BREAKING - Bush defies congressional subpoenas - Claims EXECUTIVEPRIVELEGE, of course

[Docky Wocky]

blackwater sez:

"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power over
the BUDGET..."
_____________________________________
Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what they do best..

I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around $170,000 for doing
nothing.

Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some bombs their way to
wake them up

 

[* US *]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:59 -0600, Flash Bazbo <djflsdkjf@dlsfdslkf.cmk> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:46:47 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Wikipedia - thats one of those bigm fat legal tomes, ain't it?
>>
>>Bush merely stated besides having a good deal of contempt for congress,
>>that in the coming shoot out with congress, he would try to have his troops
>>not kill too many of them - after, of course, wiping out the ringleaders.
>
>I'd laugh at this but bit it seems uncomfortably prescient.

They still haven't caught those who were throwing all that anthrax around.

It was timed to coincide with the 'Patriot' Act.


"In October [2001], press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of
the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Judicial Watch wants
to know why White House workers, including President Bush, began taking the drug nearly a
month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill. [WorldNetDaily]"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/frameup.html

 

[David Hartung]

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1
>
> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
> By TERENCE HUNT
> AP White House Correspondent
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional
> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and
> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the
> firings of federal prosecutors.
>
> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn
> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers
> and former political director Sara Taylor.
>
> WASHINGTON (AP)

 

[booker]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:33:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

> It seems that refusals by the executive branch to honor congressional
> subpoenas are not new.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2h5jvw
>
> The above is for those who are quick to accuse the Bush Administration,
> while ignoring similar actions by the Clinton Administration.

I also remember all the conservatives screaming back then that the
President has a duty to honor Congressional subpoenas.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1
>>
>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
>> By TERENCE HUNT
>> AP White House Correspondent
>>
>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional
>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and
>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the
>> firings of federal prosecutors.
>>
>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn
>> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers
>> and former political director Sara Taylor.
>>
>> WASHINGTON (AP)

 

[Blackwater]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net>
wrote:

>blackwater sez:
>
>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power over
> the BUDGET..."
>_____________________________________
>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what they do best..


Agreed.


>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around $170,000 for doing
>nothing.


Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,
rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling vacancies,
slashing health plans and generally freaking out because
the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals are screaming
bloody murder about assessments made during the artificial
price spike and demand serious tax cuts.

Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further into
the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east and/or
Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow, halt or
reverse this trend - but will congress DO anything ? No.
Hell no.

So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you
need one at home, you and your kids won't find good jobs.
Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we know
full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny fraction
of the money they "earn".

>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some bombs their way to
>wake them up

At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement
might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP
or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.

Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't
be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.

There's something about politics that takes the best
of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest
practically overnight. Seems to have always been that
way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning
it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?

This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter
possibility for awhile ...

 

[David Hartung]

booker wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:33:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> It seems that refusals by the executive branch to honor congressional
>> subpoenas are not new.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2h5jvw
>>
>> The above is for those who are quick to accuse the Bush Administration,
>> while ignoring similar actions by the Clinton Administration.
>
> I also remember all the conservatives screaming back then that the
> President has a duty to honor Congressional subpoenas.

It's called politics. Get used to it.

 

[David Hartung]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>>>
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1
>>>
>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
>>> By TERENCE HUNT
>>> AP White House Correspondent
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional
>>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and
>>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the
>>> firings of federal prosecutors.
>>>
>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn
>>> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers
>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

 

[booker]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:10:17 -0500, David Hartung wrote:

> booker wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:33:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that refusals by the executive branch to honor congressional
>>> subpoenas are not new.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2h5jvw
>>>
>>> The above is for those who are quick to accuse the Bush Administration,
>>> while ignoring similar actions by the Clinton Administration.
>>
>> I also remember all the conservatives screaming back then that the
>> President has a duty to honor Congressional subpoenas.
>
> It's called politics. Get used to it.

No, it's called hypocrisy.

 

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:zpadnYnoy7UqNxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1
>>>>
>>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
>>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
>>>> By TERENCE HUNT
>>>> AP White House Correspondent
>>>>
>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional
>>>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and
>>>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the
>>>> firings of federal prosecutors.
>>>>
>>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn
>>>> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet
Miers
>>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.
>>>>
>>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

 

[David Hartung]

booker wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:10:17 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> booker wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:33:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems that refusals by the executive branch to honor congressional
>>>> subpoenas are not new.
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/2h5jvw
>>>>
>>>> The above is for those who are quick to accuse the Bush Administration,
>>>> while ignoring similar actions by the Clinton Administration.
>>> I also remember all the conservatives screaming back then that the
>>> President has a duty to honor Congressional subpoenas.
>> It's called politics. Get used to it.
>
> No, it's called hypocrisy.

True, and both major parties engage in it.

