Rove contempt vote means nothing

So the House Judiciary Committee has finally voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt.

Big deal.

We know that Attorney General Mike Mukasey won’t enforce it.

And, we have no evidence so far that House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, let alone Speaker Nancy Pelosi, aka Passive Pelosi™, has any desire, guts or cojones for a showdown from using Congress’ inherent contempt powers.

So, it’s meaningless.

More proof? Last December’s Senate Judiciary contempt votes for Rover and Josh Bolton.

The panel’s ranking Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has been extremely critical of the Justice Department, voted in favor of the contempt citations “knowing that it’s highly likely to be a meaningless act,” as he put it then.

You are correct, sir!

Sham impeachment hearing – final thoughts

Thursday, I called Friday’s House Judiciary impeachment hearing a sham, above all for the reason that no impeachment vote were actually to be allowed, but for the number of people banned from the witness list.

Friday, I noted how the hearings turned out to be even more of a sham, from the self-censorship of chair John Conyers (and Dennis Kucinich, too!) on not using the word “impeachment,” to protestors getting the boot for protesting the shamness of it all.

“Have you no sham, Nancy Pelosi?”

Then, Friday night, I toured might be considered the four top liberal blogs — TPM, Washington Monthly, Atrios and the Orange Monster.

Any wrap-up at all, by them? Any blogging, as opposed to straight news on TPM, lead-in? Nope.

Guess it was either too embarrassing, or they too are non-idealistic enough to treat it as small beer.

Sham impeachment hearing update

Yesterday, I called today’s House Judiciary impeachment hearing a sham, above all for the reason that no impeachment vote will actually be allowed, but for the number of people banned from the witness list.

Well, the actual hearing has become even MORE of a sham, with Cindy Sheehan and other activists evicted from the gallery. Their crime?

Applauding too loud when witness Vincent Bugliosi said President Bush should be indicted for first-degree murder for lying us into Iraq.

But, THAT’s not all.

A person in fatigues, claiming to be a veteran, was barred for wearing an anti-war pin. And, John Conyers was OK with this:

Conyers instructed committee staff and Capitol police officers to “ask anyone with such signs to either remove them or leave the hearing room from this point on.”

This request kicked off more than three minutes of disruption and commotion as blue-clad police officers entered the crowd to escort out a man wearing camouflage fatigues and an button with an anti-war button.

“You’re hassling a veteran for wearing a pin? That’s an outrage!” another spectator shouted, before escorting himself from the hearing room.

But, THAT’s not all. More of Conyers in the tank.

A committee aide tells RAW STORY that members were cautioned to abide by the Rules of the House, which prohibit lawmakers from “impugning” the president’s character during official debate. Some apparently took this to mean they could not explicitly call for Bush' impeachment. None of this would stop Republicans from accusing the committee's majority of seeking just that.

And, just what does “impugn” mean? Wearing a button?

And, Conyers wouldn’t even USE the “I-word”:

The prepared text of Chairman John Conyers opening remarks referred to Congress’s “power to impeach.” When he spoke before the committee, Conyers modified that line to the “power to remove through the constitutional process” officials who abused their powers.

With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans, eh?

‘Impeachment’ hearing July 25 will be Shakespearean

Tomorrow, if nothing more than symbolically, is a long-awaited day for many of us true liberals who think Nancy Pelosi is full of it for her “taking impeachment off the table.”
The House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on one article of impeachmentproffered by Dennis Kucinich.

Shakespearean? How?

“Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”:

The committee can talk about anything deemed to be abuse of power by the president or the White House but not vote to impeach him, the first step toward removing him from office.

Beyond that, here's more “sound and fury, signifying nothing”:

1. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, apparently taking his cue from Passive Pelosi™, or perhaps acting on his own, doesn’t actually want an impeachment vote

2. Both Ralph Nader and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney were excluded from Conyers’ witness list, although Libertarian candidate Bob Barr is on the list.

3. Given that Conyers has, to date, refused to call the bluff of people like Karl Rove and Mike Mukasey by using his powers of inherent contempt, he’s just going through the motions here, too.

Update: See here and here for follow-up stories, including a critique of the Four Horsemen of mainstream quasi-liberal blogs on this issue.

Where’s the House Judiciary committee staff?

Given the total flop that House Judiciary engaged in with the foot-rubbing ”grilling” of Monica Goodling, it’s a very relevant question.

Where’s the committee majority staff on this? Remember, that’s how people like Bobby Kennedy and Fred Thompson got their names ... committee staff asking actual, or seemingly so, hard-hitting questions on major investigations.

Instead, as Dahlia Lithwick points out, we got this:

It’s not just that Goodling comes across as better, smarter, and more honest than Gonzales, Sampson, and McNulty put together, although she does. It’s that the committee, in expecting to question the Great Exploding Idiot Barbie today, is completely underprepared and overmatched.

Chalk up another one to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Or the soft stupidity of a House Democratic party that is still stuck in the pre-BushCo, or even pre-Gingrich-DeLay, era of governance.