« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Judge Denies Stay; Miers Must Appear to Answer HJC's Subpoena
A district court judge denied Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten's request for a stay on their Congressional testimony pending the appeal of the recent decision in HJC v. Harriet Miers et al. The decision means that Miers will have to appear in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena for testimony.
From the ruling:
Accordingly, the Court will deny the Executive's request for a stay. Hence, the Executive should respond to the document aspect of the subpoenas by producing non-privileged material and identifying more specifically the materials it is withholding on a claim of executive privilege.But it is on Ms. Miers's appearance that the dispute principally focuses. This decision should not, however, foreclose the parties' continuing attempts to reach a negotiated solution. Both sides indicated that discussions regarding an accommodation have resumed.
The judge, the Honorable John Bates, has mentioned before that he would really appreciate it if these two parties tried to keep every little squabble out of the court room, and that seemed to be the gist of his ruling:
Had the litigants indicated that a negotiated solution was foreseeable in the near future, the Court may have stayed its hand in the hope that further intervention in this dispute by the Article III branch would not be necessary.As it stands, however, the Court must decide the questions presented to it. But there is still ample time for the parties to reach an accommodation. The Court's July 31, 2008 Order does not compel Ms. Miers to appear at any particular date.
Technically, this leaves open the possibility of continued negotiations, but considering this administration's history of fighting subpoenas, we're not holding our breath for an out-of-court resolution.
Late update: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has responded to the ruling:
"Today's ruling clearly rejects the White House's efforts to run out the clock on the Committee's investigation of DOJ politicization this Congress. I am heartened that Judge Bates recognized that the public interest in this matter is best served by the furtherance of the Committee's investigation," Conyers said. "The Committee intends to promptly schedule a hearing with Ms. Miers and stands ready as always to consider any reasonable offer of accommodation with the White House."
"Had the litigants indicated that a negotiated solution was foreseeable in the near future, the Court may have stayed its hand...
But there is still ample time for the parties to reach an accommodation. The Court's July 31, 2008 Order does not compel Ms. Miers to appear at any particular date."
What does this nonsense mean? He was pressed into the ruling, but take your time stonewalling?
I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, though. That Bates delivered something approaching a decent ruling is something swell, considering his efforts to pander to the finger breakers he serves.
August 26, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone thinks that Harriet and Josh will give any meaningful testmony even if they are required to show up at any hearing, I would like to have some of what they are smoking.
August 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether they give meaningful testimony is almost irrelevant to me. I am completely crazed by their hubris in thinking that they can ignore a lawfully issued subpoena. If any of us common folk ignored a subpoena issued by a court or any other entity with subpoena power we'd be cooling our heels in jail. The hallmark of the Bush administration: absolute contempt for the rule of law.
August 26, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second that.
August 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
With this administration, how can that possibly mean anything other than that Miers will not appear? No particular date means the appearance can be put off forever, or at least until Bush leaves the White House.
August 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless Conyers' committee asked in the court proceeding for a date certain to appear, which I doubt, this ruling: (1) put the kibosh onto Mier's legal claims; and (2) recognized that setting a new date for her appearance is properly left to the committee.
August 26, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bolten, Miers, Bates. Which of these three is the bigger Republican tool?
August 26, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to the Bush administration our justice system is hopelessly broken.
Clearly, in this instance inherent contempt citations should have been issued the day after they refused to appear. At this point, I doubt we'll see any movement from either side, although I'm sure Conyers is readying his pen for another round of letters..
August 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What this opinion is saying is: (1) the current fraudulent claim of executive privilege will die at 11:59 a.m. January 20th. (2) President Obama will not assert executive privilege for Ms Meier or Mr Bolten. (3) This is the best chance for the the WH to obstruct the Congress until then.
August 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also think this can be looked at a case where the Republicans who have in my part of the country railed against activist judges and the cumbersomeness of our legal system are here using that cumbersomeness to their advantage in stone-walling and thus forcing the judge to be an activist. It is alomst as if he is saying can't you guys get along and compromise, but appearantly one side in this particular case is much more interested in using the legal system than believing in it!
August 26, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Permanent Republican Majority believes "activism" can only be applied to judges who make rulings in favor of we the people.
August 26, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means a lot. Within a "reasonable time"
the executive branch must produce non-priveledged documents and a priveledge log of documents that it will not provide in accordance with the 7/31 ruling.
Given that the ruling has been out since July 31, the Court will expect documents flowing sooner rather than later. If the executive branch fails to comply it can be in contempt of court also... but the court has a bigger gun than congress because it can refuse to allow the government to appear in any trial before it based on its inherent power to exclude contemptors.
