Interesting post. It strikes me that the optics of locking Harriet Miers in the cupboard below the stairs, though delightful to some (me included), might on balance be very bad. We would certainly end up on the wrong side of the late-night monologues. It would potentially shift the narrative from Bush flouting the law, to Congress being nasty and vindictive. What about making it clear, through leaks to the media or whatever, that Congress will continue to pursue this matter, including contempt charges, into the next administration? This would let those involved know they are not above the law, and have the added benefit of potentially making GOP candidates go on record as supporting or rejecting the Bush administration's theory of the Presidency as above the law and the constitution.

If you play this out fully, you have to imagine the Capitol Police putting together a posse to go out and apprehend Gonzo. But then, think of it, Bush would have the Secret Service, with better training and arms, to fend off the Congressional Police. He probably has additional money set aside to hire Blackwater to guard the Whitehouse. Then what?

I hate to be the acting like grammar police but it might be a good idea to spell check the title of your diary :)   That can be edited after the fact, right?

One of the aspects of this situation that I don't quite understand is this:  these folks are almost all lawyers.  If they are in contempt of a Congressional subpoena (and they are) why aren't the appropriate chairmen moving to have them disbarred.  Complaints to the relevant ethics committees in D.C. should at least produce a hearing to revoke their ability to practice law.  I'm not a lawyer but I would think this would produce some quick results.  Any legal eagles that could weigh in on this?

Here's a question for the lawyers here.  If the majority of the Senate exercises its inherent contempt power can there be a filibuster?  The motion to arrest a member, as I remember Robert's Rules, is a privileged motion in ordinary parliamentary procedure and therefore it might only take a majority vote to stop debate under the Senate rules.

Once the citation is issued, as you describe the procedure, it sounds to me like a filibuster of the trial would be a rather futile procedure.  The person on trial would be confined to the Senate chamber and forced to listen to Senators' orations nonstop - which I think would be a much worse fate than sitting in the DC jail.

I am all for proceeding with the Contempt of Congress charges. Bring them by force to both Houses, try them and then put them in the pokey. If Bush wants to play Emperor then perhaps it is time to show that he is without clothes. I welcome the initiatives to demonstrate to the American people that no one is above the law. If this gets taken to the Supreme Court and they rule in Bush's favor there will be a complete revolution: rioting in the streets, marches on Washington, absolute civil disobedience.

To quote someone they might understand:

Bring it on!

Several points. First, any inherent contempt charge will have to come from the house, because a minority in the Senate can filibuster (or, as is now the practice, send a sweet little note that they will filibuster), thereby halting a Senate effort at contempt. As an aside, the Senate's contempt power is believed to be indefinite, running from Congress to Congress, while the House, which is reconstituted every election cycle, can only hold a party in contempt till the end of the Congress.

Another question that has arisen regarding contempt of congress is whether the President can commute or pardon any Congressional contempt charge or sentence. I have not checked the scant caselaw, but my reading of Article II is that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  I would argue that a contempt of one house of Congress is not an offense against the United States, and the provision stating that the President has no power to reprieve or pardon in impeachment cases is exactly on point, since the contempt powers of Congress are like its impeachment powers. In other  words, the President's pardon powers are limited to decisions by the Judicial branch.

I have not read the detailed history of the contempt power, but I'll wager that the contempt statute was passed simply because the Justice Department has the whole mechanism of law enforcement at its hand, such as law officers, detention facilities, etc.

Since 1975, 10 executive o
fficials have faced congressional contempt charges for failure to provide evidence in a congressional investigation. See Congressional Oversight Manual. (Every Democrat ought to have a copy under the pillow.)

However, Jonathan, the logic of your conclusion escapes me.  Impeachment involves both chambers, and given the makeup of the Senate, is doomed to failure. It is a very major event which sucks energy out of almost anything else the Congress is doing.  Democrats would face justifiable criticism over starting a process that they know from the beginning will fail. That smacks of vendetta.

On the other hand, the public can be made to understand that administration officials have violated legal procedures and that the administration refuses to uphold the law. They can understand that, just like a court, if Congress cannot punish those who flout its authority, it has no power to investigate.

The story is really simple. "We passed the contempt statute years ago to make our very rare assertions of contempt go smoothly. This administration has forced us to go back to the power inherent in the Constitution, just to be able to search for the truth." To me, that plays a lot better than "We're going to start impeachment knowing it will fail."

I don't see impeachment and contempt as an either/or proposition, but the contempt is directed at the witness--i.e., Harriet Miers. Others have appeared and almost certainly given false testimony. That amounts to a separate violation of 18 USC section 1001 (up to 5 years imprisonment). Right now, though, contempt would be limited to a few very witnesses. It would be a great "big stick" for all of the subpoenas yet to be issued by the House.

Besides, one of the best parts of an inherent contempt proceeding is all of the current and former administration officials who go into hiding to escape arrest. That would be beautiful.

Our colonoscopy continues.

Can someone tell me what in the hell the Democrats are trying to accomplish here?  Really.  I have NO IDEA what they are trying to accomplish.

The Democrats have more than enough ammunition to impeach Bush.  Cheney or Gonzales would be a slam dunk.  Much to my dismay, the Democrats have decided to take it "off the table".

Fine. It's off the table.

So, why do they want Miers' testimony? So that they can get to Rove?  And what if they could get Rove to testify?  To get to Bush?  And what then?  After all the legal wrangling, including possible trips to the U.S. Supreme Court?  What if Miers and/or Rove actually slipped up and implicated Bush and Gonzales in the U.S. Attorney scandal?  What then?  Are the Democrats going to begin impeachment hearings on Bush sometime next year, during a presidential race?

Look.  Bush OBVIOUSLY has politicized the DOJ.  Gonzales has OBVIOUSLY already lied to Congress about it.  The White House is OBVIOUSLY stonewalling.

Either begin impeachment hearings NOW or shut up already.

I think Congress should exhaust the statuatory powers by passing a citation motion onto the DoJ and awaiting the inevitable refusal to prosecute by AGAG.  Then, an inherent contempt proceeding would be dramatic and likely to garner support.

No gunfights or whatnot, just the Sergeant-At-Arms making a symbolic arrest of whomever, and let us see if the Secret Service intervenes - because such a move would play like the Kent massacre, or the firehoses turned on civil rights marchers - the kind of dramatic move which electrifies the nation against the president.

actually i think the capitol building has jail cells in the one of the lower levels