NYU Law School Professor Michael Walden: Congress, if it had a backbone, could throw Rove in jail

[Amerigo Vespucci]

VIDEO @ the URL below:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/08/verdict-rove-refuses-to-testify-before-house/

You knew it was going to happen. For all his big talk about being happy to talk to the House Judiciary Committee looking into the conviction and incarceration of Don Siegelman, when push came to shove, you had to know that Karl Rove would never, ever freely respond to the HJC subpoena. CQPolitics:

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, cited executive privilege as the reason that the former White House adviser would not appear before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on July 10.

“Mr. Rove will respectfully decline to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process to respond to a subpoena directed to this subject,” Luskin wrote.

Luskin renewed an offer that would have Rove submit to an off-the-record, untranscribed interview or answer written questions about the Siegelman case, but not the broader issue of the politicization of the Justice Department.

Not even man enough to stand up for his actions. Hear that, Karl? Not even man enough. Dan Abrams brings NYU Law School Professor Michael Waldman and former HJC counsel Julian Epstein to discuss the latest in Bush League (In)Justice:

Abrams: Okay, Michael, let me start with you: it is clear, Karl Rove is not coming. I mean, the House Judiciary Committee can say as much as they want, we’re still hoping, we’re still encouraging him to come, we’re still insisting that he come, he’s not coming. So what do they do now?

Waldman: Well, it’s really quite remarkable, as you say, you can just say no to a lawful subpoena from Congress. Congress has a bunch of tools they can use. They can, of course, throw him in jail. There’s a jail in the basement of the Capitol. That’s probably the extreme remedy. There’s all kinds of other things. They can cut off funding, they can hold up nominations, they can bring a lawsuit as has been the case in the Miers…the Harriet Miers contempt case. But what Congress has to have when it looks in its toolbox is not any of these tools but some backbone. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and it needs to stand up for its rights in this.

Backbone in Congress? What’s that? I’ll believe it when I see the perp walk.

[elocs]

1. Who would do the actual "throwing", the enforcing of contempt of Congress?

I heard Rep. Wexler say on Wisconsin Public Radio the other week that the Attorney General Mukasey said at his confirmation hearing that the DOJ would not enforce contempt of Congress citations.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. The capital police are under the Sergeant in Arms jurisdiction.

So they would have that power

[Super Soaker Sniper]

4. Contempt of Congress, truer words have not been spoken

91% of Americans currently hold Congress in contempt. Kind of sad that as hated as Bush is, he is still liked by twice as many people as Congress is.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

2. Kind of answered his own question,

Congress has not had a spine in years.

[indepat]

5. But Madame Speaker seemingly doesn't want to give Rove or junior or Cheney to any

trouble or put them to inconvenience. :D

[SteveM]

6. This crop of Dems has felt the GOP lash for too long to fight back (nt)

[elocs]

7. About Contempt of Congress from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

------------------snip--------------------

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.<5>

MacCracken filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.<6><7>

Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure like the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."

----------------------snip----------------------

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. I'll offer to clean up that jail in the basement of the Capitol if they

promise to throw the bum in there.

[Pastiche423]

9. I prefer the extreme remedy

It's way past time.

[lynettebro440]

10. I just heard on lou dobbs

that congress has a single diget rating, never before done in history. He said they look so bad they are making bush look good. Don't have much faith in them anymore.