Expect Conyers to ask quickly and return to court soon if documents are not received quickly.
August 26, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a case where a little stonewalling might be a good thing.
1) The drama keeps playing throughout the election season, with chances for voters to be reminded that the current administration is and always has been run by we're-above-the-law scumbags. [The media has to report this, of course...]
2) Were actual congressional hearings to occur so close to the election, a lot of people would see it as political theater and be turned off. We don't want people thinking that the Democrats are using congressional power to settle petty old grudges right now - it could mean the difference in some close elections down the ticket.
3) Unless Bush takes the highly unusual move of pre-pardoning these criminals for anything they may be charged with in the future for illegal actions they took while working for him (can that even be done?), they can still face justice in the next congress - when presumably there will be a Justice Department that is devoted to the rule of law instead of the law of rule.
Do I want these jokers behind bars? You betcha - but I'm not in a particular hurry to get them there.
August 26, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think Joe Sixpack gives a shit either way? Politics be damned, just do what's right.
August 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Reasonable time" is just court speak.
Basically, the Court reaffirmed Miers' requirement to appear. If a hearing were scheduled and she opted not to show, Congress, with the Court's blessing, could either ask for US Marshalls to go and get her - - or, if the Marshalls wouldn't show - - then the House Sergeant at Arms or Capitol Police could be tasked with doing so. With the backing of TWO branches of government.
August 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, citoyen, that's exactly what Bates said when the case was brought to his bench.
He commented that Congress already had the power to deal with contempt; let the Sergeant at Arms arrest them and throw them into the teeny klink in the basement of the Capitol.
This Congress wanted somebody else to do something. So they handed the case to a Bush judge.
August 27, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harriet is HOT! Oink.
August 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just watch. The clock, with the help of non-supportive congressional democrats, especially Blue Dog Democrats, will run out.
The Congress does not WANT to deal with this. It gets in the way of making laws that will benefit special interests and corporations.
It will get in the way of solving the nations financial delima.
And whatever else it will get in the way of.
Accountability is not a word Congress wants to hear.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
August 26, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's important to note....WHAT WAS MIERS TASKED TO DO FOR CHENEY after:
1) I signed under penalty of prosecution, a SD BD OF MEDICAL AND OSTEOPATHIC EXAMINERS COMPLAINT NAMING DRS CHAD CARDA AND JENNIFER BURGER.
This complaint alleged "tampering with my course of medical care" in violation of SD and Fed laws including TITLE 18 USC SECTIONS 241, 242, 1512,1513.
2) What was the quid pro quo for Larry Long?...and for Don Srstka?
Did MIERS FACETIOUSLY JOIN A CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT THE SD AG BY ASSERTING "NATIONAL SECURITY" as a rationalization to commit fed crimes against THOMAS S. BEAN, AND DR MARK GORDON, who was harassed by SD AG, SD Med Bd, and SF FBI because...."FBI USED ILLEGALLY OBTAINED INFO FROM AN NSA WIRETAP" in which DR GORDON REPEATED THE DIALOGUE FROM THE JERKY BOYS COMEDY ALBUM" (Uncle Freddy skit).
FBI thought "Bean and Gordon" were admitting to murder of Uncle Freddy (a fictional character created by The Jerky Boys Comedy team).
When FBI got Gordon on the polygraph....they had exculpatory BRADY MATERIAL that was not passed on to lying, corrupt, lowlife, miserable idiot DAVE NELSON, MINNEHAHA COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY who engaged in more conspiracie to use illegally obtained info from NSA wiretaps, GPS, pin hole spy cameras...etc.
August 26, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense to me.
August 26, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, the White House will negotiate Miers' and Bolton's appearances. Just the way the Iranians are "negotiating" about their nuclear program and Russia is "negotiating" about leaving Georgia. Forget the negotiations. Call the U.S. Marshall to drag the miscreants to their depositions. Tell them to pick up Cheney along the way.
August 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
BALDERDASH
August 26, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
FROG MARCH! the whole lot of them.
August 27, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conyers, Leahy and the rest, to use an old saying, are as useless as tits on a bull.
'If Bolton/Miers don't obey this subpoena within 6 months I'll be forced to issue another one!'
August 27, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"USELESS AS TITS ON A BULL" and "THAT DOG DON'T HUNT"....summarizes my frustration with pussies called Democrats who still...to this day...refuse to polygraph me even when I offered to pay for the airfair and pay for the polygraph??????
August 29, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink