Mukasey to Congress - what crime?

By Libby

'Shocking' news! AG Michael Mukasey refuses to pursue contempt charges against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers for failing to comply with a Congressional subpoena. Employing his much touted brilliant legal analysis, our highly ethical, 'non-partisan' protector of the the royal ass rule of law deduces that if the president says they don't have to appear, well then, they just don't have to appear. Because you know in a monarchy representative democracy, the president is the law.

Fortunately, Eli at FDL finds that Pelosi was prepared for this unprecendented departure from legal norms.

Anticipating this response from the Administration, the House has already provided authority for the Judiciary Committee to file a civil enforcement action in federal district court and the House shall do so promptly. The American people demand that we uphold the law. As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that.

In perusing the reactions to this latest development in the White House War on The Constitution, I found this comment by Xenos at Balloon Juice most interesting.

My local congressman refuses to support impeachment, in spite of his constituents harassing his office constantly for a year now. He won’t give anything more than simple answer on the subject, but also will not deny rumours that he has told people the real reason why the House won’t impeach is that they have been threatened with martial law if they do. Was Mukasy placed there as part of a deal with Schumer and Fienstein that Mukasy gets to play these games for a year, but will block a Bush putsch that is in the works?

Sounds farfetched? Maybe, but when you consider what happened to former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, it sounds a little more plausible, doesn't it?