TPMMuckraker Congressional Subpoenas
Congressional Subpoenas
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.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (18)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas
Michael Mukasey
House Judiciary Committee Gets Ready To Subpoena Mukasey
It looks like the House Judiciary Committee will finally play hardball with Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has been requesting a range of documents from DOJ for a long time. Some of the issues date back as far as Election Day 2002, when Republicans in New Hampshire jammed the phone lines for a Democratic get-out-the-vote call bank, an effort one GOP operative said was modeled on the U.S. Marines tactic of jamming the enemies communications.
Now Conyers has the authority to subpoena that stack of records after the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law took a vote today and gave him the formal go-ahead.
They're looking for records of interviews from the DOJ investigation into who leaked the identify of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, documents that may shed light on allegations of selective prosecution, and the details behind the replacement of Minnesota's U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose. The committee is also requesting Office of Legal Counsel memos and enforcement reports from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
Speaking of the Civil Rights Division, Conyers and several other lawmakers today sent a letter to Mukasey urging stop stonewalling a GAO investigation of the Civil Rights Division. Amid allegations that political pressures were shifting the division's priorities, Congress in March 2007 requested the Government Accountability Office conduct an investigation. Lawmakers say DOJ has not provided the documents and data needed to fully analyze the division's enforcement work.
The lawmakers also said they had "received reports that DOJ officials have removed key documents from files, claiming that GAO does not have a right to access predecisional or deliberative information that sets forth the Division's rationale on whether or not to pursue a case."
"We are troubled by the lack of transparency and refusal of the Department to cooperate fully with GAO's investigation," the lawmakers wrote in today's letter.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Michael Mukasey
Surveillance
Today's Must Read
After everyone had a chance to sift through yesterday's breakthrough "compromise" on a new federal surveillance law, the biggest winer of the day was not Republicans or Democrats but the telecom companies.
Today's Washington Post summarizes the legal impact succicntly in it's front-page story :
The agreement extends the government's ability to eavesdrop on espionage and terrorism suspects while effectively providing a legal escape hatch for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecom firms. They face more than 40 lawsuits that allege they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The final compromise on the immunity issue was this: Many Democrats had wanted the federal courts to review whether the surveillance program was legal before granting immunity. The White House wanted the courts to have no involvement whatsoever. The "compromise" calls on the courts to consider the surveillance legal if the companies can prove that the Administration told them it was legal. (Which we know they did).
The Chicago Tribune reports:
The new bill would require federal courts to cast those lawsuits aside if the companies can show that they received written requests from the government stating that their cooperation was deemed lawful and had been authorized by the president.The House is expected to vote on the measure today. Though billed as a compromise, the final version was viewed as a victory for the White House, according to the Post.
But overall, the deal appears to give Bush and his aides, including Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, much of what they sought in a new surveillance law.
As for the future of the spying program, this new law allows it to grow.
The Wall Street Journal this morning wrote:
The lasting impact of the agreement would be a broader scope for the government's domestic surveillance.Before 9/11, the NSA had to acquire a specific warrant if it wanted to listen to any conversation involving a U.S. citizen. Now, the secret court would be able to approve broad patterns of surveillance, focused on groups of people believed to be overseas, even if they are communicating with people in the U.S. So without a warrant, the NSA could listen to the conversation of a U.S. citizen if he or she was talking to a suspicious person overseas.
Several Democrats spoke out against the bill, but enough of them agreed to assure this version will pass into law.
Again, from the Journal:
The outcome was driven largely by the realities of election-year politics. Democrats, particularly more conservative ones, in vulnerable re-election races couldn't afford to appear to be dodging a big national-security issue. And many believed the law needed to be updated before surveillance orders expired in August. House Democratic leaders struggled for months to find a proposal their entire party could support but couldn't overcome splits between conservative and liberal Democrats -- some of whom are reacting angrily to the deal.Behind the political positioning, however, was the pressure from the telecom firms -- particuarly AT&T and Verizon, which both stepped up their lobbying efforts this spring. PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Surveillance
Don Siegelman
Justice Department Watchdog Confirms Investigation of Political Prosecutions
At the same time that the House Judiciary Committee voted to issue a subpoena to former presidential adviser Karl Rove today, it released a May 5 letter from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) disclosing that the OPR is investigating "allegations of selective prosecution relating to the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson, and Oliver Diaz and Paul Minor."
