Login HereWell, at least he complied with my request that he make his decision quickly. I'm sure you're not surprised that he said no?
By ordering the U.S. Attorney to take no action in response to congressional subpoenas, the Bush Administration is continuing to politicize law enforcement, which undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system.
Anticipating this response from the Administration, the House has already provided authority for the Judiciary Committee to file a civil enforcement action in federal district court and the House shall do so promptly. The American people demand that we uphold the law. As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that.
Our investigation into the firing of United States Attorneys revealed an Administration and a Justice Department that seemed to put politics first, and today's decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the US Attorney firings hidden. In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the Committee's subpoenas.
Share This 
Spotlight
Gratifying to see. Prognosis on this suit’s trajectory?
w00t! Onward! Swift action!
Bob in HI
Now if Nancy really wanted to fight, she’d get a Contempt of Congress resolution against Mukasey himself.
That would do a couple of things:
1. Perhaps force Mukasey to recuse himself from deciding about enforcing Congressional subpoenas.
2. Put Mukasey in the unenviable position of the Attorney General himself held in Contempt of Congress.
Come-on Nancy, do it!
KagroX over at Daily Kos with a few more tidbits.
Bob in HI
EW is already past Kagro X. In fact, I think she’s lapped him. The Race is On!
Bob in HI
How often each day are we forced to pause and consider how far from everyone’s idea of “America” any of the WH’s actions are.
Captain Renault hereby adopts and incorporates his standard response.
Chisholm1 - The prognosis is for very slow and totally fucking inane and lame, tactical pleading by our fearful Democratic Leadersheep, followed by some type of an embarrassing draw (assuming they don’t manage total loss complete with horrid precedent being set) and then some typical bleating about having “done the best they could” while keeping their focus on the maintenance and marginal increase of their feeble and useless majorities and spirit of unity. True leaders, that were capable of even a minute profile in courage, would refuse to be so completely and unconscionably derelict in the one real duty specified in their sworn oath to office. But not out guys.
I wonder if Mukasey is thinking, well, yeah, these guys belong in leg irons, but I don’t want to be the one to do it.
Or is he already too deep into the zombie juice?
Bob in HI
Nah, mine was a shameless cutting and pasting of something I got from Nancy’s blog person between meetings today…
So, you’re pretty optimistic, huh?
Bob
playing dumb in HI
What about inherent contempt?
Silence knave citizen! That is off the table!!!!
so, what are the real and tangible options open to congress?
suppose they issue these ‘lawsuits to enforce subpoena’
so what?
they refuse, they sight executive privilege and they just plain don’t show the frig up
so what?
can congress arrest them?
what arm of enforcement will arrest these once public officials and can’t the president simply “pardon” them even if the arrest holds?
there really is only one affective option, they have to impeach the president, there is nothing else that will enforce their adjudication
nothing
This is a sterling example of the Mukasey Principle in action, i.e. being a part of this Administration is prima facie evidence you have no integrity.
Is Mukasey asking to be forced to step aside — is he asking for impeachment?
it is all friggin hopeless hugh, there is nothing these lame asses are gonna do.
so, if they use “inherant contempt” and jail whoever they want, the president just “indignantly” issues a pardon and bing, out of jail free card
therre is only one hope and that hope is “off the friggin table”
Lets put it this way, I kind of expect Pelosi and Hoyer to retain Mark Geragos to litigate the matter for them….
no no no no Cheney MUST go first! I would rather chimpy go free than have Cheney with the nuclear “football”.
Repeat after me:
Cheney first
Cheney first
………..
the president “asks for impeachment” each and every day, over 700 times he asked for impeachment in his signing statements alone, pardoning a treasonous criminal who exposed covert assets, stealing middle class assets and giving those assets to the wealthiest people on the planet, diverting forces in place to fight our enemies so he could pillage the treasure of nations
and not only approving torture, insisting on implimenting it
he asks for impeachment each and every day, he begs for it, he challenges for it
and crickets
I don’t believe that a pardon would be applicable or effective to an inherent contempt judgment if it was set up correctly.
neither
they MUST go together, there can be no “first” and then the other guy
them president makes his own law, the supreme court upholds that law
you can rest assured, if the president issues a pardon it will stand
did I say “if”?
silly me
Well. Nice and bracing reality checks here. I sort of knew the answer to my question anyway, but wanted to hear the pros dissect it for me.
I simply cannot understand the Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to take on the president, particularly since the Republicans would be all over this in a heartbeat, were the situation reversed.
What stops them from going for it? Are Democrats just congenitally unwilling to fight?
It’s odd, because Pelosi Hoyer Emanuel et al don’t shrink from the fight of campaigning.
They don’t like losing, but they don’t like to play to win, either. Really win. I think they play to tie, and don’t dare go further.
the situation WILL be reversed, as soon as the republicans have a majority they WILL mount an impeachment proceeding if they think the democratic president is too popular
A pardon will only work if the pardoned admit guilt.
But I don’t know that the President can issue either a pardon or a commutation since “inherent contempt” is an action entirely within Congress and not an action by the Executive Branch under the DOJ.
Anybody want to pick that apart for us?
Steny and Nancy lost $150K
trying to by the primarysupporting Al Wynn, who got his ass handed to him by Donna Edwards. My guess is that Nancy took the action she did based on that primary.That is a bogus meme that won’t die. The convicted not only need not “admit guilt”, he is not even required to ask for the pardon or participate in the process.
rayne, did libby admit guilt?
so the president found a loophole to that caveat
the principles CAN admit guilt, they will admit that they defied subpeona under direction from the president
so that caveat is solved
as far as the president’s “power to pardon contempt of congress”
we have a president that can do anything if he sights “national security”
why it even says so in an order that congress passed
there is no hurdle the president can’t clear in his mind and with the power of alito and roberts in his pocket
no hurtle
I read that as well, that the subject is not required to do anything, they don’t even have to accept the pardon, the pardon is granted never the less
I have no idea if what I read is true but I read it
I really don’t believe that a Presidential pardon has any effect on a Congressional inherent contempt conviction; it is not a criminal matter and pardons are only for criminal offenses. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the executive or the judiciary has any role or jurisdiction whatsoever with the sole exception of, and get this wonderful irony, the ability of the individual so incarcerated to file a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
but why couldn’t the president site his powers as “a war president”, the powers granted by congress themselves to “use all force” in protection of our national security
the president’s “interpretations” know no bounds, of this I assure you
Re pardons,
In the first case to be decided concerning the pardoning power, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the Court, said: “As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institution ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it. A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed, from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officially to the Court. . . . A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.” Marshall continued to hold that to be noticed judicially this deed must be pleaded, like any private instrument.
From the annotated Constitution: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/const.....02/012.pdf
on pages 485-486 (640K PDF file)
Even pixie dust can’t save that from being an impermissible violation of separation of powers. Not even Captain Law of the Sea and his Boy Bybee can cobble that crap into a usable whole.
thanx hugh, that is right on point
Well, like Addington said, they’re not going to stop pushing until they come up against a force stronger than they are. And with Congress auto-castrated, and the Supreme Court 5-4 on their side, looks like there’s no limit to what they can do. Interesting. As grotesque as they are you have to admire their character and will to power.
I learned at the Dick Cheney School of Bird Hunting Safety that you “gotta flush ‘em out.”
Putting Bush in a position where he has to pardon yet another member of his administration, is a secondary win for us.
In order to preserve whatever smidgen of institutional pride remains in Congress, Nancy has to pursue this aggressively. She can’t control what Bush will do, but she shouldn’t allow herself to be unduly influenced by what he might do. She just needs to enforce the law.
bmaz, we would have said that if they claimed the right to torture, if they claimed the right to suspend habeas corpus, if they claimed the right to rewrite law duly passed by congress, if they claimed the right to suspend the 4 th amendment
pixie dust is might strong stuff
Perris,
“Inherent Contempt” is a tool that congress has stashed in its back pocket. With inherent contempt they can order the Sergeant at Arms guy at the capitol to take a legion of cops to arrest Meiers and whoever else is in contempt, hold them in the capitol jail cell, and there is no pardon available to gwb.
It’s a kind of ‘nuclear’ option, but one that i think they should exercise.
Beautiful.
hehe
the dick cheney school of bird hunting is;
“keep em in a box till i git ma riffle all loaded up, when I point my gun, you throw the bird raht whar ma bullet is gonna be goin”
because that is exactly what he does on those canned “hunts”
so, what do you think congress would do if the president DID issue a pardon and marched over with his honor guard, his secretary of defense, his attorney general and his order from the supreme court
what do you think congress would do right there?
The executive privilege theory test should challenge Mukasey’s resolve, but I imagine his unspoken concern during his recent unannounced visit to GMITO recently, re which OT there is lawStudents’ project excerpting from the cctvVideos.
frightening stuff there, here is a snippet
There is a difference between “acceptance” and the prerequisite to “admit guilt”. There is no need for the individual to do diddly squat before a pardon is granted; however, the individual can thereafter refuse said pardon. There is NO requirement that the individual admit guilt. Others can imply that by not refusing the pardon, the individual’s guilt is implied; but that has no binding legal force or effect.
Gee, Muckey has learned the ol’Friday afternoon news dump trick has he. Well gosh durn, we have seen that bit of fuckery before.
That is entirely up to Congress, but they would not be compelled or required to do anything. Our chickenshits would undoubtedly turn their tails and flee like Sir Robin in Monty Python’s Holy Grail.
Pardon is only for a convicted criminal, right?. There are other options that a president could use, none that stand a legal test any longer. The exception of course is his scotus that so violently opposes the constitution they were handed when they baptized. Will they really allow the truth to come out about that would jail most of their elected officials? And how many of the democrats have been profiteering on the war as well? Stevens, going to jail if they can keep him on life support, Renzi, so many more. Imagine what would happen if there were a real AG? We should realize martial law is one option they may choose, or have to choose at some point. The army has been destroyed and all it’s gear sent to another country. National Guard same thing. Anyone heard what Blackwater is doing? We all ready know the excuse they will use because they have used it dozens of times to the tune of zinging trillions of dollars for their friends, via our treasury.
You have to doubt any cooperation, the crimes still being committed will be eligible for prosecution come January. Too many have gone down for them to be able to relinquish power. Many have no statute of limitation for future indictments.
Unless the democratic majority is willing to do what the law demands, and they have shown no interest so far. Is it so much to say, “this is a simple matter of law” “this appears to be a high crime or misdemeanor”
no.
when you say “they would not be compelled to do anything”, I think you missed my point
they would be compelled at the point of a gun, under threat of arrest and by the power of the supreme court
just as congress can get the sgt of arms to enforce their “inherant contempt of congress” the president will get authority to use force as well to enforce his pardon
this would not simply be a stand off with the congress standing down, congress would be powerless to stop it
The Inherent Contemnor holds the keys to his own Cell… Merely talk to Congress…! How easy is that! I like the fact they’d have to request a writ… Bwhahaha…!
bmaz — so why commute?
Well, that is absolutely right. And i suggest the immediate opening of an impeachment investigation; but that process, including the formation of Articles of Impeachment, and then trial to the Senate, takes some time even if placed on a fast track. Inherent contempt can be determined simply by a committee, it does not even require the floor vote of the whole body. Could be done by the end of business next Tuesday. You see, if you really cared, and were appropriately pissed (like the freaking Republicans would be, without any question of doubt, if the roles were reversed), you would do inherent contempt immediately while processing the impeachment resolution.
considering that contempt wasn’t voted on by the house until after they had reason to think this would be mukasey’s answer…. can anyone give me reason to hope that the congress will do anything other than write letters objecting?
That is true, but Miers and Bolten would have to ante up fully.
Rayne - don’t understand the question??
My 2 cents - contempt is not “an offence against the United States”, and therefore not subject to a pardon from the Chimperor.
Exactly. As long as it is not worded as a “criminal contempt”, which really isn’t applicable to inherent contempt in the first place, a pardon would be ineffective and irrelevant.
Damn Skippy! However, our knee-knocked, lily-livered, House critters won’t ever do such a thing…!
OT- What are the odds for next week’s FISA bout in the House? Will Conyers and Reyes succeed in stripping Immunity from the bill…? 50-50?
With respect counsel:
I think you’ve missed the boat on a couple of stories lately:
[1] expecting your boy Rusty H to dance all over Congress for his client Roger Ramneedle — whereas all he did by insisting on being re-heard before the Waxman committee is cement his referral to the FBI/DOJ for perjury, and
[2] what’s happpening here.
Anyone else watch Pelosi for the first half hour on Charlie Rose last night?
I’m with the general view that Pelosi & Harry Reid were naive in expecting President WaterBush would — or even could — cease his anti-democratic ways just because the GOOP no longer controlled either chamber of Congress.
But I saw last night as her Declaration of War — with the hint coming last week when she went on anti-Bushauthoritarian in the face of one of Waterbush’s daily “grant the telcos immunity” rants. I said then — here or on another blog [Wired? Yup] that something was up.
IMO her letter to AG Mukasey wasn’t sent on a whim or without planning. She knew the answer in advance — as did we all, but the point is SHE knew.
And she’s pissed.
And Jello Jay endorsed Obama - who voted AGAINST telco immunity.
I repeat: something’s going on.
“I repeat: something’s going on.”
I hope you’re right! For the past year, Nancy P has been playing kissy-poo with George, under the false impression that the 2006 elections meant that America wanted Bipartisanship. The fruit of that ugly tree has best been described by Glenn Greenwald in his “Bipartisanship” piece: 12 of the ugliest, meanest laws of the past 10 years. Someone ought to do a spreadsheet on which Blue Dogs/ Bush Dogs voted for the most of these dirty dozen. The Democrats started the 109th Congress hoping that Republican unity would crumble and Democrats could peel off Republican votes. Unfortunately, Republican discipline has so far been much better than Democratic party discipline, and instead of Republicans peeling off, it has been Blue Dogs who have peeled off from the Democratic majority.
My hope is that the break between the 109th and the 110th Congress was like Half-Time. The Democrats went back to their locker room, realizing that their butts had been kicked, the fans were in a bad mood, and that their game plan needed a drastic revision. It is my hope that the “something going on” is that we’re beginning to see the signs of a new game plan in the House that will be more confrontational and combattive, ending the charade of bipartisanship.
Bob in HI
Good question, seconded.
(My memory was that it had to do with giving Scooter an excuse not to testify before Congress, but I’ll look forward to bmaz and others weigh in.)
Oh, I never expected Rusty to do anything at the Oversight Committee hearing. In fact, he couldn’t; there is no provision for counsel to argue or object. It is similar to the powerlessness of attending your client at a grand jury, with the exception of that you are allowed to be in the room right behind or beside your client. I never posited anything about the Committee potential, other than it was a completely bogus and unjust parallel proceeding. should the government actually file charges, which I think they recklessly will, then Hardin will have a forum to play in. I may be wrong, I often am, but I still fully maintain that you haven’t seen the real state and background of this case and its pretty much craven actors on the government side. Trust me, it isn’t very attractive, and you will see what I am talking about over time. Clemens is likely quite guilty, but the case is dirty, filthy and reeks.
As to Pelosi and Reid, I differ. If they were that stand up, they would be “matriculating the ball down the field” in a different manner as Hank Stram would say. this is still lugubrious run out the clock horseshit if you ask me.
pissed as in going to actually do something? or pissed as in kabuki for the proles?
Was the question about Libby? that is easy; if he had been fully pardoned, as opposed to the partial act of commutation, there would be no potential of future jeopardy and, therefore, no ability to hide behind the 5th Amendment right to silence.
This would make more sense under an extension of the pardoning power like an amnesty. I could also see it used pre-emptively before sentencing. But after sentencing, I think a strong argument could be made that the pardonee would have to accept a pardon to avoid jail and that acceptance would imply guilt. In any case, a pardon is not an exoneration and so would not extend to others penalties like disbarment. And thinking more about it, if a prosecutor were so inclined he/she could pursue a case until the person accepted or rejected the pardon again with the clear implication of guilt.
OT - Looking for support for lawyer’s solidarity
I posted this at Glenn Greenwald on Salon, someone suggested posting here.
I am looking for people to wear black armbands, headscarves, or whatever on March 9th, especially lawyers:
Aitzaz Ahsan, head of the lawyers (and until his house arrest and the Emergency, head of the Pakistani Bar Association) is calling for Monday March 9 to be “Black Flag Day”. During that day, at all events which are in solidarity with the lawyers, and their cause, will hoist black flags as opposed to whatever usual flag they would fly (Pakistani, party flags, etc.) and people will wear black arm bands and/or head bands.
Their cause is the restoration of the Pakistani Constitution, the rule of law, the reinstatement of the Judiciary, and the impeachment or at least deposition of President Pervez Musharraf. They are asking that at minimum, lawyers and law students should show their support.
The Bush administration, to the dismay of the Pakistani public, the entire region (South Asia), as well as many in our own government and public, our intelligence agencies and elsewhere, is supporting Musharraf and pushing for some sort of comeback for his rule, in defiance of a very clear referendum. It is behaving as if he runs the military, in defiance of General Kayani’s clear break with him and orders for the military to remove themselves from the politics of government (considered a fundamental pro-democratic step in South Asia).
Is there any possibility, although the time is short, for Americans, and in particular, members of the American legal community, to wear armbands in support of the lawyers in Pakistan? Is there any interest? Are there any lawyers here who could facilitate such a thing, and would want to?
If people are interested, and think it can be done, you can off-line me at ondelette at earthlink dot net. The blog post detailing the protest is at http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/
You would be free to imply guilt, but there would be no further prosecution available; and the individual would not be required to affirmatively do anything. The criminal part would be done and further prosecution barred; you could arguably try to imply guilt in a related civil matter, but that is about it.
Much appreciated bmaz.
18 -page Clemens memo to the House Committee on Oversight and Gov’t Reform about the letter both Davis and Waxman sent to Mukasey
The thing that bothered me about the press coverage of the Mitchell Report was the criticism the players got for sticking together as a union, and for thinking that it wasn’t a great idea to incriminate themselves by talking to Mitchell, who wasn’t subject to any rules, or laws, or evidentiary standards in his “investigation” - I wouldn’t let my client talk to him, just on principle, and there is something to be said for the idea that the union members stand together and boycott a proceeding that was in my view designed to be a PR effort for baseball, presided over by an “independent” investigator who is a part owner of one of the clubs - I mean, aside from the fact that noone disputes steriod use was prevalent in baseball (although noone is talking about keeping any 300 pound linebackers with 4.6 40s out of Canton - they sure know a lot about “nutrition” in the NFL), Mitchell’s idea of “evidence” includes a lot of excerpts from Canseco’s book! Although I must disclose my bias - Clemens has been dead to me ever since he put that Yankees’ cap on. Go Sawx!
Not just implication but admission. Again if a prosecutor wanted to push it, a case could be pursued in the absence of an acceptance, and if there is an acceptance, that is an admission of guilt. In our everday world the issuance of a pardon would probably preclude a prosecution and the pardonee could weasel on what that meant. But again I see no reason why a prosecution would be barred in the absence of an acceptance with all that entails, implies, and admits.
And what opportunity did Rusty Hardin, on behalf of his client, have to cross examine any of the witnesses that letter relies on? Or present his own evidence? Or argue legal defenses? Or submit dissenting language? Or participate in any regard? NONE. I am not saying Clemens is innocent, I am saying you do not know or understand the full story, because everything to date has been entirely one sided, with a couple of trivial exceptions. The real battle has not even been joined, much less started.
In a Parliamentary system like Canada, in addition to statutory pardons, we have a concept called the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, which I think is broader than a pardon, deriving from the power of the Sovereign through Parliament, and not dependent on the “acceptance” element of pardon. It came up in a case in the Supreme Court of Canada where a father was found guilty of murder for gassing his severely disabled daughter, on the ground that he was alleviating her pain. He wouldn’t admit he did anything wrong, but the sentence for murder was a minimum 1o years - the Supreme Court suggested Parliament give him mercy, not pardon, which it didn’t, BTW.
Hugh, to the best of my knowledge, that is just not right.
Well, IANAL and I know you are but I would love to see this passed by a Constitutional scholar because I think it is.
With all due respect bmaz, I don’t agree.
If Clemens had come to you, based on everything you have written here, you would have found a way to convince him that going before Waxman was nuts. Hardin knew this was great for Rusty’s cash flow, as well as free publicity forever.
Clemens legal strategy failed
Based on the link, I think it’s possible to argue that Hardin has made Clemens’ situation even worse than it already was.
What is this civil court crap? The obvious next move is to impeach both the US Attorney (who should have resigned) and the Attorney General. If the Republicans want don’t want to vote for removal when it gets to the Senate, fine. There’s going to be a new sheriff in town in a year, and they may want to think twice about tossing away what little power they have left.
Isn’t it about time to get rid of presidential pardons? I mean really. Is the president gawd?
Whatever happened to inherent contempt, anyway? Ya know, the contempt enforced by the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, where the miscreants are stashed in a lonely cell under the rotunda until they decide to talk?
That’s where I want to see Josh and Harriet. Yesterday would be fine.
OT - from the transcript of the House hearing on Missing White House Emails:
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
If it cost $5,000 per component, I’d swear this idiot got taken to the cleaners. And $50,000 per? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
Ms. “Addle-brain” Payton, White House Office of Administration CIO (Chief Idiot Officer) wouldn’t last 10 seconds in any IT organization I’ve ever worked it.
They would have subpoened him if he didn’t go. The tripe about him demanding the hearing is bunk. However, I would have advised him to take the fifth; and my strong guess is that Hardin did, but Clemens refused. Hardin does not need publicity and is not the type to seek it out to the detriment of his client like some attorneys. The bottom line though is that Clemens was going to maintain his innocence irrespective of the hearing or not; the fact is also that Novitsky, Mitchell and MLB were going to force a showdown with criminal charges if Clemens did not admit guilt. So really, I don’t think anything has been lost in the long run to tell you the truth. I would have tried to handle it differently, but that is a matter of style. Clemens is no worse for the wear other than in the court of public opinion; but that would have been compromised by him pleading the 5th too. I should also say that Rusty Hardin is a hell of a lot better and more experienced attorney than I am. I still urge one and all to understand that the criminal court system is far different that the court of public opinion. The real battle has not even started, and the field changes immeasurably when it does. Do not underestimate Hardin; he is very good. Seriously.
I hope you’ll tell the Contact for House Committee on Oversight and Gov’t Reform.
I called them once and was very impressed. First, a live person answers the phone. Second, after they determine that you’ve got something that might be of help, they forward you to someone else who is working on that specific issue. Again, it’s a live person. My guess is they would be interested in your take on Payton’s IT skills either by phone or via email.
Thanks Boo! That’s good info and I might just take you up on it. Gonna keep reading that transcript and document more laughables.
Can’t we put these jerks in jail? Seriously.
WRT inherent contempt….the founders put these things in the constitution for a reason!
Use it!
I’m voting for a “Sports Trash Talk - Druggies Edition” to salt this Clemens talk away in. It’s about as useful here as it has been in the House, where Waxman, et al, have way bigger fish to fry that they’ve been draggin’ their feet over.
/rant, mindless variety
Back on topic, CAN Mukasey be impeached for refusing to enforce the law? I’d guess so, but lately I’m not sure there’s anything the Rethugs can’t subvert or the Dems can’t hide from.
This is an opportunity to show that women in congress can lead as well or better than Man. Case in point Senate Leader Harry Reid I know she has more support.
More addled-brain ignorance from Ms. Payton, Chief Idiot Officer:
Shorter Ms. Payton “When any of my staff talk to me, I put my fingers in my ears and go - Na-na-na-na I can’t hear you.”
Gosh, MadDog, you are forgetting that these are contractors for the US government who routinely make 3 and 4 times the going rate for anything!
Welcome to Rome.
Pelosi ain’t gonna do shit. She’s trying to put on just enough show to get through her next primary, which is one hell of a miscalculation, if she doesn’t grow some tits pretty damn soon and start kicking some ass her title is going to go back to MRS.
The executive branch has acted completely unchecked for 6 years now. And congress can’t even pull enforce a subpeona.
Fuck all this talk about pardons and inherent contempt, they ain’t gonna call marshals. They need to start impeaching. Musksuckass is a good place to start.
Half measures will never get them anywhwere, and a big reason is that they doesn’t stir to new cycle enough to avoid drowning in the Republican message machine and ultimately getting turned back against the actor.
Step out there and do something drastic. That’s the only way. Then they can take control of the news cycle and cut through the talking heads.
Impeach the whole fucking administration! Any body with an ant brain knows they are a bunch of crooks, but who knows what inherent contemp is? Yawn. People understand impeachment and will listen.
But it ain’t gonna happen. Deals have been made, and Charlie ain’t never gonna get to kick the football.
Go home, Congress. Or start wearing togas so we can all see you for what you are!!! Plus, it’s easier for Bush and Cheney to ass fuck you in a toga, just a simple flip, no zip.
LOL! Even if true, that ain’t anywhere near being $50,000 to restore a backup of a single EOP component onto a server.
Let’s play with some numbers here:
2 Contractors - 1 to mount the tape and the other to hit “Enter” on the keyboard.
Going rate for a contractor? $150/hour. So that would be $300/hour for 2 folks x 8 hours, and that equals $2400 for 8 hours. If these 2 clowns couldn’t get it done in 8 hours…
Anyways, let’s assume that because it’s the White House, the contracting agency doubles the rate (prestige working conditions has its price).
That would mean that they’d charge the White House $4800 for 8 hours of work by 2 well-meaning, but totally inept clowns who took 8 hours to do a 2-3 job.
Ok, we got $4800 to charge the White House. Based on what Chief Idiot Officer Payton said, she’s willing to fork over another $45,200 for a grand total of $50,000 to get this work done.
Duh! Sign right here lady, and yes we do take Mastercard.
Talk about a sucker born every minute!
I think Chief Idiot Officer Payton gets caught here with a lie in her Federal Court deposition: