It's certainly possible, but if past behavior of this congress is any guide, they have little or no "stomach" for a direct confrontation with the White House over this or pretty much any other matter. Rather than follow the course that kovie and DCLaw1 (among others) lay out, which requires a goal in mind (let's call it The Truth and Conformity With Law), there are indications that both committees are more interested in something else... let's call it a "deal." The Congress as an institution seems incapable of a sustained challenge to either the executive's authority or its lawlessness. So even if the committees pursue the matter to the full (that's still a big "if"), there is no sign -- yet -- that this Congress is prepared to do anything about it.

Are you referring to the current congress that has been in session for all of 6 months and has as of yet not meaningfully backed down a single time that I'm aware of on oversight (as opposed to Iraq or legislation)? Are you referring to the previous congresses going back to 1994, which were controlled by the GOP and thus beyond Dems' ability to direct? Are you referring to past Dem-controlled congresses that did stand up to previous GOP-led lawbreaking administrations, however insufficiently (e.g. Watergate, Iran-Contra), and whose oversight was to a large extent nullified by presidential pardon?

I'm not saying that THIS congress has been perfect, even on oversight, but you really need to back up this assertion with substantive evidence for it to be compelling. What I'm seeing is continuous hearings and investigations, now subpoenas, and the repeal of that Patriot Act provision that allowed the DoJ to appoint permanent USA's at its pleasure, and no serious (i.e. non-tactical) backing down as of yet.

Yes, congress has so far been rather feckless on Iraq and progressive legislation. But those are processes quite different from oversight, since they are determined by the willingness of the entire congress to support them, where Repubs and Blue Dogs can effectively block them. Whereas oversight is at the discretion of committees and their chairs, none of which having to do with this program or the USA scandal are controlled by Blue Dogs, let alone Repubs.

Sure, this congress may end up proving to have held back or done a bad job of oversight, but to declare that based on "past behavior", it will likely not do its job properly or fail in oversight is, I think, premature, unless you can back this up with hard evidence. But I don't see it. Perhaps I just don't want to see it, but even if so, you need to help me see the light on that one if you want to convince me that I'm wrong.

On a somewhat related matter, in that both are examples of the administration's egregious lawbreaking and stonewalling, Kagro X has an interesting front page diary on Daily Kos right now on congress's subpoenas of the administration on the USA scandal:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/7/165658/2191

Kagro X and many others argue (in fact it appears to pretty much be the consensus opinion) that it's pointless and in fact dangerous for congress to try to fight the administration on this in the courts, because it controls the DoJ, the current DC USA (who would have to enforce these subpoenas), and the courts (through the many partisan Repubs on the courts), will try to run out the clock or obstruct, and if it reaches SCOTUS, Gorsuch will likely cause it to find in favor of the administration. And if any of these happen, congress will weaken its position and waste valuable time and oppotunity. And that, therefore, its only two viable options at this point are inherent contempt and impeachment.

I'm in the distinct minority on this at Daily Kos (and for all I know here as well) on this, but while I'm intrigued by the idea of inherent complaint, I neither view impeachment RIGHT NOW as a smart or promising approach, nor view persuing this in the courts as futile and dangerous. Countering all the reasons cited to argue against the court option, there are a number of what I view as solid arguments for it.

First, the current DC USA is time-limited by the enacting of S.214 and can be replaced by the DC District court--which has proven itself to be no partisan court--by the middle of October. Second, if the DoJ tries to obstruct by preventing the new USA from enforcing, it will open itself to charges of obstruction of justice, which would make for a much stronger legal and political case for impeachment (of Gonzo if not Bush). Third, the courts are not necessarily as Bush-friendly as many assert, including SCOTUS--E.g. Hamdan, Rasul and Hamdi--or even the ACLU suit, which was dismissed on technical and not meritorious grounds. And fourth, it just seems to me that to not persue every viable and open path to holding this administration accountable is a dereliction of duty (which is why I view impeachment right now as a non-starter, because it is clearly NOT viable at this point, politically).

Sorry to keep changing the topic, but I'm sure most would agree that, whether it will pursue it or not, and if it does whether it will do so successfully, this is as much if not more so a matter for congress to take up as it is for the public, in civil suits (both the warrantless wiretap and USA scandals), and that looking at possible congressional paths of actions are clearly important. Anyway, I clearly favor the congressional path, and wouldn't at all rule out the wisdom or feasibility of its take the judicial path in trying to resolve these scandals.

Thoughts? Responses? Rebuttals?