July 11, 2007

Republican Family values and Bush felony

I really get a kick when a "family values" Republican gets caught--as David Vitter did this week with the DC madam. And there are allegations that he had a long standing relationship with a prostitute in New Orleans. And seriously, who would care if the man hadn't been one of those defending "traditional marriage" so self-righteously.

*****

From the Talking Points Memo a suggestion that Bush telling Miers and Sara Taylor not to testify is a possible felony (paging Steve S for a legal reading):
"Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... [s]hall be fined under this title, [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term 'corruptly' means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, [or] concealing ... information."

*****

And lastly, Lady Bird Johnson passes away. She was 94. RIP.

6 comments:

david santos said...

Thanks for you work and have a good day

steve s said...

I may be wrong, but I thought one of them (Miers, maybe) responded through their attorney in reagrds to the claim of privilege. I have heard of the law mentioned, but I can't say that I recall it being used that way. Privilege has an extensive history and I don't know if the courts want to use that law in that way.

IMO, the privilege claim seems weak and may not stand up.

Streak said...

Yeah, I guess the question is regarding Bush ordering someone to not cooperate and if that makes him guilty of obstruction or something like that.

steve s said...

That is a compelling argument and I suppose it would depend on validity of the privilege. If the court finds a privilige, they not bother with the obstruction claim, but if they found there was no privilege, they would be more likely to pursue. A contempt charge may be more appropriate.

Ultimately, I think the court will not find a privilege and they will be compelled to testify.

Wasp Jerky said...

Things may get interesting very soon. Hustler is investigating something like 20 members of Congress (both Republicans and Democrats, though I suspect more Republicans if recent trends are any indication) about just this sort of marital hypocrisy. As despicable as I find Hustler, they have an excellent track record in outing hypocritical "family values" folk.

Streak said...

Well, as it turns out, Bush has so stacked the Justice department with his own loyalists that they say that the White House can ignore any subpoenas from Congress. Checks and balances are for chumps.

Los Angeles Times: Disregard subpoenas, Justice Dept. says