House Holds Bolten and Miers In Contempt

[Yellowdogtexan]

Let the fun begin. Despite the infantile temper tantrum by the repugs today, this resolution passed. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178578.phpIt is another major step in the ongoing saga of the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, which started more than a year ago.

This afternoon, the House of Representatives voted to hold White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel (and one-time Supreme Court nominee) Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for their refusal to testify about the White House role in the purge.

With House Republicans congregating on the steps of the Capitol in protest, Democrats passed the resolutions 223-32.

A legal battle over executive privilege looms, one unlikely to be resolved before President Bush leaves office.

[nixon]

Let the fun begin. Despite the infantile temper tantrum by the repugs today, this resolution passed. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178578.phpGlad to see it.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is going to get fun. The House authorize the House Counsel to file suit to enforce these subpoenas in case the DOJ refuses. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23169760Still, the resolution would allow the House to bring its own lawsuit on the matter.

If Congress does not act to enforce the subpoenas, said Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat, it would "be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial presidency, above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances." the bushies position on executive privilege is silly and no court would back them on the claims being made.

[Matt]

Bushites forgot that drawing the line in the sand counts only if your cohorts stand their ground.
If you tuck your tail and run ~ so you won't have to be on record in the vote ~ you could just lose the game by default.

Maybe they are getting smarter after all!

[Ringo]

Bushites forgot that drawing the line in the sand counts only if your cohorts stand their ground.
If you tuck your tail and run ~ so you won't have to be on record in the vote ~ you could just lose the game by default.

Maybe they are getting smarter after all!


No it only counts if your sheilded from Murder-Rape-Clintons, or TREASON, Gore-Burglar!! Don't get your hopes up, I doubt much happens!!

WHAT ARE WE PAYING THIS LOW LIFE DIVISSIVE, TRAITOROUS CONGRESS TO DO, WAKE UP AMERICA ITS AND EXPENSIVE DANMNED SOAP OPRA...SEND EM PACKING AND GET ADULTS IN THERE!!:godzilla:mw:mw:godzilla

[Trueblue]

They said that about Bush-that now the grownups were in charge. :rofl As if.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The adults are in charge now and the bushies are just upset because Congress is serious about its responsibility for oversight. The bushies are hiding behind extremely weak and stupid executive privilege claims that will not stand up if taken to court. That is why the house gop cry-babies threw their temper tantrum and walked out.

It is important for Congress to maintain some oversight over the white house and to get to the bottom of the poltiicization of the justice department. Does ringo or wabby really want to establish the rule that a Clinton or Obama white house could deny congress acess to needed documents merely by claiming executive privilege no matter how stupid such claim was.

[AYFR]

Explain to me (I am being serious here not trying to start a fight) But how can the House (or Senate for that matter) hold people in contempt? They are not judges. For that matter how can they subpoena people or even hold hearings or court?

It is legal, or better yet is it moral and right to have elected biased people not bound by a judges oath be able to do those things?

[Trueblue]

Explain to me (I am being serious here not trying to start a fight) But how can the House (or Senate for that matter) hold people in contempt? They are not judges. For that matter how can they subpoena people or even hold hearings or court?

It is legal, or better yet is it moral and right to have elected biased people not bound by a judges oath be able to do those things?

People are held in contempt of the Congress, not the individuals in the Congress, just like in court, they are held in contempt of court, not the individual judge.

Congress investigates [ideally] for the public good, as representatives of the people.

Congresspersons do take an oath.

And while these people belong to a party, it does not necessarily follow that they allow their personal bias to interfere when they issue a contempt order.

[Trueblue]

Although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Congress has also long asserted the power to investigate and the power to compel cooperation with an investigation.[9] The Supreme Court has affirmed these powers as an implication of Congress' power to legislate.[10] Since the power to investigate is an aspect of Congress' power to legislate, it is as broad as Congress' powers to legislate.[11] However, it is also limited to inquiries that are "in aid of the legislative function;"[12] Congress may not "expose for the sake of exposure."[13] It is uncontroversial that a proper subject of Congress' investigation power is the operations of the federal government, but Congress' ability to compel the submission of documents or testimony from the President or his subordinates is often-discussed and sometimes controversial (see executive privilege), although not often litigated. As a practical matter, the limitation of Congress' ability to investigate only for a proper purpose ("in aid of" its legislative powers) functions as a limit on Congress' ability to investigate the private affairs of individual citizens; matters that simply demand action by another branch of government, without implicating an issue of public policy necessitating legislation by Congress, must be left to those branches due to the doctrine of separation of powers.[14] The courts are highly deferential to Congress' exercise of its investigation powers, however. Congress has the power to investigate that which it could regulate,[11] and the courts have interpreted Congress' regulatory powers broadly since the Great Depression. Additionally, the courts will not inquire into whether Congress has an improper motive for an investigation (i.e., using a legitimate legislative purpose as a cover for "expos[ing] for the sake of exposure"), focusing only on whether the matter is within Congress' power to regulate and, thus, investigate.[15] Persons called before a congressional investigatory committee are entitled to the constitutional guarantees of individual rights, such as those in the Bill of Rights.[16] Congress can punish those who do not cooperate with an investigation via holding violators in contempt.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[AYFR]

Still doesn't explain how they have the authority to do those things. Also their oath is different from a judges oath.

Federal judges first oath
I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God
Second oath

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Congressional Oath
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States

[Trueblue]

The article explained the source of the authority. :shrug The oath isn't the same, the job isn't the same, but I really don't see how Congress can serve us without some investigation.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The Wiki article is generally accurate here. Here is a simple explanation of the inherent subpoena power of congress that is written for laypersons. http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress?cat=biz-finCongress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution's grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.

