House Judiciary Panel Sues Bush Aides for Contempt
March 11th, 2008Political Justice At Issue
by Glynn Wilson
The general counsel for the United States House of Representatives filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee Monday to enforce subpoenas on former aides to President Bush who have refused to cooperate in the investigation of how the Justice Department was turned into a political arm of the White House.
“We do not have a king in our country, we have a President and his advisers who, like all citizens, cannot simply ignore the law,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich, said in announcing the lawsuit.
At issue are the firings of at least nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons and the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, as well as the actions of loyal federal prosecutors who were retained by the Bush administration.
The lawsuit names former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, a Bush loyalist from Texas, and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Both were cited for contempt of Congress last month, but have refused to testify under oath on the orders of President George W. Bush in a broad claim of executive privilege.
In the press release announcing the lawsuit, the committee criticizes the Justice Department under Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who refused to present the contempt citations to a grand jury, “contrary to federal law.”
“We will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress,” Conyers said. “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.”
Miers and Bolten violated their obligations under committee subpoenas by refusing to appear before the committee or to provide subpoenaed documents. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and will be served on Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton as soon as possible.
The Judiciary Committee asks the court to find that Ms. Miers is not “immune” from the obligation to appear before the committee in response to a duly authorized, issued and served committee subpoena, and for both defendants to produce privilege logs identifying all documents withheld on grounds of executive privilege.
The lawsuit also asks the court to rule that executive privilege does not cover documents not involving the president or undertaken directly in preparation for advising the president or whose contents are widely-known, previously released or previously the subject of extensive, authorized testimony.
The court should require both defendants to appear before the committee to respond to pertinent questions not protected by executive privilage.
“I do not take this step lightly,” Conyers said. “It is extremely rare that Congress must litigate in order to enforce subpoenas and no compromise can be reached. Unfortunately, this administration simply will not negotiate towards a compromise resolution so we must proceed. I look forward to a quick and favorable ruling by the court, so that we can complete our investigation.”
About a dozen Justice Department officials have resigned since evidence in the investigation became public, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House political adviser Karl Rove. Documents turned over by the department indicate that the White House played a substantial role in the development and execution of the plan to force U.S. attorneys to resign, as well as the Siegelman case.
The contempt citation passed the House by a vote of 223 to 32 after most Republicans boycotted the proceeding, and marks the first time in U.S. history that either chamber of Congress has sued the Executive Branch to enforce a subpoena.
The report on the year-long investigation says the committee “has uncovered substantial evidence” that the Bush administration and Justice Department “injected partisan considerations” into the forced resignations or retention of U.S. attorneys and cites “credible evidence” that U.S. attorneys who “failed to return desired indictments or failed to bring voter fraud prosecutions that were considered politically useful to the administration were forced to resign,” as were those who “prosecuted officeholders allied with the administration.”
In a related story, former Bush aide Karl Rove spoke to a hostile crowd at the University of Iowa recently. And in response to questions, he said, “I haven’t been indicted yet, but I fully expect to be by the end of the year.”
Related Links
House Judiciary Committee Files Suit Against Administration
House Panel Sues to Force Bush Aides to Testify
Executive Privilege on the Firing Line
Rove Expects To Be Indicted by Year’s End
March 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
How often, I wonder, do these Republicans that boycott or vote against something strictly on party lines realize their actions hurt the country. True, Democrats have done it and I’m not so naive as to think they worry about what their constiuency thinks.
Few voters even know who they elected or what the scalawags are doing.
Most of these lifelong politicians are not concerned about the well-being of anyone but themselves. Must be nice to have a “job” where you do not have to worry about being fired in the traditional way. Plenty of money, nice homes, planes flown anywhere on the taxpayer’s dime. Think they ever eat at Taco Bell or shop at Target?
Honestly, I am getting sick of all of them; Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, et al. The election will not solve anything no matter who is elected President.
Obama, Clinton or McCain will spend the first year stacking their deck against the other party and enjoying the spotlight, the second trying to succeed in a few campaign promises and the third begin running for re-election.
The fourth year they will blame the other party for making them unable to succeed during the past three and then it starts over again.
And we may still be in Iraq in four years or worse, terrorists will attack to see how the new leader responds.
Time for a sedative, folks.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’m with Henry Rosenbush completely.
Congress has been supine about allowing presidents to get away with all sorts of abuse and crime for decades.
Only rarely, during and just after Watergate, for instance, has Congress summoned up the political will and intestinal fortitude to draw a line in the sand around the president and say, “Beyond this, you cannot go.”
The framers of the Constitution believed Congress should be more powerful than the president, and also believed they’d accomplished that when the document was ratified.
Ben, James, John and the gang must be spinning in their graves by now.
March 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I am quite burned out on politics myself and would like to return a large chunk of my interest and writing back to science. Unfortunately, Bush will not go quietly into that lame duck good night. There are still many battles to fight before he heads back to the ranch in about 10 months.
The political prosecutions must stop. The unlimited violations of our privacy must stop. NO immunity for the telecoms. Our Congressman won’t take the stand, but we say impeach.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I feel I’m beating a dead horse here but imho a lot of our political problems would be solved with term limts. Give House of Representatives 2 terms and out, the Senate, 1 term. After they sit out a term let them run again if people are dumb enough to re-elect them, give them another shot.
While we’re limiting things lets limit political contributions by special interest lobbys or anyone for that matter to $100 or maybe even $1000, that would keep most of our politicos honest (?) well…maybe but it would be a start.
Of course none of this will happen as long as “We The People” sit on our butts and support the status quo.
Why are we prosecuting baseball players when “our Leaders” thumb their noses at the law. Let’s all worry about Brittany and Paris and not $3 and $4 gasoline. The “media” needs to learn that we care more about our economy that what a bunch of spoiled rich folk do while our country and way of life goes down the tube.
What do you think???
March 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
George Will and other conservatives pounded the drum for term limits back in the 1980s, to no avail. It’s unconstitutional for one, and second, it’s against the interests of elected Congressmen - who write the laws.
We’ve tried all kinds of ways to impose spending limits, but even John McCain, who has championed that issue for years, opted out of the public financing system this year - to raise billions to run for president.
The people need to stop supporting the media who focus on celebrity, and help create an alternative economy for the real free Web press where we bring real pressure to bear on government and business.
That’s what I think. But then, I’m planning a trip to the coast to follow Karl Rove around with a camera at Rosemary Beach. I wonder if Jeff Gannon will be around anywhere down there?
March 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
So.. you are filming traitorous, former advisors who fluant the law and imprison politcal foes ..GONE WILD???