House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations
10:00am EDT

This will be shown on C-Span 1 TV

Links:  C-Span 1 - follow link on home page
   From afterdowningstreet.org:

KPFA & Pacifica Radio will air Friday's hearing from 9:00AM - 1:00PM EDT streamed live at pacifica.org and kpfa.org and on the air at KPFA (Berkeley), KPFK (Los Angeles), KPFT (Houston), and others TBD.

The House is not in session today, but the big goings-on will be in the House Judiciary Committee.

• Watch online
• Listen online

Today's the day House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has set aside for a hearing granted in response to the demands of Dennis Kucinich for hearings on the impeachment resolutions he's introduced over the course of the past few months: H. Res. 333 and H. Res. 799, impeaching Dick Cheney, and H. Res. 1258 and H. Res. 1345, impeaching George W. Bush.

The hearing, scheduled for 10:00 A.M. in Room 2141 in the Rayburn House Office Building, is not styled as an impeachment hearing. That's something Conyers and his staff have studiously avoided. It is instead titled a hearing on, "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations." As we'll see later, this designation could impose some real substantive limitations on the ability of Members and witnesses alike to discuss such critical matters as what constitutional provisions actually set the boundaries of executive power, and what Bush may have done to warrant their invocation. But other than that...

Chairman Conyers wasn't originally inclined to hold any kind of hearing related to Kucinich's resolutions, but a combination of factors eventually made that an untenable position -- though unfortunately none of those factors likely reflect any newfound interest among most Members of Congress in actually impeaching either Cheney or Bush. But with three of Kucinich's four resolutions all referred to Conyers' committee by actual roll call votes on the floor rather than by the usual process of designation by the Speaker in consultation with the parliamentarian, treating those referrals as mere pro forma designations and letting the bills die of neglect (as is the chairman's prerogative) became more difficult to do.

In addition, the cosponsorship of some of those resolutions by members of the Judiciary Committee (Tammy Baldwin, Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez, Steve Cohen, Keith Ellison, Shiela Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters), and especially the explicit pressure for hearings by Wexler, Baldwin and Gutierrez, made it impossible to maintain the position that there was no interest among the membership in having those hearings.

Finally, there was the tactic eventually employed to greater effect by Kucinich, taking advantage of the rules permitting any Member of the House to bring a resolution directly proposing impeachment to the floor at any time as a highly privileged motion, and forcing the Speaker to designate a time within two days after the motion is noticed for its consideration. That gave Kucinich the ability to threaten, after his Cheney resolutions were ignored by the Judiciary Committee, to follow up his first Bush resolution with a second one if the Committee didn't act within 30 days. In theory, he could have threatened an even shorter timeline for the second one, or indeed to bring one every single day until he got what he was looking for. But with that being clear to everyone, granting the hearing (but refusing to call it an impeachment hearing) must certainly have seemed the simplest solution. Especially if you can schedule them for a Friday when there are no votes in the House, so that fewer people will want to stick around to participate or follow along.

So who are the witnesses at this non-impeachment hearing?

Witness List

Panel I:

Hon. Dennis Kucinich
U.S. House of Representatives
10th District, OH

Hon. Maurice Hinchey
U.S. House of Representatives
22nd District, NY

Hon. Walter Jones
U.S. House of Representatives
3rd District, NC

Hon. Brad Miller
U.S. House of Representatives
13th District, NC

Panel II:

Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman
Former U.S. House of Representatives
16th District, NY
Department of Justice

Hon. Bob Barr
Former U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
7th District, GA

Hon. Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson
Founder and President
High Roads for Human Rights

Stephen Presser
Raoul Berer Professor of Legal History
Northwestern University School of Law

Bruce Fein
Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82
Chairman, American Freedom Agenda

Vincent Bugliosi
Author and Former Los Angeles County Prosecutor

Jeremy A. Rabkin
Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law

Elliott Adams
President of the Board
Veterans for Peace

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.
Senior Counsel
Brennan Center for Jutice at NYU School of Law

Interesting. Jeremy A. Rabkin is a Constitutional Law professor who doesn't appear to have a law degree. It's by no means impossible to teach ConLaw without one. But I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. GMU Law. Gee, I wonder who suggested him?

Panel I looks interesting too. Walter Jones is a name I wouldn't have expected to see there, though I know he's been both rather remorseful about the Iraq war and outspoken about it, since his long ago "freedom fries" days. Hinchey has been very vocal in the past with questions about the process by which DOJ claims to have "authorized" the NSA's illegal domestic spying program. Kucinich, of course, is Kucinich. And Brad Miller will be there to discuss two pieces of legislation he's introducing to address the Bush "administration" power grabs: one to authorize the Congress to ask the courts to appoint a special prosecutor in cases when the DOJ refuses to press contempt of Congress charges, and one to require notice to Congress when the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issues an opinion advising the executive that it may ignore statutory law (though I suppose we might wonder why they wouldn't ignore that law, too).