Most reader are already familiar with the Siegelman case. Georgia Thompson, you'll recall, was the Wisconsin state employee whose federal corruption conviction, obtained by Milwaukee-based U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, was considered so flawed that it was thrown out by the appeals court immediately after oral arguments.
Diaz and Minor may be less familiar to TPMmuckraker readers. Diaz is a former Mississippi State Supreme Court justice, and Minor is a Mississippi attorney. Their prosecutions by U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton have been under scrutiny by the House Judiciary Committee as well:
Diaz and his ex-wife, Jennifer, were indicted in 2003 along with prominent Gulf Coast attorney Paul Minor and two former lower court judges on federal bribery allegations. Oliver Diaz was eventually cleared of all charges. The others were not.
Separately OPR is conducting a joint investigation of the U.S. attorney firings with the DOJ inspector general.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (22)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove
U.S. Attorneys
House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Rove
So much for all those negotiations:
The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top political adviser to President Bush would testify voluntarily.
Will Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) do some ass-kicking (his words) now?
Late Update: Rep. Conyers released a statement following the vote to issue the subpoena:
"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers said. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."
Later Update: Conyers released the latest correspondence between Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, and the committee, part of a lengthy back-and-forth between the parties. Apparently the subpoena was issued today after Luskin told the committee in a letter yesterday that Rove would not voluntarily testify, essentially ending the negotiations.
Still Later Update: Here's is the cover letter that Cnyers sent Luskin along with the subpoena.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (19)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys
Karl Rove
Conyers on Rove: "Someone's Got to Kick His Ass"
House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) forgot to keep his voice down when there are reporters present:
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."
The chairman seems to have been having fire for breakfast lately, pursuing the testimony -- with the threat of a subpoena -- of a number of former administration figures, including Dick Cheney's consigliere David Addington. And of course he's also been pursuing Rove to testify about the prosecution of ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL). Yesterday, in somewhat more diplomatic language, Conyers refused Rove's offer to testify in writing.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (42)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove
Don Siegelman
Conyers to Rove: No
House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers' (D-MI) response to Karl Rove's offer to testify by letter: Nope.
The committee wants Rove to testify about his role in the prosecution of ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL), but Rove has refused to appear for a hearing, instead offering to speak privately with staff off the record. He modified that offer to testify by letter.
But Conyers says that's a no-go. If Rove is willing to create a record with a letter, he argues, then there's no reason why he shouldn't be willing to sit down with staff for an on-the-record interview. Conyers says the committee is prepared to offer "other possible accommodations, such as providing a list of initial questions that may be asked," but there must be a live interview and a transcript. Conyers again mentions the possibility of a subpoena should talks break down.
So now the ball is in Rove's court.
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove
U.S. Attorneys
House Republicans File Brief Siding with White House in Subpoena Battle
Throughout the House Judiciary Committee's struggle to obtain White House documents and have Harriet Miers testify about the U.S. Attorney firings, House Republicans adopted a contrary stance.
They're firm believers in Congressional oversight, they said, but citing Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten with contempt of Congress was the wrong way to go. If they lost the battle in court, then the executive would come out much stronger. It would "make the presidency in America, a much stronger, imperial office," as Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) put it. Democrats, of course, think we're already there.
Well, now House Republicans have brought their opposition to court. In a filing yesterday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Cannon asked the court to allow them to file a brief in the case arguing against the House's suit and with the administration. They are just trying to save the House from itself, they write:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
DoJ Lawyers: Congress Ought to Play Hardball to Get White House Testimony
Last Friday, administration lawyers for the first time laid out their argument against the House's lawsuit to enforce Congressional subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney firings scandal. The House is seeking to enforce the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of former White House counsel Harriet Miers and current chief of staff Josh Bolten.
The 83-page motion laid out a number of arguments for why the judge should dismiss the suit, but the central one was that the courts should not get involved because historically, they haven't. From the AP:
"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote...."Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.
That makes for a murky area of law, and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said.
Clearing it up "would forever alter the accommodation process that has served the Nation so well for over two centuries," attorneys wrote.
As part of their argument, the administration lawyers cited Congress' considerable leverage as the more traditional means of getting what it wants. This is from the motion:
And the Legislative Branch may vindicate its interests without enlisting judicial support: Congress has a variety of other means by which it can exert pressure on the Executive Branch, such as the withholding of consent for Presidential nominations, reducing Executive Branch appropriations, and the exercise of other powers Congress has under the Constitution.
