in jail, even as some two-bit seller of ounces of pot rots in a cell for 10 years or more, then there truly is no justice left in this country.

However, where's the enforcement mechanism when these serial liars simply refuse to honor the subpoenas and show up for a hearing? So far, the best we've heard is threats of contempt citations which, if the subject of the investigation still refuses to comply with the subpoena, usually results in a long legal process during which the person under contempt charges can use the vast coffers of the RNC (laundered through some dummy corporation, of course) to hire skilled lawyers who can drag the case out indefinitely.

Inherent contempt, on the other hand, happens fast. Here's a paragraph describing the process and its history from the Congressional Oversight Manual ( http://tinyurl.com/2a9sxd ), one of Congress' many rules books:

<<snip>>

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.

<</snip>>


"...inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate."

And yet, like impeachment, this one too seems to be off the table. In fact, at a recent town hall meeting, I and a couple of other attendees had to explain the process to our Congressperson. She said she had "heard of it (inherent contempt)," but didn't know much about it.

Great; educating a member of Congress about a Congressional process designed to remedy just the kind of situation we're now facing. I somehow don't think Karl Rove or Harriet Meirs could handle a week in jail, do you?


wp

[cali]

26. Here's an interesting floor statement by Leahy on

Inherent Contempt from 2000.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/5182000_pjl8.htm

[warren pease]

27. Yeah, but note the context and the times...

He's trying to protect Clinton administration officials, notably Janet Reno, from being charged with contempt of Congress and advocating that inherent contempt is unduly harsh and even a little embarrassing.

As he says: "Is the Senator from Pennsylvania (Specter) suggesting that we make a criminal referral of contempt about the Justice Department to the Justice Department? I assume not.

"The only recourse available to us, were we to proceed down this foolish road, is to hold a trial on the Senate floor under our “inherent contempt authority.” I hope that reasonable minds prevail and that we do not see again such an embarrassing spectacle."

Well, that's pretty much what would have happened with Gonzo -- as Leahy notes, it's unrealistic to bring contempt charges against a DoJ official (in this case, the AG himself) and expect action from the very same DoJ. Then he notes the only remaining option is inherent contempt, which he calls an "embarrassing spectacle."

What's embarrassing is having the AG of the United States exposed on national TV as either a serial liar or a mental defective who can't remember what he ate for breakfast. I suggest inherent contempt charges would have had been miraculously effective in clearing Gonzo's foggy brain.

I wonder if the continuous insults and refusals to comply with subpoenas from this administration have made a dent in Leahy's position. After all, we were dealing in 2000 with an administration whose worst impeachable offense involved lying about having sex with an intern, and whose attorney general had sinned against the gun culture at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Not that these were noble actions; they were simply officially sanctioned murder. But they pale in comparison to the mass murder of about a million Iraqis who have been killed for a policy based on proven lies.

These days, things are a bit more serious than they were in 2000. I hope he realizes that this country, and by extension its elected representatives, is dealing with a malignancy of unprecedented lethality in US history. I further hope that he gets pretty damned sick and tired of putting up with their bullshit and develops a sudden fondness for US marshals, handcuffs, frog marches, perp walks, instant trials, instant verdicts and instant jail time. Kind of fascistic when you think about it, but when dealing with fascists, it's often necessary to descend to their level to be effective.

Leahy has said he's been "dealing in good faith" with the white house. That's mistake number one -- trusting megalomaniac mass murderers to respond in good faith. I hope he understands that pretty soon and stops pretending he's having a polite disagreement with other honorable men.


wp

[cali]

28. Of course he's saying he's dealing with the admin in good faith

He's not stupid. Saying stuff like that strengthens a case, rather than weakening it. He's also said words to the effect that they aren't operating in good faith. I completely disagree that he isn't being tough, and that's evidenced by not only his words, but the 50 hearings he's held, and the questions he's asked.

As for inherent contempt, I keep reading about it, and I still don't feel like I have a handle on it.

And as for the JD investigating itself, the IG is a Clinton appointee.

[warren pease]

29. Of course he's not stupid...

<<snip>>

He's not stupid. Saying stuff like that strengthens a case, rather than weakening it. He's also said words to the effect that they aren't operating in good faith. I completely disagree that he isn't being tough, and that's evidenced by not only his words, but the 50 hearings he's held, and the questions he's asked.

<</snip>>


...I think he's being tough to a point, but inherent contempt raises the bar considerably and was created specifically to deal with lying, recalcitrant or "missing" witnesses. Given the people he's dealing with, and their aversion to conceding anyone else's rights -- particularly those of Congressional Democrats -- I really think he needs to get a little more serious about pursuing his options. You know as well as I do that they're never going to concede a damn thing unless they get the legal equivalent of a red hot poker shoved up their collective ass.


<<snip>>

As for inherent contempt, I keep reading about it, and I still don't feel like I have a handle on it.

<</snip>


Here's a list of articles (most of which I've read) that do a pretty good job of breaking it down to its elements, citing historical precedents, contrasting it with conventional contempt cites and providing further links to procedural manuals such as the one I listed in my post above.

http://tinyurl.com/2vwm25

Or just google "inherent contempt" (using the quotation marks) and get tons of links in return.


<<snip>>

And as for the JD investigating itself, the IG is a Clinton appointee.

<</snip>>


The current IG is a Clinton appointee? I didn't know that. If so, let's sic him on all those who have lied under oath (or NOT under oath, in Patreus' case) or just refused to show up. Times a-wasting.


wp