If the Executive branch does not carry out the contempt prosecution then the impeachment process should be started.

Has anyone noticed that the media's obsession with every trivial detail of the Presidentitial race (as opposed to the issues and the candidate's positions) has bumped news like this and news about substantial issues, such as the war, off the screen or to the back pages?

It's a shame the Judiciary Committee doesn't simultaneously bring contempt charges against itself. The weak-kneed excuse that masqueraded as Mukasey's confirmation hearing was but a symptom of a larger malaise. Should these people decide to buck up, they can start to make use of their "inherent contempt" power and hold a trial in the Senate. The Post notes that "Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice." And that's the problem. Weakness, lack of appetite, and ultimately a shared contempt for the law are eroding the Constitution as much as Bush's idea of executive power.

Having fun guarding the hen house? Sweet gig.

Of course, if any ordinary citizen dared to do such things, they would face jail time, right? The contempt of this gang of thugs for us, the people they're supposed to serve, is beyond belief.

Nothing will happen to Rove or Bolten. Neither Bush nor Cheney will be impeached, not over this incident, not for anything. It doesn't matter how many laws are or have been broken, or how many sections of the Constitution have been used to wipe the ass of our Lying Sack of President, neither Congress nor the American people have enough guts these days to stand up and demand accountability. In a few days this will all be forgotten, and the media will safely focus once again on the important political issues, like John Edwards' haircuts, or Hilary's cackling, or Obama's possible Drug Use While Muslim.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

won't allow the prosecutors to prosecute them. who set up this system, stalin?

zach.neal,

"If the Executive branch does not carry out the contempt prosecution then the impeachment process should be started."

I'm sorry...impeach who and on what charge? If executive privilege is called, won't it require the US Supreme Court to make a determination on this?

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE refers to the assertion made by the President or other executive branch officials when they refuse to give Congress, the courts, or private parties information or records which have been requested or subpoenaed, or when they order government witnesses not to testify before Congress.

The assertion is based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, is always controversial, subject to interpretation, and often litigated.

LMarley,

"Of course, if any ordinary citizen dared to do such things, they would face jail time, right? The contempt of this gang of thugs for us, the people they're supposed to serve, is beyond belief."

You mean like Sandy Burger getting a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance for stealing secret documents?

If the DOJ refuses, the congress can do this in house.

We should at least mention this option!

Not that I expect these Democrats to mention the inherent contempt option. They are caving to Bush on nearly everything.

At least until Jan. 20, 2009, the prosecutors in that office serve at the pleasure of George W. Bush, whose people have already declared that the office "would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case."

This seems absolutely ridiculous! Is this true? How come this has never been tested or exploited in such a way before? This situation in-and-of-itself deserves an article.

Didn't take you long, did it? But you left out "and Clinton got a b.j., nyah nyah nyah."

These Contempt of Congress charges would set the stage for the Senate to ask the Senate Master of Arms to arrest the two men.

I mean, that's still pretty unlikely, but it means that it's within the Senate's power to enforce these charges, rather than being dependent on an uncooperative White House.

I am really going to show my ignorance here:

Why didn't Clinton use all the plays used by the current administration so that he would never be on the hot seat? You know, like executive privileges, refusing to produce documents, not finding emails, pleading ignorance, etc. etc.

Absolutely NOTHING brings down the Bush administration, and that is astonishing. Where are the checks and balances?

Please educate me, because I am dumbfounded.

You mean like Sandy Burger getting a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance for stealing secret documents?

Yes. That judgment against Berger sounds pretty small, and it was, but at least it was a nod towards the rule of law. Now, if you take Berger's sentence, and subtract the fine and the suspension, what you have left is the consequences that the Bush Admin faces for its lawbreaking. (Oh, that's right, Libby had to pay a fine too. I guess treason is a tough rap to beat, until the president pardons you.)

Anyhow, Anonymouse, your indignation about Berger's sentence betrays your bias. You find Berger's sentence too lenient, but would cry bloody murder if a republican faced any consequences. Right?

We call that a double standard. Good luck with that.

You said: "I'm sorry...impeach who and on what charge? If executive privilege is called, won't it require the US Supreme Court to make a determination on this?"

Well, let's take a look at the Constitution, shall we? It says that the president may be impeached for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." Note that none of these terms are defined. A misdemeanor does not have to be a felony.

Suppose a president were insane and offered to sell California to the French for 50 bucks. This might or might not break a law, but everyone would agree that such a president is loony, and should be removed from office. Impeachment can be initiated for incompetency, as well as illegality.

Congress can impeach Bush if it wants to. It does not need a broken law to do so. All it has to say is that the president's actions represent a danger to the balance of power. The Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.