It's not a tactic that Congress has employed over the past couple years, with a few exceptions. But maybe they ought to take the administration up on its own advice and see how it goes.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Subpoenas
Conyers Threatens Subpoenas for DoJ Selective Prosecution Documents
Last July, the House Judiciary Committee requested documents from the Justice Department about three cases that seemed to be the worst cases of selective prosecutions undertaken by George Bush's DoJ. In each case, the U.S. attorney had pursued a flawed case that hurt a prominent Democrat.
Since that time, the Department has refused to turn over all but a few documents -- though one of the produced emails showed a DoJ official troubled by one of the cases, the Georgia Thompson prosecution (the other two cases are ex-Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) and Cyril Wecht). And in a letter on Friday, Conyers warned Attorney General Michael Mukasey that if the Department did not take notice, "we will have little choice but to consider the compulsory process." You can see that letter here.
Conyers included in his letter a three-page chart of requests (pdf) made by the committee that have gone unanswered by the Department. "We very much that the pending requests can be resolved voluntarily," he writes.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Don Siegelman, U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Subpoenas
House Panel Votes to Authorize Subpoena to Addington
The next step in the House Judiciary Committee's attempts to hear from the architects of the administration's interrogation policy: the panel just voted to authorize a subpoena for David Addington. Last week, Addington indicated that he might appear to testify if the committee subpoenaed him. It's not clear yet when that hearing might be.
The committee also is seeking to hear from John Yoo, John Ashcroft, Doug Feith, former CIA Director George Tenet, and former lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel Daniel Levin. The committee continues to negotiate with all of those possible witnesses about appearing in the future, according to a press release yesterday. During the vote just now, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that "most" of the witnesses the committee wanted to hear from had agreed to appear.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Dick Cheney, Torture
Karl Rove
Conyers Threatens Rove with Subpoena for Testimony on Siegelman
It's deja vu all over again.
House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) says that if Karl Rove won't agree to testify before his committee about his involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D), then he'll be forced to consider issuing a subpoena. You can read his letter to Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin below.
In response to Conyers' initial request for Rove to testify, Luskin offered to have Rove speak to the committee behind closed doors, without a transcript and not under oath -- the same offer administration lawyers made to Congress in the U.S. attorney firings investigation. And you know where that went: the House is currently suing to enforce those subpoenas after finding former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress.
Rove was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of that investigation and refused to show up to testify. That committee subsequently voted to find him in contempt, but the full Senate never voted on the citation.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove
U.S. Attorneys
House Files Motion in White House Contempt Case
Last month, the judge handling the House's suit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten set a schedule that will culminate in a June hearing, when both sides will get to argue. Up until then, both sides will be submitting written arguments pleading their side of the case.
First up were lawyers for the House, who wrote, "Not since the days of Watergate have the Congress and the federal courts been confronted with such an expansive view of executive privilege as the one asserted by the current presidential administration and the individual Defendants in this case." You can read the entire 45-page motion here.
House lawyers, following through on the contempt citations from the House Judiciary Committee, are trying to convince the judge to rule with them on certain narrower questions of executive privilege in an attempt to actually get hear from Harriet Miers and see some White House documents relevant to the U.S. attorney firings sometime this year.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Judge Sets Schedule for House Contempt Suit
We knew that the House's lawsuit against White House officials would take awhile. And it turns out that it'll be June, at the earliest, before a judge makes his first decision in the House's suit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.
That relatively rapid pace (for the courts, at least) is the result of the House pushing for quicker resolution of some of the White House's more expansive claims of executive privilege. The court will decide first whether administration lawyers are right when they say that Miers didn't even need to show up in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena and that both Bolten and Miers didn't even need to indicate what sort of documents the White House were claiming privilege for. Thornier issues (e.g. whether certain conversations that do not involve the president are covered by executive privilege, etc.) would be dealt with later. The House has sought this speedier resolution with the hope that it would mean they'd actually get to hear from Miers and see some documents from Bolten before the close of the Bush administration.
Last Friday, the judge set a schedule for both sides to submit motions and set a hearing for June 23rd when the House's general counsel and Justice Department lawyers will argue before the judge. But whichever way the judge eventually rules, the decision would likely be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, meaning that regardless of the House's desire for a speedy resolution, the case is bound to spend a long time in the courts before Congressional investigators see any of its fruits.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House Pushes for Quick Handling of Contempt Suit
A quick update on the House's lawsuit against Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. From The Politico:
The House General Counsel's Office, which is representing the Judiciary Committee in a civil contempt lawsuit against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, has asked a federal judge to set up an expedited schedule to resolve portions of the case, a schedule that would require a ruling by this summer, according to court documents filed today.The Justice Department, which is representing Bolten and Miers in the case, countered that the only reason the Judiciary Committee is seeking a speedy determination of the case is so that it "recommence prior to Congress' August recess" its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. The Justice Department wants a slower review of the contempt case, and it is already warning that it may appeal any ruling that goes against it.
What the House wants is to just settle the White House's more expansive claims of privilege -- namely, that Miers didn't even need to show up in response to the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena and that both Bolten and Miers didn't even need to indicate what sort of documents the White House were claiming privilege for.
A private conference is scheduled for tomorrow. The judge's decision will likely indicate whether the House has any hope of hearing any actual testimony from Miers or seeing any documents from Bolten during the Bush administration.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (4)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House Panel Files Suit against White House
And we're on to the next step of the Congress v. White House subpoena battle.
First, the House found Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt for refusing to respond to House Judiciary Committee subpoenas from the U.S. attorney firings investigation. Then, the Justice Department, as Attorney General Mukasey had warned it would, refused to convene a grand jury and rebuffed the criminal referral. And now we're on to step three: a lawsuit against the administration to enforce the subpoenas.
As Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) says, "It is extremely rare that Congress must litigate in order to enforce subpoenas and no compromise can be reached. Unfortunately, this Administration simply will not negotiate towards a compromise resolution so we must proceed."
He looks forward to "a quick and favorable ruling by the Court, so that we can complete our investigation." The expectation on all sides, though, is that this will likely drag on for many months.
We'll keep you updated as the case moves forward.
You can read the 36-page complaint here (pdf).
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
Michael Mukasey
Mukasey's Paradox
Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington, writing today in The Los Angeles Times:
The recent decisions of Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey to block any prosecution of Bush administration officials for contempt and to block any criminal investigation of torture led to a chorus of criticism. Many view the decisions as raw examples of political manipulation of the legal process and overt cronyism. I must confess that I was one of those crying foul until I suddenly realized that there was something profound, even beautiful, in Mukasey's action.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (19)In his twisting of legal principles, the attorney general has succeeded in creating a perfect paradox. Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers....
When reduced to its purest form, Mukasey's Paradox is that government officials cannot violate the law -- but that because executive privilege is also a law, it's sometimes necessary to violate the law in order to uphold the law.
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House Lawsuit against White House Expected This Month
As expected, Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave the House the legal finger on Friday in response to a criminal referral for White House aides' contempt of Congress. Think of that what you will, the House has been forced on to Plan B, a civil suit against the White House.
Roll Call (sub. req.) reports it should be coming soon:
House Democrats said a civil lawsuit could be filed as early as this month that challenges the Bush administration’s claims of executive privilege in curtailing aides from testifying on Capitol Hill….PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)According to Democratic sources, staff is working expeditiously to finalize the lawsuit, which is expected to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before the House recesses for two weeks on March 14.
The general counsel, which will file the lawsuit on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to urge the federal court to rule on the legitimacy of the Bush administration’s claims that executive privilege protects conversations between Miers and Bolten and the president. The court also could compel both individuals to testify before the House committee.
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
Michael Mukasey
Mukasey Rebuffs Contempt Referrals, House to Head to Court
No surprise here. From The Washington Post:
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey refused yesterday to refer two new House contempt citations to a federal grand jury, saying the White House aides involved in the case cannot be prosecuted because they were following legal advice from the Justice Department.In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Mukasey said the refusal by White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet E. Miers to comply with congressional subpoenas "did not constitute a crime."
So now it's on to court, where we'll have the novel situation of the House Judiciary Committee suing the White House.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Pelosi Makes Criminal Referral for Contempt Citations of White House Officials
Two weeks ago, the House passed a contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers. The two refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee as part of the investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.
Today, after House lawyers dotted their i's and crossed their t's, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) finally followed up by referring the contempt resolution to the U.S. attorney for D.C.
What will happen next is not much of a mystery. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already said that the Justice Department would not act on such a referral and convene a grand jury, as required by federal law. That's because Miers and Bolten didn't comply with the subpoenas because the President said they couldn't -- it would violate executive privilege.
In a letter to Mukasey, Pelosi anticipated that answer, but argued that "there is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so."
She concluded: "I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim."
If Mukasey, through D.C.'s U.S. attorney, rebuffs the referral as expected, the House has a backup plan. The House also passed a resolution that would allow the House Judiciary Committee to pursue a lawsuit against the White House over the subpoena. If a judge agreed to hear the case, it might lead to a decision as to whether the President's sweeping invocation of privilege is Constitutional.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (20)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Subpoenas
Dem Aide: GOP Claims about Lantos Fracas "Preposterous"
As we noted earlier, there was something of an uproar in the House this morning when a Republican called for a vote during the memorial service for Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA). The vote was part of a general Republican effort to delay the scheduled vote on contempt resolutions against White House officials.
As the Politico reported, there has already been plenty of rancor over the move. The Dems, via a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) called the move "unjustifiable." But GOPers said it was justifiable, and explained that the Dems were really at fault because they broke their commitment to keep the House in recess during the memorial service:
"The reason for the chaos is the majority," [Jo Maney, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the House Rules Committee] said. "We made clear we would use every procedural rule" to delay the contempt votes."There was an agreement that there would be no votes during the service, but they [Democrats] rang the bells" to bring the House back into session, Maney said.
But a Dem leadership aide responded that that explanation doesn't hold water:
“This is the height of disrespect and completely shameful. None of their procedural options were denied by starting when we did; they just chose to call for a vote at the most inappropriate time. The idea that Republicans had no choice is preposterous, all they had to do was allow debate to continue for another 20 minutes and the service could have concluded in peace.”
We've bounced it back over to the Republican to side to see if they have a rejoinder. Here's video of Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) explaining why he called the vote.
Update: Here's CQ's version of what happened.
Update: To cap it all off, see House Minority Whip Roy Blunt's (R-MO) floor comments on this below:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas
U.S. Attorneys
House Passes Contempt Resolution against White House Officials
Well, after all that -- after seven months, it's done. The House passed the contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, 223-32. Most Republicans, having staged their walk out, did not vote.
So now the ball's in Attorney General Michael Mukasey's court. He's expected to decline to enforce the citation of contempt, since both Bolten and Miers declined to testify as a result of an assertion of executive privilege.
The resolution included both a criminal contempt citation and the authorization for the House Judiciary Committee to sue the White House if Mukasey refuses to enforce the citation. You can read those here.
Update: Here's the final tally.
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House GOPers Seek to Delay Contempt Vote
The House GOP has been doing their best to kick this can down the road, even igniting something of a fracas. From The Politico:
During what was supposed to be a somber memorial service in Statuary Hall for Rep. Tom Lantos, who died Monday, the House chamber became mired in chaos over procedural votes.Democrats angrily denounced the GOP as insensitive for calling a "motion to adjourn" — essentially a dilatory tactic — while dignitaries were still giving tributes to Lantos, a Holocaust survivor who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. But Republican aides shot back quickly, saying it was Democrats who broke an agreement to keep the House in recess during the memorial service....
More at Huffington Post.
We'll have results from the vote when the House finally gets to it.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Conyers Introduces Contempt Resolution, Call for Lawsuit against White House
As expected, things are finally moving forward in the House today to bring contempt resolutions against White House officials for ignoring Congressional subpoenas as part of the U.S. attorney firings investigation.
House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) introduced two resolutions this afternoon related to the subpoenas. The first is a criminal contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers -- both were subpoenaed and did not respond, citing the White House's invocation of executive privilege. But Conyers also filed a resolution that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) file a civil suit against the White House.
Update: You can read both of those resolutions as prepared here. The second resolution would authorize the House Judiciary Committee to go to court, where it would be represented by the House general counsel
That second resolution would serve as an available alternative should Attorney General Michael Mukasey follow through on his threat not to enforce the criminal citation. The battle would then head into court, where a judge would have a shot at sorting out the White House's far-reaching assertion of privilege.
The House rules committee is expected to meet and begin work on both of these resolutions in the next hour.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (22)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
Michael Mukasey
Mukasey: No, I Will Not Enforce Citations for Contempt of Congress
Just to complete the theme of the day, Michael Mukasey said today that if Congress passed contempt citations against current and former White House officials based on their refusal to respond to subpoenas, the Justice Department would not enforce them, as federal law instructs.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) was the one who first popped the question. If Congress passed a citation against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who, along with former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, refused to show up when subpoenaed by Congress as part of the U.S. attorneys investigation -- would the DoJ enforce it?
Mukasey's simple answer was "no." Enforcing the contempt citation is "not permitted when the president directs a direct adviser of his, somebody who directly advises him, not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce document."
This is not much of a surprise. The administration has been saying this since last summer. And Mukasey indicated some wariness on the question during his confirmation hearing -- although he said he hoped he wouldn't have to make that decision.
So now Congress knows what the answer will be if the Congressional leadership ever decides to bring it to a vote.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Michael Mukasey, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Who Has Time for Contempt?
Congress is busy with some pretty weighty issues these days: the faltering economy, Iraq and government surveillance just to name a few. And it seems that no one's got the time to respond when the administration tells Congress to stick their subpoenas where the sun don't shine.
Last summer, former White House counsel Harriet Miers didn't even show up in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena for testimony related to the U.S. attorney firings. They got an empty chair (see above). The same went for Karl Rove in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both argued that executive privilege protected them from even appearing to invoke that privilege. The two committees also subpoenaed White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for documents and got nothing in return.
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) promptly got a contempt citation passed in his committee for both Miers and Bolten in late July, shortly before the summer recess. But it's not official until passed by the full House. When Congress returned, though, nothing happened. Then a vote was supposedly imminent in November -- Conyers even issued a final warning to the White House. But then the vote didn't come (Iraq and FISA got in the way, top Dems said). Then it was supposed to come shortly after the winter recess. Now, well, you know:
Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would “step on their message” of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks....PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)“Right now, we’re focused on working in a bipartisan fashion on [the] stimulus,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), indicating that the contempt vote is not expected for weeks, depending on how quickly the stimulus package moves....
“When we have the votes, we’ll go ahead with this. Right now, the votes are just not there,” said one top House Democratic insider, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House Dems to Finally Vote on Contempt for White House Officials
From The Washington Post:
In its first couple of weeks after it returns tomorrow, the House is likely to take up contempt-of-Congress resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for their refusal to appear before Congress for questioning about the 2006 removal of nine U.S. attorneys, Democratic leadership aides said.
For those keeping track at home, it's been nearly six months since the House Judiciary Committee initially approved the contempt citations. As for what the timing might be on the Senate side, where the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved contempt citations for Karl Rove and Bolten, it's not yet clear.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Two GOPers Join Dems in White House Contempt Vote
Earlier we noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted to approve contempt resolutions against Karl Rove and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for failing to comply with subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney firings probe.
The final vote tally was 12-7, with two Republicans, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) crossing over.
Now, it's up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) as to when (or whether) he'll scheduled a vote on the Senate floor. When we asked a Reid aide last week about it, we were told the Reid would consult with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about it when the time came.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee's contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Bolten have been sitting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) desk since July. After much delay, Dem House leadership aides said last month that the vote had again been delayed to December. So now's the time. Perhaps the Senate and House will team up and schedule both votes before the New Year, sending the White House contempt citations against Rove, Miers, and Bolten as a Christmas gift. Or maybe nothing will happen. Stay tuned.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Leahy Moves on Rove Contempt Citation
Karl Rove is gone, but not forgotten.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has scheduled a vote tomorrow on whether to issue contempt citations to Rove and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for ignoring Congressional subpoenas from the U.S. attorneys investigation. Of course, Republicans might defer the vote for another week. But at the latest, the citations would be sent to the Senate floor next Thursday.
And then it's up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). His counterparts in the House leadership have delayed a vote for contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Bolten since July. We've got a question in to see whether Reid will be speedier. We'll let you know what we hear.
Update: A Reid aide responds that "after the Committee acts on this issue, Senator Reid will consult with Senator Leahy about how to move forward on it." Maybe things will be clearer next week.
And for those who didn't catch our interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) about the contempt citations earlier this week, check it out.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
Leahy Takes Step Towards Contempt against White House Aides
No, he hasn't forgotten. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) took a step today towards contempt proceedings against Karl Rove, two of his former aides, and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for not complying with subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney firings.
There hasn't been much movement since this summer, when Leahy issued the subpoenas. The administration claimed executive privilege for all documents and testimony sought, and said that Rove didn't need to even show up for a hearing. Rove's aides Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings appeared, but refused to discuss the firings. A subpoena for documents was sent to Bolten, and the White House refused.
Today, Leahy ruled that the claims of executive privilege and immunity were not legally valid, a necessary step toward issuing contempt citations in the committee. He didn't say when he might do that.
The timing for this might have something to do with what's going on in the House, where leaders have said they plan to schedule a floor vote to find former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Bolten in contempt for ignoring subpoenas there. That vote has been repeatedly delayed and is currently expected to take place next month.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House Dems Push White House Contempt Vote to December
December: a time of carols, sleigh bells, and contempt citations.
The House Democrats were set to hold a vote this Friday on whether to find White House officials in contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney firings investigation, The Politico reports. But no more. The vote, already delayed since July, has been pushed to December, at the earliest. The reason? The Politico quotes a "top House Democratic leadership aide": "[Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-NY)] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it will step on our message on Iraq and FISA."
So at least former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who refused to even show up for a House Judiciary Committee hearing, can enjoy her Thanksgiving. Happy feasting, Harriet!
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
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.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
GOP Launches Free Harriet! Effort
Nobody said the Republicans were going to take it lying down. From The Politico:
With House Democrats considering a floor vote on a contempt resolution against current and former White House aides, Republicans have begun privately plotting a public relations offensive designed to persuade the majority party to drop the issue and move on.Top GOP leadership and Judiciary Committee staff held a strategy session Tuesday to discuss targeting conservative Democrats — especially those who represent Republican-friendly districts — with floor speeches, private lobbying and other efforts, if Democrats proceed with plans to hold top White House officials in contempt, according to participants in the meeting. Republicans called the emergency session after learning top Democrats were privately asking their members if they should force votes to hold White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for failing to provide testimony as part of congressional investigations.
The House Judiciary Committee passed the contempt resolutions in July, remember, after Miers failed to even show up (see image of empty seat above) after receiving a subpoena related to the U.S. attorney firings.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
House Dems Moving Towards Contempt Vote
Better late than never. Three weeks ago, we reported that the House leadership seemed to be wavering in its pursuit of contempt citations for White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers. Both of them, remember, refused to even show up in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena relating to the U.S. attorney firings.
But now things seem to be moving along again. The Politico reports that vote counting has begun and quotes a House aide as saying that a vote is likely in the next couple of weeks.
The committee passed the resolutions in July, and once the House votes on them, they would be referred to the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. What happens then will be, to say the least, interesting. Michael Mukasey was a noncommittal on that question during his confirmation hearing last week. And the Miers and Bolten contempt citations aren't likely to be the only ones.
The Dems are apparently confident that they could easily pass the resolutions despite no likely Republican crossovers. For his part, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has put the emphasis on institutional integrity, rather than subjecting Harriet Miers to a frog march:
Conyers said the contempt battle was not aimed at seeking criminal sanctions against Bolten and Miers personally, but would nonetheless surely spark a long legal fight over the reach of executive privilege.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)“Remember – no handcuffs,” Conyers said in an interview Thursday, noting that contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor.
Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys Investigation Waits on House Leadership
"The scandal at the Department of Justice has gone on long enough," said Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) back in March. "Careers have been destroyed and legitimate public corruption cases have been derailed. It is time for accountability -- it is time for the truth."
Six months and several Department senior resignations later, it's a different time. The urgency is gone.
More than two months after the House Judiciary Committee passed contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers for ignoring committee subpoenas, it's still unclear when, or if, Democrats will hold a vote on the full floor.
The leadership has indefinitely delayed taking up the issue. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) told The Politico last month, “I don’t think anything is going to happen on that for a while,” and couldn't offer a range. Three weeks later, that hasn't changed.
And apparently scheduling concerns are not all that's at issue. A source familiar with the ongoing discussions told TPMmuckraker that getting the leadership to bring the contempt resolutions to the floor at all is an "uphill struggle."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
Surveillance
Contempt of Congress: What's Next?
In the heat of the summer, it seemed inevitable that the White House and Congress were destined to clash in court over a number of subpoenas, most relating to the U.S. attorney firings investigation. But that's appearing less and less likely.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been warning since the beginning of the week that the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general depended on the White House turning over certain "information."
Leahy has been uncharacteristically vague about just what "information" that might be, as the negotiations are ongoing, but there are a number of outstanding requests that Leahy might have in mind. Below is our accounting of where those many requests, along with those from Leahy's House counterpart, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), stand. It's also a reminder of the many loose ends that remain in the U.S. attorney firings probe.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Surveillance, U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Subpoenas
Leahy: "Time is up." Sorta.
