John Conyers

Rep. Conyers On U.S. Attorney Investigation: 'We Have To Keep The Process Working'

Rachel Slajda | July 24, 2009, 5:16PM

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said today that he's still pushing to question Bush administration officials about the U.S. attorney firings.

"All the breadcrumbs, as we call them, go right to the White House," Conyers said in a speech to the National Press Club this afternoon.

"We have to keep the process working," he said.

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (7) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: Eric Holder, Harriet Miers, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, U.S. Attorneys

John Conyers

Agreement Sets Stage For Rove Testimony On US Attorney Firings

Zachary Roth | March 4, 2009, 5:47PM

The House Judiciary committee just announced an agreement that it says will secure Karl Rove's testimony about the US Attorney firings.

The committee says in a press release that it has forged a deal with the Bush White House which will see Rove and Harriet Miers conduct transcribed interviews before the committee, under penalty of perjury, on the subject of what they know the about the White House's role in the firings. If the committee wants to follow up by with public testimony by requiring public testimony, it has reserved the right to do so.

By the terms of the agreement, Rove and Miers' ability to invoke executive privilege -- a privilege that President Bush has been claiming exists in perpetuity even after a president leaves office -- will be "significantly limited", though the announcement does not indicate the nature of those limitations.

The interviews won't technically be under oath. But since the criminal penalties for lying to Congressional investigators are the same whether or not the interview is conducted under oath, that's not seen as a major hurdle in getting to the truth.

In addition:

The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.

And:

[I] the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.

Committee chair John Conyers called the agreement a victory:

I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom.

Today was the deadline a court had set for the Obama administration to file a brief in the Miers-Bolten case, indicating whether or not it supports the Bush White House's claim of executive privilege. White House counsel Greg Craig has reportedly been working with the Judiciary committee and with former Bush White House officials to forge a deal.

Late Update: It's worth noting that TPMDC's Matt Cooper pointed to something like this outcome in a post from January...

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (31) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

George Bush

Quelle Surprise: Rove A No-Show, Again, For US Attorneys Testimony

Zachary Roth | February 23, 2009, 1:47PM

So today was the day that Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary committee to testify about the US Attorney firings. And of course, Rove didn't show.

That wasn't a surprise. After getting the deadline pushed back, Rove had already publicly indicated he didn't plan on being there, citing President Bush's claim of executive privilege. Rove's lawyer had then asked for a second postponement, a request that Judiciary chair John Conyers had declined to grant.

It's a bit unclear where things go now. The next key date is March 4th -- the new deadline for the Obama administration to weigh in on the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten case, in which President Bush also asserted executive privilege. The new administration's stance on that case could well also determine how a judge would rule on the Rove case, should the issue go to court.

And given Rove's continuing failure to cooperate, it looks like that's where we're heading.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (80) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (58)
Topics: George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

Barack Obama

Judge: Obama Admin Must Weigh In On US Attorneys Fight By Weds

Zachary Roth | February 19, 2009, 3:55PM

Are things finally coming to a head in the long-running effort to get testimony on the US Attorney firings from key Bush aides?

A federal court has said that the Obama administration must file its brief in the case of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten by next Wednesday, reports Politico.

The administration had asked to have until March 4th to get its position straight.

Miers and Bolten, both top aides to the Bush White House, were subpoenaed by Congress for testimony on the U.S. Attorney firings. President Bush had asserted executive privilege, sending the matter to the courts. Now the Obama administration must decide whether to back Bush's claim.

An executive order issued by the Obama White House on its first full day in office suggests it won't, in the view of some experts.

The issue of Karl Rove's testimony on the firings could also be at stake, since any ruling in the Miers-Bolten case could affect the stand-off over Rove. House Judiciary chair John Conyers has subpoenaed Rove, whose lawyer then kicked the issue over to the Obama White House.

Things are getting interesting...

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (7) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (23)
Topics: Barack Obama, George Bush, Harriet Miers, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

Alberto Gonzales

Conyers: No More Delays For Rove On US Attorneys Testimony

Zachary Roth | February 13, 2009, 12:22PM

Another development in the ongoing saga of Karl Rove's long-sought testimony on the US Attorney firings.

House Judiciary chair John Conyers has sent a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, enclosing a subpoena for Rove to appear before the committee February 23. That date had already been agreed to in a prior exchange of letters late last month.

But things are getting slippery again. Rove had originally been scheduled to appear February 2, but the two sides agreed to a delay, in part thanks to a scheduling conflict on Rove's part.