Finally, a note on what not to expect: the "L word." Many people watching the hearings will wonder at some point why no one is just coming out and saying Bush lied. There's extensive precedent in the House against "personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President."

Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President, is not permitted. Under this standard it is not in order to call the President, or a presumptive major-party nominee for President, a "liar" or accuse him of "lying". Indeed, any suggestion of mendacity is out of order. For example, the following remarks have been held out of order: (1) suggesting that the President misrepresented the truth, attempted to obstruct justice, and encouraged others to perjure themselves; (2) accusing him of dishonesty, accusing him of making a "dishonest argument", charging him with intent to be intellectually dishonest, or stating that many were convinced he had "not been honest"; (3) accusing him of "raping" the truth, not telling the truth, or distorting the truth; (4) stating that he was not being "straight with us"; (5) accusing him of being deceptive, fabricating an issue, or intending to mislead the public; (6) accusing him of intentional mischaracterization, although mischaracterization without intent to deceive is not necessarily out of order. [Notes omitted]

And here's something that may cause a bit of trouble:

Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to impeach the President, Members must abstain from language personally offensive; and Members must abstain from comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members of the House or Senate. Furthermore, Members may not refer to evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained in a communication from an independent counsel pending before a House committee, although they may refer to the communication, itself, within the confines of proper decorum in debate. [Notes omitted]

I'm not sure what kind of latitude is permitted in a hearing that's convened solely because of a pending proposition to impeach the president, but which purports not to be on that subject, but even the above rule doesn't appear to leave a lot of room for, you know, actually discussing what it is that people will be there to discuss.

All of these precedents, though intended to govern debate on the House floor, will likely be applied similarly to questioning and testimony in the Judiciary Committee. So you may have to get your fix of the "L word" from the press conferences afterward. And depending on what kind of stink, if any, Republicans raise and how Conyers deals with it, most of the other words you want to hear, too. Fair warning.

The hearings will be available via streaming video at the House Judiciary Committee website, and Pacifica Radio's coverage begins at 9:00 am EDT, and will be streamed live at pacifica.org and kpfa.org and on the air at KPFA (Berkeley), KPFK (Los Angeles), KPFT (Houston), WBAI (New York), and others TBD.

In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

Convenes: 9:15am

9:15 am Immediately following the prayer and pledge, the Senate will proceed to up to 2 Roll Call Votes in relation to the following:

• Motion to invoke cloture on S.3268
• If cloture is not invoked on S.3268, motion to invoke cloture on the House message with respect to H.R.3221, the Housing legislation.

10:00am Filing deadline for all 2nd degree amendments [see this discussion of the different types of amendments] to S.3268, the Energy Speculation bill.

The Senate will likely stay in session over the weekend to finish any post-cloture debate on the above bills, and perhaps begin the process of getting the "Coburn Omnibus" (S. 3297) to the floor for next week.

Who is not hurting from the high gas prices? Forgive me for wondering if our President and Vice President are bothered at all. Well, they may be bothered just a tad by the anger directed toward them because they have looked after the interests of Big Oil for the past seven years with narry a nod to consumers.

Yesterday, in a White House press briefing, Dana Perino announced

"in an effort to address the root causes of high energy prices, House Republicans are introducing their American Energy Act. Their proposal includes many of the provisions the President called on Congress to act upon, including opening up access to our energy resources in the Outer Continental Shelf, up in ANWR, allowing development of oil shale resources, and streamlining permitting processes for refineries."

Lost in the excitement of Obama's Berlin speech, Slate today has an excellent rundown of which top-level Bush Administration officials could face prosecution, and for what, related to five primary scandals:
Coercive Interrogation
Destruction of the CIA tapes
U.S. Attorney Firings
Hiring in the Justice Department
Wiretapping

At the top of any such list is Alberto Gonzales, possibly implicated in all five...

In the House, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

FLOOR SCHEDULE FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008

House meets at 10:00 a.m.: Legislative Business
Fifteen "One Minutes" Per Side

Last vote predicted: 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.

Suspensions (8 Bills):

1.     H.J.Res. 93 - Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 (Rep. Crowley – Ways and Means)

2.     H.R. 6532 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the Highway Trust Fund balance (Rep. Rangel – Ways and Means)

3.     H.Res. 1360 - Honoring and commemorating the selfless acts of heroism displayed by the late Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police on July 24, 1998 (Rep. Edwards (MD) – House Administration)

4.     H.Res. 645 - Expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the House of Representatives to the professionalism and dedication of the United States Capitol Police (Rep. Mario Diaz–Balart (FL) – House Administration)

5.     H.Res. 1286 - Recognizing and celebrating the 20th anniversary of the National Black Arts Festival (Rep. Lewis (GA) - Education and Labor)

6.     H.Res. 1355 - Expressing support for designation of Disability Pride Day and recognizing that all people, including those living with disabilities, have the right, responsibility, and ability to be active, contributing members of our society and fully engaged as citizens.  (Rep. Davis (IL) – Education and Labor)

7.     H.Res. 655 – Honoring the life and accomplishments of Katherine Dunham (Rep. Rangel – Education and Labor)

8.     H.Res. 1296 – Supporting the designation of a National Child Awareness Month to promote awareness of children's charities and youth-serving organizations across the United States and recognizing their efforts on behalf of children and youth as a positive investment for the future of our Nation (Rep. Calvert - Education and Labor)

H.R. 3221 - American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (Rep. Frank– Financial Services) (Subject to a Rule)

H.R. 3999 - The National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act (Rep. Oberstar –Transportation and Infrastructure) (Subject to a Rule [That rule is contained in H. Res. 1344])

Postponed Suspension Bill (1)

1.     H.R. 6545 - National Energy Security Intelligence Act of 2008 (Rep. Cazayoux – Intelligence)

In the Senate, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

Convenes: 10:00am

Resume motion to proceed to S.3268, Energy Speculation, post cloture.

Time until 11:00am equally divided and controlled with the Republicans controlling the first half and the Majority controlling the next half. The time from 11:00 until 4:00 controlled in 30 minute alternating blocks with Republicans controlling first 30 minutes and the Majority controlling next 30 minutes.

Recall that post-cloture debate can go on no longer than 30 hours, with no Senator speaking for more than one hour during that time. (See Rule XXII). Cloture was invoked by a vote of 94-0 at 11:28 a.m. yesterday, and will wind up at 4:00 p.m. today, technically about an hour and a half short of 30 hours, but with the benefit of not having to stay up and in session all night to run the 30 hour clock. The Senators, by agreement, just gave themselves the 30 hours that Republicans could have forced them all to sit through, provided they had enough of them lined up to eat that clock up one hour at a time.

Considering that the cloture vote was 94-0, it might seem an unlikely prospect. But as a matter of courtesy, the 30 hours were preserved. Without that courtesy, it's possible that Republicans may well have found enough malcontents willing to inconvenience everyone, just to make the point that you shouldn't stick your finger in anyone's eye if you don't have to. I mean, if you can vote against your own filibuster -- which is exactly what they just did -- then anything's possible.

On the Radar:

• The "Coburn Omnibus" has been introduced and assigned a bill number: S. 3297.
• The House Judiciary Committee has Attorney General Michael Mukasey before them today, for a general DOJ oversight hearing. But look for some close questioning of the AG on topics including Karl Rove's claim of "absolute immunity" from subpoena, Mukasey's own refusal to turn over FBI reports of their interview with Dick Cheney regarding the Valerie Plame outing, and the enforcement of contempt of Congress charges against various officials, possibly to include Mukasey himself.

Off the Radar:

• Senate appropriators are likely giving up on moving their bills forward for the rest of the 110th Congress. Just as with their House counterparts, Republicans trying to shoehorn offshore drilling into every bill has frayed the Democrats' last nerve.
• A Senate "resolution of disapproval" aimed at blocking the Bush "administration's" heap of new rules making it harder for states to expand their SCHIP programs may now be doomed, a victim of poor clock management. The resolution, permitted under a procedure for negating executive rule-making established by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (PDF), was submitted too late to qualify under the rules as privileged, which puts a motion to proceed to consideration of the motion at risk of a filibuster. Whose job was it to be watching the deadline? Why, none other than Health Subcommittee Chairman Jay Rockefeller. Where do you suppose his head has been, lately? Whoops! Sorry, kids! But at least we'll be able to tell when you're sick by monitoring your calls to the doctor. And maybe the phone companies will pick up your health care bills, now that they don't have to spend their money on lawyers.

    Sam Stein, in the Huffington Post (a publication I respect less and less for its tawdry "TMZ"-type infotainment, but that's another story...), revealingly notes in his article Webb: I Couldn't Speak Openly If I Were V.P. that Jim Webb, everyone's favorite killer senator from the Old Dominion, doesn't want to be considered as Barack Obama's Vice-President because...

    he doesn't like power?

    he doesn't like "Vice"?

    he's afraid he'll morph into Richard Bruce Cheney?

    --No, it's because, the article says,

...In essence, he was concerned about his ability to speak openly. ...

    But can something be done about this?

    (more)

Words of wisdom from our Vice-President:

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

As you may imagine, anything Reagan "proved" is something we should have stopped doing a long time ago. But here we are.

