Mukasey refuses probe of Bush aides

[82Marine89]

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

"The House shall do so promptly," she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote Pelosi.

Pelosi shot back that the aides can expect a lawsuit.

"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said. "As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."

The suit had a political purpose too. Democrats have urged that the filing occur swiftly so that a judge might rule before the November elections, when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up for grabs. Criticism of Bush's use of executive power is a key tenet of the Democrats' platform, from the presidential race on down.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Miers for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers. The plaintiffs would be the entire Judiciary Committee, who would be represented by the House's lawyers, according to aides to Pelosi and committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.

Mukasey took only a day to get back to her. But he had earlier joined his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, in telling lawmakers they would refuse to refer any contempt citations to prosecutors because Bolten and Miers were acting at Bush's instruction.

A civil suit would drag out a slow-motion crawl to a constitutional struggle between a Democratic-run Congress and a Republican White House that has been simmering for more than a year.

Democrats say Bush's instructions to Miers and Bolten to ignore the House Judiciary Committee's subpoenas was an abuse of power and an effort to block an effort to find out whether the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 for political reasons.

Republicans call the whole affair a political game and walked out of the House vote on the contempt citations in protest.

Click for full text...

[Psychoblues]

Who would've figured?

[Classact]

Kind of like getting probable cause to listen to a terrorist... if you have PC you get a warrant if you have BS you get nothing... what goes around comes around...

Now Nancy wants to go the Civil Court route where the bar is lower...

[JohnDoe]

IF these people were in contemp of Congress, i don't see a choice but to pursue it civily.....i have to follow all laws on the books, THEY SHOULD TOO, imho....otherwise, chaos....confusion, and lawessness....the movement of lawlessness will continue onward.

[Classact]

IF these people were in contemp of Congress, i don't see a choice but to pursue it civily.....i have to follow all laws on the books, THEY SHOULD TOO, imho....otherwise, chaos....confusion, and lawessness....the movement of lawlessness will continue onward.

Are you suggesting that congress can call any person before congress without a reason and destroy their life? Congress has shown no reason to call these people in for testimony. They will equally have a problem addressing a court with reason and logic that they are doing any thing more than a political witch hunt. Congress: I think they could provide information... Judge: On what basis, what crime has been committed? Congress:We need to talk to these people to incriminate them! Judge: Americans are innocent until proven guilty. Congress: I think a crime has been committed. Judge: What proof do you have? Congress: I have a hunch. Judge: You'll need to do better than that.

[CockySOB]

IF these people were in contemp of Congress, i don't see a choice but to pursue it civily.....i have to follow all laws on the books, THEY SHOULD TOO, imho....otherwise, chaos....confusion, and lawessness....the movement of lawlessness will continue onward.

*snort* If the DoJ declares that no crime was committed, and that no criminal charges are going to be preferred against Meiers or Bolton, there is jack-shit that Congress can do about it. Pray tell, what civil suit could Congress prossibly bring against the two? Contempt of Congress is a CRIMINAL charge, and unless the individual in question qualifies for impeachment, Congress can't do anything but feign outrage.

[JohnDoe]

*snort* If the DoJ declares that no crime was committed, and that no criminal charges are going to be preferred against Meiers or Bolton, there is jack-shit that Congress can do about it. Pray tell, what civil suit could Congress prossibly bring against the two? Contempt of Congress is a CRIMINAL charge, and unless the individual in question qualifies for impeachment, Congress can't do anything but feign outrage.

i heard on c-span that the civil suit is part of the process, the next step in these circumstances.

i am not certain the precise details of the suit, it would be interesting to know.

we don't know if the AG is wrong in his opinion, MANY believe he is wrong in his assertions....the administration thinks he's right obviously....but they are not the final word i guess?

jd

[avatar4321]

Notice Pelosi's argument:

"As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that."

it's those very checks and balances that prevent these aides from testifying. She is filing suit to eliminate those checks and balances. What a surprise, Democrats doing the opposite of what they say.

[JohnDoe]

Notice Pelosi's argument:



it's those very checks and balances that prevent these aides from testifying. She is filing suit to eliminate those checks and balances. What a surprise, Democrats doing the opposite of what they say.

It never stopped President Clinton aids from testifying under oath nor did it stop Nixon advisors from testifying under oath, so what makes this different NOW avatar?

And also, are you implying that no aid of the president has to ever testify under oalth before congress? Like even if their actions were against the Law, one could not pursue them? or as long as nothing criminal is done, then they don't HAVE to testify under oath before Congress if called to by congress for a pertinent oversight purpose? And you SAY this is what is constitutional? If so, can you elaborate on how so, please? Does this have to do with how you view Executive power....it usurping Congress?

jd

[CockySOB]

i heard on c-span that the civil suit is part of the process, the next step in these circumstances.

i am not certain the precise details of the suit, it would be interesting to know.

we don't know if the AG is wrong in his opinion, MANY believe he is wrong in his assertions....the administration thinks he's right obviously....but they are not the final word i guess?

jd

Sorry, but whoever you heard that from is talking out of their ass for the cameras - nothing more. If the DoJ doesn't pursue criminal prosecution, and the individuals involved outside the bounds of impeachment, then Congress is pretty much powerless to prosecute them.

What you saw, JD, was political grandstanding, kinda like the whole Plame kerfluffle. LOL!

[bullypulpit]

So much for the rule of law under the Bush administration. But their contempt for the rule of law was already a matter of fact.