« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
House Committee to Meet on White House Privilege Claim
So it continues.
The House Judiciary Committee will meet this Thursday to consider the White House's claim of executive privilege as to internal and external communications concerning the U.S. attorney firings, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) informed White House counsel Fred Fielding today.
The committee issued a subpoena to the White House for those documents in June; the White House refused, citing executive privilege. The White House reiterated that blanket refusal last week.
If the committee were to rule that the White House's assertion of privilege is invalid (as seems likely), that would be a step towards contempt proceedings. In this case, the subpoena was issued to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, and so it would be Bolten on the hook. Those proceedings would be distinct from those against Harriet Miers, were the committee to choose that course.
Conyers' letter to Fielding is below.
The letter:
July 17, 2007Mr. Fred Fielding
Counsel to the President
Office of Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530Dear Mr. Fielding:
We are writing to inform you that the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will be meeting this Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, to consider the executive privilege claims you have raised in response to the subpoena issued on June 13 to Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to produce documents. If those objections are overruled, you should be aware that the refusal to produce the documents called for in the subpoena could subject Mr. Bolten to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives. We strongly urge you to reconsider, and to produce the documents called for by the subpoena.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
ChairmanLinda T. Sánchez
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Comments (9)
Jake D. wrote on July 17, 2007 6:18 PM:Wake me up when the Dems actually DO something.
Eric Ferguson wrote on July 17, 2007 6:24 PM:It's frustrating to see yet another strong but polite letter, but maybe they're thinking that the smart thing politically is to go the extra mile to resolve the issue. It might be the smart thing legally too, since the courts might punt and tell the other branches to keep negotiating.
Let's also realize that they may have to go through this for every investigation. With Nixon it was pretty much just Watergate, and with Reagan just IranContra. Look at the sheer volume of investigations they have to deal with, and so many recent. I just hope they don't try to get through the whole backlog before moving to impeachment, because they'll be well into the next administration.
KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 17, 2007 6:36 PM:Okay, call me an optimist, but what I'm seeing lately looks like they're setting up the dominoes, getting ready for the chain reaction.
I have this image in my mind...Gonzo, Miers, Bolton, Cheney, Bush, etc, etc, all hauled in for inherent contempt...wearing orange jumpsuits, chained together...
Yeah, yeah, I know...but I can dream...
rb wrote on July 17, 2007 9:08 PM:Here, here, Jake D.
Katie wrote on July 18, 2007 10:09 AM:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that e-mails that were sent illegally on the RNC servers are not a candidate for Executive Privilege.
Jake D. wrote on July 18, 2007 11:29 AM:Last I checked, Katie, there are no rocket scientists on the ROBERTS Supreme Court. Be afraid, be very afraid . . .
Anonymous wrote on July 18, 2007 1:51 PM:If the SUpreme COurt chooses to obstruct Congress, Congress has the power to deny funding to the Judicial Branch . . .
Roberts is on notice, he could be impeached as well if he assents to illegal activity; or he interferes with Congressional oversight powers.
dixiegrl wrote on July 18, 2007 2:18 PM:Let's see here........Chertoff is not the onlt one who listens to "gut feelings"....
Democrat Oversight of pert near everything is
not going away..
the Repubs , Cheney, Bush & war poll ratings tanking,
the Iraq Oil contracts not on track...
the mask on the economy is slipping....
and suddenly we hear Chertoff and Frances Townsend ( who had been mentioned as Gonzales replacement, is very close to Bush's ear) stoking the threat level up higher and higher..
is this a prelude to yet another "terrorist" attack in the USA ?
Betcha....betcha that new martial law act gets dusted off, too.
sanctioning the 08 elections has been rumored for a long time now...
whaddya think?????
paul lukasiak wrote on July 18, 2007 2:49 PM:"Roberts is on notice, he could be impeached as well if he assents to illegal activity; or he interferes with Congressional oversight powers."
the way to go with this one is to tell Roberts (and Alito) that if they don't recuse themselves from the Miers and Bolton cases, they will be subject to impeachment.
If they don't recuse themselves, begin impeachment procedings against them. The fact that they are subject to impeachment would force them to recuse themselves at that point -- how can you avoid a conflict when there is an impeachment investigation going on regarding your handling of the case in question?