Posted on 03/10/2008 9:08:42 PM PDT by Jean S
The House Judiciary Committee Monday went to court to enforce its contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, arguing that the Bush administration has no right to block them from testifying about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Lawyers for the committee said they hope to have the matter resolved by the fall, but there’s no guarantee that will happen, and the court’s decision can be appealed.
If it is not resolved before President Bush leaves office, the issue will likely be politically moot. But lawyers for the panel stressed that it will remain important to resolve what power Congress has to compel testimony from top White House aides.
“There has to be a way for Congress to get resolution on its subpoenas,” said Stan Brand, a former House general counsel who spoke by telephone at a briefing put on by the Judiciary Committee.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino called the lawsuit “partisan theater.”
“The confidentiality that the president receives from his senior advisers and the constitutional principle of separation of powers must be protected from overreaching, and we are confident that the courts will agree with us,” Perino said during Monday’s White House briefing.
But House officials say the dispute isn’t about advice given to the president because the White House has maintained that Bush himself wasn’t involved in the U.S. attorney firings.
Former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), who served in the lower chamber from 1977-1993, called it an “embarrassment” that his party is not standing up for the right of Congress to subpoena executive branch witnesses.
“In the past this was something very important to Republicans,” Edwards said at the Judiciary Committee briefing. “As conservatives, we used to talk about ‘strict construction’ and ‘upholding the Constitution.’ ”
The 36-page lawsuit was filed against Bolten and Miers themselves in the U.S. District Court in Washington. Miers, under orders from the White House, refused to appear before the committee to answer questions about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. Bolten refused to provide records.
They were cited for contempt in a House vote last month that fell mostly along party lines as Republicans walked out of the chamber in protest of the measure.
In their lawsuit, House leaders asked the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to convene a grand jury to investigate the contempt charges, but Attorney General Michael Mukasey instructed him not to do so, precipitating Monday’s lawsuit.
Lawyers for the committee say that the administration is stretching “executive privilege” past its accepted legal boundaries by claiming that executive branch officials can assert it even when they were not advising the president on a decision. And they say the administration has gone even further by claiming that Miers has immunity from the powers of Congress.
“We will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said in a statement. “Under our system of checks and balances, Congress provides oversight of the executive branch to make sure that government power is not abused. The administration’s extreme claims to be immune from the oversight process are at odds with our constitutional principles on which this country was founded, and I am confident the federal courts will agree.”
Lawyers for the committee, speaking not for attribution, noted that courts ordered President Bill Clinton himself to answer questions in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case while in office.
Justice Department officials released a statement Monday saying the decisions to order Miers not to testify and Bolten not to release documents were “legally proper.”
The next step in the suit will be the response from the Justice Department.
All this brouhaha from the Democrats could guarantee that President Bush doesn’t run for re-election. I’m sure that’s their well-thought-out strategy!
bump
Anything special going on in the fall? /s
That's a new way to say "anonymous source"
Yes, Of course! The Three Term Rule! (/s) :-)
How can the Legislative Branch cite contempt??? Isn’t that the Judicial Branch’s job???
Boy howdy, how long did it take the MSM to dig THIS guy out?
This has to be the most stupid waste of taxpayer money I’ve seen in a long time.
U.S. Attorneys WORK AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT - HE CAN FIRE THEM ALL IF HE WANTS TO.
Hopefully we’ll find a judge with some common sense and a better knowledge of the law than these democrat bozos.
a briefing put on by the Judiciary Committee...
or
a brief put-on by the Judiciary Committee?
“In the past this was something very important to Republicans,” Edwards said at the Judiciary Committee briefing. “As conservatives, we used to talk about ‘strict construction’ and ‘upholding the Constitution.’ ”
______________________________________________________
And pray tell Mr. Edwards, just how is “strict construction” and the Constitution violated here? Does the Justice department have to allow Democrats to subpeona presidential advisers for perfectly legal activities that politically hurt Democrats?
Clinton did just that and no one raised an eyebrow.
Of course we know that the point of the strategy is to poison the well against Republicans so that they prevail in the elections, but I wonder if that “strategy” is doing them any good.
Personally, I believe that all it accomplishes is to further alienate the public against ALL public officials. Theirs get lumped in with ours and the cynicism grows.
I suspect that you are right regarding GW’s future ambitions - I’m sure that he is all torn up about it ;’}
Exactly!
The reason the dems are upset is because Bush fired THEIR DEM PLANTS - and Bush also fired them because they wouldn’t do their job.
And .. Clinton had to fire them all in order to hide the fact that two of them were investigating Bubba and he wanted to get rid of them.
Conyers has forgotten all that(not) and most of the people in this country.
Well .. it’s fairly well known that Conyers and another dem idiot (can’t remember his hame) are on Hillary’s payroll (so to speak). Anytime she wants to stir the pot she gets her surrogates to do the dirty work.
Of course, her husband pulled the “executive priviledge” string quite a few times .. but that’s not allowed for Bush.
Like Mark Levine said tonight .. I’m sick and tired of this double standard and we’ve got to put a stop to it.
Was Levine speaking to this particular issue or things in general?
The issue will be moo. Like a cow's opinion, nobody cares. It's moo.
This ''offense'' is unconstitutional on its alleged face, in that no bill was passed establishing it as a crime, and most certainly no president ever signed such an offense into law.
Of course, not knowing every nook and cranny of the United States Code, it's entirely possible that I'm mistaken here. If this is the case, 1) I apologise to you, and 2) I'm not nearly as mistaken as one or another Regress and supposed president were when they enacted such legislation, speaking Constitutionally.
Look for this to get more attention. The LameStream Media and their ‘rat pals will attempt to get Spitzer off the front page with this issue and similar crap.
I won’t be surprised to see another Republican’s peccadillos publicized, just to make Spitzer’s behavior look “normal”.
“U.S. Attorneys WORK AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT - HE CAN FIRE THEM ALL IF HE WANTS TO.”
BINGO!
We have a winner!
Which, if memory serves, is EXACTLY what B.J. Clinton did.
Contempt? I have extreme contempt for the house, senate and any democrap living or dead.
I believe it was said by Mr. Edwards that it was an embarassment that the Republicans weren’t fighting this, not that they weren’t going along.
The Demoncrats are trying again to pervert the law, and I believe he’s calling them on it, and raising a stink that the Republicans aren’t doing more to call them on it.
Paul
Went back and re-read it. You’re right. Dang. It took how many hours to find another traitor in the midst?
Paul
Former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), who served in the lower chamber from 1977-1993, called it an “embarrassment” that his party is not standing up for the right of Congress to subpoena executive branch witnesses.
_______________________________________________________
This does not sound like he’s on the president’s side. It sounds like he’s taking “Congress’s” side (a.k.a. the Democrats). He’s claming that Republican’s should be joining the Democrats in their calls to subpoena these advisers concerning a perfectly legal, presidential power.
Yep! But nobody had a problem with it.
I think it related to the “double standard” in general.
I can't figure out who I despise more .. a democrat or a stinking moderate whiny Republican
Blacks are to democrats, as Conservatives are to republicans
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.
First let's get the proper candidates selected.