White House, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserts executive privilege

[bigtree]

Jun 28, 2007 (8 mins ago)

By TERENCE HUNT, AP

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

In his letter, Fielding said Bush had "attempted to chart a course of cooperation" by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts. Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Conyers of Michigan, the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have rejected that offer.


http://www.examiner.com/a-803504~White_House_Asserts_Executive_Privilege.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Fuck you, America." - BushCo Cabal of corrupt republicon cronies

"Smirk, smirk, smirk" - Commander AWOL

[seemslikeadream]

2. Go ahead IMPEACH US we dare you

[LynnTheDem]

3. Whatcha hiding, Mr. "transparent government" bush?

Funny how the rightwingnuttery are fine with a dictator as long as he has a (R) after his name.

[Botany]

4. Impeach the bastards

The White House will not cooperate with the requests for staff or papers
because they are covering up criminal actions.

"We will send some of the papers and let Rove & Meirs testify as long as
they are not under oath and they do it private too." The White House

[A wise Man]

5. This is indeed strange

If I were served with a subpoena and didn't show up to honor the subpoena I would have cops at my door steps ready to arrest me. If congress has such power, my suggestion is to send in the police to arrest these law breakers.

[blogslut]

6. Question

So, if the next step is court, which court will it be? Does a case like this go to a lower court first or do they take it straight to the SCOTUS?

[bigtree]

7. Sen. Leahy said he'd consider contempt citations . . .

"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the urt of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

In the latest showdown, the Judiciary panels also subpoenaed the National Security Council. Leahy added that, like House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., he would consider pursuing contempt citations against those who refuse.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_SUBPOENAS?SITE=TNCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-06-28-09-26-32



What are the consequences of being cited in contempt of Congress? Who decides who is in contempt and what the penalties will be?

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly9.htm

Contempt of Congress is initiated by a resolution reported from the affected congressional committee which can cite any individual for contempt. The resolution must then be adopted by the House or Senate. If the relevant chamber adopts the contempt resolution recommended by one of its committees, the matter is referred to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution. The U.S. Attorney may call in a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict and prosecute. If prosecuted by the courts and found guilty of contempt, the punishment is presently set at up to one year in prison and/or up to $1,000 in fines.

The last high-ranking federal official to be held in contempt was Anne Gorsuch, then administrator of the EPA, in 1982. The House voted the citation for her refusal to provide requested documents concerning the Superfund to the Energy and Commerce Committee then chaired by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Prosecution of her case was halted after the Reagan White House negotiated an agreement to allow access to the papers.

Contempt resolutions have most often been issued in two categories: (1) for reasons of refusing to testify or failing to provide Congress with requested documents or answers, and (2) bribing or libeling a Member of Congress. Contempt citations are limited to matters which relate to legislative purposes and which fall within the affected committee's established jurisdiction.

Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld the contempt authority of Congress, most notably Anderson v. Dunn, decided in 1821. Congress sets the procedures and punishment for contempt by statute. The current contempt statute (2 USC 192) was adopted in 1857, and has been amended several times over the years. This statute also limits the issuance of contempt citations to matters which relate to legislative purposes and which fall within the affected committee's established jurisdiction as delegated to it by the full House or Senate.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly9.htm

[blogslut]

8. Ahhh, so the charge would be contempt of congress

And they then have a US Attorney pursue the charges? So, who is the USA for the relative district?

[bigtree]

11. I'm guessing the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

The current United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey A. Taylor.

From 1999 to 2002, Mr. Taylor served as majority counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee where he advised Chairman Orrin Hatch and drafted provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Before his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales from 2002 to 2006 where he oversaw law enforcement operations by U.S. attorneys. He was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Alberto Gonzales on September 22, 2006 and was sworn in seven days later; interim U.S. attorneys do not need to be confirmed by the Senate . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_A._Taylor

. . . looks like a conflict problem

[blogslut]

12. Hmmm, yeah, Taylor is a problem

I wonder how this will play out? I guess we'll have to see. I'll be watching congressman Emanuel inroduce the measure to defund Cheney on the C-Span today and look for the response. It's going to be an interesting day I believe.

[ClintonTyree]

14. A HUGE conflict problem.

Bush has so corrupted the judicial system with his toadies that it will be difficult to find anyone to take action against him. :eyes: I guess this completes the dictatorship process Bush has so long dreamed about. There's not an honest man left to take him on.

[Kazak]

9. Good!

No use debating impeachment then...smack 'em down!!!

[malaise]

10. Well Turley says Bushco will lose

That's good enough for me.

[KansDem]

13. It's "High Noon" for the Dems...remember Gary Cooper...

He didn't back down when it counted. Neither should you!


I'm calling you out, Bad Bush...It's time to put up or shut up!