Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 688
-
sysprog, Dean & booman
[Read the article: Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]pretty much say the same thing that I did in my previous comment. Follow the process, provoke a blatant act of defiance by the administration, hold them in contempt, and when they still fail to cooperate, initiate impeachment proceedings (and, if possible, appoint an independant prosecuter) in the form of preliminary hearings, a la Watergate (no need to actually impeach right away, or justification for it--the proper process MUST be followed for it to not only be seen as legitimate, but actually BE legitimate, or else what's the point in trying to restore the constitution if you yourself are short-circuiting it? This has to be done right or not at all, for it to achieve its ultimate aim or restoring the constitution).
We need to be determined, but also patient, as this is going to take some time to unfold further, to the point where actual impeachment is viable and worthwhile. We are not there yet, but we're getting closer and closer. Give me slow, systematic and methodical over quick, emotional and haphazard ANY day when it comes to anything this serious.
Incidentally, am I the only one who noticed Specter's curious comment at the end of the Sarah Taylor hearing this week:
"I don't think any US Attorney anywhere, is the appointee of the president, is going to bring a criminal contempt citation. But if this committee asks for one, there'll be a big cloud over you, a big smear, last the rest of your life."
Three things I take from this. One, he's predicting that no USA appointed by Bush (via the senate confirmation process) or Gonzo (via his recently repealed power to appoint permanent interim USA's) will enforce congress's criminal contempt citations. He may well be right about that (even though, if this happens, it would, I think, merely set up yet another obstruction of justice charge against the administration that congress could level and perhaps exploit).
Two, by explicitely referring to USA's appointed by Bush (in either of these two ways), he is implying that USA's who were NOT appointed by Bush (or by extension Gonzo) MIGHT enforce (or try to enforce) these contempt citations. And, as per the recently enacted S.214, there will likely soon be a number of USA's (i.e. the ones that Gonzo appointed via the Patriot Act provision just repealed by S.214 that granted him this power) who will be replaced by district court-appointed USA's not subject to Bush or Gonzo's appointment or approval. Most importantly, the DC USA, who would be tasked with enforcing these subpoenas, is a Gonzo interim appointee, and he should be gone by the fall. And the DC district court is not an especially Bush-friendly one. It is, after all, the one in which Judge Walton presided over the Libby trial. Do the math.
And three, Specter appeared to be threatening Taylor (and by extension any other current or former administration official) who might choose to defy congress. I.e. either cooperate, or you will be tainted for the rest of your life. Not that it might matter to these diehard Bushies. But still, people are human and have their breaking points when confronted with the prospect of certain consequences. (E.g. Libby, who might well have flipped had Bush not effectively pardoned him.)
Whatever Specter meant by this, I think that we're entering a critical phase that may well turn out badly for the administration. Congress has three ways to go after it, none of which, I think, are exclusive. One, criminal contempt, which Specter referred to and which is not necessarily as futile as some might think (for the reasons I've given). Two, civil contempt (i.e. congress has its own lawyers file civil contempt charges in the DC district court). And three, inherent contempt. If all three are invoked, it's going to be bad times for the administration, politically, and Repubs are going to start worrying, as they are about Iraq.
I agree that congress should impeach. But also that it should do it right. And it looks to me that it is, whatever Pelosi or Boxer say PUBLICALLY. Read the tea leaves, not their lips.