During a press conference this afternoon, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that the White House had still not responded to the committee's subpoena for documents relating to the legal basis for the warrantless surveillance program. "Time is up," Leahy said, "we've waited long enough." He went on to say, however, that he remained open to cooperating with the White House for the production of the documents: "I prefer cooperation to contempt." But if the administration has still not responded to the subpoena by September when Congress returns from recess, he said that he would pursue contempt proceedings in the committee "if that's what it takes."
You can see video here:
Leahy made clear that contempt proceedings would be a measure of last resort and that he'd prefer getting the documents through cooperation to a long court battle. On the other hand, he signaled that there's a limit to what that cooperation might mean. Asked by a reporter about noise from the White House that it would need certain "accommodations" in turning over documents relating to the surveillance program, Leahy said "the only accommodations we tend to get from the White House are 'do it our way and we'll be happy with you.'" That said, he clearly remained open to negotiating, saying that it was a choice between a court battle and "find out what happened."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Surveillance
Surveillance
Happy Warrantless Surveillance Subpoena Day
On Friday, the White House requested a second extension to the deadline to comply with subpoenas issued about the origins of the warrantless surveillance program. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) response? "The deadline is 2:30," says Leahy spokeswoman Erica Chabot.
White House counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to the committee Friday that the White House needed until after Labor Day to cull its files for information pertinent to the legal justifications for the surveillance program -- and, in any event, practically all of it falls under executive privilege.
The original compliance deadline was July 18, but the committee and the White House agreed to an extension after Fielding and chief of staff Josh Bolten called Leahy to say that "thorough collection and review of responsive documents" would take until around August 1. After another week lapsed beyond that, on August 8, Leahy told the White House that August 20 -- today -- is the final deadline.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Surveillance
U.S. Attorneys
Leahy Asks for a Chat with Bush
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wants to have a talk with President Bush. Man to man. Subpoena issuer to stonewaller. Just the two of them to work it out.
Leahy made the offer in a letter (pdf) to Bush yesterday (see below). In it, he explains why it's time to chat. "The accumulated evidence" from the U.S. attorney firings investigation, he writes, "shows that the list of those to be fired was compiled based on input from the political ranks in the White House and that the reasons publicly given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up."
The White House has rebuffed the committee's efforts to speak with Karl Rove at all, based on an assertion of executive privilege -- and though Rove's aides Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor at least showed up to testify, they refused to discuss any internal White House deliberations about the firings. So now Leahy stands ready to issue citations for contempt of Congress to those who've refused to testify (meaning Rove for certain -- it's still unclear whether he'll move to cite Rove's aides).
Standing at the brink, Leahy writes that his colleague Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has asked him "to write to you directly and suggest that we sit down together to work out our differences. That is the purpose of this letter."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Subpoenas
Leahy Sets Warrantless Wiretapping Subpoena Deadline
Saying that he's waited long enough for the White House to comply, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) set a new deadline for documents related to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program today. August 20th is the date, and Leahy expects to receive documents concerning the legal basis for the program (in its variety of forms dating back to 2001), in addition to authorization documents.
Leahy had, at the request of White House counsel Fred Fielding, delayed a prior deadline. But now that an informal date suggested by the White House has come and gone, Leahy writes to Fielding that he's running out of patience:
Despite my patience and flexibility, you have rejected every proposal, produced none of the responsive documents, provided no basis for any claim of privilege and no accompanying log of withheld documents. I had been requesting this information for an extended time before issuing the subpoenas.
Included in that request are documents surrounding then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey's refusal to reauthorize the surveillance program. That refusal led to the March 10, 2004 showdown between Comey and Alberto Gonzales at John Ashcroft's hospital bed.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Congressional Subpoenas, Surveillance
Inside TPM
-
Latest
-
Most Popular
All
TPMMuckraker
TPMDC
TPMLiveWire
-
Has Obama Cornered Republicans On Contraception?
-
Tax Avoidance Questions Continue To Haunt Romney
-
Obama To Draw Contrast With GOP In Budget
-
McConnell: GOP Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage
-
The Delicate Dance Of Disassociating Oneself From 'White Nationalist' Groups At CPAC
-
Judge Won't Toss Weapons Evidence In Schaeffer Cox Case
-
Women's Groups Broadly Support Birth Control Compromise
-
British Man Using 'Sovereign Citizen' Tactics To Get Out Of Weapons Smuggling Charges
-
White House Seeks To Mute Catholic Uproar Over Contraception Rule
-
The Conspiracy Videos In The Hutaree's Library
TPM Top News
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
