PDA

View Full Version : Stonewalling Congress


ndebord
May 24th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Can the Justice Department continue to evade Congressional oversight?

I believe that the AttorneyGate scandal is the linchpin to unraveling this out of control, unitary power(ed) White House.

Judy G. Russell
May 24th, 2007, 01:17 PM
Can the Justice Department continue to evade Congressional oversight?I don't think they're evading it, Nick -- the hearings are not going away any time soon.

But I am personally appalled at the Republicans on the committee who praised Monica Goodling yesterday despite her admission that she broke the law by applying a political litmus test to career positions. These people are absolutely shameless and frightening...

ndebord
May 24th, 2007, 08:38 PM
I don't think they're evading it, Nick -- the hearings are not going away any time soon.

But I am personally appalled at the Republicans on the committee who praised Monica Goodling yesterday despite her admission that she broke the law by applying a political litmus test to career positions. These people are absolutely shameless and frightening...

Judy,

Can we break down the demographics of these republicans? To things like hidebound fundamentalists or such?

Judy G. Russell
May 25th, 2007, 09:46 AM
Can we break down the demographics of these republicans? To things like hidebound fundamentalists or such?Hidebound something for sure, but purely political seems to be the common factor: "I'm a Republican and I can't allow you evil Democrats to prove that any good Republican ever did anything wrong!"

MollyM/CA
May 27th, 2007, 12:43 PM
"I'm a Republican and I can't allow you evil Democrats to prove that any good Republican ever did anything wrong!"

I see it more as "I'm a Republican and I can get away with anything in this [Administration, political climate -- whatever--)!"

Judy G. Russell
May 28th, 2007, 12:42 PM
I see it more as "I'm a Republican and I can get away with anything in this [Administration, political climate -- whatever--)!"That's surely part of it. But it's more. I really do hear a lot of Republicans talk as if there is, and could be, no legitimacy whatsoever to any action by any Democrat at any time and, therefore, anything a Republican does must be okay by comparison.

MollyM/CA
May 29th, 2007, 12:52 PM
I really do hear a lot of Republicans talk as if there is, and could be, no legitimacy whatsoever to any action by any Democrat at any time and, therefore, anything a Republican does must be okay by comparison.

You say it so much better than I did.

Lindsey
May 29th, 2007, 10:22 PM
You say it so much better than I did.
There's even a new "shorthand" term for that double standard which I ran into today: IOKIYR: "It's OK If You're Republican."

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 13th, 2007, 01:31 AM
I thought this would be an appropriate addition to this thread:

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW061007.jpg

Judy G. Russell
June 13th, 2007, 08:46 AM
I thought this would be an appropriate addition to this threadHilarious, and soooo true. Gads the Senate is made up of total spineless wonders with that refusal to vote on the no-confidence resolution...

Lindsey
June 13th, 2007, 05:09 PM
Hilarious, and soooo true. Gads the Senate is made up of total spineless wonders with that refusal to vote on the no-confidence resolution...
I thought that was one of the best "Tom Tomorrow" cartoons I'd seen in a long time. Those cartoons get posted on Salon.com on Mondays before they go up at workingforchange.com on Tuesday; one comment by an anonymous reader on Salon that I thought was pretty good: "It's not a cartoon, it's a documentary."

I don't know that I'd agree with a characterization of the entire Senate as spineless because the no-confidence resolution was filibustered. The Democrats don't have 60 votes on their own, so unless 10-12 Republicans will go along with them, there's not much they can do. I would say, though, that Republicans like Trent "up-or-down vote" Lott are being grossly hypocritical. And I thought it disappointing that Biden and Obama didn't bother to leave the campaign trail to vote for cloture, though when it wouldn't have made any difference, I guess that's a rational calculation.

Someone suggested that what Harry Reid should have done was to float an elaborate statement of support for Gonzales and see if anybody at all dared vote for it. That's a trick out of the Republican playbook (remember the Republicans forcing a vote on immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq to embarass Democratic supporters of an eventual drawdown?), and I'm a little sorry they didn't try that!

It's telling that the Republicans who did vote for cloture are the ones up for re-election in 2008. They're very conscious of what the public mood is, and they're putting as much distance as possible between themselves and the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, the decision to subpoena testimony from Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers appears to have been precipitated by the content of the latest mail dump from the Justice Department: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003419.php

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 13th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Someone suggested that what Harry Reid should have done was to float an elaborate statement of support for Gonzales and see if anybody at all dared vote for it. That's a trick out of the Republican playbook (remember the Republicans forcing a vote on immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq to embarass Democratic supporters of an eventual drawdown?), and I'm a little sorry they didn't try that!I'm sorry as well. It would have had the same effect as a no-confidence vote.

Lindsey
June 14th, 2007, 05:32 PM
I'm sorry as well. It would have had the same effect as a no-confidence vote.
Yes, and it would have been something Republicans would have had difficulty explaining a filibuster on.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 14th, 2007, 10:28 PM
Yes, and it would have been something Republicans would have had difficulty explaining a filibuster on.Karl Rove would have found some way to spin it.

Lindsey
June 15th, 2007, 10:48 PM
Karl Rove would have found some way to spin it.
Possibly, but the Bush administration spin is starting to make them all look like they're playing Twister.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 16th, 2007, 02:50 PM
Possibly, but the Bush administration spin is starting to make them all look like they're playing Twister.Fun to watch, isn't it?

Lindsey
June 16th, 2007, 11:59 PM
Fun to watch, isn't it?
It might be if they weren't taking the whole country down the toilet with them. :(

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 17th, 2007, 09:08 AM
It might be if they weren't taking the whole country down the toilet with them. :( It's up to Congress to stop them.

Lindsey
June 17th, 2007, 06:12 PM
It's up to Congress to stop them.
The only way that Congress would be able to do that is for moderate Republicans to make common cause with the Democrats, because the Democratic majority there is too thin for the Democrats to be able to do it alone.

And actually, when it comes right down to it, the only real power the Congress has over the executive branch is impeachment. And that's a very blunt instrument.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 17th, 2007, 10:05 PM
The only way that Congress would be able to do that is for moderate Republicans to make common cause with the Democrats, because the Democratic majority there is too thin for the Democrats to be able to do it alone.Agreed. And the GOP as a whole should be held responsible. At the ballot box, if nowhere else.

And actually, when it comes right down to it, the only real power the Congress has over the executive branch is impeachment. And that's a very blunt instrument.Don't forget the power of the purse.

Lindsey
June 18th, 2007, 12:54 AM
Don't forget the power of the purse.
That's a pretty blunt instrument, too, and we saw what happened when Democrats tried to insert conditions on continued funding for the Iraq War. As long as Bush vetos what he doesn't like and the Republicans continue to support him.

This is the problem with ignoring the Constitutional requirement that Congress, not the president, decides when to take the country to war. If we leave the Congress with only the ability to cut off funding, as many right-wingers would have it, it pretty well kills any control Congress, and thus the People themselves, have over whether the country goes to war. The presidents sends the troops in and then dares Congress to leave them stranded, and that puts them between a rock and a hard place.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 18th, 2007, 10:45 AM
That's a pretty blunt instrument, too, and we saw what happened when Democrats tried to insert conditions on continued funding for the Iraq War. As long as Bush vetos what he doesn't like and the Republicans continue to support him. This is the problem with ignoring the Constitutional requirement that Congress, not the president, decides when to take the country to war. If we leave the Congress with only the ability to cut off funding, as many right-wingers would have it, it pretty well kills any control Congress, and thus the People themselves, have over whether the country goes to war. The presidents sends the troops in and then dares Congress to leave them stranded, and that puts them between a rock and a hard place.Which, of course, is also the fault of the Congress in part for voting a blank check in the "go ahead and go to war" department back in 2001.

But here specifically we were talking about the Justice Department, and it's a bit easier to control the purse over a specific department than over a war.

Lindsey
June 18th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Which, of course, is also the fault of the Congress in part for voting a blank check in the "go ahead and go to war" department back in 2001.
The AUMF resolution was passed in October of 2002, and that was a "between a rock and a hard place" vote, too, as the Republicans had made it clear that they intended to go after anyone voting against it in the 2002 election. (Not that voting for it proved to be any protection against being savaged as a traitor -- look at what they did to Max Cleland.)

I was opposed to that resolution, but it did require Bush to exhaust all peaceful means of neutralizing the "threat" from Iraq first, which he obviously didn't do, but the only way to hold him accountable for that would be to impeach him. But Bush would have gone into Iraq with or without the resolution, and if the resolution had not passed, he'd have then blamed Democrats for not being supportive when the war turned out to be the disaster that it has been. (Which is exactly what they are warming up to do in 2008, after the surge ends up like a beached whale, which is sounding more likely all the time.)

But here specifically we were talking about the Justice Department, and it's a bit easier to control the purse over a specific department than over a war.
OK, I'll bite: how do we use the power of the purse to force the Justice Department to play nice, or at least to obey the law?

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 18th, 2007, 10:41 PM
The AUMF resolution was passed in October of 2002, and that was a "between a rock and a hard place" vote, too, as the Republicans had made it clear that they intended to go after anyone voting against it in the 2002 election. (Not that voting for it proved to be any protection against being savaged as a traitor -- look at what they did to Max Cleland.)It's hardly the "fault" of the Republicans that they are very good at manipulating the facts, the media and the minds of the voting public. If the Democrats want to play in that league, they'd better learn -- and damned soon -- how to respond effectively. And putting a bunch of veterans on stage at the convention ain't effective.

OK, I'll bite: how do we use the power of the purse to force the Justice Department to play nice, or at least to obey the law?Restrict its spending in very specific ways unless it acts in very specific ways.

Dan in Saint Louis
June 19th, 2007, 04:11 PM
This just seemed like a good thread to note the availability of this report:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070618105243.pdf

Lindsey
June 19th, 2007, 10:06 PM
It's hardly the "fault" of the Republicans that they are very good at manipulating the facts
Actually, yeah, it is the "fault" of Republicans. There's no honor in lying. And I don't think the answer is stooping to being equally manipulative.

The fact is that there is that there is no way to get the upper hand of people to whom truth has no value, who have no honor, who will stoop to anything just to win unless you, too, are willing to throw truth and honor on the garbage heap.

Restrict its spending in very specific ways unless it acts in very specific ways.
It's the specifics I was looking forl

But what happens when Republicans filibuster those efforts in the Senate? And what happens when the president vetos the bill? How do you get past that without a supermajority in both houses? And if you do by some miracle manage to get it passed, what do you do when the president and his Justice Department flip Congress the bird and totally ignore it?

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 19th, 2007, 11:26 PM
This just seemed like a good thread to note the availability of this report:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070618105243.pdfBut but but... the RNC says "waaaaaah! We'll find those emails if you'll just give us time (like until 2009...)!"

(Now I know I wrote an answer to this earlier today. I have got to stop forgetting to hit the "submit" button after I hit the "preview" button!)

Judy G. Russell
June 19th, 2007, 11:28 PM
Actually, yeah, it is the "fault" of Republicans. There's no honor in lying. And I don't think the answer is stooping to being equally manipulative.I don't think they think they're lying or being manipulative. That's what makes them so damned scary. They really think they're Patriots Saving the Nation from Terrorism.

what happens when Republicans filibuster those efforts in the Senate? And what happens when the president vetos the bill? How do you get past that without a supermajority in both houses? And if you do by some miracle manage to get it passed, what do you do when the president and his Justice Department flip Congress the bird and totally ignore it?You campaign on that in clear and simple terms and vote the b@st@rds out, that's what.

Jeff
June 20th, 2007, 01:16 PM
But but but... the RNC says "waaaaaah! We'll find those emails if you'll just give us time (like until 2009...)!"

(Now I know I wrote an answer to this earlier today. I have got to stop forgetting to hit the "submit" button after I hit the "preview" button!)

That would be way easier to remember if "submit" was under the preview screen, as it used to be...

- Jeff <g,d&ring------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

Judy G. Russell
June 20th, 2007, 03:32 PM
That would be way easier to remember if "submit" was under the preview screen, as it used to be...And if I could find the #$%$# code to do it, I would, believe me. I spent an entire day trying to figure out how we did that in the first place so I could try to replicate it. Came up totally empty. Sigh...

Lindsey
June 20th, 2007, 06:58 PM
I don't think they think they're lying or being manipulative. That's what makes them so damned scary.
How could they not know that? How is it possible to lie blatantly and not realize that you are lying? If they really are that deluded, that is certainly mega-scary. But I find it easier to believe they are simply that cynical.

You campaign on that in clear and simple terms and vote the b@st@rds out, that's what.
Which is another way to say that Congress has limited means at its disposal to rein in a rogue elephant executive branch.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 20th, 2007, 10:59 PM
How could they not know that? How is it possible to lie blatantly and not realize that you are lying? If they really are that deluded, that is certainly mega-scary. But I find it easier to believe they are simply that cynical.Either way it's pretty scary.

Which is another way to say that Congress has limited means at its disposal to rein in a rogue elephant executive branch.No, Congress has very strong means at its disposal. A very narrow majority of one party may have limited means, but Congress has all the authority it needs.

Lindsey
June 23rd, 2007, 12:23 AM
A very narrow majority of one party may have limited means, but Congress has all the authority it needs.
Well, unfortunately, a narrow majority is all we have to work with at the moment.

Even so, I seem to remember presidents manipulating the funds allotted to them, in order to get around the restrictions and dictates of Congress. Pulling money from one area to put into another, employing impoundment, even engaging in clandestine activities (a la Iran/Contra). If a president is determined to have no restrictions placed on his actions, ultimately, the only way to stop him is to impeach.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 23rd, 2007, 08:16 AM
If a president is determined to have no restrictions placed on his actions, ultimately, the only way to stop him is to impeach.That's true, but you establish the fact that the president is determined to have no restrictions first by trying out the restrictions. After all, if you don't have the votes to sustain the restrictions, you don't have the votes for an impeachment.

Lindsey
June 24th, 2007, 12:29 AM
After all, if you don't have the votes to sustain the restrictions, you don't have the votes for an impeachment.
Which is exactly the problem the current Congress has, and brings us back to the statement that moderate Republicans need to step up and put country ahead of party.

But there's a new twist on use of the power of the purse in the news today. I guess you've heard that Cheney has been claiming that his office is not part of the Executive Branch, and thus he is not subject to the requirements regarding the treatment of classified information that are spelled out in one of Bush's Executive Orders? That he's saying that the Vice-Presidency is its own separate entity, neither Executive nor Legislative, but its own separate hybrid branch?

Well, Congessman Rahm Emmanuel has decided to take Cheney at his word, saying that if he's not part of the Executive Branch, then he's not entitled to any of the funds Congress has appropriated for the Executive Branch. Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_06_17_archive.html#4420515904221461998) quotes an incoming e-mail:

Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."

--Lindsey

Dan in Saint Louis
June 24th, 2007, 09:59 AM
I guess you've heard that Cheney has been claiming that his office is not part of the Executive Branch, and thus he is not subject to the requirements regarding the treatment of classified information that are spelled out in one of Bush's Executive Orders?
And he wants to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/index.html).

Judy G. Russell
June 24th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Which is exactly the problem the current Congress has, and brings us back to the statement that moderate Republicans need to step up and put country ahead of party.Yep. But it ain't gonna happen.

But there's a new twist on use of the power of the purse in the news today. I guess you've heard that Cheney has been claiming that his office is not part of the Executive Branch, and thus he is not subject to the requirements regarding the treatment of classified information that are spelled out in one of Bush's Executive Orders? That he's saying that the Vice-Presidency is its own separate entity, neither Executive nor Legislative, but its own separate hybrid branch? Well, Congessman Rahm Emmanuel has decided to take Cheney at his word, saying that if he's not part of the Executive Branch, then he's not entitled to any of the funds Congress has appropriated for the Executive Branch.ROFL! That too ain't gonna happen but it is amusing.

Judy G. Russell
June 24th, 2007, 10:39 AM
And he wants to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/index.html).Only when it tries to apply the rules to him!

Lindsey
June 25th, 2007, 11:45 PM
And he wants to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/index.html).
I think we should abolish the OVP!!

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 25th, 2007, 11:52 PM
ROFL! That too ain't gonna happen but it is amusing.
I agree, it's not going to happen, but I sure would like to listen in on the debate over that amendment! Would be great fun seeing Republicans forced to explain why funding for Cheney's office should be included in the appropriation for the Executive Branch if he's not actually a part of it.

More and more I'm convinced that the most effective way to combat these guys in the court of public opinion is to make them into a joke. Which, fortunately, is not that hard -- they do most of the work for you.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 26th, 2007, 09:24 AM
More and more I'm convinced that the most effective way to combat these guys in the court of public opinion is to make them into a joke. Which, fortunately, is not that hard -- they do most of the work for you.I couldn't agree more -- but if the Democrats want to win, they have to keep the jokes coming and not back down. I mean, come on. "Heck of a job, Brownie" is the biggest joke of our time!

sidney
June 26th, 2007, 09:48 PM
ROFL! That too ain't gonna happen but it is amusing.

I thought I read somewhere (can't find it now) that someone in the ISOO said that if the OVP is not subject to their oversight, then when they receive confidential material from the Executive Office that is export of the material from the EO which can only be done according to their rules. I think that should fly a bit better than the attempt to cut off funding.

Lindsey
June 26th, 2007, 10:05 PM
I couldn't agree more -- but if the Democrats want to win, they have to keep the jokes coming and not back down.
I have always thought that this was the real lesson of "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- I can remember sitting in the theater watching that movie and feeling, for the first time since 9/11, that it was OK to laugh at Bush and his neocon cabal.

Once you feel it's OK to laugh at a guy, it's hard to be intimidated by him.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 26th, 2007, 10:06 PM
I thought I read somewhere (can't find it now) that someone in the ISOO said that if the OVP is not subject to their oversight, then when they receive confidential material from the Executive Office that is export of the material from the EO which can only be done according to their rules. I think that should fly a bit better than the attempt to cut off funding.Yeah, the President basically said, hey, it's my Executive Order so if I give it to him, then by definition it's okay.

Lindsey
June 26th, 2007, 10:07 PM
I thought I read somewhere (can't find it now) that someone in the ISOO said that if the OVP is not subject to their oversight, then when they receive confidential material from the Executive Office that is export of the material from the EO which can only be done according to their rules. I think that should fly a bit better than the attempt to cut off funding.
I dunno, Sidney -- it's not nearly as funny.

--Lindsey

sidney
June 26th, 2007, 10:44 PM
I dunno, Sidney -- it's not nearly as funny

Well, I think it would be funny of the OVP no longer had access to anything from the EO that is marked "confidential" and if the President and his staff could be prosecuted for disclosing confidential material to the VP.

Lindsey
June 26th, 2007, 10:58 PM
Well, I think it would be funny of the OVP no longer had access to anything from the EO that is marked "confidential" and if the President and his staff could be prosecuted for disclosing confidential material to the VP.
Well, I confess, that would certainly give me a chuckle or two! But I think I'd laugh harder if Congress cut his allowance off.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 27th, 2007, 08:22 AM
Well, I think it would be funny of the OVP no longer had access to anything from the EO that is marked "confidential" and if the President and his staff could be prosecuted for disclosing confidential material to the VP.It would be, but I suspect that he who makes the Executive Order can also exempt from the Executive Order. Darn it...

Dan in Saint Louis
June 27th, 2007, 09:20 AM
Eric Mink (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/ericmink/story/9598FF2E0AE0D4DA8625730600803874?OpenDocument) in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch notes that Cheney feels that since he serves in both the Executive and Legislative branches, he is bound by the rules of neither. Eric further notes that since Cheney is now interpreting the law, he is really in the Judicial branch (that observation was in the printed paper, but I don't see it in the Web version).

Judy G. Russell
June 27th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Eric Mink (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/ericmink/story/9598FF2E0AE0D4DA8625730600803874?OpenDocument) in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch notes that Cheney feels that since he serves in both the Executive and Legislative branches, he is bound by the rules of neither. Eric further notes that since Cheney is now interpreting the law, he is really in the Judicial branch (that observation was in the printed paper, but I don't see it in the Web version).I heard that on the radio a day or so ago! It would be funny if it wasn't true!

Lindsey
June 27th, 2007, 10:09 PM
It would be, but I suspect that he who makes the Executive Order can also exempt from the Executive Order. Darn it...
That's true -- but apparently the plain reading of the order does not support the notion that either the president or the vice-president are exempt from it.

And in any event, if the president exempts particular people under his authority from the requirements for the proper handling of classified information, then he bears the responsibility for the consequences. Henry Waxman's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee have uncovered evidence that there has been extremely sloppy handling of classified information in the White House, in the office of both the president and the vice-president. It's so bad, in fact, that something like half the people in the White House security office have quit in frustration and disgust in the last year. (See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014858.php)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 28th, 2007, 07:30 AM
And in any event, if the president exempts particular people under his authority from the requirements for the proper handling of classified information, then he bears the responsibility for the consequences.No, actually, he'll find some poor schmuck like Scooter Libby to bear the consequences...

Lindsey
June 29th, 2007, 06:26 PM
No, actually, he'll find some poor schmuck like Scooter Libby to bear the consequences...
You are, unfortunately, quite right about that. That's what he has done his whole life.

--Lindsey