The most famous use of the congressional subpoena occurred in 1973, when the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (popularly known as the Watergate Committee) subpoenaed the tape recordings that President Richard M. Nixon had secretly made of White House conversations. This was the first time that Congress had ever subpoenaed a President. Nixon tried to withhold the tapes, claiming executive privilege (the right of the President not to release internal documents of the administration to the Congress). The courts ruled that the President could not use executive privilege as blanket protection, but the White House then released only a heavily edited version of the tapes. In June 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege was a limited power and that the President must turn over all of the requested tapes to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate incident. The opening of these tapes led Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the President, causing Nixon to resign. see also http://malor.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/nuts-bolts-contempt-of-congress/If Congress wants to hold someone in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena, they can do several things:

(1) Hold congressional contempt proceedings. These are quasi-judicial proceedings, rooted in the constitutional investigatory and legislative power of Congress, in which the members of Congress themselves act as judges, juries, and prosecutors. It is very important to note that this is not a judicial process. The chamber of Congress in question has the power to direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest someone, bring them before the chamber, and put them in jail, all without seeing the inside of a courtroom.

See McGrain v. Daugherty, for an example of this upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court held that such powers were “necessary and proper” for Congress to carry out its legislative function.

This is the “historical” method by which a chamber of Congress has enforced its subpoenas. It was employed some dozen or more times up until 1934 but it was deemed too time consuming because it required the attention of the whole chamber, sometimes for more than a week. In the 1850s an alternative procedure was hotly debated and eventually created. But this method still exists. And this is the source of what is referred to as the “inherent contempt” proceeding.

For completness’ sake I should mention that individuals imprisoned under this procedure may petition for habeas relief from federal courts. They therefore will have some opportunity (though likely limited) to raise defenses (for example, Fifth Amendment or executive privilege) and challenge the validity of the contempt finding. On the other hand, there is general consensus that this type of imprisonment is not a criminal penalty and therefore is not subject to the presidential pardon power.
(2) Certify a contempt citation and deliver it to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. This is a multi-step process. First, the committee (or subcommittee) that is seeking the citation must approve it by majority vote. Then, it gets handed up to be read and voted on by the next higher authority (either the full chamber or the committee). Once the full chamber has certified the contempt citation, a report is prepared and presented to the U.S. Attorney. The U.S.A. then has a duty to present the contempt citation and report to a grand jury in order to get an indictment for contempt of Congress. See 2 U.S.C. § 194.

This is the modern, statutory method that Congress has used to lay contempt charges on reluctant witnesses. This is criminal contempt. A contempt indictment then goes through the normal judicial process, meaning the subjects of the citation will have the opportunity to raise defenses or outright challenge the validity of the contempt citation. Individuals punished by criminal contempt may seek a presidential pardon.

(3) The Senate has another option. Under a newer law, deemed necessary during President Nixon’s battles with Congress, the Senate can seek a civil contempt order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Defiance of this order would be contempt of court, rather than contempt of Congress. The district court will examine the validity of the civil contempt citation. Individuals facing a civil contempt order will have the opportunity to challenge it and raise defenses, just like in the criminal contempt proceeding. This civil contempt option is sharply limited. It may not be employed against federal employees acting in their official capacities.

(4) Finally, either chamber could file suit in civil court for declaratory and injunctive relief after it has issued a subpoena that has been ignored. This is not a contempt proceeding, but it would be one way of enforcing subpoenas if any of the contempt procedures above failed. This is the least tested option, especially when the subpoenas are directed at the Executive Branch, because it raises so many separation of powers questions. Congress would be asking the Judiciary to force action by the Executive. Courts are usually very unhappy about doing that and usually refuse to rule on such cases, citing the political question doctrine. The doctrine provides that some questions are more properly committed to a coequal branch of government, that the court has no standards with which to resolve the dispute, or that it would be imprudent to interfere. This procedure also allows the subpoenaed individuals to present defenses and challenges to the validity of the Congressional subpoena.

In short, Congress has several options for enforcing subpoenas, but in each case the subpoenaed individual will have the opportunity to raise defenses and challenge Congress’ contempt order. Given recent events, of most interest for us will be claims of executive privilege.

[Wabash]

No it only counts if your sheilded from Murder-Rape-Clintons, or TREASON, Gore-Burglar!! Don't get your hopes up, I doubt much happens!!

WHAT ARE WE PAYING THIS LOW LIFE DIVISSIVE, TRAITOROUS CONGRESS TO DO, WAKE UP AMERICA ITS AND EXPENSIVE DANMNED SOAP OPRA...SEND EM PACKING AND GET ADULTS IN THERE!!:godzilla:mw:mw:godzilla
Yep....waste of time and money...

The adults are in charge now and the bushies are just upset because Congress is serious about its responsibility for oversight. The bushies are hiding behind extremely weak and stupid executive privilege claims that will not stand up if taken to court. That is why the house gop cry-babies threw their temper tantrum and walked out.

It is important for Congress to maintain some oversight over the white house and to get to the bottom of the poltiicization of the justice department. Does ringo or wabby really want to establish the rule that a Clinton or Obama white house could deny congress acess to needed documents merely by claiming executive privilege no matter how stupid such claim was.
Matters not... Bush and Co. will be gone and it's a Complete waste of time!....and Money!..Our money!

People are held in contempt of the Congress, not the individuals in the Congress, just like in court, they are held in contempt of court, not the individual judge.

Congress investigates [ideally] for the public good, as representatives of the people.

Congresspersons do take an oath.

And while these people belong to a party, it does not necessarily follow that they allow their personal bias to interfere when they issue a contempt order.
Like HELL they do!!!

[Wabash]

The article explained the source of the authority. :shrug The oath isn't the same, the job isn't the same, but I really don't see how Congress can serve us without some investigation.

Even if they can subpeona, I don't see where they have any authority to enforce it...or the power to enforce it! I'd tell em to suck eggs!

[Trueblue]

Unless, of course, they want documents from the Rose Law firm. :rofl

Thanks for the info, Dog.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Even if they can subpeona, I don't see where they have any authority to enforce it...or the power to enforce it! I'd tell em to suck eggs!The Demcratic leaders in Congress have the power and authority to enforce these subpoenas which is why the GOP threw their little temper tantrum last week. The motion passed by Congress last week while the republicans were out holding their breath and throwing their temper tantrum authorizes the House to file a lawsuit to enforce these subpoenas. The republicans and the bushies know that they will lose when this matter get to the courts which is again the reason for the temper tantrum.

