Bleak Arithmetic

Kagro-X at The Daily Kos looks at the bleak arithmetic confronting any attempt to enforce congressional subpoenas against the White House.

I'll add this refresher on what typically happens when subpoenas are defied: The house that issued the subpoenas can vote to hold non-compliant subpoena targets in contempt of Congress, but those charges are prosecuted only at the discretion of... the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Imagine that. In the middle of an investigation of how it came to be that the US Attorneys were prosecuting political enemies and coddling political friends, it's up to the US Attorneys to decide whether or not to prosecute their political friends for refusing to answer questions about the scheme that started the investigation in the first place.

Sounds fair.

But has the US Attorney ever done that before? Declined to prosecute a political friend on orders from the White House? Absolutely. The case was that of Reagan administration EPA chief Anne Gorsuch Burford in 1982.

And who was the White House counsel who ran the strategy? Why, it was Fred Fielding himself:

In 1982, during current White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s first stint in the position, the U.S. attorney declined to bring a contempt charge against a Reagan administration official, instead seeking an injunction against the House.
Thinking this executive versus legislative branch showdown will have to be resolved in the courts? Maybe even the Supreme Court?

Know who helped direct Fielding's legal strategy on the Gorsuch case?

Guy by the name of John Roberts.

But I'm sure this time it'll work out great in the courts.

So the crooks own the press, the courts, the Department of InJustice, and 50% of the Senate. Fortunately, it is probably too late for GW to proclaim himself President for Life, but next up is Murdoch's girl Hillary - smarter, more ambitious, and quite likely equally untroubled by scruple.