 

[David Hartung]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
> news:zpadnYnoy7UqNxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions executive privilege.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_article=1
>>>>>
>>>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
>>>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
>>>>> By TERENCE HUNT
>>>>> AP White House Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional
>>>>> showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and
>>>>> rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the
>>>>> firings of federal prosecutors.
>>>>>
>>>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn
>>>>> over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet
> Miers
>>>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.
>>>>>
>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-
>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Deliri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE
>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE
>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO
>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?
>>> Congress has no such authority.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Facts one, Hartung zero.
>>
>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of
>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.
>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or
>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution
>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt
>> citation, the person cited for contempt 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 subject to punishment that the
>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment
>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from
>> the contempt citation.)"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
>
> I stand corrected.
>

If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his
license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and
moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar
exam.

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in
news:XHahi.6$7k7.5@trnddc01:

> Wikipedia - thats one of those bigm fat legal tomes, ain't
> it?
>
> Bush merely stated besides having a good deal of contempt
> for congress, that in the coming shoot out with congress, he
> would try to have his troops not kill too many of them -
> after, of course, wiping out the ringleaders.
>

I believe you. Lucky you and Bush were both born in the US,
neither of you would pass the investigation to become naturalized
citizens.

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

"Biscuits and Books" <Cheney_did_Barney@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:vjghi.2290$tj6.484@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
> news:4lta835efpd8tft9jbe4lldn5hirk70t13@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston
>>><david@block.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the
>>>>> power and purpose of his office would be nullified,
>>>>> giving the congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>>
>>>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been
>>>>nullified.
>>>
>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>>
>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>>
>> By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition
>> to Bush he'll be gone anyway.
>
> That's OK, we'll have enough votes to remove five Supreme
> Court clowns who lied their way to the Senate onto the Court.
>

Unfortunately, I don't think any outright lied. Thomas may be the
single exception.

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote in
news:quvd83l6vffp0oka6ias5bacmdf0dskivr@4ax.com:

> David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:36:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 GMT, David Johnston
>>><david@block.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:27:44 GMT, bw@barrk.net (Blackwater)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Being somewhat unpopular, if "W" was a pushover the
>>>>> power and purpose of his office would be nullified,
>>>>> giving the congress a double-dose of authority.
>>>>
>>>>As it stands, the power and purpose of Congress has been
>>>>nullified.
>>>
>>> No, not at all. IF 2/3rds said "Enough is enough !" then
>>> that would be it. They could stop the war, they could
>>> impeach "W" and Cheney, they could probably have the
>>> hides of Halliburtons board too.
>>>
>>> But, so far, things have not become bad enough to
>>> overcome the partisanship barrier. However, relative
>>> to the war, it's beginning to look as if that
>>> particular barrier may indeed be breeched.
>>
>>By the time there are that many Senate votes in opposition to
>>Bush he'll be gone anyway.
>
> At this point, yes. That's the way the ball bounces. If
> things had gone horribly wrong in Iraq much sooner then we
> may have seen a different scenerio. But, they didn't. The
> situation evoloved slowly and potential solutions always
> seemed tantalizingly close. If we got Hussein, things
> would be solved. If we had elections, things would be
> solved. If we could get this or that insurgent or al-Qaida
> leader, things would be solved. If we could get the new
> govt in session, things would be solved. If we could only
> 'surge' enough troops into Baghdad, things would be solved
> - and so on and so forth. That's been the most annoying
> aspect of this campaign, that the big fix always seems
> ALMOST within reach. The level of resistance is never THAT
> great, just ever so slightly above the threshold of chaos.
> It SEEMS do-able. It SEEMS hopeful.
>
> So, partisanship prevailed. Wouldn't it be embarassing to
> betray "your" president only to see him win the fight ?
> You'd be spit upon by your own party and look the fool
> to everyone else. The Dems might welcome a 'traitor' that
> was vindicated, but even they'd reject one who was
> proven wrong.
>
>
>>>If so,
>>> the congress WILL be able to exert its constituional
>>> authority and overrule the executive branch.
>>>
>>> In short, the system is working exactly the way it
>>> is supposed to. It was NOT designed to allow a few,
>>> or even a simple majority, of malcontents to
>>> short-circuit the authority of the executive or
>>> judicial branches. Each branch gets it's special
>>> "territory" and that authority can only be
>>> usurped in the most extreme circumstances.
>>
>>Congress's power is to make laws, and the President can
>>nullify that power by use of vetos and signing statements as
>>long as he has 41 votes in the Senate.
>
> Congress has more powers than that, as does the executive
> branch. A president is more than a bill-signing machine
> attached to a random number generator and congress is more
> than a gaggle of pen-waving lawyers.
>
> There's an intricate weave of powers described in the
> constitution. It was written by VERY clever men who'd had
> a lot of time to think about how to construct the
> "perfect" government - and had many BAD governments to use
> as reference material. Other powers and protocols evolved
> over time too. These also respected the "territory" of
> each branch, or they'd never have become law.
>
> Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power
> over the BUDGET. Sans partisanship, they could have
> starved the war to death in no time flat and there's
> nothing the executive could have done about it beyond
> propaganda tricks, making its death as painful as
> possible.
>
>

Sans partisanship? No, with thugs like you out there, no matter
how bad Iraq was/is/will become you'll soon be jumping all over
the democrats just for the erotic joy of it. Even now you're
getting your "it's all those commie democrats' fault" talking
points ready.

Pity you didn't tell your children how they should enlist for the
sake of Bush and Cheney's war plans. But then you're too smart
for that. Social darwinism: a republican family value!

