« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
House Panel Files Suit against White House
And we're on to the next step of the Congress v. White House subpoena battle.
First, the House found Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt for refusing to respond to House Judiciary Committee subpoenas from the U.S. attorney firings investigation. Then, the Justice Department, as Attorney General Mukasey had warned it would, refused to convene a grand jury and rebuffed the criminal referral. And now we're on to step three: a lawsuit against the administration to enforce the subpoenas.
As Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) says, "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."
He looks forward to "a quick and favorable ruling by the Court, so that we can complete our investigation." The expectation on all sides, though, is that this will likely drag on for many months.
We'll keep you updated as the case moves forward.
You can read the 36-page complaint here (pdf).
Comments (17)
Wouldn't impeaching Mukasey be faster and more effective?
That would totally avoid the lugubrious procedure of going through the courts and would avoid the the very great possibility of an extra-constitutional ruling from Chief Justice Roberts. (He of the Bush Nuthuggers Club)
March 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should Congress negotiate or compromise on an issue that is clearcut? Congressional subpoenas MUST be obeyed by all.
Those two buffoons didn't show up. They MUST be held to account.
March 10, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My God they're actually doing it, thata boy Conyers. Not gonna give my hopes up too much but I like this direction.
March 10, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing it, with a judge who has decided a Presidential signature is the only thing required to make a law.
March 10, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time. The administration's position has been to ignore subpoenas and make blanket claims of privilege without providing logs or details as to why items are privileges. The missing RNC emails by White House employees are an outrage. If Congress permits this to stand, then it would never have any oversight over the activities of the Executive Branch. No checks, no balances, no accountability = door open to authoritarianism.
March 10, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thin Gruel indeed.
Whatever happened to inherent contempt charges.
Is that option "off the goddam table" as well?
March 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The judge this lawsuit had been given to worked for Ken Starr and has ruled in the administration's favor in several high-profile cases, including the energy task force hoo-ha.
Game over, people.
March 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually not... that's not the way the legal system works.
Bate's assignment is only the beginning. Yes,he PROBABLY will rule against the Congress and will do it predicated on unified executive theory.
Fortunately, adherents to unified executive theory remain minorities on both the DD Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS (Roberts, Alito, & Thomas).
March 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a question about why the House did not retain "outside" counsel. It looks like Irv Nathan, formerly of Arnold & Porter, is lead counsel -- not too shabby.
March 10, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should go for Inherent Contempt. This administration has shown over and over it's contempt for Congress and the rule of law. There is no reason to think they will abide by a judge's order either. If Congress wnat to remain an equal branch of government, they need to assert their constitutional power and bring these criminals under control.
March 10, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The complaint lists Miers' address, which is visible on Google Street view.
March 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As of 2003, the address listed on the complaint matches that of someone named Faye C. Briggs, a well-listed GOP donor.
Item 4, Briggs' other address in 99:
snipurl.com/21fiy
Item B:
snipurl.com/21fj0
Item B: Note "independent oil and Gas producer:
snipurl.com/21fj5
Item A:
snipurl.com/21fj9
Note records for 97 and 98 on the FEC database, but not available for inspection.
Brigss is linked with the Dallas Museum of Art; Visiting Nurse Association of Texas; and the oil/gas exploration company Trek of Dallas, as reported in the SEC information.
- How much money is flowing through the GOP oil interests to assist Miers with home purchases, defense fees, and other things?
- Any funds from the former home owner into Miers' legal offices/law firm in Texas?
As a private investor of Trex, she is reported in SEC documents in 2002 to have purchased 50,000 shares for $500,000, which can be converted to 7,142,857 shares at time of option.
- Any evidence the options were backdated for more favorable purchase price?
March 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a link bewteen Miers' law firm and the former owner of the property, Faye C. Briggs.
Locke, Liddell & Sapp [LL&S] wiki entry:
snipurl.com/21k4q
Miers' wiki entry listing that law firm:
snipurl.com/21k4s
Briggs and LL&S are both listed as "Guardian Angels ($25,000-$49,999)" for the 2006 Crystal Charity Ball in Dallas Texas; and both contribute funds to the Dallas Museum of Art.
