My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Friday, July 20, 2007

The Lackey Strategy

Isn't it funny how, when the White House wants to attack the Democrats, it's always some lackey who does it?

We see this time and time again with KKKarl Rove, whose slimy, fetid paws are all over the latest horrors perpetrated against Senator Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in Congress. Rove is such a "genius" that he thinks this incredibly transparent strategy will protect the President's reputation as a straight shooter and compassionate conservative. (I guess they really DON'T pay attention to polls...)

In Senator Clinton's case, they trotted out some nameless Undersecretary of Defense to pop out, like a cuckoo in a clock, yell "Traitor! Enemy of the State!", then pop back in, never to be seen again.

The Senator, unfortunately for KKKarl, knows how the Lackey Strategy works. Her response was as follows:

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Ka-THWAP! Sorry, Lackey.

Today's Lackey outrage comes from an "anonymous" White House source and was leaked to the Washington Post. In response to the threat of contempt proceedings being brought against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, "White House Officials" said that Congress doesn't have the right to ask the Justice Department to pursue statutory contempt charges once executive privilege has been asserted.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Once again, the Lackeys step forward and try to stomp all over the political opponents of the Bush Administration. The Democrats' response?

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

What can the Democrats do about this? For one thing, there is a type of contempt called "inherent contempt", which completely circumvents the Justice Department and the Executive Branch.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In the wake of the firestorm engendered by his unbelievable claim, George Bush has not said a word. But through his lackeys, the Deciderer has declared himself a king. The constitutional crisis is here, my friends. It's time for the Democrats to hit back as hard as Senator Clinton did, but with action, not words.

Inherent contempt. Impeachment. Whatever. We've had enough. DO IT NOW!!!! Or there may be nothing but Bush lackeys left in the coming Fourth Reich.

No comments: