Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge

Possible contempt. I suppose like Gonzales -- anything is possible, if not likely. Somehow these guys just always skate.

But here's the goods, from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House chief of staff faced possible contempt charges after a congressional panel on Thursday ruled as invalid President George W. Bush's bid to limit the probe of the firing of federal prosecutors.

On a party-line vote of 7-3, a Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee rejected Bush's contention that his claim of executive privilege shields the top aide, Joshua Bolten, from having to turn over subpoenaed documents.

"Those claims are not legally valid," said panel Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat.

Here is the official letter from Chairman Conyers:

BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL

Mr. Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Office of the Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Fielding:

I am disappointed that the President's Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has continued to disobey the subpoena served on him on June 13, 2007, and has not produced the documents called for by that subpoena. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the text of a ruling by Chairwoman Sanchez at today's meeting of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law rejecting the claims of privilege that you have sought to raise in response to that subpoena. The ruling was sustained by a 7-3 vote of the Subcommittee.

This letter is to formally notify you that I must insist on compliance with the subpoena, and that Mr. Bolten's failure to promptly mitigate his noncompliance could result in contempt proceedings, including, but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C §§ 192, 194 or under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives. In light of Chairwoman Sanchez's ruling, we strongly urge immediate production of the responsive documents pursuant to the subpoena. Please let me know in writing by 10 a.m. on Monday July 23, 2007. whether Mr. Bolten will comply. If I do not hear from you in the affirmative by then, the Committee will have no choice but to consider appropriate recourse.

The Senate Follies... (or should I say folly)

Meanwhile GOP members of the Senate - the obstructionists - are facing our own contempt... but as you can see, we're not terribly effective either. Over 70% of us want out... but hey, who's counting heads?

I so enjoyed the all-nighter with the Senate, (except for Libermouth - did he talk for an hour or did it just feel like a week?) I was happy to see my respect for Chuck Hagel was well placed (he once again bucked the GOP lockstep and voted to hold a vote; yes, it this was all simply about holding an up and down vote on an amendment to get our troops started on an exit from Iraq. Republicans can't even manage that.)

Was disappointed with my own Senator Lugar - especially after his recent speech calling for a change in direction prior to the September deadline (which by the way just magically changed to November!) It would have been nice if his words could have been accompanied by his vote. As they say... talk is cheap.

We did get a little more insight into the 'why' of the GOP obstruction, with an eye-opener of a comment from Idaho Senator, Republican Larry Craig, who came right out and admitted we can't leave Iraq 'without the oil:'

Idaho GOP Sen. Larry Craig stood on the Senate floor late Tuesday night and said:

"What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

He was cut off by the presiding officer, but later amended his remarks to include in the Congressional Record this:

However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.

Waiting on Iraqis to sign that 'we're taking all of your oil' bill, aren't you?

Well, the Iraqi Parliment is taking the summer off... and apparently so are you! Golly - I guess those poor troops will just have to slog around in 100+ heat and get their limbs shot off until you all come back from summer vacation. Happy golfing and I hope y'all get nice tans. I'm sure the troops are getting very tanned... or are those scorch marks from the bomb blasts?

(This makes me sick.)