On November 13, 2006. Kris Kringle Christmas. Bazaar at Mrs. Faye Briggs's home.
Represenatives from Miers' law firm, Locke, Liddell & Sapp were involved with the The Women's Auxiliary of Nexus "An Evening with Groucho".
It appears someone from Miers' law firm was impressed with the November 2006 showing at Briggs' home, and may have passed the word along to Miers.
March 12, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Faye Briggs is reported in SEC documents to have a son, "Michael E. Montgomery" who is linked to Locke, Liddell & Sapp via the Dallas Red Cross as donors. Documents filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, Montgomery is listed as living in Tucson AZ 85750.
The law firm is connected with another Montgomery at
Recall, Miers was WH counsel. Guess who should have been in charge of a plan to retain data. Here's a problem for the White House. Miers should have known, as WH Counsel, about the RNC document retention issues. Here is some commentary on her law firm:
Miers law firm is an expert is "responding" to software audits, certainly of interest given the GOP-RNC email problems. Miers was White House counsel, and was reported in the affidavit to Waxman to be intimately involved with the planning of the email transfers from LotusNotes to MS Outlook.
- Where was this firm during this WH email retention/transfer planning?
- What was Miers' presumed background with this auditing capability at her former law firm?
- How do we explain the clear connection between Miers' law firm and the former owner of Miers' house; but "no connection" between Miers law firm's technical expertise on data audits, and the problem the GOP was having with document retention?
- Is someone asking us to believe that there is "no" connection between Miers', her former law firm on technical issues related to software audits; but there is a connection between Miers, her law firm, and the former owner of her house?
Let's reconsider what Miers is protecting when she refuses to respond to the House supboenas.
- Is the reason Miers has invoked "executive privilege" because Miers, as former counsel with LL&S, doesn't want to answer questions about the connection between her law firm, and th former owner of her house; but the professed "we had no idea" what was going on with the RNC email audits inside the White House?
- Is Miers hoping to shield the stated connection her law firm has with the White House; or is Miers attempting to hide her knowledge of these IT audits which her law firm does?
- When did her law firm discuss the White House email retention problem with Miers?
But it gets worse. Guess who else is also on the list of "IT experts" in this area. Baker Botts, the same law firm that is connected with AT&T; and who also had some of its legal counsel issue public comments on state secrets in re NSA surveillance.
It looks as though the issue isn't the telecoms, NSA, or the White House, but law firms who were allegedly involved, provided assistance on issues of FISA/Geneva/POW treatment, but didn't ensure the evidence related to those discussions was adequately retained.
- Are the law firms invoking "state secrets" claims not to protect Presidential communications, but to hide information that Miers, WH Counsel, had related to data retention, audits related to the RNC emails, NSA surveillance, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other things the President is alleged to have violated?
- What kind of software audits should Miers or her friends at her former law firm been able to provide, discuss, coordinate when the WH Email retention issues were discussed?
- What involvement did Locke, Liddell & Sapp have with Miers on the issues of the White House email retention plans?
- Was Locke, Liddell & Sapp hired as any of the DOJ "settlement monitors" related to data retention, archiving, or other records management?
- Is there an explanation why Miers would not want this law firm to be closely connected with her; if not, how does she explain the connection between her law firm and the former owner of her house, Faye C. Briggs?
Rendition isn't about a state secret, it's about hiding the legal instruments these law firms created to hide war crimes. The issue isn't the covert activity, but the law firms' alleged involvement with hiding war crimes evidence.
- When is the Congress going to broaden the legal assault on the issues of NSA, FISA, rendition, POW abuse, and other alleged activities to not narrowly focus on the President, but broadly look at the law firms alleged to be involved, related, and associated with the planning, hiding, and shielding of business relationships connecting the President to outside contractors in re rendition, CIA support, FISA violations, and other alleged war crimes?
March 12, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Faye Briggs is reported in SEC documents to have a son, "Michael E. Montgomery" who is linked to Locke, Liddell & Sapp via the Dallas Red Cross as donors. Documents filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, Montgomery is listed as living in Tucson AZ 85750.
The law firm is connected with another Montgomery at
Recall, Miers was WH counsel. Guess who should have been in charge of a plan to retain data. Here's a problem for the White House. Miers should have known, as WH Counsel, about the RNC document retention issues:
- Where was this firm, and Miers' presumed background with this auditing capability?
- How do we explain the clear connection between Miers' law firm and the former owner of her house; but "no connection" between Miers law firm's technical expertise on data audits, and the problem the GOP was having with document retention?
- Is someone asking us to believe that there is "no" connection between Miers', her former law firm on technical issues related to software audits; but there is a connection between Miers, her law firm, and the former owner of her house?
Let's reconsider what Miers is protecting when she refuses to respond to the House supboenas.
- Is the reason Miers has invoked "executive privilege" because Miers, as former counsel with LL&S, doesn't want to answer questions about the connection between her law firm, and th former owner of her house; but the professed "we had no idea" what was going on with the RNC email audits inside the White House?
- Is Miers hoping to shield the stated connection her law firm has with the White House; or is Miers attempting to hide her knowledge of these IT audits which her law firm does?
- When did her law firm discuss the White House email retention problem with Miers?
But it gets worse. Guess who else is also on the list of "IT experts" in this area. Baker Botts, the same law firm that is connected with AT&T; and who also had some of its legal counsel issue public comments on state secrets in re NSA surveillance.
It looks as though the issue isn't the telecoms, NSA, or the White House, but law firms who were allegedly involved, provided assistance on issues of FISA/Geneva/POW treatment, but didn't ensure the evidence related to those discussions was adequately retained.
- Are the law firms invoking "state secrets" claims not to protect Presidential communications, but to hide information that Miers, WH Counsel, had related to data retention, audits related to the RNC emails, NSA surveillance, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other things the President is alleged to have violated?
- What kind of software audits should Miers or her friends at her former law firm been able to provide, discuss, coordinate when the WH Email retention issues were discussed?
- What involvement did Locke, Liddell & Sapp have with Miers on the issues of the White House email retention plans?
- Was Locke, Liddell & Sapp hired as any of the DOJ "settlement monitors" related to data retention, archiving, or other records management?
- Is there an explanation why Miers would not want this law firm to be closely connected with her; if not, how does she explain the connection between her law firm and the former owner of her house, Faye C. Briggs?
Rendition isn't about a state secret, it's about hiding the legal instruments these law firms created to hide war crimes. The issue isn't the covert activity, but the law firms' alleged involvement with hiding war crimes evidence.
- When is the Congress going to broaden the legal assault on the issues of NSA, FISA, rendition, POW abuse, and other alleged activities to not narrowly focus on the President, but broadly look at the law firms alleged to be involved, related, and associated with the planning, hiding, and shielding of business relationships connecting the President to outside contractors in re rendition, CIA support, FISA violations, and other alleged war crimes?
March 12, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet another waiting game. A few more courts and a decision in w's favor.
March 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much too early for such pessimism... the WH house made 2 major tactical errors in picking this fight with Congress: (1) Failure to assert executive privilege and (2) Failure of Meiers & Bolton to APPEAR before the committee of jurisdiction and assert any kind of privilege. (Read item 8 of the Preliminary State in the pleading.)
It would not surprise me if Judge Bates orders both Meiers and Bolton to APPEAR before the committee. That doesn't mean they would actually give testimony or provide documents. They would have to assert a claim of privilege in order not to do so. The committee would reject the claim and then things would head back to court.
As a matter of law and of historical precedent, a claim of privilege requires an appearance whether we are talking about court or congressional proceedings.
So, theswan, it's too early to start singing our swan song..... sorry, I just couldn't resist :)
March 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink