Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The rumor is that Contempt citations were voted out of committee yesterday

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:17 AM
Original message
The rumor is that Contempt citations were voted out of committee yesterday
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 07:28 AM by Toots
in the Senate for Rove and I think Bolton and now will go in front of entire Senate for a vote. Can this be fillibustered? Does a simple majority vote send it to the Just Us Dept?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not a rumor... It was reported in the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. I heard on NPR this a.m. that
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 07:53 AM by truth2power
Dana Perino and/or Mukasey said the citations would not be enforced because (paraphrased) the parties were only following orders of the Prez, who claims executive privilege.

"Course, that puts the Boy King in the crosshairs, I guess.

I don't see how this is going anywhere. Input appreciated. :)

* * * *

edit> Here's a link: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/13/white_...

White House: Contempt citations futile

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 (UPI) -- U.S. Senate Democrats should know issuing contempt citations and pursuing a criminal case in the firings of U.S. attorneys is futile, the White House said."

"Dana Perino, White House press secretary, said Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee's issuing contempt citations against former White House adviser Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten is pointless because "the constitutional prerogative of the president would make it a futile effort for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys." "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. When did Dana Perino get a seat on the Supreme Court?
That is who will decide if this can be enforced or not, not Dana Perino.

The real question is will it ever get out of the Senate? Now it has to to to the full Senate for a vote and Republicans will fight this one hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Oh, right!...This SC
will decide in favor of enforcing contempt.

......when pigs fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Strangely enough this court might support a contempt charge
Historically they were not uncommon. This one might suprise you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I fervently hope so, but
what sort of time frame is involved in terms of when it could be heard?

Is there ay statute of limitations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Some things can get before the Court in days. Remember Bush v. Gore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellenfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. i think dana was just alerting scotus on how to vote. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. IMO the only recourse after such a statement is "Inherent Contempt"
If they don't follow up with such then it is very obvious they don't really wish to follow the Laws of the land and persue accountability..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Inherent contempt has very little chance of getting anywhere near
enough votes. You do understand that it has to be voted on by the full house or senate just as regular contempt does, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. As far as I am aware it only takes a Majority vote
The last I heard the Democrats are in the Majority in both House and Senate, or are you suggesting that Democrats won't vote for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I'm suggesting that the pukes would filibuster it and
I'm suggesting they don't have enough of a majority to pass it in the Senate. It's 49-49 in the Senate with two independents organizing with the dems. Do you really think that LIEberman will vote for inherent contempt? C'mon. That means that it's 50/50. It really is basic math. As for the House, they can't get it passed either. There are far too many blue dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Wait a minute...remember this
the reason they went ahead with the subpoenas is because bush said he did not have any thing to do with the firing of the attorneys. Now Waxman said publicly that bush was not responsible so the could go ahead with the action.

Now he can't have it both ways. He if he isn't responsible how can Poppers say that rove and bolton were carrying out the orders of the president. So what the hell is it...he is responsible or he is not responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sigh. I want to know, too. If they block this, we might as well annoint
the dim one. I don't understand why rethugs don't see their representatives are NOT working in their best interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
12. I Heard Today On Washington Journal
That it was a bipartisan vote. The only nays were R's, but some R's voted to issue them.

I think it can be fillibutered, and i also think it only requires a simple majority.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
14. Specter and Grassley voted with the Dems. The repukes must be up to something.
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 08:22 AM by in_cog_ni_to
Two Republicans, Arlen Specter and Charles Grassley, joined the committee Democrats in the contempt vote. Today's action means contempt citations are now pending in both the House and Senate. The House Judiciary Committee has recommended finding Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers in contempt.

If either the full House or Senate vote to cite Rove, Bolten, or Miers for contempt, that would send the question to the Justice Department and, ultimately, to court, beginning a process that would very likely take at least two years to resolve.

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=9863

edited to add forgotten link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC