Yesterday's contempt vote upheld the simple Constitutional principle that no one is above the law. If an ordinary citizen could not ignore a subpoena without facing severe consequences, the same must hold true for the White House. ... I hope that as you read those stories, you will remember that the path to today's contempt vote did not begin with just a subpoena, or a hearing, or even the firings in December, 2006. Rather, it began with the Bush Administration's politicization of Justice and its refusal to submit to congressional oversight. .... I commend [those] voting to hold the Bush White house accountable and who stood up for the rule of law.
-- Rep. John Conyers, "A Good Day for the Constitution"*
After the committee voted for contempt against John Bolten and Harriet Miers for refusing to even show up to testify about the attorney firings last year, it took until now for the whole House to (successfully) do the same. Let's underline what is happening here. The politicization of the Justice Department was so bad -- let's again give Talking Points Memo in particular a lot of credit for making the MSM to take it seriously -- that Alberto Gonzalez (Torture Czar #1) was forced to spend some more time with his family. The President shouldn't have had wiggle move.
You pick your battles, even when right and probably obligated to do more, and this was a good one. And, we have a case here when two officials -- including Miers who refused to testify even after leaving office -- did not even show up. They didn't show up and declare immunity, however fraudulently. They simply didn't show up. Some might, and be right up to a point, declare this as an admirable (in a negative sense) example of guts/strength. But, it also is pathetic. They repeatedly don't have the guts to act in public view, always trying to hide the ball. Their position is so weak, or they are so weak, that they cannot simply let their position speak for itself. The evil partisans are out to get them!!!!
[Various hearings have made this more difficult, added most likely to the lame duck -- in more ways than one -- nature of the Administration. And, Rachel Maddow suggested some of the comments are strategic -- to play tough, and frame the Dems as weak on terrorists. And, rope-a-dope involves some release, after all. But, the running out the clock strategy held strong for years, and as to Iraq and other matters basically succeeded, and still is operative in various cases.]
There is a basic principle here. An essential role of Congress is to investigate. This might not lead to anything, or only to the public and other branches (the courts play some role here too sometimes) being influence in subjective fashion. Further legislation, funding decisions or executive action (resignation/firings a type of junior league impeachment) is not always the result. But, in a sense, political action is fungible -- this stuff matters in the long run somehow. Yes, even though TC #2 refuses to carry out the contempt by doing his f-ing job as the attorney general. (Thanks Chuck! my senator!)
A Senate committee held Karl Rove in contempt. Some might think that was solely a power play, given his position. But, Bolten and Miers (already embarrassed by the whole Supreme Court nomination) don't have the cache. And, is a simple example of the Democrats showing they will stand up to the President. In a fairly minor way, one that simply won't cause the heavens to fall, but that is how principle is sometimes underlined. It is why McCain voting against making the Army Field Manual the rule of the game for the CIA is pathetic and shameful. Now, the few readers of my blog probably know the extent of his "maverick" side, but some still don't realize he is a fake.
And, they finally did it. It is unclear if the Dems will really make an issue of it, though there is some value this lingering bad taste hurts the Bush Administration. The hope is that it isn't just useful in getting the members re-elected in the Fall. Why did it take so long? Well, Dem leadership thought it would hurt the push for bipartisan unity, most recently to pass some economic package. [H/t TPM Muckraker] This is where the concern with Obama comes in. The partisan divide in the Clemens hearings drove people not usually concerned with politics crazy, disgusted them. But, as one sports host noted, he would have been annoyed at the Dems if they were wrong. They weren't -- Clemens (who btw wanted the hearing) came off as clearly guilty.
Bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake is stupid. And, the idea that Congress couldn't have formulated some economic stimulus package or whatever AND hold two officials most people in the country care little about -- and would not actually have to do anything since you know who will refuse to respect the contempt ruling (if he did, it would linger in court, underlining how radical the Bush position is) -- is also stupid. You can talk about Blue Dogs. But, these people are still Democrats. They have some responsibility to do something, don't they? If they cannot even do something small like this, what the hell does partisan loyalty mean? More tail wagging the dog.
Control of Congress does not mean unlimited discretion by any means, even when the control is more solid than it is today. But, it does bring some benefits, and when you can claim neutral principle ... well, that makes things even easier. And, politics means compromise, even when it's great that certain groups have a strong voice in the process.** But, only up to a point. I just got an email from my representative denouncing Bush for his economic policies. Fine enough. But, there is more out there than that.
----
* For now, the House also is not giving in on telecommunity immunity and the like, like the rush job last Summer. Also from the latest email (I'm on his mailing list):
I also want to commend the Democratic Leadership for standing up to the White House yesterday and refusing to succumb to political pressure concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Last August we allowed ourselves to be jammed by the Senate and the White House. Yesterday, we stood up in the face of the pressure and let the President know that we intend to do our jobs as legislators and not hastily pass the flawed Senate bill with retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications firms.
Bush's bluster didn't stop congressional weakness in the past, but you figure at some point it might. TPM and Glenn Greenwald (Friday) has some more on this.
** This is why I supported Edwards twice, even if he was an imperfect representative of the principle, though rumblings he will endorse Clinton (since she's tough) are worrying. Please don't, John.