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

bw@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote in
news:46869313.114403@news.east.earthlink.net:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:27:20 GMT, "Docky Wocky"
> <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
>
>>blackwater sez:
>>
>>"Congress DOES have one very formidible power - the power
>>over
>> the BUDGET..."
>>_____________________________________
>>Congress is too damn corrupt to do anything other than what
>>they do best..
>
>
> Agreed.

well, clearly the rethug side. One demcrat versus....jees, I've
clean run out'o fingers.



>
>
>>I hear they are getting an automatic raise. Up to around
>>$170,000 for doing nothing.
>
>
> Meanwhile, many local governments are freezing wages,
> rolling-back wages, firing people, not filling vacancies,
> slashing health plans and generally freaking out because
> the property boom "bubble" burst. The locals are screaming
> bloody murder about assessments made during the artificial
> price spike and demand serious tax cuts.
>
> Meanwhile, American industry sinks further and further
> into the toilet as jobs are outsourced to the far east
> and/or Mexico. It would take an act of congress to slow,
> halt or reverse this trend - but will congress DO anything
> ? No. Hell no.
>
> So, you won't be able to get a paramedic or cop when you
> need one at home, you and your kids won't find good jobs.
> Meanwhile, congress enjoys its raise - but then we know
> full well that their salaries aren't but a tiny fraction
> of the money they "earn".

The answer here is: tax shield.

Bet you can't see the point.

A business simulation would demonstrate my point.


>
>>Pretty sweet. You more excitable types need to toss some
>>bombs their way to wake them up
>
> At this point, the "Throw the bastards out" movement
> might indeed be revived, with a vengence. Neither GOP
> or DNC is the answer to our problems. Clean house.

Your judgement on the better replacements is, like every rethug,
obviously piss poor.


>
> Of course that's no guarentee that the new guys won't
> be just as corrupt as the old guys within a few years.
>
> There's something about politics that takes the best
> of intentions and twists them into greedy self-interest
> practically overnight. Seems to have always been that
> way. Maybe it's the nature of politics ... meaning
> it's something about OUR nature, human nature ?

Well gee, did a light dawn?

The empowering element is the lack of public financing of
campaigns. Ya see, when yer buying a politician, you have'ta pay
more for an honest one.


>
> This MAY be as good as it gets. Mull THAT bitter
> possibility for awhile ...
>
>

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:zpadnY7oy7UENxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> booker wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:33:50 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that refusals by the executive branch to honor
>>> congressional subpoenas are not new.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2h5jvw
>>>
>>> The above is for those who are quick to accuse the Bush
>>> Administration, while ignoring similar actions by the
>>> Clinton Administration.
>>
>> I also remember all the conservatives screaming back then
>> that the President has a duty to honor Congressional
>> subpoenas.
>
> It's called politics. Get used to it.
>

Unfortunately it requires a minimum level of maturity to see the
difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations and the
reason for the subpoenas. Here's a hint: Bob Barr announced his
intention to impeach Clinton before Clinton took the oath of
office.

 

[liberalhere@yahoo.com]

David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:GMadnd8YV5OlWhvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>> news:zpadnYnoy7UqNxvbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
>>>> news:5qadnYB72fFdxhvbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>>>> Someone show me where the constitution mentions
>>>>>> executive privilege.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1RB300&show_ar
>>>>>> ticle=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> White House Asserts Executive Privilege
>>>>>> Jun 28 09:18 AM US/Eastern
>>>>>> By TERENCE HUNT
>>>>>> AP White House Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a
>>>>>> constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted
>>>>>> executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers'
>>>>>> demands for documents that could shed light on the
>>>>>> firings of federal prosecutors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House
>>>>>> would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former
>>>>>> presidential counsel Harriet
>> Miers
>>>>>> and former political director Sara Taylor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WASHINGTON (AP)

 

[David Hartung]

liberalhere@yahoo.com wrote:
> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
> news:eNSdnX1ElL4ldhnbnZ2dnUVZ_vHinZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in news:1J-
>>> dnf6aOcVA_BnbnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Deliri wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> IF GONZALES REFUSES TO SHOW UP FOR TESTIMONY UNDER THE
>>>>> SUBPOENA, WHY COULDN'T THE COMMITTEE DISPATCH THE
>>>>> SERGEANT AT ARMS WITH A COUPLE OF ASSISTANTS TO
>>>>> FROG-MARCH HIM OVER TO THE COMMITTEE VENUE?
>>>> Congress has no such authority.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Facts one, Hartung zero.
>>>
>>> "Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of
>>> the United States Congress or one of its committees.
>>> Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or
>>> to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution
>>> of contempt to its parent chamber. Following a contempt
>>> citation, the person cited for contempt 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 subject to punishment that the
>>> House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment
>>> reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from
>>> the contempt citation.)"
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
>> I stand corrected.
>>
>
> If Gonzales is found to be in Contempt of Congress, should his
> license to practice law be revoked? IIRC, there is a ethical and
> moral to being granted a license; it's not simply passing the bar
> exam.

Given the partisan nature of the current Congress, probably not.