Posted on 07/25/2007 8:55:55 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
WASHINGTON - House Democrats proposed a contempt citation Wednesday against two White House aides who have refused to comply with subpoenas on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Democrats argued that Congress has nothing to lose by forcing a constitutional showdown with the Bush administration over the protracted controversy that has engulfed the Justice Department and jeopardized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' job.
"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, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest basis and in the broadest possible manner, then we have already lost," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said. "We won't be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other."
Republicans said Democrats couldn't win this fight, noting the White House has offered to make top presidential aides available for private interviews about their roles in the firings. Republicans also suggested that the Democrats' rejection of the offer leaves only one reason for the dispute: politics.
"If the majority really wanted the facts, it could have had them," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.
The White House has said that Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former legal counselor Harriet Miers, among other top advisers to President Bush, are absolutely immune from subpoenas because their documents and testimony are protected by executive privilege.
Democrats reject that claim and had drafted for a vote Wednesday a resolution citing Miers and Bolten with contempt of Congress. That would be a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and a one-year prison sentence. If the measure wins support from a majority of the Judiciary and the full House, it would be advanced to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — a Bush appointee.
And that's as far as it's likely to go, the Justice Department said in a letter to the committee late Tuesday.
Brian A. Benczkowski, principal deputy assistant attorney general, cited the department's "long-standing" position, "articulated during administrations of both parties, that the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the president or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."
Benczkowski said it also was the department's view that the same position applies to Miers, who left the White House earlier this year.
If history and self-interest are any guide, the two sides will resolve the dispute before it gets to federal court. Neither side wants a judge to settle the question about the limits of executive privilege, for fear of losing.
But no deal appeared imminent. White House Counsel Fred Fielding has offered to make top administration officials available for private, off-the-record interviews about the administration's role in the firings. But he has invoked executive privilege and directed Miers, Bolten and the Republican National Committee to withhold almost all relevant documents. Miers did not even appear at a hearing to which she had been summoned, infuriating Democrats.
Democrats rejected Fielding's "take-it-or-leave-it" offer and advised lawyers for Miers and Bolten that they were in danger of being held in contempt of Congress.
If the citation passes the committee and then the full House by simple majorities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then would transfer it to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The man who holds that job, Jeff Taylor, is a Bush appointee. The Bush administration has made clear it would not let a contempt citation be prosecuted because the information and documents sought are protected by executive privilege.
Contempt of Congress is a federal crime, but a sitting president has the authority to commute the sentence or pardon anyone convicted or accuses of any federal crime.
Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.
The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt citation was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.
Democrats are still on a fishing expedition....in the nude!
House Dems don’t understand the Constitution and separation of powers and all that stuff. They have no right to compel testimony of people from the Exec Branch when it has absolutely nothing to do with any functions or offices for which Congress has oversight.
Honestly... these people who are supposed to be working for us are looking like a bunch of school kids having a tiff in the school yard... Yes I’m rolling my eyes here folks...
If I were to get such a citation from this Democrat-laden Congress I'd frame it and put it above the fireplace with great Pride.
According to U.S. v. Nixon the only area where Congress doesn't have oversight appears to be tactical command of troops in the field, as the President is Commander in Chief. However, that doesn't make the Executive powerless either -- it can tell Congress to go to hell, and Congress, in turn, can withhold the purse strings if it dares.
This walking garbage can says that as if it were a bad thing.
The very notion that any of our three branches of government can legally harrass the other two branches, tie them up in irrelevancies and disrupt the performance of their jobs is both unconstitutional and intolerable whatever the reason. If Congress and its "least common denominator" members can wield the power to paralyze government, let's make sure that the Executive has equal power to do to Congress...
Let them take it to court. By the time it makes it to court, Bush and company will be gone.
They're threatening to use the power of Inherent Contempt, which would have the House Sergeant at Arms arrest Harriet Miers and (presumably) lock her up in the basement of the United States Capitol. How's that for a Congressional power grab?
Is that broadly accepted, that Congress can butt in to everything but tactical command of troops on the field?
Where does Congress get the subpoena power? Was there a Constitutional Amendment passed while I was sleeping?
What happens if the Secret Service stops the House Sergeant at Arms from arresting Harriet Miers?
The 2008 elections are looking better everyday. ONLY the far left moonbats will be happy with these clowns and that just won't be enough to pull out a win.
It will never happen. Dems don’t have balls.
Slavery was upheld by the Supreme Court for close to 100 years. What is your point?
When are DEMOCRAT politicians going to do something for the PEOPLE that elected them and stop the political witch hunts?
Will they ever?
Because slavery was legal. Slavery was made illegal by the passage of the 13th Amendment, which explicitly made slavery illegal. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with the legalization or criminalization of slavery.
I agree. The moonbats are going to push the rats into a corner just in time for election day ‘08.
Even the CA. Democrats I associate with are VERY unhappy with these ass clowns. I get to say “I told you so” a lot these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.