House Votes to Hold Miers, Bolton in Contempt

By a vote of 223 to 32, the House of Representatives today voted to hold former Bush White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Bush's Chief of Staff Josh Bolton in contempt for refusing to respond to a subpoena issued in the U.S. Attorney firing probe. Republicans boycotted the vote and walked out in protest.

It's been 25 years since a full Congress last voted on a contempt charge. In 1983,

The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

It's the lie that gets them every time. Far better to take the 5th or face a contempt charge. This will take years to resolve in the courts, by which time everyone will have forgotten about why it was so important.

< TPM's Sargent: It Was Not About Shuster, It Was About NBC And Tweety | New McCain vs. Hillary and Obama Polls >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How Many Hearings Has Congress Held (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by TearDownThisWall on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:34:30 PM EST
    in the last year on...
    What Causes Autism
    Why we went to War in Iraq
    Voting Irregularities

    the list could go for miles....

    and Yesterday?
    Hearings about Steroid use among babeball players?

    Is there any wonder why Congressional Approval is in the teens (acutally lower than the president approval #s)

    Yeppers... (none / 0) (#9)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    partisan politics doesn't help their approval ratings, either.

    And to think, we pay these guys to run our government, when they spend it trying to tear it down.

    Truth is, none of them will be held accountable. Because those across the aisle don't want the same treatment. Which means either side can rape the country dry, without consequences.

    A lady at the store said it best, "They're all crooks."

    I'm suprised that there's even any interest in elections, considering all of this junk. It's not government, it's talking heads paid by special interests.


    Almost not worth (none / 0) (#2)
    by Saul on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    the exercise.  Nothing will happen to her or anyone else held in contempt.  I honestly believe a democratic president will be elected along with an almost full democratic  majority of the house and senate in 09.  Now that you will have all this power now bring all of the Bush cronys, Gonzleles, Harriet, etc etc and have a full investigation of them then to seen if they committed any crimes that they got away with.    If you control both houses you should have very little resistance from  the opposite party not to proceed.  

    At least it's not Justice Harriet Miers (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    of the Supreme Court being held in contempt, huh?

    Her exhaustive review of potential justices that result in her suggestion of herself for the nomination is one of the Bush regime -- and that is really saying something.

    she did not suggest herself (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    Harry Reid suggested her. I was not opposed to her nomination. She was the least conservative of the bunch under consideration. I know Harriet and I like her personally.

    She has been a strong supporter of women's rights and indigent defense.


    Here's a BBC Interview (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    I did on Harriet's nomination at the time (mp3.)

    Which is why conservatives (none / 0) (#10)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:28:40 PM EST
    rallied to get her nomination pulled.

    They not only want abortion outlawed (it's a side issue to please the religious), their main goal is to get the 14th amendment pulled.

    Anything else is icing on the cake, but it's the 14th they want eliminated.

    I hate Neo-Cons, I really do.


    Miers (none / 0) (#12)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    That's  an  incredibly  high  number  of   "aye"  votes,   Jerilynn.   What  do you think made  so many   Republicans   vote  "aye?"

    they didn't (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    the Republicans staged a walkout. Those are mostly democrat's votes.

    Jeralynn (none / 0) (#14)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    Ok,  thanks.  I've  been  repainting  a  bathroom  all morning....missed  the  walkout.  

    Did  Boehner  work  up  some  fake  tears?


    Yeah, pretty much so (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:04:22 PM EST
    though it wasn't all weepy.

    They walked out - in a very prearranged and loud manner - because they considered the contempt motions political "stunts", and then promptly reassembled themselves for a photo-op and press conference on the Capitol steps.

    Then, they came back in and started voting in favor of renaming postoffices and such.

    Oh, and there was one member who voted "present".


    Oh barf (none / 0) (#17)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:06:43 PM EST
    What a  buncha    drama  queens!

    Bush will pardon them all :-( (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST

    Unity (none / 0) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:56:45 PM EST
    My fear with Obama, is that if he is elected, he will push to bury the past in an effort to show his desrie to unite the country. I hope I'm wrong on this, but I haven't heard or read anything that would make me think otherwise.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#8)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    I think this is the majority view of our Democratic "leaders".  I include Hillary in this.  Very few of our elected officials have stood up for the constitution.  I don't see them changing after the election.  I think they will talk about moving on and looking to the future.  So we will end up with another generation of Republican politicians ready to fill in where this one left off.  

    Manipulation (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    Me thinks they're attempting to throw red meat at us so we forgive them for FISA.

    -- FISA senate vote under cover of the Potomac primaries.

    -- Yesterday, senate vote to follow the military field manual (see how good of liberals they are!)

    -- Today, contempt vote in the house.

    Sorry, me have a loooong memory.  Won't fall for it.

    Giving the most benefit of the doubt to the GOP (none / 0) (#15)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    ... how can they possibly defend this?  

    This is not a rhetorical question.  (I find I understand the issue better when I look at both sides)

    The bottom line is not that they are asserting a (weak) executive privilege, but that they didn't even show up to assert the privilege.

    GOP is probably saying this is pure politics.  Even if it is, that doesn't mean it is also not contempt, right?

    Cany anyone explain to me how that could not be an open-shut contempt case?