White House in contempt?

[bascule]

This link brought to you by the liberal media conspiracy, a.k.a. FOX News:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330637,00.html

 

The US House of Representatives is poised to vote as to whether two of Bush's advisers are in contempt of court for failing to testify in accordance with Congressional subpoenas.

 

Joshua B. Bolten, White House chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, former White House counsel, were summoned to testify as to whether several United States attorneys were dismissed for political reasons.

 

You may recall this issue as the one which effectively forced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from his post, unless you have a memory like Alberto Gonzales and simply do not recall.

 

Is this a dead issue, or is the lid about to be blown?

[Mr Skeptic]

Yay, I guess. Glad to see the judiciary arm assert itself a bit.

[D H]

Congress needs to move on and address the weighty issues that truly plague our country -- such as whether baseball players used steroids.

 

In the end, I predict nothing much will come of the initial dismissals themselves. The dismissals were a legal action (nobody disputes that the 93 AGs are political appointees, and as such are subject to political dismissal). The dismissals were also an incredibly stupid legal act. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is a good thing to do. That said, the executive branch could have ended this early by admitting the dismissals were political.

 

Instead they lied. Dismissing political appointees en masse was a stupid thing to do, but at least it was legal. Lying to Congress is not only stupid but is also illegal. It was contempt rather than financial hijinks that got Martha Stewart in jail, it will be contempt rather than steroidal hijinks that might well get Roger Clemens in jail, and it will be contempt rather than the dismissals that might well get some members of the administration in jail.