The biggest risk is not so much the problem of the damage Bush/Cheney could do with 18 months more of leadership. The biggest risk lies in the damage they can continue to do for decades. Letting their expansion of executive power effectively go unchallenged puts us in real danger. The key word there is "effective." We'll get to that in a minute.
Today John Conyers laid down the law.
"If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother to show up . . . then we have already lost," committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said before the vote. "We won't be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other."
If this administration gets away with ignoring subpoenas and backstopping a legal challenge by the Congress, then (as pointed out in an earlier post) they will have effectively set a precedent which can be used by future administrations wanting to expand executive powers even further.
Democrats in the House and Senate are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have the leadership position and they have fellow Democrats from all over the country yelling at them to challenge the administration and make it accountable. On the other hand, they have a squinty-eyed legal team -- led (many say) by the smartest lawyer ever to have a desk in the White House, David Addington -- who have set out to defeat them at every turn.
The Bush administration has made clear it intends to block prosecution of any contempt charges, arguing that a presidentially-appointed U.S. attorney cannot legally be forced by Congress to flout the president's determination that the materials and testimony sought are protected by executive privilege.
So back to John Conyers. His committee has taken the right stand. So what's the problem?
The 22-to-17 vote along party lines escalates the battle between the administration and Congressional Democrats over the dismissals of nine United States attorneys last year, an episode that Democrats say needs airing but that many Republicans say is much ado about nothing...
...To take effect, the Judiciary Committee’s recommendation must be voted upon by the full House, where Democrats have a 231-to-201 edge, with 3 vacancies. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not said whether she would seek House action before the lawmakers recess in early August, or allow the issue to simmer until the House reconvenes after Labor Day.
The House can act, but for the action to be effective in the long term, Republicans have to be on board. A much more substantial majority -- mirroring the majority across the country who want Bush stopped -- needs to form in Congress.
A growing percentage of Americans, including Republicans who voted for Bush, want more than a Democratic win in a couple of issues. They (we) want Bush and Cheney pushed back, particularly when it comes to the war and warrantless spying. We all want executive privilege pushed back. We all want full access to information. We want to know to what extent laws have been broken, and with what fallout.
We certainly want accountability from our leadership and we know we can't get it unless we are able to determine whether they've broken laws. We certainly don't want their behaviors and policies to set precedents which would enable similar behaviors and policies in future presidencies. To be effective, we need a full and decisive win from Congress, not just half the House and half of the Senate. That's what we mean by effective. The Republicans may be holding off on supporting any such Democrat efforts until September, but we don't know that yet. If we haven't won more ground by the end of September, we're in for some serious despair and anger.
Whether it's Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's fault that more Republicans haven't joined in the effort to make the executive accountable, I don't know. But if John Conyers doesn't win this round in the House, and if Patrick Leahy doesn't win the latest Gonzo round in the Senate, then surely we can conclude that an impeachment proceeding would go down in flames -- leaving this administration unscathed and -- worse -- with powers it will delight in passing on to future, likeminded administrations.
There is something we need to face: members of this Congressional generation may well be a good deal more interesting in preserving their political futures than responding to urgent political pressure from their constituents. Democrats may figure that we'll cave and vote for them, as the lesser of the two etceteras. Listening to the calls to the middle-of-the-road Ed Schultz show today while driving home, I decided that any Democratic representatives who really believe that may find themselves without a job in a year or so. There seem to be one heckuva lot more Democratic voters who have "moved on" from incoherent fury to steely determination. Even Schultz seemed a little surprised...
