Conyers moves forward on contempt citations for Miers, Bolten

November 5, 2007

Way back in July, the House Judiciary Committee approved contempt of Congress citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, for their refusal to testify in response to congressional subpoenas. And then … nothing. There’s been nary a word uttered on the matter since.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), however, has decided to get the process moving again.

Today, House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) sent his final offer over to White House counsel Fred Fielding. The letter lays out a process where Congressional investigators would get what they want — documents and testimony concerning the U.S. attorney firings — while bowing to some White House conditions. But there’s a deal breaker in there. And that’s Conyers’ request for “on-the-record interviews” with current and former White House staffers. Ever since the spring, the White House has refused transcribed interviews, and there’s no indication that having dragged out the struggle this long, the administration would accept that offer now.

So the Congressional wheels are turning. Today, in addition to the letter to Fielding, Conyers submitted the committee’s contempt report to the full House, a prelude to a vote on a criminal contempt resolution. Both the Democratic and Republican leadership have already launched their struggle for votes, with a special concentration on moderate Dems.

No one can accuse Conyers of flying off the handle on this one. He held off on contempt charges since July, hoping to reach some kind of resolution with the president’s legal team. He’s moving forward now after months of patient (and fruitless) negotiations.

What happens next? Conyers would need a vote of the full House — fortunately, Republicans can’t filibuster in the lower chamber — but that’s when things could get tricky.

Getting a U.S. Attorney to pursue this as an actual criminal matter is complicated. The White House has said Bush alone can gauge the limits of his own powers after he’s claimed executive privilege, so the president won’t allow a U.S. Attorney to pursue the case.

The matter would, as it turns out, land in the lap of soon-to-be-confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey has already said he hopes he’ll never have to deal with that, so if he’s lucky, the Dems will hold the vote before he’s confirmed. Otherwise, it might be his first test on the job.

And wouldn’t that be interesting.

Remember, this mess is very easy for the White House to ignore. What it comes down to is a transcribed private conversation with the House Judiciary Committee or a record-less private conversation with the House Judiciary Committee. If Bush’s legal team simply lets lawmakers have a record of what is said, the citations would likely go away.

Tim Grieve and The Gavel have more.

“What happens next? Conyers would need a vote of the full House — fortunately, Republicans can’t filibuster in the lower chamber — but that’s when things could get tricky.”

I’m betting on “tricky” in this one. At least it sounds better than “Dems cave again.”

  • I hope Conyers brings on the charges. These people need to start to be held accountable for evrything.

    O/t, but maybe for your final thread, SB, Larry Johnson ovet at No Quarter has a letter up that intelligence officials have given to Leahy asking for a hold on the Mukasey vote until he defines waterboarding as torture.

  • I’m betting on “tricky” in this one. At least it sounds better than “Dems cave again.” -hark

    I completely agree. I have no faith that the Democrats as a collective will ever do the right thing. I applaud Conyers for this effort, but we’re a little slow on the draw.

    At this rate, it’ll be 2025 before we make any significant strides. Way to pounce while it’s still fresh in everyone’s minds.

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net

  • Every member of the House should be voting for a citation of contempt, and the reason they should do so is not because of politics, but law. When a deliberative body has the power to subpoena testimony and materials, that power is meaningless without consequence for failure to comply. While we all have the right to refuse to appear and give testimony, in a court proceeding or befor eth Congress fo the United States, we all do so knowing that there is a proce to be paid for failing to do so – Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten should not be exempt from that consequence, regardless of the president’s opinion or his position on the merits of the subpoenas. He’s part of the executive branch, and as such, does not hold power over a co-equal branch, the legislative.

    Harriet Miers, as former WH counsel, and as a lawyer, knows the meaning of these principles; it should nor be byond the realm of possibilities that she be referred to the state bar for possible disciplinary action, including disbarment, for refusing to heed this Congressional subpoena.

    The WH will not budge on this – they want to dictate all the terms and conditions for testimony and for production of documents. What makes them exempt? A flimsy claim of executive privilege? A claim that seems to be based on the president not wanting anyone outside his inner circle from knowing what they were up to – ignoring and dismissing the Congress’ right to that information and to oversight.

    More than any president I am aware of, this president has thrown sand into the gears of the government. He has turned his back on the meaning, intent and design of government with no authority other than the one he has taken unto himself.

    It’s time for that to stop.

  • Color me cynical, not by nature, by experience. Still, Conyers’ action might get administrative contempt issues back in the public mindspace a bit, and that’s better than nothing.

  • The king will never allow this. It will be gummed to death till the end of his term…if his term ends. It should never have come this far. Both Miers and Bolten and Rice for that matter should be held in contempt and arrested. But think about it. The rule of law must be backed up by force and the ‘force’ remains under the discretion of the executive branch.

    When Bush says go screw yourself, no matter what law or ruling is issued, unless those under the DoJ (the FBI, the POLICE etc) are willing to enforce it there is nothing congress can “make” them do. Bush has gotten away with acting like he is above the rule of law because the DoJ has been controlled by him. The Executive branch has teamed up with the Judicial branch against the Legislative branch (which falters because of House repubs and centrist dems on holding together for supporting the rule of law) and without an enforcing force congress can only complain. Welcome to the dictatorship disguised as democracy. Congress only “thinks” it is a governing body at present but they are powerless to stop or even reign in Bush. Like I said,…the King will never allow it.

  • Mukasey will give us all the finger. Count on it.

    Thanks Schumer and Feinstein. I guess its more important to have another Jewish face in government than it is to have an AG that gives a shit about the rule of law.

    • Comments are closed.