But apparently, Luskin, in the intervening time, had asked for a second delay. In addition, Rove had announced in a recent speech in California that he didn't intend to appear, citing an executive privilege claimed by President Bush.

In today's letter issuing the subpoena, Conyers informs Luskin that he won't agree to the requested second delay. Conyers writes:

Given Mr. Rove's public statements that he does not intend to comply with the subpoena, I am puzzled as to why Mr. Rove needs a mutually convenient date to fail to appear.

Conyers also writes that he can't accept Luskin's request to have Rove's testimony be limited to the matter of the Don Siegelman case, meaning he would stay mum on the US Attorneys firings.

Next week, the Obama White House is scheduled to formally weigh in on the contempt proceedings currently being brought by Conyers' committee against two other former Bush aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, for their testimony on the firings. The position the White House takes could well determine whether Rove will ultimately be required to testify by a court -- which is where things seem to be heading.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (18) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (24)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

Barack Obama

Buying Obama Time, Congress Delays Rove Subpoena Deadline

Zachary Roth | January 30, 2009, 5:48PM

Justice delayed?

The House Judiciary committee has agreed to a request from Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, to postpone the deadline by which Rove must respond to a subpoena issued by the committee.

Here's the letter sent by the committee, agreeing to Luskin's request and setting a new date of February 23 for Rove's testimony.

The hold-off serves the interests of the White House. The Obama administration is scheduled to file a brief on February 18 in the ongoing court case over the House's subpoena of two other senior Bush White House aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. At that time, it will likely indicate whether it intends to back President Bush's claim of retroactive executive privilege on behalf of his aides. So the committee's decision to agree to Luskin's request means the Obama administration has until then to formulate its position.

The ball, then, is still in Obama's court. And court is still exactly where the battle over Rove's testimony is most likely headed.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (32) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (22)
Topics: Barack Obama, George Bush, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

Barack Obama

Newsweek Obtains Letter From Bush Lawyer, Asserting Retroactive Privilege

Zachary Roth | January 30, 2009, 9:52AM

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff has obtained the letter sent by White House counsel Fred Fielding to Karl Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin, just a few days before Bush left office, instructing Luskin that Rove "should not appear before Congress" in response to any subpoenas issued. The letter makes clear that Bush is continuing to assert a retrospective executive privilege over his White House years.

The Wall Street Journal had reported the existence of the letter -- which makes clear the lengths to wish the former president is wiling to go to keep a lid on what happened inside his White House -- earlier this week.

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Rove, ordering him to testify February 2 about the US Attorney firings, and the prosecution of ex Alabama governor Don Siegelman. Luskin told us he had forwarded the subpoena to the Obama White House, which must decide whether to back Bush's claim of retroactive privilege. If it doesn't, but Bush continues to assert it -- which it would appear from the letter he will -- the matter looks headed for the courts. There is no settled legal precedent to guide how a court might rule.

The Obama White House told Newsweek it's still studying the issue.

Fielding also sent a near identical letter to former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition in front of the Judiciary committee. The issue of whether Miers and another Bush White House aide, Josh Bolten, can testify is currently the subject of a court fight between the committee and the Bush White House.

The Obama White House is scheduled to file a brief in that case by February 18, in which it may make clear whether or not it intends to back Bush's executive privilege claim.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (39) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)
Topics: Barack Obama, George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

Barack Obama

Ball In Obama's Court On Rove's US Attorney Testimony

Zachary Roth | January 27, 2009, 1:04PM

On the question of whether we'll get to the bottom of the Bush White House's role in the US Attorney firings, it's starting to look more and more like the ball is squarely in President Obama's court.

Yesterday, as we noted, House Judiciary chair John Conyers issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, ordering him to testify about the affair February 2nd and declaring ominously: "It's time for him to talk."

(Rove, making a claim to executive privilege backed by President Bush, had defied a subpoena issued by the last Congress. That Congress ended before the full House could vote on contempt charges against Rove.)

And just now, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told TPMmuckraker that he had already forwarded Conyers' subpoena to the Obama White House, asking them to give an opinion as to whether President Bush retains his ability to assert executive privilege.

In other words, the Obama White House will decide, essentially, whether to back Rove's claim of privilege, or to deny it. (And given that Rove is supposed to appear February 2, that decision from the White House should come soon.) In the latter case, said Luskin, a negotiation would ensue between the Obama White House, President Bush, and Rove. That would likely result in the matter going to court.

That's not the only strand of the effort to uncover information about the firings on which Obama will likely have a major say. Conyers is also seeking testimony on the matter from former White House officials Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, who, like Rove, are relying on Bush to claim executive privilege. That case is in court, and the Obama White House is scheduled to file an appeal brief February 18th. That brief may make clear whether it backs the privilege claim for Miers and Bolten, and could help determine the case.

Obama's executive order on presidential records, issued last week, suggests that his White House believes that former presidents do not retain their right to assert executive privilege. But that doesn't mean it's a sure thing that Obama won't uphold Rove's claim, and/or Miers and Bolten's. Either way, we should soon find out.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (48) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (21)
Topics: Barack Obama, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

House Judiciary

Judge: White House Must Pass On US Attorney Documents to Obama Admin.

Zachary Roth | January 13, 2009, 2:27PM

Good news for those still hoping we'll get to the bottom of the White House's role in the US Attorney firings.

The Associated Press reports:

A federal judge says the incoming administration of Barack Obama must be given copies of documents the Bush White House has been withholding from Congress on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The order by U.S. District Judge John Bates is a minor victory for the House Judiciary Committee.

...

The House committee was concerned that the documents would no longer be readily available once they were shipped to the National Archives when President George W. Bush leaves office on Jan. 20.

The White House has refused to provide the crucial documents, which were subpoenaed by Rep. John Conyers' Judiciary committee. In addition, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Josh Bolten - all senior White House officials at the time of the firings, have so far defied subpoenas issued by the committee.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (14)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys

U.S. Attorneys

Leahy Unsure About Timeframe For US Attorneys Probe

Zachary Roth and Elana Schor | January 8, 2009, 2:28PM

We just talked to Senate Judiciary chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) as he left the official electoral vote count that designated the president-elect, and asked him something that's been on our mind here at TPMmuckraker: How much resources/time will Congress have to address the ongoing lawsuits against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for their failure to provide testimony and documents in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal?

The House officially voted to continue its legal efforts yesterday, but Leahy admitted that he was unsure about a timeframe for action in the Senate.

"I don't know," he said. "I actually raised the same question to my staff today."

Leahy explained that several senior members of his staff have taken a leave to help with Barack Obama's transition, a factor that could delay significant action for a time.

In October, Leahy's committee released a report on the firings saga which found that senior White House officials, including Karl Rove, helped compile the list of US Attorneys to be removed, and that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales participated in a "cover up" to conceal the fact that the firings were politically motivated.

That report accompanied contempt resolutions, against Rove and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, passed by the committee last year. Rove and Bolten have refused to testify or turn over documents to the committee.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)
Topics: Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, Pat Leahy, U.S. Attorneys

Harriet Miers

House Not Giving Up The Fight On Miers-Bolten Testimony

Zachary Roth | January 7, 2009, 5:39PM

In case you were worried, the coming of a new Congress won't stop House leaders from continuing their long-running effort to obtain documents and testimony about the US Attorney firings from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

As part of the rules package voted on by members yesterday, the House voted to continue its lawsuit against the White House, which seeks to compel Miers and Bolten to testify and hand over the documents, reports the Las Vegas Sun. Citing executive privilege, the two have been defying subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary committee, creating a protracted legal struggle.

Those subpoenas expired with the start of the new Congress, so as part of the rules package, the House passed rules ensuring the subpoenas could be promptly reissued.

Let the legal maneuvering continue!

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)
Topics: George Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, U.S. Attorneys

House Judiciary

Court Delays Miers and Bolten Congressional Testimony

Kate Klonick | October 6, 2008, 4:35PM

Monday did not bring good news for the House Judiciary Committee. A federal appeals court has delayed the testimony of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, in the latest ruling (pdf) in the epic back and forth between the executive and legislative branches. The decision pushes the issue into the next administration.

From the AP:

Time will run out on this year's congressional session before the battle between two branches of government can be resolved, according to the ruling by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The ruling essentially pushes any resolution on the politically charged case until next year.
"The present dispute is of potentially great significance for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches," wrote the panel of judges, two of whom were appointed by Republicans.

Still, the judges wrote, "Even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the judicial branch ... before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009. At that time, the 110th House of Representatives will cease to exist as a legal entity, and the subpoenas it has issued will expire."

HJC Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has already indicated that the committee will appeal, but did not give a timeline.

