« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Conyers Finally Subpoenas DOJ For Documents
From Politico:
House Judiciary Committee John Conyers has issed a subpoena to the Justice Dept. for the unredacted interviews with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on former CIA operative Valerie Plame, as well as numerous other documents sought unsuccessfully by Democrats for years.Conyers is also seeking FBI notes of interviews with some top former White House officials, including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett and Andrew Card.
The committee also wants unreleased memos from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, including an Oct. 23, 2001, memo related to use of American military forces to combat terrorism within the United States.
Conyers has been asking for those documents for a long time.













Now that I've seen Attorney Addington - truly one of the most contemptous, evil people in BushCo - I think it's safe to say these documents will never see the light of day.
June 27, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too little. Too late.
June 27, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The democratic party must be convinced their kabuki remains Oscar worthy.
June 27, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see. DOJ and/or the White House with claim some sort of yet unrecognized privilege, Conyers will write a letter, diddle himself in failure for all the world to see and nothing will happen, all as per the usual for a failure, coward and whoore.
June 27, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the House prints it's comically ineffective subpoenas on recycled paper. If not, they and the White House have caused some substantial deforestation.
June 27, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
When do we get to see the sargent-at-arms perform his constitutionally-mandated function???
June 27, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could Rep Conyers subpoena Fitzgerald and have him bring the original notes, perhaps bypassing the obstructive AG? It is a crime to lie to a federal investigator. Just ask Martha Stewart.
June 27, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it will focus folks. What law enforcement agency can Congress use to enforce subpoenas? Don't they need the cooperation of DOJ to send in marshals? Conyers can only work with what he's got. The subpoenas can stand until the next administration takes over. Then Conyers will have an effective law enforcement agency to work with.
June 27, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn.
Yaaawwn.
Feeling very sleepy.
Conyers and the rest: Good timing! Fantastic piece of work. Democrats (yawn) to the rescue (zzzzz).
Now that the ol' clock has just about run down, courageous and bold assertion of your basic constitutional duties (your job, in case it wasn't made clear previously) surface.
At this point?? Too late already. Get a life!
June 27, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The pessimists is perhaps right in the end, but the optimist has a better time getting there "
Samuel Clemons aka Mark Twain..
My belief is that there is a lot more going on here for the "Truth , justice & the American way " then we percieve at this time .
Remember that all of these investigations & supboneas etc are taking place in the context of the general election . It appears that there may very well be a complete rout of the NeoCons this cycle.( Many of us had hoped that the 2006 cycle would have seen this ongoing criminal conspiracy aka gwb43 busted open & stopped by now -but we will leave Madam Speaker's complicity to be addressed after November ) When the projected route of the republickthugs is completed in January then we will see justice done .
Come 2009 there will be very active criminal investigations -on all things related to gwb43.
And while we do that we also need to air all suspect pols knickers -including especially Madam Speaker's & Congresswoman Harmon's as they too may well have aided & abetted the torture at Abu Gharib & elsewhere. ( Once we have the majority we will have Gen Tagube back to give testimonty -that will be a very good start ) .
Meanwhile all the ground work is being laid to bring us a government we can be proud of once again- The subponea of the DOJ documents is just one small part of that ..
June 28, 2008 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Al in Austex says:
"When the projected route of the republickthugs is completed in January then we will see justice done .
Come 2009 there will be very active criminal investigations -on all things related to gwb43."
Al, I hope you're right but I doubt it. Here's my prediction, made from what I've seen since the Dems took Congress;
If the Dems win the White House and maintain control of both Houses, they will sit on their victories and their control of the Government and not do anything that may upset the apple cart.
After losing control of Congress (and all the good shit Majority status brings) to Gingrich in 1994? and finally regaining it, they now live in mortal fear of returning to minority status, and this will keep them from doing anything controversial that the Republicans can zero in on.
