(LAT) Disregard subpoenas, Justice Dept. says

[Synnical]

The opinion raises questions over whether Bush officials would be prosecuted for not cooperating in probe of U.S. attorneys firings.

By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
July 12, 2007


WASHINGTON — In a broadly worded legal opinion, the Justice Department has concluded that President Bush's former top lawyer, and possibly other senior White House officials, can ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The three-page opinion raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt for not cooperating with the investigation into the firing last year of eight top prosecutors.

The opinion was prepared this week by the department's Office of Legal Counsel, in response to questions from former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, who was subpoenaed to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee. Miers told the panel in a letter faxed Tuesday night that she would not appear, citing the Justice memo and advice from the White House.

Under the law, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia decides whether to pursue contempt of Congress cases. Though that official can exercise independent judgment, some legal experts said it might be hard to ignore the opinion from the legal counsel office, whose decisions are often viewed as controlling throughout the federal government.

Others said that, as an alternative, lawmakers might seek the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate any contempt charges.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys12jul12,1,866122.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

[annabanana]

1. That IS Abu Gonzales' Justice Department . . , Right?

Is anyone surprised?

[truebrit71]

2. The "justice" department says "ignore the law"....what fucking planet are they on?

Good grief! This is CRAZY!

[malaise]

And that is the million question

Crazy is a mild word.

[Toots]

3. I wonder how he could recall enough Law to issue an opinion

His memory is quite faulty you know...He doesn't seem to recall who he talked with yesterday let alone what Law he studied twenty years ago..

[atreides1]

4. So The Great Experiment has finally Failed

All that has been sacrificed, the blood, the misery, the hardship was all for nothing. The American people have installed a tyrant and now have the dictatorship that many have fought and died to prevent.

I guess the Founders should have considered that honor was not something that all people consider to be paramount, that there would come times that the lust for power would overcome the need for integrity.

And now with the assistance of cowards elected to represent the American people, this administration is now another step closer to having unitary executive power. BushCo controls the SCOTUS and through its Republican sycophants in Congress and those great Democrats who for the last 6 years have insisted on keeping their powder dry, and have shown that they lack the courage to fight, Bush will soon have his dictatorship.

"So this is how Democracy dies, with thunderous applause"

[LeftHander]

6. Oh my yes...If the Justice Dept. says ignore the law...

What is to stop Bush from simply declaring Congress null and void? I mean when push comes to shove if the Military and Law Enforcement are behind Bush...I guess he can do anything he wants.

[shadowknows69]

This has gone on far enough

can't some independent body or congress itself issue contempt and obstruction charges for Gonzo too? He's part of this ongoing investigation. Shouldn't that automatically recuse him from any decision in this case?

[Ilsa]

5. So what is Congress supposed to do? Physically pick them up,

strap them down, and torture them? That's what Gonzo would do.

[shadowknows69]

7. Someone said in an earlier thread

Invoke the fraking patriot act. Issue a warrant for arrest for the whole crew based on their own evil document. Call for citizen deputies to enforce the arrests if necessary. Let's get it on with. Our republic is dead. Time to kick out the kings or live in slavery. simple as that.

[bigtree]

8. There should be pressure for an independent prosecutor

like Congress applied in the face of WH opposition in the Plame case.

[fasttense]

9. Your link says I have to register, so I didn't read the whole story.

I only read what you posted.

But I'm surprised it doesn't mention Inherent contempt. Randi mentioned it yesterday as way to bypass the justice department.

This is what wikipedia says about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

"Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against the Postmaster-General. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945). <1>"

Put little Harriet and all the bush executive privilege non-witnesses in jail at least for two years. And it doesn't go to the Senate. It stays only in the House.

[gatorboy]

10. *SIGH* It's pretty obvious that NOTHING is going to happen to these people.

As someone else mentioned, the only other option is to physically drag these people in and who here thinks that will actually happen?

[still_one]

12. no, the option is impeachment, and also charging those who don't testify with contempt

[gatorboy]

14. But the question still remains, how would these be enforced?

[still_one]

11. Impeach the AG already, and issue contempt charges against those who won't testify

I am sorry but if the Congress doesn't take some action, then they are a sorry excuse for a legislative body

[pwb]

13. Theses neocon republiks sure set a fine example don't they?