« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Conyers Makes White House Final Offer before Contempt Vote
The wheels are once again in motion towards the first court battle between the Democratic Congress and the White House. After a months-long lull, preparations are underway for a vote in the House to find White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress.
Today, House Judiciary Committee Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) sent his final offer over to White House counsel Fred Fielding (see below). 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 adminstration 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.
As we've noted before, things will get interesting if that vote should pass, since the Justice Department has already signaled it's refusal to enforce the resolution. Some sort of court battle is likely to ensue. 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.
November 5, 2007
Mr. Fred Fielding
Counsel to the President
Office of Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530Dear Mr. Fielding:
As you know, the Judiciary Committee has been seeking for more than six months to obtain information from the White House concerning the forced resignations of nine United States Attorneys in 2006 and related matters. This has included the Committee finding in July that White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers were in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued to them for documents and testimony. Unfortunately, I have received no response to my July 25 letter to you, which again sought to resolve this issue. In fact, I have written to you on eight previous occasions attempting to reach agreement on this matter.1 As we submit the Committee’s contempt report to the full House, I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis.
In a number of my previous letters, I have offered several constructive paths in an effort to reach agreement. Let me now suggest another specific proposal based on these letters and previous offers, including your previous letter to us, and based specifically on previous agreements that this Administration has already reached with Congressional committees during this Congress.
I propose that initially, the White House would provide the Committee with copies of documents reflecting communications between White House staff and persons outside the White House relating to the U.S. Attorney terminations and related matters. This was part of your conditional offer in March, and the White House agreed without such conditions to provide such documents to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as part of its investigation into the death of Corporal Patrick Tillman. Second, the White House would make available for confidential staff review the remaining, internal White House documents relating to the same subjects, after which the Committee would identify what would most probably be a smaller number of such documents for production. This is precisely the procedure that the White House agreed to follow in the Tillman investigation, in which approximately 450 pages of internal White House documents were confidentially reviewed by Congressional staff and a smaller number were then requested by the Committee and produced by the White House, and that was followed with respect to documents initially withheld by the Justice Department in the U.S. Attorney investigation.
Finally, we would mutually identify relevant present and former White House staffers for on-the-record interviews, following the procedure agreed to by the Justice Department and successfully utilized in a dozen such interviews this year in the U.S. Attorney investigation. The area of questioning would be limited to the US Attorney terminations and related matters. These staff members would initially include those specified in your March 20 letter, and we are prepared to consider conducting these interviews without requiring that the witnesses be under oath, as occurred in the Justice Department interviews.
As the Congressional Research Service has reported, there are at least 74 instances since World War II where even sitting White House advisers, including White House counsel, have testified before Congress, and previous Administrations, even after initially asserting executive privilege, have reconsidered and agreed to "full or substantial compliance" with Congressional committee requests once there was a committee contempt vote. I very much hope that we can similarly avoid a constitutional confrontation in this case. This is not, and should not be treated as, a partisan or ideological issue, but instead a question of good government. As Republican former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh recently testified before our Committee, "citizens of the United States must have confidence" that the Department of Justice "is conducting itself in a fair and impartial" manner, "without actual political influence or the appearance of political influence."
I hope you will consider this offer in earnest and based upon the good faith with which it is delivered. Please respond at your earliest convenience, and in no event later than the end of this week, November 9. As always, responses and questions should be directed to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (tel.: 202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680).
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Linda T. Sánchez
Hon. Chris Cannon
Chris Freck

Comments (19)
Michael Jones wrote on November 5, 2007 12:40 PM:I'm trying to think of something that sounds hopeful, but all that I can think of is the Monty Python scene where the black knight gets all of his limbs cut off and is calling for Author to come back so that he can bite his leg off.
brantl wrote on November 5, 2007 12:44 PM:Now, maybe we're getting somewhere.
JohnW1141 wrote on November 5, 2007 12:56 PM:"Unfortunately, I have received no response to my July 25 letter to you, which again sought to resolve this issue. In fact, I have written to you on eight previous occasions attempting to reach agreement on this matter"
"I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis."
Now I demand you answer my letter or I may be forced to give you 6 more months!
cynical jim wrote on November 5, 2007 1:11 PM:On the other hand, if Mukasey would refuse to enforce the Contempt of Congress resolution, then he should be impeached. Then bush/Cheney should be impeached.
Habanero wrote on November 5, 2007 1:13 PM:Let the healing begin.
the zapkitty wrote on November 5, 2007 1:18 PM:"This is your last chance before we capitulate completely!"
phil james wrote on November 5, 2007 1:38 PM:This one sentence pretty much says it all: "The wheels are once again in motion towards the first court battle between the Democratic Congress and the White House." The FIRST court battle...maybe...if there are enough votes... Come on people. The Dems have made it crystal clear in every possible way since the 2006 election. They do not have the guts, the brass, the nads, the backbone, the intestinal fortitude to stick it to this criminal conspiracy called the Bush administration on any damn thing. The most they will do now is bluster on for the remainder of Dubya's term and claim they tried. What a pathetic display of lack of political will. Thanks to Hillary and Chuck and Diane and Harry and Nancy we continue to endure a president answerable to no law, to no oversight, to no one in Congress.
TJ wrote on November 5, 2007 2:00 PM:this has to have been said before in the comments- but just in case it hasn't.
The strategy has been a success. The process has been delayed long enough that there is virtually no chance those in office will actually be held accountable, as none of this will make it through the courts in time to matter.
Quite literally, nothing more to see here.
Add it up as another democratic leadership failure, please.
i'm disgusted.
bholl wrote on November 5, 2007 2:20 PM:Yeah, right.
I swear, this is really, really the last chance you have to come clean.
Please?
speedtats wrote on November 5, 2007 3:07 PM:Here we go again...what were the lines from Macbath again?
Ah yes...
"That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more:
it is a tale
Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Pretty much sums up the pathetic do-nothing Dem Congress. They are guilty of appeasement - but not of Iran, Syria, Iraq, terrorists, or any external foe.
They are guilty of appeasing this President in all his lawbreaking and Constitution-shredding glory. They are the same as impotent jerks and jokers who handed Germany over to Hitler and Italy over to Mussolini, and now they're handing America over to the Bush Crime Family.
They deserve his disdainful scorn and bullying, and so do we.
cjop wrote on November 5, 2007 3:18 PM:What a joke.
Clavis wrote on November 5, 2007 3:23 PM:"Halt! Or else... or else I will be forced to shout 'Halt' again!"
That's pretty much what Conyers peeping amounts to.
Until the Democratic majority in Congress actually manage to do something that has an actual effect on Bush's schemes, they're just blowing smoke.
And it ain't the GOOD kinda smoke, neither...
poggy wrote on November 5, 2007 4:26 PM:Ooooh, I bet this time Conyers really, really means it! Why, if the WH laughs at him again, he oughta, oughta, stomp his feet have a hissy fit!
8 fucking letters, all ignored and laughed at by the white house. And he's working on #9? The wimpocrats are fucking spineless losers.
Cufford wrote on November 5, 2007 6:09 PM:Really, the answer to this and everything else is simple. Follow the money.
The Dems aren't spineless or weak or whatever else you might want to call them. They simply don't represent US, the people.
They, like the Republicans -- in short, the entire federal government -- represent big money.
They play these shell games and pretend to care about what we want -- and say whatever they need to during the election cycles. And they occasionally act in some small, insignificant ways that seem to be representative of their constituents, but on any major issue they always prove one thing:
They don't represent us; we the people of this nation. The R's don't and neither do the D's.
The entire system is completely corrupted by money, and THAT money doesn't come from you and me.
Like the old saying goes, we have the best politicians money can buy.
Hell, the Dem's are probably happy to hear us call them weak and spineless. It's a nice smoke and mirrors trick which misdirects people. They aren't weak, they're just selfish and they're all traitors.
Until the money is taken out of our political system, nothing will change. Ever.
Paradoxically, it's those who benefit from this corrupt system who are the only ones who can legally change it. Don't hold your breath.
And stop calling them spineless or weak and call them what they are; sellouts, prostitutes, traitors to those common people they are supposed to represent.
Cufford
FreedomOfInformationAct wrote on November 5, 2007 6:16 PM:Fresno, CA
Time for the Democrats to consider the congressional equivalant of the 'nuclear option' and force the bush admin to comply today, or they'll vote in favor of impeaching bush and cheney tomorrow!
Those are your choices pubs, comply or be run out of town for your crimes.
Enough said!
audit the polls wrote on November 5, 2007 11:55 PM:You guys complain endlessly about Dems having no balls, then when they show some, you make fun of them and predict defeat. You should get behind Conyers. Push him, if he starts to cave. Show some guts. I'm with you, Conyers.
bogster wrote on November 6, 2007 4:05 AM:Hey, if at first you don't succeed, try,
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 6, 2007 1:21 PM:try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try
again...............
John,
Just pull the triggger. Issue the contempt citation. Issue the arrest warrants.
Love,
Your adoring public.
PS - We will have your back in 2008 if you do.
thomas wrote on December 13, 2007 12:19 PM:Will the bush dogs cooperate?
How'bout Holy Joe when the Senate trys?