E-Mail From John Conyers: "A Good Day For The Constitution"

[Hissyspit]

Dear ---,

Yesterday the House of Representatives took several historic steps towards protecting our system of checks and balances. First, by a vote of 223 to 32, the House passed resolutions referring criminal contempt citations for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, as well as authorizing civil actions against them should the Justice Department refuse to prosecute. Second, we did not succumb to the White House political pressure concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Yesterday's contempt vote upheld the simple Constitutional principle that no one is above the law. If an ordinary citizen could not ignore a subpoena without facing severe consequences, the same must hold true for the White House.

As the morning's papers covered this story, many of them recount the Judiciary Committee investigation that began a year ago. They talk of the fired U.S. Attorneys who testified, the thousands of pages of documents produced by the Department of Justice, and of the subpoenas ignored by the White House.

I hope that as you read those stories, you will remember that the path to today's contempt vote did not begin with just a subpoena, or a hearing, or even the firings in December, 2006. Rather, it began with the Bush Administration's politicization of Justice and its refusal to submit to congressional oversight. I commend my 232 colleagues who joined me in voting to hold the Bush White house accountable and who stood up for the rule of law.

I also want to commend the Democratic Leadership for standing up to the White House yesterday and refusing to succumb to political pressure concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Last August we allowed ourselves to be jammed by the Senate and the White House. Yesterday, we stood up in the face of the pressure and let the President know that we intend to do our jobs as legislators and not hastily pass the flawed Senate bill with retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications firms.

The White House, of course, has complained bitterly about the contempt vote as they have with many oversight actions Congress has taken. I have linked to some articles that show breadth of this bluster.

Much more remains to be done, but this week, we made real progress. With your help, we all made a difference, and the nation and our constitution are stronger for it. Thank you.

Thank you again for your continued support for a better democracy.


Your Friend,

John Conyers, Jr.

[dmosh42]

1. Good! Let's finish the job!...

Get them prosecuted and sentenced. Then get Mukasey for 'obstruction', if he fails to follow up on justice dept prosecution. By then you'll be in the swing of things, so Cheney would be next!

[JDPriestly]

2. What happens next?

Let's say that Bolton and Miers decide they would rather appear before Congress than face contempt charges and possibly time in jail, then what?
Do they appear and refuse to testify on certain topics based on executive privilege? If so, how will Congress handle it?

Will Congress argue that the executive privilege applies only to matters of security consequence or criminal conduct? What if Bolton and Miers refuse to without claiming privilege related to sensitive security matters?

Didn't Clinton's White House counsel and chief of staff testify before Congress?
***
When Republicans controlled Congress during the Clinton Administration, they routinely insisted that White House officials appear before Congress. During the prior Administration, a series of White House Counsels testified to congressional committees publicly and under oath:

-- In 1994, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum testified before the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs regarding the "Whitewater" matter.<1> In 1996, he was deposed under oath on two separate days by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as part of the White Travel Office investigation.<2>

-- In 1994, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler testified before the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs regarding the "Whitewater" matter.<3>

http://victoriakos.blogspot.com/2007/03/waxman-ample-precedent-for-white-house.html

They could still plead the Fifth Amendment, but then that would almost be placing Mukasey in a very awkward position, because it would mean that some possibly criminal act had occurred. This is very interesting.

[DemReadingDU]

3. If they don't show up before Congress, then What?

Who orders them to jail? Who takes them to jail? Would they even go to jail, or fly out of the country?


I really don't see anything happening, one way or the other.

[JDPriestly]

13. In civil cases, they go to court and if the judge finds that they are in contempt

they are arrested right on the spot. I have seen this happen in a state court in California. The courtrooms have a bailiff or bailiffs or deputy sheriffs who take the person in contempt to the elevator and off to jail. I imagine that a similar procedure exists in the federal courts. I suppose the role of the Justice Department would be to go to court and argue that Bolton and Miers are not in contempt. I was asking. I'm not sure of the answer.

[hootinholler]

14. Actually in this case Justice is the prosecutor.

Which Mukasey has already said he won't prosecute. That leaves open the route of holding the AG in inherent contempt, which if that resolution is passed, the Sargent At Arms of Congress is sent out to bring the AG before the House.

-Hoot

[JDPriestly]

15. No, the House attorney will prosecute, I heard.

The Justice Department or a private attorney would defend, it would seem to me. I am guessing based on my experience which is not entirely applicable.

[malaise]

4. Thanks JC

No immunity for Bushco or the Telecoms companies

[Bandit]

5. Bump bump bump ~ that's Congress's approval ratings going up

Let's see if they ignore that...

[jtrockville]

6. Would have been better if they'd voted on impeachment when

the republicans walked out.

Let's hope their courage doesn't end with this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Who are the 32 who voted against the contempt charges?

[jtrockville]

10. Here's the roll call (LINK)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll060.xml

[VP505]

8. I saw a little bit of a

presser yesterday with Hoyer and Conyers which left me with the impression that they are figuring out ways to cave again. They were talking about how they were going to resolve the differences between the House and Senate FISA bills. They refused to discuss specifics but they hinted that there was a way to get a bipartisan bill that they thought would be acceptable to everyone. My capitulate sensor kept saying be skeptical, be skeptical, be skeptical. Hope it was a false alarm but...

[shadowknows69]

9. Oh, John's reading the Constitution again?

Still waiting on that Cheney impeachment.

[L. Coyote]

11. K & R, albeit, isn't there a math error?

222 + Conyers voted at 2:22 to pass the resolution, with 32 nays.
The rest of the Rs ran away in a sham protest to avoid supporting Bush!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

12. K&R I like the sound of that and I've always liked Conyers n/t