Among other things, its why Pelosi said 'impeachment is off the table.'
June 28, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
One unrecognized and unaddressed power block in the US government is the Congressional Aides. They seem to be slanting their reports and comments to Congresscritters in order to get Congress to vote for or against legislation, or even add wording to legislation in process to support Neo-Con goals.
.
June 28, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrat Committee Chair to White House:
I'll give you 3 months to obey this subpoena, and if you don't, I shall be forced to issue another one.
(yawn)
June 28, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conyers ahould subpoena Mukasey and force him to explain why the documents are not forthcoming, since he is the roadblock.
The AG is the inevitable weak link in a criminal White House, because of his position as the top law enforcement officer in the nation.
June 28, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Diachronic,
Actually, OVPCOS may be the weaker link. Addington in particular. He got off with very easy questioning in his appearance before the committee, but that was more or less in the cards.
I was a little surprised that Addington even made an appearance but I do believe that was prompted by the ongoing Bolton/Meirs controversy at DC Appeals. This may have been to forestall any possible use of inherent contempt.
This is the rough form of what the inherent contempt statement will look like if Congress so chooses. You are free to fill in the blanks:
For those of this community who savor the idea of the House using its inherent contempt ability, here is an appetizer.
WHEREAS, it appears from the report of the _______ Committee that a witness, ___________, called before the Committee making inquiry as directed by House Res. _ (or by House Rule _), declined to answer certain questions (or failed to comply with a subpoena) relevant and pertinent to the matter then under inquiry:
RESOLVED, That the Speaker issue his warrant directed to the Sergeant at Arms, or his deputy, to take in custody wherever to be found the body of ______ and the same in custody to keep, and that the said _________ be forthwith brought to the bar of the House of Representatives, then and there or elsewhere, as it may direct, to answer questions pertinent to the matter under inquiry or show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, and in the meantime to keep the said _____ in his custody to await the further order of the House; and the Speaker shall designate a room to be used for such purpose;
RESOLVED further, That upon his arrest, _________ be furnished with a copy of this resolution and a copy of the report of the Committee;
RESOLVED further, That when the said _______ shall be brought before the bar of the House to answer the charge of contempt of the House of Representatives, as set forth above, the Speaker shall then cause to be read to said ________ the findings by the Committee; the Speaker shall then inquire of said _________ if he desires to be heard, and to have counsel on the charge of being in contempt of the House of Representatives. If the said ________ desires to avail himself of either of these privileges, the same shall be granted to him. If not, the House shall thereupon proceed to take order in the same manner.
Then if the official fail to clear him/herself, the next resolution:
RESOLVED, That _______, having been heard pursuant to the citation heretofore issued directing him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failing to answer the questions of the Committee (or failing to comply with the subpoena issued by the Committee) after subpoena issued, and having failed to show sufficient cause why he should not be punished, ______ is adjudged to be in contempt of the House.
finally, the imprisonment resolution:
RESOLVED, That the Sergeant at Arms be directed to hold said ______
in close custody until he shall purge himself of said contempt, or until discharged by order of the House.
June 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if, should the warrant ever be issued, members of the executive branch will seek....a habeous corpus hearing?
June 29, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
rerutled,
It is my understanding that while the contemnor could file such a petition, past precedent would indicate it would be denied.
June 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Mr. Beebers! I love that quaint ol' language, direct and to the point. All Harriet Miers has to do is show up and claim her privilege. It says in that text, is exactly what the House lawyer told District Court Judge John Bates who suggested they could arrest Miers and Bolton. The whole argument about the extensive use of executive privilege by the Bush Administration has not been seriously and directly challenged by the Dems. The vague and inscrutable way John Yoo recently invoked a privilege (a supposed law professor) in front of the House Committee illustrated how no one really takes thorny privilege questions seriously -- giving BROAD latitude to "state secrets" "executive privilege" and the traditional "attorney/client" -- and of course invoking the 9/11 attacks.