"While the delay caused by this incorrect decision is unfortunate, at the end of the day, I believe Judge Bates' decision will be affirmed and that Harriet Miers and other key witness will appear before the House Judiciary Committee, and that we will get to the bottom of the Bush administration's disgraceful politicization of the Justice Department," said Conyers in a statement.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (35) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten

Harriet Miers

Conyers Sets Date for Production of US Attorney Documents

Zachary Roth | August 27, 2008, 4:10PM

Yesterday, a District Court judge denied the White House's request for a stay on the Congressional testimony of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in the US attorney case.

Emboldened by that ruling, House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers (D-MI) announced in a press release this afternoon that his office has sent a letter to the White House setting a deadline of September 4 to comply with the judge's order to produce documents relating to the case. The letter also says that the date for Miers to appear at a hearing has been postponed until September 11.

The quest to find out the extent of the White House's role in the scandal continues...

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (8) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: Harriet Miers, John Conyers, Josh Bolten

Harriet Miers

Judge Denies Stay; Miers Must Appear to Answer HJC's Subpoena

Kate Klonick | August 26, 2008, 2:22PM

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."

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (25) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (23)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten, Justice Department

John Conyers

Conyers and WH Counsel to Meet as "Early As Next Week"

Kate Klonick | August 8, 2008, 6:48PM

Things are moving right along in the wake of the HJC v. Miers decision last week.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding has already responded to Rep. John Conyer's (D-MI) letter requesting "quick compliance" with the ruling and an answer to the subpoena issued to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for documents relating to the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Fielding (predictably) demurred, citing the recent motion for appeal, but he did comply to Conyer's other request: a meeting between the two parties to try to "work cooperatively to resolve these issues." From Fielding's letter to Chairman Conyers:

However, the fact that the Executive has noticed an appeal in this matter does not signify that we think further litigation is the exclusive path forward. . . this Administration has responded to more than 650 Congressional inquiries and investigations, and through negotiation and accommodation with Congressional committees has been able to resolve all but a very few of them. . . Toward that end, and hopefully as a prelude to meaningful discussions between us, I propose that members of our respective staffs meet as early as next week to re-commence discussing possibilities for reaching an accommodation between the Branches in this matter.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (13) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, John Conyers, Josh Bolten

Harriet Miers

WH Seeks to Delay Answering Congressional Subpoenas

Kate Klonick | August 7, 2008, 2:38PM

Nothing can ever be easy with these two.

The Justice Department, on behalf of Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, filed its request for appeal today in the July 31 ruling in House Judiciary Committee v. Miers et al.

While the appeal is resolved, however, the DOJ also requested that the judge grant a stay on the subpoenas, allowing Miers and Bolten to continue to evade the House Judiciary Committee.

From the AP:

Without a quick stay of the ruling, Miers and Bolten may be forced to testify before an appeal can be heard, the two said in a court filing. Democrats have announced they would schedule hearings in September, at the height of election season.

"Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers," the Bolten and Miers request said.

A stay would also benefit Republicans, since the subpoenas expire at the end of the year, not long before Bush leaves office.

Late Update: Also today, White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying that despite the court order last week, the White House will wait for the outcome of its appeal before responding to further subpoena request.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (13) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Harriet Miers, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department

Karl Rove

Senate Reacts To Court Ruling With New Call For Testimony From Rove And Bolton

Andrew Tilghman | July 31, 2008, 6:56PM

Just hours after a federal judge shot down the White House's claim to sweeping immunity from Congressional oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) fired off a round of letters renewing his demand for testimony from Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding asking whether the two officials will agree to testify in light of today's ruling against the Bush administration's blanket claim of executive privilege.

The investigation at issue is the allegedly political firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The Senate committee issued subpoenas in June and July 2007 for Bolton and Rove to testify on Capitol Hill.

"Today's decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove's refusal to comply with the Committee's subpoenas moot," Leahy wrote in the letter to Fielding.

Leahy also sent a terse letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking whether he planned to rescind the legal memos based on the theory of blanket executive privileged that the judge dismissed today.

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court's decision will cause you to re-evaluate your memos and those from [Office of Legal Counsel] in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's decision-making. Which of these do you now intend to withdraw?

Leahy sounds like he's asking for a complete surrender in this ongoing battle over White House officials' testimony. But there's a lot of litigation still to go in this case.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (18) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Topics: EPA, Josh Bolten, Karl Rove, Michael Mukasey, Senate Judiciary Committee, Valerie Plame

House Judiciary

Why Harriet's Got What the HJC Wants

Kate Klonick | July 31, 2008, 5:41PM

Now that we have a partial decision on House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al. , maybe it's a good time for a little refresher on why the HJC wanted White House documents and Miers' testimony in the first place.

