What Would Happen If The Administration Continues To Defy The Subpoenas?

...not much of any real substance...unfortuneately...

But, one can hope (and demonstrate, and write the powers-that-be)...

...other than the fact that the Sargeant-at-Arms gets to lock up Presidents, is the part where Scalia has verified the Constitutional authority to do so.

So Georgie can't expect any help from The Godfather of the Supremes like he did before in 2000. And there is NO BAIL.....

Sorry, but I am not counting on the corporate owned dems to save shit or shinola
any more than I would the corporate owned republicans.
Their stage show is more impressive, to be sure-
however, so far, the end result does not deviate from the
global elite's agenda.
I would be more than happy if someone would prove me wrong.
BHN

tsk-tsk-tsks and more "investigations". BushCo will continue to openly defy any Congressional subpoenas, laugh and smirk at the neutered congress for which they have open contempt, and that's about it.

I think you're all right.

...but you have a way with words.

the question is - WILL THEY?

Will they move forward with contempt charges? Will they stay-the-course when the bushies surge back?

to the DEMS in congress: If you continue to weenie-out on confronting the bushies, how can we, the people, believe you will stand up against the threats facing us today?

...and why should we have to explain to a bunch of lawyers what the Constitution says? To me what they're really saying is, they're more afraid of "fracturing" the Dem block and than are with the progressive wing of the party. Makes it pretty plain to me. However, this isn't simply an issue for political debate, but the essence of our liberty the way I see it.

These people have flaunted the laws of the country and internationally in their faces, and are daring them to do something about it. These are the same people that we punched the keys for on suspect polling machines last November. Now they dither, though they were so eloquent in their recriminations before. When they were running. In the end our fates are tied together. This is a constitutional crisis.

WillPitt was right. It'll look the same, but it'll all be different.

The time would be in Sept. when Congress resumes.

...provided we haven't already started a war with Iran by then.

I suggest he do it on the 11th....

Not until there is a real opposition party with SPINE in congress. The Dems need to get on cable news and on radio and beat this into the ground about how the Bush administration is actively ignoring subpoenas.

compelling the attorney general to convene a grand jury.

No thanks necessary, I'll bill ya'.

:sarcasm: from me, BUT...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1402602

IF the subpoenas are defied. It doesn't preclude charging criminal contempt as some are attempting to do, it just cites the obstacles to success and suggests a different way to get the accountability we all seek.

The piece is really rather sympathetic to the course of criminal contempt:


"Senator Leahy is correct in one important respect: In almost every single historical case where a House of Congress has issued a contempt citation or threatened to do so, that has prompted the Executive branch to further "accommodate" the legislature by providing information sufficient to allow Congress to proceed with its investigation. (One possible exception, from the Nixon Administration, was Senate Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1974), in which the Administration successfully resisted a Senate subpoena.)

One might hope that the prospect of its officials being held in contempt would cause this Administration to do the same -- especially because the contempt is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison (see 2 U.S.C. 192), and because, as the Acting Attorney General has written, the court of appeals "has recognized that each branch has a 'constitutional mandate to seek optimal accommodation of each other's legitimate interests" (quoting U.S. v. AT&T, 567 F.2d at 127).