Obama's White House is bound to resist. I have always had mixed feeling about Ms Pelosi, but here I think she is showing incredible forsight and honorable intentions; the effects of the precident would be applicable to Democrat as well as Republican executives.

There is the additonal downside to appearing to bait that old canard that Democrats are weak on National Security by attacking Rumsfield. To that extent, Pelosi and Reid expose the weak-knees they have beofre in taking on such serious matters.

Nonethless, she is to be admired for her bursuit here, even if she is bound to be failed by her Democratic collegues (as she probably knows... and hence this is all for show?)...

Congress has it's own right to arrest someone for contempt of Congress, and there's a long disused cell in the capitol. This is indeed a divide between branches, and Congress needs to assert itself. Obama could resolve it by deciding presidents have no executive privilege once they leave office, and that he doesn't exercise his in this case. That would remove the protection from Bush's miscreants. If that doesn't work for legal reasons or Obama won't do it, Congress should assert its power and jail them.

What did they tell you in J school, Alex, about using first person pronouns in news stories, especially in such a self reverential way?

It is bad enough when Tom does it...but when you do it...it is really kind of desperate and pathetic.

But put a clause in it that strips the White House of funding if the AG refuses to prosecute Contempt of Congress citations.

Congress has the tools with the power of the purse. The Executive executes the laws, but they do it on Congress's dime.

Not going to happen.

BTW, there are a LOT of people who have contempt for THIS Congress.

She wants to pretend that she wants them prosecuted.

It makes it easier to pretend to be a Democrat.

he says "Owww. I felt that". It's the collective.

... Pelosi's lack of interest in torture prosecutions is that it doesn't involve some arcane issue involving the separation of powers?

Really?

'Cause the rest of us can imagine a whole lot more reasons than that.

Is she going to come down hard on the Bushies for warrantless wiretapping any day now?

So, Pelosi has her knickers in a twist that the executive branch ran roughshod over the legislative branch, which means they impinged on her power personally.

Meanwhile, that same executive branch tortured people, wiretapped them and lied us into war. Pelosi has no problem with any of that. She wasn't tortured personally, nor was she wiretapped (as far as she knows, perhaps). And as for the lies getting us into war? Hell, Pelosi would have told those same lies if the price were right.

But crossing over into her little power dominion. That's too far!

Pelosi and Feinstein both need to switch parties. The GOP base is completely amenable to this sort of behavior. The Democratic base is not.

When Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel as CoS I had high hopes that even if Obama found it prudent to be a "Statesman" Emmanual wouldn't and somebody would get sent to jail over the tourture and wire tapping issues if nothing else. I've seen three consecutive Republican administrations get of scot free for fealony misconduct ranging form burglery to treason against the United States of America. I was hoping that the third time would be the charm and just a few of these carrerr felons would be brought to justice. I guess not. One thing is certain, though. Eventually we will have another Republican President and he will feel free to break any law he finds inconvenient. And this one will want to push the envelope a little further out. Just like the last two. There are no new laws left for the next Republican President to break except Posse Commitatus. Which means that the next Republian elected President of the United States could be the last elected President in this country for a very long time.

This cycle has got to stop right now, before it's too late. Every member of the last, failed administration who broke the law needs to be brought to justice and that justice needs to be harsh. The only alternative is that we stop being a free people the next time the Republican party manages to steal a national election.

I'm not as knowledgable about politics as others here, so I apologize if I'm incorrect here. But can't Congress conduct its own investigation without the president's approval? I thought a joint committee of the House and Senate could appoint an independent prosecutor who would investigate and then prosecute those found of wrongdoing.

If Congress can conduct an independent investigation, then I don't see why they would care what Obama says.

a day late and a dollar short Nancy.

You forget that the president "works" for the Constitution. The Executive's employees have an obligation to uphold the law, particularly and most importantly when their boss directs them to act otherwise. If not, you condone the "we were just following orders" argument rejected at Nuremberg. I'd be shocked if Obama's administration follows this foolish line of reasoning.

One other interesting part from the RS interview with Pelosi that's worth pointing out is that she appears to be much more interested in prosecuting Rove, Miers and Bolten than in investigating and potentially prosecuting someone like former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture.

That, too, probably comes down to the Executive vs. Legislative divide I mentioned earlier. Pelosi, along with the rest of Congress, stands to gain from a successful contempt prosecution, as it would set a new precedent giving the Legislative Branch more power to investigate the White House. Pelosi wouldn't see the same kind of benefit from prosecuting Rumsfeld, because the central issue in that case wouldn't be about the separation of powers.

You forgot to mention that when it comes to torture, illegal surveillance, and illegal detention, she's culpable. And —certainly on FISA and telecom immunity— so is Obama.