Holding Them Accountable

The Bush administration has taken historically unprecedented steps in its assertions of executive privilege and authority. For instance, the Vice President has fought over relatively modest requests to disclose information such as with whom he consulted when setting the Administration's energy policy. The Vice President's office, during a confrontation with the National Archives over executive branch records, even declared itself an entity outside of the executive branch with enhanced powers to resist the public's right to know about its actions.

These assertions of executive privilege have wide-ranging implications for both Congress' day-to-day oversight of the Bush administration and for efforts to hold the President and Vice President accountable.

That is why I introduced the Executive Branch Prosecutions Act. This legislation would suspend the statute of limitations for crimes committed while the president and vice president hold office. Federal law currently suspends the statute of limitations for crimes related to national security. That suspension should extend to any crime committed by the President or Vice President while in office.

President Bush has already shown his willingness to do what he can to avoid scrutiny of his actions even after he leaves office. A federal judge recently struck down part of his 2001 Executive Order giving former presidents and vice presidents the right to review executive orders before they are made public under the Freedom of Information Act. Confronted with this administration's unprecedented demand for secrecy, Congress must do all it can to inject some measure of accountability and transparency where possible. The Executive Branch Prosecutions Act goes a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

Comments

[GJMandinka]

The bill is a great idea. The kind of power that has been amassed in the Executive demands that we extend personal accountability as much as possible. While we're at it, I would love to see Executive Branch power more directly curtailed. Signing statements?
Anybody care to more carefully define those Authorizations of Force as well? Mandatory expirations, might be a good idea? How about coupling them with an automatic and nicely progressive tax increase?

Keep up the good work Rep. Lofgren!

[NickfromCali]

Two words Ms. Lofgren: Dianne Feinstein.

YOUR Senior Senator. YOUR state. YOUR party.
Voting against YOUR constituents' interests.

[Not Blind]

As you know full well, you are a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which has an IMPEACHMENT resolution (or two) languishing in its midst... The Congress ALREADY HOLDS (on our behalf) all the authority that it needs to hold these men accountable, but you refuse to support even opening the INVESTIGATION of suspected abuse of office.
You've got all the power you need. And furthermore, if you or any of your colleagues in the House has probable cause to believe that "any civil officer" has committed or may have committed a crime -- you have a DUTY to initiate impeachment. If you do NOT, then you are now aiding and abetting those crimes by willfully allowing them to continue.
Statutes cannot have retroactive effect due to the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws. Any law like this that Congress passes will only apply to misdeeds committed after the law takes effect. Bush and Cheney have broken laws that justify criminal prosection, then they have broken laws that justify impeachment. Why would Congress even consider letting them continue to remain in office? I think Congress should use the remedies that are already at its disposal rather than try to pass statutes that probably won't withstand constitutional muster.
This presidency is dismantling the Constitution and the rule of law. Your oath does not say you"ll defend the Constitution only when it is politically expedient. The pledge is unqualified. The one thing which will cause this country to fail is the result of what could occur if people just sit still and do nothing to prevent totalitarianism and us sliding into a dictatorship.
Support HR-333!

[BARRISTER]

Invading Iraq on misrepresentations, knowing them to be false as did Bush/Cheny, makes Bush and Cheney liable to Federal Criminal Prosecution for Murder for the death of EVERY SINGLE PERSON, INCLUDING SADDAM HUSSEIN, WHO DIED as a result of their false misrepresentations.

No need to smokescreen the American Public. Just utilize the Constitution and existing Laws.

[moderationsmuse]

Speaking of crimes related to national security, Rep. Lofgren, what about Sandy Berger? Have any legislation aimed at preventing a former national security advisor to a president from destroying American documents stored in the National Archive?
Meanwhile, since you're going to be prosecuting future presidents and vice-presidents, should we assume that you anticipate all the future incumbents of that office to be Republicans?
Interesting development. One would have thought you had more confidence in your party. Reminds me of the fictional character Murphy Brown, who got pregnant "about as often as we get a Democrat in the White House."

[moderationsmuse]

Speaking of crimes related to national security, Rep. Lofgren, what about Sandy Berger? Have any legislation aimed at preventing a former national security advisor to a president from destroying American documents stored in the National Archive?
Meanwhile, since you're going to be prosecuting future presidents and vice-presidents, should we assume that you anticipate all the future incumbents of that office to be Republicans?
Interesting development. One would have thought you had more confidence in your party. Reminds me of the fictional character Murphy Brown, who got pregnant "about as often as we get a Democrat in the White House."

[PaxChristi]

Let us just send them to the Hague for war crimes and be done with it.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

Rep. Lofgren -

I think this is akin to knowingly playing with a stacked deck, while disingenuously pretending that everything's on the up and up. You want to hold criminals in the White House to account by asking one of those criminals to sign legislation to do just that? HUH?

As you know full well, you are a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which has an IMPEACHMENT resolution (or two) languishing in its midst... The Congress ALREADY HOLDS (on our behalf) all the authority that it needs to hold these men accountable, but you refuse to support even opening the INVESTIGATION of suspected abuse of office, that would dictate either an impeachment vote, or a public acquittal and dropping of such public accusations as you make in this post about high Executive Branch officials. [Which of those approaches is more "political"??]

On a related matter, I was stunned to hear your comments recently in committee about the "significant" instead of "primary" (foreign intelligence collection) purpose language in FISA, that a federal district judge had just ruled UNConstitutional in the Mayfield case. You dismissed out of hand that judge's clear and compelling ruling, as though the Congress could ignore the Judicial Branch and the Constitution whenever it finds it inconvenient. It is your duty to achieve the ends you think the "significant" language serves (re the firewall issue) WITHOUT violating our Fourth Amendment-protected right to privacy. It's not an option, it's a manifest and immovable DUTY. It may be more difficult, and time-consuming, to work within the limits of the Constitution, but you didn't even try in this case, during the limited and perfunctory debate about the leadership's flawed RESTORE Act.

Rep. Lofgren, you are better than this. Please reconsider your approach, and use your influence to re-establish democratic government, by helping to awaken our slumbering Legislative Branch and restoring it to its rightful, central role in our Constitutional Republic.

[godlessclif]

I see we are in for another round of McCarthyism.
We persecuted all these people who became communists in the 30s and 40s when Russia was our ally, even though they quit in the 1950s when Russia became our enemy.

No one should be penalized for their political opinion ever. When the American people become the enemy of National Security then tyranny has come.

[tex2]

Yes. Charge impeachment NOW. It is more important to EXPOSE Bush/Cheney now and risk failing, than to wait and hope for a better chance of impeachment later on.

[bumpersticker]

Prosecute Harriet Meyers for not even showing up to you supoena and then we'll begin to believe anyone is going to be held responsible. Odds are, The Smirker and The Darknes waltz off untouched.

[Sundialsvc4]

You know, I'm sorry to say this, but we've heard this run-around before. It goes like this...

(1) THAT BAD OLD [[president!]] He just won't do what we say! He's redefining his entire office and there's nothing we can do about it!

(2) I know! I'll introduce a bill to say that it IS illegal! (After all, you know, unless we pass a law to say it's illegal, it isn't illegal because THAT BAD OLD [[president!]] has the AUDACITY to say it's not! (So it's not!)

(3) ("X" Months Later...) Gosh darn it! My bill FAILED! Those BAD OLD [[other_party!]] just wouldn't { let it out of committee | override the veto | fix me a grilled instead of a toasted sandwich } !

Yawn.

You've got all the power you need. And furthermore, if you or any of your colleagues in the House has probable cause to believe that "any civil officer" has committed or may have committed a crime -- you have a DUTY to initiate impeachment.

If you do NOT, then you are now aiding and abetting those crimes by willfully allowing them to continue.

The stakes are high. Much, much too high for these silly games.

[JackMonroe]

Well, unfortunately, should this bill reach Bush's desk, and for some reason he doesn't veto it, he would probably attach a signing document to it explaining why he intends on ignoring it.

Don't we already have a section om impeachment somewhere within the Constitution?

[LindaJay]

You're preaching to the choir here, Rep. Lofgren. Which is why so many of us are wondering why no one but Dennis Kucinich is fighting for impeachment.

[GKJames]

Agreed. But why stop with these two cretins? There's a laundry list of helpers who would look good shackled. That said, let's keep expectations real: this is the Republic of Entertainment and Forgetting, and a place filled with millions of aiders and abetters who will go to their graves convinced that it was all done to protect us.