Note:  This diary was originally posted at Upon the Gears, a political blog.  

Just posted on YouTube:

SIGN the PETITION: Go to: http://www.kucinich.us

A new day in American Democracy dawn this Friday!!

I dont' see any point in impeaching George W. Bush. I know these are pro-forma hearings, but if they are to have any consequence they have to include the possibility of passing articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney. In fact, I'd argue the future of this country depends on at the very least subjecting Cheney to a Senate trial.

event horizon: the boundary of a black hole beyond which nothing can escape from within it

-- Merriam-Webster Online

After five years and change of turned corners and dead enders and last throes, is it possible that we're approaching an event horizon in our Middle East miasma?  Stuff seems to happen faster than anyone can deny it occurred these days, and from the sound of things, it won't be too long before we're committed to getting out of Iraq in smart fashion or sucked into staying there until kingdom come.

For months now I've been trying to define and articulate one particular thing about the Bush administration that's always disturbed me, and I've finally figured it out:  it's the lack of outrage.  It came to me when I was reading TPMMuckraker, specifically the post about political interference by Vice President Cheney's office in getting several pages of the CDC's congressional testimony that referred to climate change and it's effect on human health removed from the report.  I kept wondering if President Bush knew about Cheney's plans to censor the remarks beforehand, and if so did he approve?  Maybe he didn't find out until afterwards, so what was his reaction?  

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Your Brother is The One Who Thinks Like You

The raging controversy over Barack Obama addressing the issue of irresponsible fathers in the Black community, clearly demonstrates that many of the old-school thinkers in the community are living in a time warp. We now have a Black man who is very likely to be the next President of the United States, yet there are those in the community who want him to keep quiet about the fact that we have soiled toilet paper hanging from our inaugural tux. Instead of saying, "Thanks, let me clean up my act", they're saying, "Why are you picking on me–I saw a White boy with do-do on him too–why didn't you say something to him?"

Spending a month away, among people who had a lot of questions about where the United States is heading, made me realize more than ever what a colossal, nearly impossible job the next president has. Not only have Bush and Cheney driven the country into a ditch, the wheels have pretty much come off the car. And we all know how expensive it will be to fill it with gas.

I found this here and it references a report here.

It is purporting to discuss an article from the "Family Security Matters" "think tank", which is apparently associated with Dick Cheney. The sounds of the article are classic Dick.

I cannot comment on the sources: neither are familiar to me, but that sort of adds to the interest of this bit, because I tacitly accept that there would be another "think tank" hitherto unnoticed or unsung, that would have some dipshit policy like this with which to sally forth and make the attempt to deliver with the straightest of faces.

However it is filled with hate for America, hate for Democracy, and hate for Arabs, and encourages some very bad things.

I was talking to someone the other day who was telling me all sorts of terrible things that could happen if Obama is the next President, and it struck me that this has become the mantra of what remains of the "right," ideologically.  They can no longer make compelling arguments for anything they want to do, such as end Social Security or give more tax cuts to billionaires.  Instead, as they did with the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, they must resort to trying to make people consider worst case scenarios.  Few people, at least in the "mainstream," "liberal" media, of course, point out that the worst that could have happened in Iraq has happened.  At this point, however, I'll turn to what the future holds.  Thus, we are now being told that the most powerful nation in the world is not capable of intervening before the worst imaginable situation happens in Iraq.

    After yesterday's Netroots Nation 2008 session with the Speaker of the U.S. House, I went up and shook Nancy Pelosi's hand and asked her directly whether impeachment and censure are still off the table. She answered that no, censure is not off the table (or even "definitely" not off the table, maybe); and as for impeachment, she again stepped aside from the question, as she did during her answers on the stage, by saying that (inherent) contempt was up to John Conyers. (Earth to Nancy: "contempt" and "impeachment" are separate issues...)

    So, while NP offered No Palaver about impeachment, the silver lining is that, as per my (non-used) question from askthespeaker.org, censure is still possible.

    (more)

'Cos I move like THEY do...

  Tom Friedman, who gets paid far too much money for what he writes, and takes up far too much valuable editorial space in the NY Times has done it again. 9/11 and 4/11 is his complaint that Bush has wasted too much time while doing nothing that might actually  work with regards to the energy situation. Friedman is 'outraged'

I am reliably told by a Bush administration official that there is an old saying in Texas that goes like this: “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”

Could anyone possibly come up with a better description of President Bush’s energy policy? America is in the midst of its worst energy crisis in years and what is the big decision our Decider has decided? Drum roll, please: Our Decider decided to lift the executive orders banning drilling for oil and natural gas off the country’s shoreline — even though he knew this was a meaningless gesture because a Congressional moratorium on drilling passed in 1981 remains in force.

Well DUH!