June 30, 2008 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Addington is a punk. A big guy with a small heart.
When the Obama administration begins its inquiry after the condition in which they found the country, Mssrs. Dick "Cheney" Capone and David "Addington" Nitti will learn contrition.
June 28, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you followed the questioning of Addington closely you will see that the committee was doing a little legal spadework.
It is a contested question about the ability of Congress to take actions against the Executive, short of impeachment, that hinder the same in the performance of his mandated duties. The whole Unitary Executive push has been to stake out such a zone of invulnerability.
Not so clear is it on the Vice President or his counsels. There has been advanced a theory that the VP is not constitutionally a creature of Article I.
On close questioning, they put forth the position that the VP is neither solely an office under Article II.
Well he certainly is not in Article III.
It is not clear to me that they were wise to take this line.
June 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the analysis of Al in Austex. JohnW1141, you fail to consider that, although the Dems did gain a majority, they do not have enough of a majority to stop the petty, obstructionist, and ignorant machinations of the Repugnants. Witness, most recently, the global warming bill.
June 28, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are good reasons to believe that the Judiciary Committee might initiate impeachment proceedings shortly after July 8, when House Members return from the 4th of July recess.
If you'd care to help make this happen, then stop whatever else you're doing, and call or email your
Representative in the House NOW --- TODAY --- and ask him, or her, to support the impeachments of both Bush and Cheney by co-signing the impeachment resolutions already introduced by Dennis Kucinich.
This will be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE in bringing Bush and Cheney to the bar of justice than sitting around grousing and pointing fingers of blame.
Thank you for allowing me to express myself.
June 28, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never, in the history of America, have we had such open, blatant corruption of the White House, and, members of Congress - whether those members be Democrat or Republican.
Any American, willing to look, can now see what other people throughout the world have seen long ago; that members of the U.S. Congress are owned lock, stock and barrel by national and multi-national corporations - damn what the American people think.
It is those "corporate" members who are blocking the process of impeachment or, more seriously, charges of "war criminal" against George W. Bush and members of his administration.
These ethically and morally weak, self-centered, self-serving congressional members are themselves more interested in protecting their political turf and their political careers than upholding the spirit of the Constitution and protecting the traditional freedoms of the American people.
They could care less that only 13% of the American people think they are doing a good job.
And most probably think they are in that 13%.
And now that Barack Obama is the sure fire Democratic candidate for president, and will probably be the next sitting president, he too, has now sold out.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
June 28, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There are good reasons to believe that the Judiciary Committee might initiate impeachment proceedings shortly after July 8, when House Members return from the 4th of July recess".
Name me one of those "good reasons". Then name a second. That's it. Just two.
I double-dog dare you.
June 28, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of agree with you. I don't believe anything is in the offing.
If you want to know what is going on in the minds of the senators and representatives, then it is good to know that they tend to telegraph their punches.
Look at the Congressional Research Service as a barometer of congressional concern. Within the last 10 days they have asked from the CRS reports on status of force agreements in particular how one might work with Iraq, habeas rights of Guantanamo prisoners after Boumedienne etc.
Last year they were flooding the CRS with requests for information on Congress/DOJ dustups, signing statements, executive privilege, congress's subpoena and contempt powers, etc.
June 29, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to answer you this way:
Some House members and committee chairmen have grown weary of being stonewalled by the White House nearly every time they ask for a witness to appear, or documents to be produced, and they have begun to intensify their efforts to get the testimony and/or the information. This has resulted, recently, in a lawsuit against two former White House officials who refused to appear in response to subpoenas. Some members have begun to talk about using the power of Inherent Contempt (Google it for yourself) as a way to compel appearances.
A couple of days ago, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, and "torture memo writer" John Yoo, appeared before a House subcommittee, but the two of them were unbelievably uncooperative in (not) responding to questions under oath.
On July 10, Karl Rove is supposed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee in response to a subpoena. Rove's lawyer has said that he will not appear. If Rove does not, in fact, appear, perhaps the decision will be made to utilize Inherent Contempt in such a case -- in which he would be arrested and physically brought before the House.
Or perhaps this will be the last straw, and a decision will be made to begin hearings on something like Article 27 of the impeachment resolution introduced recently by Dennis Kucinich, and now embodied in H.Res. 1258, which relates to Non-Compliance with Congressional Subpoenas. I believe another way of saying this is, "obstruction of justice."
This was the substance of one of the three articles of impeachment that were brought against Richard Nixon (who was never tried in the Senate, but who resigned after Republican Senators advised him to in the face of the overwhelming, compelling evidence against him.)
The Bush White House has now spent many years ignoring the Congress and the Constitution, and
imperiously challenging anybody to do anything about it.
Sooner, rather than later, I believe the Congress is going to take up the challenge.
So to those who would like to see Bush and Cheney brought before the bar of justice, I am urging that now would be a good time to contact your Representative in the House, and let him, or her, know that you support the impeachments of both these megalomaniacs.
Thank you for your consideration.
June 29, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
RodinMan (and Al in Austex)
There is absolutely nothing, NOTHING, that would please me more than what you suggest coming to pass.
In some ways impeaching Bush Cheney and prosecuting the major actors in the administration is actually MORE important than electing a democratic president.
Because, the parties switch presidencies all the time.
But it would be disastrous to let the precedent of criminality and outlawry, not to mention war crimes of the current administration stand unchallenged.
But the people who are running things don't listen to legal counsel except to find out the boundaries of their actions and the possible outcomes. They are primarily bottom-line folks and are trying to advance the interests of their party.
The model that dominates thinking on the hill is that the "war" excuses some fast-and-loose behavior on the part of the Executive.
A lot of it is Kabuki and posturing sad to say.
June 29, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with rodinman -we could see impeachment articles out on the floor of the House for a vote before the general election . Remember please that many powerful voices for reason on the conservative side are no openly calling for impeachment with renewed vigor - Bruce Fine is a good front man for these reasoned conservative voices .
As a very senoir partner at a very prominent law firm in Austin Tx /with deep conservative roots was overheard to say in response to how he felt about gwb43 by now -- to loosely paraphrase him..
"They have abandoned best practices for conservatives. Me & Barry Goldwater never would have started an illegal & unnecessary war , and paid for the occupation with a credit card issued by the Red Chinese/One way or the other this ongoing criminal conspiracy aka gwb 43 will be made accountable for the last eight years .!"
The senoir partner then went off about why how come Usama ain't dead and buried either ya'll !
Want measureable proof that the conservatives are pissed off go read Richard Vigure's new book - or go look at how little money is being raised for the neo con stalwarts such as Senator Cornyn ( btw Congressman Noriega will defeat Cornyn - Texas is in play )
Yeah its possible we could see articles of impeachment on the floor before the general election .
The fat lady is getting warmed up for gwb 43 - you can smell , you can feel it ,,,
June 29, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read my reply to RM above (it was meant for you as well)
To get an idea of the temper on the committee and I will not name names, take the Addington testimony as an example.
Many thought he would never show up. Cheney had two ways of blocking his appearance and elected to take neither of them.
Many think he is perhaps the central non-elected official in the out-of-control Executive we have had to contend with for 8 very painful years.
So to have him voluntarily come before the committee was a literally priceless opportunity for a good interrogative, and if not rising to a deposition, then at least we might glean something from his replies.
He was very well prepared and some of his answers were helpful, open and direct. Some of his answers bordered on contumacity and contempt for the dignity of the committee.
So, from his replies, I have an incredible frustration with how the time could have gone.
The questioning was inept. Period. They should have let Irv Nathan or someone else conduct the session. (Not that they could or would) This was window-dressing and political theater.
Yoo was even worse. Conyer actually helped him out a bit at times (You lawyers out there who watched will know what I am referring to)
This was a totally wasted opportunity. It speaks in very eloquent way of how the Congress leadership views bringing the criminals in the Executive to account.
They simply don't care to.
June 29, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
RodinMan & Al in AusTex: I just don't see it, but hope you're right. It would be too little, too late, of course. But it would force all in congress who have sat with a fence picket up their ass for the past few years to quit their straddling, dismount their perch to one side or the other, and stand to be counted. To invoke John McCain, it would at the very least serve to give the country a psychological boost.
June 29, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never say never. And I remember in college some Young Republican who live on my floor telling me that some B Actor named Ronald Reagan was going to be the next president. I said no way is some B Actor who wrecked the tax structure of California is going to be running the country. 'Nuff said.
I don't think congress has the stomach for impeachment, but I have obviously been wrong before.
June 29, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can go you one better, DMoore. On that bitter night Reagan was first elected, I bet my Mom $50 that the American people would never re-elect the idiot. I was a sore loser, too. Didn't pay up for months, even though I knew I was doomed the second Mondale declared in his '84 acceptance speech, "I WILL raise your taxes".
Needless to say, I was reasonably certain Mom wouldn't charge me points for my delinquency, or have my legs broken, either.
June 29, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Bo, You're the MAN. I almost made the same bet! I can't believe how badly my political intuition failed me the two times he ran for office.
I just couldn't believe the American people would elect (and then re-elect) someone who was transparently about destroying the country and rolling back the New Deal.
Damn, I was wrong then. And then wrong later when Bush beat Gore. Who could have believed people would vote AGAINST peace and prosperity?
June 29, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lux Umbra Dei ,
Bush did not beat Gore , Scalia beat Gore.
And given what is coming out regarding shennigans in Ohio in 2004 , Bush maybe cheated Kerry too. (Would really like to see Blackwell fully deposed someday ..)
Even though I am not a lawyer Mr Beebers -& I don't even pretend to be one on the "internets "-it still looks possible that we might have impeachment proceedings before the G E , because of the political context ,,
And on a side bar to this conversation -any opinions on whether Madam Speaker is complicit in the torture policy ? Or Congresswoman Harmon ?
June 30, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Albie,
The simple fact is that Bush did beat Gore via all th recounts. I know such news is hard to take, but that was what occurred.
Yes, the supreme court overstepped their bounds by stopping the recount, but prior to the recount Gore never moved past Bush in any of the recounts. A close election is still an election.
As for impeachment, unless a smoking gun is found, there will be no such proceedings. The fact of the matter is that the congressional dems do not have the strength to start such proceedings and the nation does not wish to see such proceedings occur.
July 1, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a snooze! The Bush Administration routinely blocks subpoenas and requests for documents. It is the most secretive in U.S. History. Dick Cheney claims he is not under the Executive or Legislative branch so the Public has no right to know about his activities.
If the Dems had any "cojones" whatsoever, they would do what District Judge John Bates recently suggested: have the House Officer hold Mukasey in contempt and throw him in jail under the Capitol. If the Bush Administration is subverting the Constitution, it is up to Congress to hold them accountable.
June 30, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that CONGRESSIONAL AIDES for Dems...are corrupt, worthless, informants for the RADICAL RIGHT WING CORPORATE SHADOW GOVERNMENT.
As proven by...the HOUSE OF DEATH SCANDAL when an ICE informant when nuts and murdered at least ten mexicans in Juarez.
Story at NARCO NEWS.
Grassley and DOJ and the corrupt whores at US SEN JUD did nothing...and the staffers were all ex feds COVERING UP FOR THEIR PALS.
Congress...is run by aides, who are in on the corruption as proven by Abramoff scandal and Duke Cunningham scandal.
DEMS are worthless...don't know how to "FIND THE RAT" and how to get them indicted.
June 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink