by Teh Nutroots | The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to hold him in contempt. (NYT) I find it extraordinary that everyone, including all Republicans, doesn't hold him in contempt. Why do Republicans insist on shielding wrongdoers within the Bush administration?(NYT) Lying to Congress got Bill Clinton impeached in the House.
But defying Congress? That's apparently fine, even for people who aren't the president. 'The White House has invoked executive privilege in asserting that current and former top officials cannot be forced to testify before Congress, because the president’s right to confidential advice from his trusted aides would then be compromised.' (NYT)
If only Bill Clinton had realized that as president, he had the privilege of preventing all current and former administration officials from testifying. Though somehow I feel that if President Obama invokes this privilege, Republicans will suddenly see the other side of the argument. (NYT)
And perhaps Republican voters really are stupid enough to believe Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex), who accused Democrats of conducting “witch hunts” and neglecting the people’s real business, like energy needs and border security. (NYT) Oh sure; trying to hold the administration is always a witch hunt unless the purpose of the inquiry is to look into blow jobs. Then no amount of money or effort is too great.
The committee recommendation now goes to the full House, which voted in February to hold two other former White House officials in contempt in connection with the same inquiry. The House’s votes against Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, were the first contempt of Congress citations against the executive branch since the presidency of Ronald Reagan (NYT) .
As for Monica Goodling and her little friends, what's going to happen to them?
While the House Judiciary Committee was deliberating, the Senate Judiciary Committee was convening to hear Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general. Mr. Fine testified about his report on Monday that senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by letting partisan politics guide their hiring decisions for positions that were supposed to be nonpolitical.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the committee, said at the start of Wednesday’s session that what had been uncovered so far about the Justice Department represented “the most serious threat to the effectiveness, professionalism and independence of the department since Watergate.” (NYT) .
Wow, that sounds serious. Will they be held accountable?
Responding to questions, Mr. Fine said prosecutors had concluded that Ms. Goodling and Mr. Sampson committed civil, as opposed to criminal violations, and therefore were not liable to charges. Mr. Fine portrayed Ms. Goodling and Mr. Sampson, both in their 30’s, as out of their depth. (NYT) .
Yes, we most definitely need to stop allowing all these people in their thirties to hold official positions. They're mere children who haven't developed sufficient reasoning powers to know right from wrong.
“These were inexperienced, junior people, to some extent,” Mr. Fine said. “They rose to high-level positions, and they were allowed to implement these actions and changes unchecked, without adequate supervision, without adequate oversight. And it resulted in very serious damage to the Department of Justice. “ (NYT) .
And the person accountable for this damage---since these two infants are not---would be...? The article doesn't say. But there must be some sort of answer. It can't be, can it, that the answer will be, 'Really no one"?
As Digby says:
[E]ven getting Goodling to pay for this would be a stretch. She was given immunity against self-incrimination at her Congressional hearing, and the crime she committed doesn't appear to have a penalty now that she's no longer employed by the DoJ.
RECENT POSTINGS
Kathleen Sebelius, the Veepstakes, and the glass ceiling
Far Right Rhetoric & The Tennessee Valley Shooter
Will Goodling be the Bush Administration's Scapegoat?
Comments