[Trueblue]

"I don't give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it'll save it, save this plan. That's the whole point. We're going to protect our people if we can."

[Wabash]

The Demcratic leaders in Congress have the power and authority to enforce these subpoenas which is why the GOP threw their little temper tantrum last week. The motion passed by Congress last week while the republicans were out holding their breath and throwing their temper tantrum authorizes the House to file a lawsuit to enforce these subpoenas. The republicans and the bushies know that they will lose when this matter get to the courts which is again the reason for the temper tantrum.
All the more reason to delay...and delay they will! Like Ringo and I both said....BIG waste of Time and Money!

"I don't give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it'll save it, save this plan. That's the whole point. We're going to protect our people if we can."
Damn straight...the Way it Outta Be!

[Yellowdogtexan]

All the more reason to delay...and delay they will! Like Ringo and I both said....BIG waste of Time and Money!Luckily your opinion here does not matter. Congress has the responsibility to exercise oversight over the Executive Branch including the Justice Department. Here it is clear that a number of US Attorneys were fired for poltical reasons including for not bringing bogus voter fraud cases that had no merit. The US Attorneys and the Justice Department is suppose to represent all of the country and not just the bush administration and the GOP. These subpoenas are necessary to find out what happen and will be enforced.

BTW, if the bush claim on executive privilege was accepted, then the Rose law firm billing records could have never been subpoened back when the GOP was in control of Congress. Luckily the courts rejected claims of executive privilege by the Clinton administration just as the courts will reject the silly claims being advanced by the bushies.

[Wabash]

Hey Buster...My Opinion matters just as much as yours....who the fuck are you?

[Trueblue]

Damn straight...the Way it Outta Be!

:rofl

[Wabash]

:rofl

The way it is for all politicians.....:LL

[Trueblue]

You don't give a crap about anything but having your way, do you? :lol

[Yellowdogtexan]

Hey Buster...My Opinion matters just as much as yours....who the fuck are you?Someone who knows what is going on and who is giving an informed opinion on the issue. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, you really should consider becoming informed on the issues. Again, Congress has the right to conduct oversight over the Executive Branch including the Department of Justice and has the right to issue subpoenas and to enforce those subpoenas.

If you do not like this, then the republicans should have worked harded to keep the democrats out of control of Congress (oh yeah, your buddy rush actually handed control of the Senate to the Democrats with his stupidity).

[Wabash]

Someone who knows what is going on and who is giving an informed opinion on the issue. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, you really should consider becoming informed on the issues. Again, Congress has the right to conduct oversight over the Executive Branch including the Department of Justice and has the right to issue subpoenas and to enforce those subpoenas.

If you do not like this, then the republicans should have worked harded to keep the democrats out of control of Congress (oh yeah, your buddy rush actually handed control of the Senate to the Democrats with his stupidity).
Rush isn't my buddy and you have no way of determining that claim whatsoever!! It's merely a guess on your part...much of your rhetoric is nothing but a guess...

[Wabash]

You don't give a crap about anything but having your way, do you? :lol

Only in things that I'm right about!:hotdog

[nixon]

Only in things that I'm right about!:hotdog Look at that jerk-off in your avatar!!! How many lives were lost and that peice of shit smiles from ear to ear. He's the Devil.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Rush isn't my buddy and you have no way of determining that claim whatsoever!! ...The rush supporter is in denial. The Nile is not just a river in Egypt. The Missouri Senate race was heavily influenced by the Fox commerical and the backlash due to rush's stupidity. The commerical by Micheal J. Fox was very effective according to all polling data. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061026/26politicalwire.htmIn light of actor Michael J. Fox's recent television commercial appearances supporting Democratic political candidates who support stem cell research, Political Wire cited a study from HCD Research and Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion that states "voters' support increased after they viewed an ad featuring Michael J. Fox in which he expresses his support for candidates who are in favor of stem cell research." The study also asserts that the number of Republicans who indicated that they were voting for a Republican candidate decreased by 10 percentage points after viewing the ad and that independents planning to vote for Democrats increased by 10 percentage points.rush's stupidity gave that commercial even more exposure and allowed Michael J. Fox to go on national TV to explain what a jerk rush was which gave the race to the Democrats. Again, the Democrats have control of the Senate due to rush and his stupidity.

I am still hoping for rush to give the Democrats a couple of more Senate seats. If the Democrats play their cards right, rush can give the Democrats a filibuster proofed Senate for the new Democratic president to use to get some important work done.

[Ringo]

The adults are in charge now and the bushies are just upset because Congress is serious about its responsibility for oversight. The bushies are hiding behind extremely weak and stupid executive privilege claims that will not stand up if taken to court. That is why the house gop cry-babies threw their temper tantrum and walked out.

It is important for Congress to maintain some oversight over the white house and to get to the bottom of the poltiicization of the justice department. Does ringo or wabby really want to establish the rule that a Clinton or Obama white house could deny congress acess to needed documents merely by claiming executive privilege no matter how stupid such claim was.

Maybe its time to really open up the Clinton presidency, complete with the Treason and possible conspiratiorial suspicious Deaths of Foster-Brown-Waco victims!!

[Trueblue]

Maybe its time to really open up the Clinton presidency, complete with the Treason and possible conspiratiorial suspicious Deaths of Foster-Brown-Waco victims!!

From elsewhere in this forum:

Ringo's Political Strategy Handbook

Lesson Number One:


When insert conservative here gets caught doing something illegal, underhanded or otherwise unsavory, immediately dismiss the matter at hand and bring up either Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or some other prominent Liberal who may or may not have done something wrong as well.

[VRWC]

What exactly are the enforcemnet options? Are we talking criminal contempt(jail time), or civil (fines, etc)?

[Yellowdogtexan]

What exactly are the enforcemnet options? Are we talking criminal contempt(jail time), or civil (fines, etc)? See http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showpost.php?p=188400&postcount=13The House resolution that was passed authorized both inherent contempt and the use of a lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. Ultimately if the subpoenas are upheld and the bushies claim of executive privilege are rejected by the courts, the persons subject to the subpoena may be held in jail until they comply with the subpoena.

To some degree, this is a game of chicken. Fred Fielding knows that the courts will not uphold the silly claim of executive privilege being asserted. The Clinton administration tried some much narrower claims of executive privilege that were rejected by the courts when tested back in the 1990s.

[VRWC]

See http://forums.thepoliticalasylum.com/showpost.php?p=188400&postcount=13The House resolution that was passed authorized both inherent contempt and the use of a lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas. Ultimately if the subpoenas are upheld and the bushies claim of executive privilege are rejected by the courts, the persons subject to the subpoena may be held in jail until they comply with the subpoena.

To some degree, this is a game of chicken. Fred Fielding knows that the courts will not uphold the silly claim of executive privilege being asserted. The Clinton administration tried some much narrower claims of executive privilege that were rejected by the courts when tested back in the 1990s.

Thank you. I missed that earlier post. But just to clear something up for me, it is the Sergant at Arms that is given the power of arrest and not the DOJ right? Cause it wouldn't make sense to me to have the DOJ enforce subpoenas from Congress to the current administration.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Thank you. I missed that earlier post. But just to clear something up for me, it is the Sergant at Arms that is given the power of arrest and not the DOJ right? Cause it wouldn't make sense to me to have the DOJ enforce subpoenas from Congress to the current administration.That is under the inherent contempt power of congress. That approach appears to be the last resort here in that the Democrats are confident that the Courts will reject the silly claims of executive privilege being asserted by the bushies. Again, the Clinton administration tried so much narrower claims of executive privilege and the courts rejected most of these claims. The claims being asserted by the bushies are far broader and lack any legal authority other than Dick Cheney believes that the president should have such authority. The courts are not likely to buy this argument.

[VRWC]

That is under the inherent contempt power of congress. That approach appears to be the last resort here in that the Democrats are confident that the Courts will reject the silly claims of executive privilege being asserted by the bushies. Again, the Clinton administration tried so much narrower claims of executive privilege and the courts rejected most of these claims. The claims being asserted by the bushies are far broader and lack any legal authority other than Dick Cheney believes that the president should have such authority. The courts are not likely to buy this argument.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[AYFR]

The article explained the source of the authority. :shrug The oath isn't the same, the job isn't the same, but I really don't see how Congress can serve us without some investigation.

Your article did explain it. I was refering to your fisrt post which didn't. Seems we were posting at the same time. Thanks for the explaination.

I don't agree that they should have that power but that is just my opinion.

[Trueblue]

Your article did explain it. I was refering to your fisrt post which didn't. Seems we were posting at the same time. Thanks for the explaination.

I don't agree that they should have that power but that is just my opinion.

Ok, got it.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I don't agree that they should have that power but that is just my opinion.The 2006 was largely about reestablishing oversight over the bush administration. One of the main issue was that the Democrats would be better suited to review and oversee the actions of the bush administration since the republican congress refused to exercise any oversight. bush and the GOP fought the Democrats very hard on this issue in 2006 and the voters spoke. While getting the House was great, the control of the Senate was a great bonus due to the stupidity of rush.

The GOP exercise a great deal of oversight over the Clinton Administration and issued far more subpoenas than the Democrats have to date. The Clinton Adminstration claimed executive privilege a couple of times and had such claims rejected by the courts on a couple of occassions. It is amusing to see people dispute the concept of subponea power and oversight now that the Democrats have such power and exercising such responsibility given that the GOP was far more active during the Clinton administration.

As opposed to the Clinton administration, we have clears incidents of bush (i) lying about the war in Iraq and wmds, (ii) conducting illegal wire taps, (iii) filing bogus voter fraud lawsuits and politicalizating the DOJ, (iv) using torture and (v) violating the geneva conventions just to list a few of the more obvious misuse of power by the bush administration.

Congressional oversight is proper and needed here given the clear abuses by the bush administration

[AYFR]

Oversight is fine. That is called checks and balances.
BUT isn't it the SCOTUS job to try for treason, (which is what you listed)

I just think that Congress having this much power is wrong. Then again I also think the President and SCOTUS have gained to much power as well.

Congressional hearings about baseball and other such non-governmental issues is an abuse of power in my book.

[Trueblue]

It's not really about baseball, it's about commerce and about drug abuse.

[AYFR]

It is not something Congress needs to be deaking with.

[Trueblue]

It is not something Congress needs to be deaking with.

Is that supposed to be dealing with or dicking with? :D

[AYFR]

Is that supposed to be dealing with or dicking with? :D

:para
dealing :hide
:panic

[Trueblue]

:D

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html

Roger Clemens did request that hearing, btw.

[AYFR]

:D

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html

Roger Clemens did request that hearing, btw.

I know he did. Does that mean that every person that requests a Congressional hearing gets one?

That is not congress's job.

Oh and Clemon's tried to stop the hearings and House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman regrets having the hearings.

House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman regrets holding the hearings regarding former trainer Brian McNamee's allegations of steroid use by Roger Clemens, the New York Times reports.

Waxman said of Wednesday's four-hour hearing before the committee, "I think Clemens and McNamee both came out quite sullied, and I didn't think it was a hearing that needed to be held in order to get the facts out about the Mitchell report.

"I'm sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing. And the only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it."

Clemens' lead counsel, Rusty Hardin, called Waxman's statements "unbelievable, disingenuous and outrageous."

"We didn't think any good would come out of having a food fight with [McNamee]," Hardin said.

"He is the one who created this circus in the first place," Hardin said of Waxman. Hardin told the newspaper that Clemens and his lawyers asked Waxman several weeks ago to call off the hearings but that once the depositions had been taken, the Clemens side had no choice but to proceed, fearing the committee would turn the depositions into a hostile written report.
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=352626

[Yellowdogtexan]

Despite anyone's misgivings about the baseball hearings, the issue of whether the bush administration has polticalized the Department of Justice and fired US Attorneys for improper reasons including for refusing to bring bogus voter fraud lawsuits or for investigating GOP congressmen is a valid area for congressional oversight. The subpoenas issued were proper and legal. Now it is time for the courts to look at the bushies' executive privileges claims. Again, the courts rejected narrower claims of executive privilege by the Clinton administration and so I do not expect that the bush claims to do well in the courts.

Again, the reason why the House republicans got upset was due to the fact that the House Democrats were in the right and there was nothing that they could do about it but act like children.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I don't agree that they should have that power but that is just my opinion.I find opinions like this to be very very silly because such an opinion shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution and our system of government. First, this is like saying that one does not like the fact that we have three branches of government, each with their inherent powers and responsibilities. The power to issue subpoenas is inherent in the leglislative function and whinning about this just shows that you do not understand the Constitution or how our government is supposed to work. You may want to understand the concept of three branches of government before you make silly statements like this.

Second, where were you when Dan Burton (a republican) was spending $7.4 million to investigate ringo's stupid claim that the Clintons sold missle technology to china for campaign contributions. That investigation was a complete waste of $7 million and found nothing because there was nothing to find. The GOP issued far more subpoenas and did far more crazy things than the Democrats have to date.

Back under the crazy investigations by Burton and others, the clinton white house made far narrower assertions of executive privilege compared to what bush is asserting and the courts rejected such claims. That is why the republicans are upset about this issue going to the courts.

[AYFR]

I find opinions like this to be very very silly because such an opinion shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution and our system of government. First, this is like saying that one does not like the fact that we have three branches of government, each with their inherent powers and responsibilities. The power to issue subpoenas is inherent in the leglislative function and whinning about this just shows that you do not understand the Constitution or how our government is supposed to work. You may want to understand the concept of three branches of government before you make silly statements like this.

Second, where were you when Dan Burton (a republican) was spending $7.4 million to investigate ringo's stupid claim that the Clintons sold missle technology to china for campaign contributions. That investigation was a complete waste of $7 million and found nothing because there was nothing to find. The GOP issued far more subpoenas and did far more crazy things than the Democrats have to date.

Back under the crazy investigations by Burton and others, the clinton white house made far narrower assertions of executive privilege compared to what bush is asserting and the courts rejected such claims. That is why the republicans are upset about this issue going to the courts.

First I know what the USC says, and it does not say that Congress has a right to subpoena. If the Court has ruled that they have that right becuase it is inherent in the legislative powers written in the USC the so be it.

Second I was not "whining" I was asking a question, to which TB was nice enough to answer.

Third I was not objecting to Congress's action here again I was merely asking a question (is that OK with you ole great and powerful OZ)

Fourth I also stated my OPINION that I do not agree that Congress whould how that power, but again it is my opinion. I am sure you have opinions about stuss as well.

See it wasn't a statement it was a question and an opinion, to bad you are too stupid to know the difference.


As for the Clinton thing I asked the alomost exact same question back then as well. All the response I got was either It is in the USC or it doesn't matter so long as we get the Clinton's. This was the time that I had voted for Bill Clinton as well.

I equally thought the impeachment was waste of time as well.

Doesn't matter which party does it, it is still my opinion that it is oo much power.


Sorry we can't all be perfect like you and know the answer to everything, but some of us are human.

[Yellowdogtexan]

First I know what the USC says, and it does not say that Congress has a right to subpoena. If the Court has ruled that they have that right becuase it is inherent in the legislative powers written in the USC the so be it. .....

Fourth I also stated my OPINION that I do not agree that Congress whould how that power, but again it is my opinion. I am sure you have opinions about stuss as well. Again your opinion here is based on your ignorance of how a legislative body works. If you understood how leglislatures worked and how laws were made, your position would not be so poorly informed. In order to pass laws, a legislative body needs facts and information. That is why the ability to hold hearing and the use of subpoenas is considered to be an inherent part of the legilsative process and why it is clear the the US Constitution clearly granted that power to Congress when the constituion vested the leglislative power with congress.

In addition oversight by Congress is an important part of our governement. The republican controlled congress refused to exercise any oversight over the bush administration and that is why the country is in such bad shape right now. Here is a simple article that may help you to understand http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20061101faessay85607/norman-j-ornstein-thomas-e-mann/when-congress-checks-out.htmlThe country's Founding Fathers gave each branch both exclusive and overlapping powers in the realm of foreign policy, according to each one's comparative advantage -- inviting them, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin has put it, "to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy."

One of Congress' key roles is oversight: making sure that the laws it writes are faithfully executed and vetting the military and diplomatic activities of the executive. Congressional oversight is meant to keep mistakes from happening or from spiraling out of control; it helps draw out lessons from catastrophes in order to prevent them, or others like them, from recurring. Good oversight cuts waste, punishes fraud or scandal, and keeps policymakers on their toes. The task is not easy. Examining a department or agency, its personnel, and its implementation policies is time-consuming. Investigating possible scandals can easily lapse into a partisan exercise that ignores broad policy issues for the sake of cheap publicity.....

But since George W. Bush has become president, oversight has all but disappeared. From homeland security to the conduct of the Iraq war, from allegations of torture at Abu Ghraib to the surveillance of domestic telephone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA), Congress has mostly ignored its responsibilities. The same is true of less publicized issues involving the United States and the rest of the world, including U.S. relations with trading partners and rivals, allies and adversaries. The year-and-a-half hiatus in the Republicans' control of the Senate, which came after 9/11 and during a nationwide surge in patriotism, did not noticeably reverse that pattern.

The numbers are striking. Examining reports of the House Government Reform Committee, the journalist Susan Milligan found just 37 hearings described as "oversight" in 2003-4, during the 108th Congress, down from 135 in 1993-94, during the last Congress dominated by Democrats. The House Energy and Commerce Committee produced 117 pages of activity reports on oversight during the 1993-94 cycle, compared with 24 pages during 2003-4. In the mid-1990s, the Republican Congress took 140 hours of testimony on whether President Clinton had used his Christmas mailing list to find potential campaign donors; in 2004-5, House Republicans took 12 hours of testimony on Abu Ghraib.Oversight is an important function of congress. The GOP controlled congress gave bush a free pass and that is why the country is so screwed up. In the case at hand, congress needs to examine the politicazation of the DOJ and the use of US Attorneys for partisan purposes. For example just today, a gop congressman who may have gotten an US Attorney fired was indicted. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/22/renzi-indicted/Questions have been raised as to whether Paul Charlton, one of the nine U.S. attorneys fired last year, lost his job because of his active investigation of Renzi.The issuance of thet subpoenas in order to conduct such oversight is what Congrerss is suppose to be doing. The fact that you object to this power simply evidences a profound lack of understanding of the legislative process and how our goverment works.

You are entitled to your opinon. I am also entitled to disagree with that opinon and to point out why your opinon is based on ignorance and a lack of understanding of the Constitution and our system of government.

I hope that this explanation helps you understand how Congress is suppose to work. I would urge you to take a basic political science course if you still have questions.

[AYFR]

Again I apologize that not everyone knows everything like you do; oh great and powerful OZ.
My question was a legitmate one but your bias will not let you see that.

I understand that Congress has the power to make laws and they have other legislative powers.

My OPINION that they should not be able to subpoena and hold hearings is due to the abuse of that power. Hearing cases about baseball, people having sex and other such stupid things is pathetic.

Using it to find if a President intentionally lied, committed treason or other things is fine and great.


I hope that this explanation helps you understand how Congress is suppose to work. I would urge you to take a basic political science course if you still have questions.
It does and thank you.

[Yellowdogtexan]

My OPINION that they should not be able to subpoena and hold hearings is due to the abuse of that power. Hearing cases about baseball, people having sex and other such stupid things is pathetic.You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitle to point why your opinion is ignorant. Again, the power to hold hearings and subpoena witnesses is critical as evidence by what happened when the GOP controlled congress ceased to excercise any oversight over the bush white house. Here is just one example of what the lack of oversight caused. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20061101faessay85607/norman-j-ornstein-thomas-e-mann/when-congress-checks-out.htmlLapses have been especially apparent on issues relating to homeland security. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been beset by a series of management problems, a lack of consistent focus, and a failure to sort out its numerous responsibilities -- all problems that were utterly predictable. From its inception, the department has been a near revolving door when it comes to its top management team, has had major problems integrating agencies, and has had a less-than-stellar record creating an integrated information-management system for the department, not to mention coordinating its computers with those at the FBI.

What are the causes of these problems? Poor planning and faulty execution. Even prior to 9/11, the Hart-Rudman commission, which was set up to review U.S. national security needs for the twenty-first century, had recommended the creation of a new department bringing together agencies and bureaus tasked with combating terrorist threats and responding to domestic attacks and natural catastrophes. It was a powerful idea but a complex task, and determining what the department should look like and do called for much debate. Yet these questions were never debated. After vehemently resisting the creation of such a body for almost nine months, in 2002 President Bush made a dramatic turnaround virtually overnight and unveiled a far more sweeping plan, which had been secretly hatched by several key administration aides. There was no deliberative process to question the extent of the reorganization and its breakneck pace. Absent, too, was any talk of starting with a new department of border security and moving incrementally to something grander. When the DHS bill came to Congress, it sparked only one serious controversy: Would civil service protections for the DHS' 170,000 employees be eliminated? That question became a major campaign issue in the 2002 elections, while important questions about what the DHS should be and do were ignored. The DHS that was eventually created was much larger than the Hart-Rudman commission had envisioned: it had to integrate 22 preexisting entities -- the largest reorganization in the history of the federal government. It was still reeling from the job when Katrina struck in August 2005, and so rather than operate as the centerpiece of a federal response to the crisis, as foreseen, the bloated bureaucracy was unable to figure out what to do for days, its inaction compounding the tragedy.

Congress' failure to oversee the DHS has been crushing. Realistically, only Congress can prod such a massive department and determine whether when mad cow disease strikes or self-initiated Minutemen patrol the border, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or the Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service), both part of the DHS, are able to manage the problems. The same is true of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which lost its robust independent status when it was subsumed in the DHS; it has been roiling with confusion ever since.

For three years after the creation of the department, Congress did nothing to ensure that the preexisting functions of its 22 components were well maintained while new ones were added. The House only reluctantly and belatedly created the Select Committee on Homeland Security and gave it no legislative jurisdiction or control over the DHS' budget or activities. Knowing the committee's relative powerlessness, top officials at the DHS have treated it with indifference or contempt.

More generally, there has been no serious oversight of the DHS in either house. Perversely, the problem has been compounded by the incessant demands of the 88 congressional committees and subcommittees that, eager for political cachet and cover, have sought to grab a piece of homeland security jurisdiction by demanding that top DHS officials testify before them. The agency's top managers have spent a lot of time at Congress but almost none seriously examining the DHS' functions and performance. One result was the abject failure of the DHS and FEMA to handle the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.The lack of oversignt over FEMA and the DHS is in part to blame for the lack or prepardness of the bush administration to deal with Katrina. That may not seem like an important issue to you but you are entitled to your opinion.

In order to exercise oversight, congress needs to have subpoena power. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has aggressively asserted its executive power and displayed a strong aversion to sharing information with Congress and the public. In early 2001, the president issued an executive order granting former presidents, vice presidents, or their representatives the right to block the release of documents "reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisors." (The order also directed the Justice Department to litigate on behalf of any such blocks.) The Bush administration has also refused to respond to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. In an October 2001 directive (planned well before 9/11), Attorney General John Ashcroft announced a departure from the Clinton administration's standard. Eschewing the "foreseeable harm" standard -- which required agencies to release records under the Freedom of Information Act as long as there was no foreseeable harm in doing so -- Ashcroft adopted a "sound legal basis" standard that allows agencies to withhold information if they have any legal basis to do so.

In addition to resisting congressional and public access to information, the Bush administration has substantially increased the number of documents it classifies and decreased the number it declassifies, blocked the release of documents and briefs requested as part of congressional investigations of the terrorist attacks, refused a House committee request for the numbers that were adjusted to reflect the undercounting in the 2000 census, invoked executive privilege in denying Congress access to information concerning the FBI's misuse of organized-crime informants in Boston, refused to share information on missile defense with the Senate subcommittee that oversees the project, delayed sending to Congress full cost estimates of the Medicare drug bill before it was signed into law, denied the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee information about undisclosed meetings between Enron executives and top administration officials, and restricted Congress' access to environmental records. The administration has also engaged in many battles -- with Congress and in the courts -- over what information on the handling of terrorist detainees and enemy combatants it has to release. The NSA surveillance initiatives were shared with a bipartisan group of only eight top party and committee members -- all of whom were sworn to secrecy and could reveal nothing to their colleagues -- rather than with the full congressional intelligence committees. Members of both parties have been quite open with us about the dismissive attitude, indeed the contempt, with which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have greeted requests for information. National security briefings were often considered a complete waste of time; reading the morning newspaper was much more informative. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, "The briefings go on ... but we could be anybody in those briefings. ... It doesn't matter what we think."

This behavior is entirely consistent with the Bush administration's view of executive prerogatives.
It appears from your silly ill-informed opinion that you are of the cheney school that congress only needs whatever information that the Executive branch determines is appropriate for congress to have. If that is your opinion, then I pity you and disagree.

Again, you are entitled your opinion no matter how ignorant and poorly informed that opinion may be. I believe in the Constitution and the concept that there are checks and balances. That concept requires that Congress has subpoena power and that the Executive Branch is not the sole party that gets to decide what information that Congress is allowed to see.

You can agree with cheney if you wish.

[Ringo]

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitle to point why your opinion is ignorant. Again, the power to hold hearings and subpoena witnesses is critical as evidence by what happened when the GOP controlled congress ceased to excercise any oversight over the bush white house. Here is just one example of what the lack of oversight caused. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20061101faessay85607/norman-j-ornstein-thomas-e-mann/when-congress-checks-out.htmlThe lack of oversight over FEMA and the DHS is in part to blame for the lack or preparedness of the bush administration to deal with Katrina. That may not seem like an important issue to you but you are entitled to your opinion.

In order to exercise oversight, congress needs to have subpoena power. It appears from your silly ill-informed opinion that you are of the cheney school that congress only needs whatever information that the Executive branch determines is appropriate for congress to have. If that is your opinion, then I pity you and disagree.

Again, you are entitled your opinion no matter how ignorant and poorly informed that opinion may be. I believe in the Constitution and the concept that there are checks and balances. That concept requires that Congress has subpoena power and that the Executive Branch is not the sole party that gets to decide what information that Congress is allowed to see.

You can agree with cheney if you wish.

Did they scrutinize Commie Bill when he was selling America to the CHICOMS, and AIDING the Islamic Terrorists HERE IN AMERICA to prepare for 9/11???

Did the scrutinize the UN AMERICANS staying in the White House overnight, ala DRUG DEALERS etc..??

Did they scrutinize Hillary's murder of Foster and the CONTEMPT she showed for SUPONEAD records?? NO!!

Did they investigate Al Gore for White House FUNDRAISING?? Criminal Commie cocksuckers!!!:godzilla:godzilla

[Yellowdogtexan]

Did they scrutinize Commie Bill when he was selling America to the CHICOMS, and AIDING the Islamic Terrorists HERE IN AMERICA to prepare for 9/11???You really are clueless. Dan Barton (a repug) as head of the House Oversight Committee back when the repugs controlled congress spent $7.4 million investigating your stupid claims about President Clinton. He spent months and months and wasted a great deal of money to find nothing. The repugs found nothing because there was nothing to find. Your silly claims are stupid. They have been investigated by the republicans when they controlled the House with a great deal of money wasted.

Everytime you bring up this charge, I laugh and wonder how someone could be so silly in making this claim.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Speaker Pelosi has taken the next step towards enforcing the House subpoenas. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1171Washington, D.C. – Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, informing him of the referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor on contempt citations of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Taylor is required by law to bring the matter before a grand jury. However, Mukasey has indicated that the Justice Department intends to prevent Taylor from complying with the law.

“There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury,” she wrote.

“I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim,” she added.

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 979, which holds Miers and Bolten in contempt of their subpoenas.

Below is a text of the letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor:February 28, 2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
The Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In accordance with 2 U.S.C. § 194 and the attached House Resolution 979 (adopted on February 14, 2008), I have today sent a certification to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, advising him of the failure of former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to appear, testify and produce documents in compliance with a duly issued subpoena of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and of the failure of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff and custodian of White House documents, to produce documents in his custody as required by a duly issued subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee.

Under section 194, Mr. Taylor is now required “to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” The appropriate grand jury action is a criminal charge for violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which provides: “Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers . . . willfully makes default . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” and shall be subject to a fine and “imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that “enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his… not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents.” Hearing on Oversight of the Dep’t of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a “long line of authority,” but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will “act promptly” to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

Thank your for your prompt consideration and attention to this matter.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the HouseThis will be fun to watch. Again, durnig the Clinton administration, the courts rejected some narrow claims of executive privilege by the Clinton administration. The claims of executive privilege being asserted by the bushies are silly and will not stand up if they go to court.

[Yellowdogtexan]

The Attorney General is breaching his oath of office and so the Democrats have to use the courts http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1177Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today in response to a letter she received late this afternoon from U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey stating that the Administration is refusing to enforce contempt of Congress citations against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten:“By ordering the U.S. Attorney to take no action in response to congressional subpoenas, the Bush Administration is continuing to politicize law enforcement, which undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system.

“Anticipating this response from the Administration, the House has already provided authority for the Judiciary Committee to file a civil enforcement action in federal district court and the House shall do so promptly. The American people demand that we uphold the law. As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that.”

[Ringo]

Speaker Pelosi has taken the next step towards enforcing the House subpoenas. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1171This will be fun to watch. Again, durnig the Clinton administration, the courts rejected some narrow claims of executive privilege by the Clinton administration. The claims of executive privilege being asserted by the bushies are silly and will not stand up if they go to court.

I find this AMUSING, no wait thats pussy talk, I find this fucking hillarious, Doggie and Pelosi got it stuck in their ass!!:mw:mw:rofl:rofl:party:butt

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/congress.attorneys/index.html

[Yellowdogtexan]

The House has filed suit to enforce the subpoenas. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-house-contempt,1,7409593.story?ctrack=1&cset=trueWASHINGTON -- The House Judiciary Committee filed suit Monday to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

The lawsuit filed in federal court Monday says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said, "We will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress."

Conyers said he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration's claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with constitutional principles. Here is the official press release from the House Judiciary Committee http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1195Washington, DC)- Today, the U.S. House of Representatives General Counsel filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee to enforce subpoenas issued by the committee seeking information on the U.S. Attorney firings. The defendants in the case are former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten who were cited by the House for contempt of Congress last month. Last week, the Justice Department refused to present the House-passed contempt citations to a grand jury, contrary to federal law. Based on the House resolution that also found Bolten and MIers in comtempt, the Committee is now filing the civil lawsuit to enforce the subpoenas.

“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 this morning in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and will be served on Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton. The Judiciary Committee, as plaintiff, is asking the Court to find the following:(1) Ms. Miers is not “immune” from the obligation to appear before the Committee in response to a duly authorized, issued and served Committee subpoena;

(2) Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten must produce privilege logs identifying all documents withheld on grounds of executive privilege;

(3) 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, and that Ms. Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s claims of executive privilege are, in any event, overcome by the Committee’s compelling need for the subpoenaed testimony and documents.

(4) that Ms. Miers is required to appear before the Committee to respond to questions put to her pertinent to the Investigation and to invoke executive privilege only if and when appropriate;

(5) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to provide, as required by the subpoenas, a detailed privilege log, identifying by author, recipient, date and subject matter those documents responsive to the subpoena that have been withheld on executive privilege grounds;

(6) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to the subpoenas. “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.”

The civil lawsuit is the latest step in the year-long investigation into the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys and related matters. Nearly one dozen Justice Department officials have resigned since evidence in the investigation became public, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. 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.
Again during the Clinton administration, President Clinton made some less broad claims of executive privilege which were rejected by the Courts. I do not expect bush's claims of executive privilege to stand

[Yellowdogtexan]

This case is on an accelerated track and we should have some opinions out by June. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/judge_sets_schedule_for_house.phpWe knew that the House's lawsuit against White House officials would take awhile. And it turns out that it'll be June, at the earliest, before a judge makes his first decision in the House's suit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.

That relatively rapid pace (for the courts, at least) is the result of the House pushing for quicker resolution of some of the White House's more expansive claims of executive privilege. The court will decide first whether administration lawyers are right when they say that Miers didn't even need to show up in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena and that both Bolten and Miers didn't even need to indicate what sort of documents the White House were claiming privilege for. Thornier issues (e.g. whether certain conversations that do not involve the president are covered by executive privilege, etc.) would be dealt with later. The House has sought this speedier resolution with the hope that it would mean they'd actually get to hear from Miers and see some documents from Bolten before the close of the Bush administration.

Last Friday, the judge set a schedule for both sides to submit motions and set a hearing for June 23rd when the House's general counsel and Justice Department lawyers will argue before the judge. But whichever way the judge eventually rules, the decision would likely be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, meaning that regardless of the House's desire for a speedy resolution, the case is bound to spend a long time in the courts before Congressional investigators see any of its fruits.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is a very important amicus brief. Several past prosecutors (both republican and democratic) all have rejected bush's executive privilege claim http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38916.htmlTwenty former U.S. attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, urged a federal judge Thursday to intervene in a constitutional battle over whether two White House officials should be forced to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The former top prosecutors, including two who served under President Bush, argue in court papers that the judge should reject the Bush administration's assertion of blanket immunity for presidential chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in the congressional investigation.

Democrats in the House of Representatives say they were forced to sue in March, more than a year after they launched the probe, because the administration has refused to allow Miers and Bolten to provide crucial information about the reasons the prosecutors were fired. The case also could determine how former presidential adviser Karl Rove responds to a subpoena in a related congressional investigation.

The lawsuit accuses administration officials of injecting partisan considerations into the firing decisions and making "questionable or outright false statements" in subsequent explanations to Congress.

The prosecutors acknowledged that the administration could have legitimate legal reasons for not allowing Bolten and Miers to testify. However, they called on U.S. District Judge John D. Bates to weigh Congress' arguments carefully because of the serious nature of the allegations.

"This congressional inquiry involves the possible subversion of principles at the core of Constitutional government," they wrote. "It is a matter of the utmost importance for Congress to conduct a complete investigation to determine whether White House officials have injected, or attempted to inject, partisan considerations into a process that must be rigorously insulated from such considerations."

The administration has denied any wrongdoing and maintains that Congress has no compelling interest to review White House deliberations on the matter.

The prosecutors who voiced support for Congress' position include officials who served under presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and both President Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush.

Alan Bersin, a former U.S. attorney under Clinton, and William Braniff, a former U.S. attorney under George H.W. Bush, both served as the top federal prosecutor in San Diego, where the Bush administration later fired then-U.S. attorney Carol Lam. Former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was among the ousted prosecutors, and Matthew Orwig, a former U.S. attorney under Bush in Beaumont, Texas, also signed the brief.

"This brief is apolitical and legally sound," said Orwig, who was described in internal Justice Department documents that came out during the controversy as a "loyal Bushie." "It was clear as this controversy unfolded that the reasons given for the firings were fabricated. It also became clear that the congressional investigation was being impeded."The same issue is going to come up for Rove and the illegal use of the DOJ for politcal purposes. :ydt

The Congress has a right to subpoened both Bolton and Miers and the bush claim of executive privilege is just plain weak. :ydt