Miers name came up repeatedly over the course of congressional investigations into the U.S. attorney firing scandal, over her communications with former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, Kyle Sampson.

Those communications revealed that Sampson and Miers began exchanging emails discussing the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, almost two years before those attorneys were purged from the department in December 2007. In March 2006, Sampson famously sent an email to Miers, ranking all of the sitting U.S. attorneys in order of "loyalty to the Attorney General."

Though Miers initially suggested that all 93 U.S. attorneys be dismissed, Sampson vetoed that idea, with the approval of the Attorney General, and arranged for limited dismissals, ultimately providing Miers with a seven person list of targeted candidates to be considered for removal.

Outside of the emails, others were observing politicization first hand. In the late summer of 2006, U.S. Attorney John McKay, who would be requested to resign just a few months later, described sitting down with Miers and others for an interview on a federal judgeship. McKay was asked, "why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry" with him in regards to his failure to prosecute allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race.

A few months before the U.S. attorneys were asked to resign, in September of 2006, Sampson again emailed Miers another list of possibilities, this time with nine people listed.

The majority of this information and correspondence came out in the testimony of Sampson and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the spring of 2007.

Naturally all of this piqued the interest of the House Judiciary Committee, who were also investigating the U.S. attorney firings. They subpoenaed Miers to testify, and requested relevant documents from the White House. Miers and Bolten, on behalf of the White House, both claimed executive privilege in late June, with Miers even refused to show up to the Congressional hearing.

This ticked off House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) who held both Miers and Bolten in contempt. As we discussed yesterday, the contempt vote then went to the full House for a vote, where it was upheld, and the lawsuit was filed.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (14) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)
Topics: Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten, Kyle Sampson, U.S. Attorneys

House Judiciary

BREAKING: HJC Wins Round One of Contempt of Congress Case

Kate Klonick | July 31, 2008, 11:12AM

The House Judiciary Committee has won the first round of its lawsuit against the White House over contempt of Congress in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

From the order:

Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate.

and that. . .

Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date

The ruling is the latest in an ongoing battle between Congress and the White House, to have senior aides testify about the U.S. attorney firings.

After looking over the Opinion, Federal Judge John Bates lays out protocol for Congressional subpoenas, stating that while there may be perfectly legitimate claims of executive privilege, a subpoena from Congress can't just be ignored-- and if it is, Congress has a right to sue for failure to respond.

But as far as those claims of executive privilege go, the questions of their validity is still on the table. The Opinion specifically states that the Court "expresses no view on such claims," but it does go so far as to demand that the White House produce specific descriptions of all documents that relate to the claim of executive privilege. This list of descriptions, often called a "privilege log," helps lift the veil on the swath of documents that are being considered under the Administration's privilege claim.

So in short, the White House can continue to claim executive privilege, and Congress can continue to sue them on the legitimacy of the claims. Unless the two parties can work something out, around and around we go.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (43) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten, U.S. Attorneys

Karl Rove

What's Next for Karl Rove?

Kate Klonick | July 30, 2008, 3:15PM

For those in a quandary about what the House Judiciary Committee's contempt citation of Karl Rove means, we refer you to the currently pending House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers, et al.

Following the path of Miers, we see that after the committee votes on contempt, the resolution is then passed to the entire House. If the House approves the contempt of Congress resolutions, it goes to the DOJ for action.

But since Rove is claiming executive privilege, it is unlikely the DOJ will take any action -- at least they certainly didn't for Miers.

After the predicted DOJ demurring occurs, the House has passed a resolution that allows the HJC to file suit against the parties held in contempt-- which brings us back around to where we started: HJC v. Miers.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (34) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Harriet Miers, House Judiciary, Josh Bolten, Karl Rove

Harriet Miers

Judge: Why Litigate When You Can Arrest?

Kate Klonick | June 23, 2008, 6:35PM

In a motion hearing in federal court today, U.S. District Judge John Bates questioned why Congress didn't simply arrest former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten after both refused to respond to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee:

Congress has the authority to hold someone in contempt, U.S. District Judge John Bates said. Did it really need to go to court? House counsel Irvin Nathan said it did.

The hearing is the latest in an ongoing battle between Congress and the White House, to have senior aides testify about the U.S. attorney firings.

Bates also queried whether he should make a decision at all:

"Both sides have the same argument," Bates said. "Whether I rule for the executive branch or I rule for the legislative branch, I'm going to disrupt the balance."

Bates promised a quick decision, but noted the likelihood of appeal.

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (38) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (17)
Topics: Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten