In connection with its year-long investigation of the U.S.-attorney-firings scandal (remember that one?), the House has finally cited WH Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former WH Counsel Harriet Miers for their failure to appear. Most Republicans pointedly walked off the floor before the vote was taken.
Constitutional showdown on the horizon? Or just more noise?
I’m surprised it took this long . . . but maybe they’ve been dragging it out for maximum effect in 11/08. 
After all this time, I’m not holding my breath waiting for congress to prove that they are interested in truth and justice anymore. This is almost certainly a calculated political situation that House democrats are hoping to nurture to ripeness just before election time.
I loved the Republican’s complaint that the house’s time would have been better spent authorizing the government to spy on us some more.
Spying plus politically corrupt states attorneys, it’s a great combination!
NO! I want to hear more about drug scandals in the NBA. Or NFL. Or wherever it was.
Reasonably well settled law of estoppel. The Justice Department cannot advise someone that Action A is legal, and then later bring criminal charges against that person for taking Action A.
Right?
So anything the Attorney General tells his boss, the President, is legal, by so doing, the Attorney General makes it legal.
Wow.
Power doesn’t need to corrupt. Power is corrupt.
Tris
Nifty legal maneuver! Elegant in its simplicity and breathtaking in its cynicism.
Not that I’ve ever heard of. Nothing here seems to support such a conclusion in a criminal context and absent any adjudication by a court of law of the legality of the action in question. Cite?
Besides, by that reasoning the Administration could shield any action from prosecution by instructing the DOJ to advise the official in question that it is lawful – and the DOJ would, at least in this Admin, as you know. That ain’t the rule of law. As you know.
Two questions:
Is a charge of contempt of Congress technically a criminal charge?
Assuming for the sake of arguement that the Justice Department’s earlier advice was wrong, and what alternative actions can be taken? Which is to say, Congress does think they are in contempt, but the Justice Department says they won’t sanction the behavior, what options are left to Congress?
Arrest by the Sergeant at Arms, and incarceration in the congressional cloakroom, or something?
I mean, it’s not like anyone in Congress is wearing cloaks anymore…
We discussed the practicalities last July WRT Rove’s refusal to comply with his Senate subpoena in the same investigation. The Senate never actually forced the issue against Rove. Or hasn’t yet.
How long does that last? What if in 1941, Justice told a MS redneck that he could kill black people all he wanted, that it wasn’t a federal issue. Then after the '64 MS Burning cases, after their convictions on ancient civil rights laws they went to jail. Could they argue this legal issue?
It all comes down to this.
He’s talking about entrapment by esoppel. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=965244opn
I’m not so sure it applies in a case like this. *See, e.g., *:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200411671.pdf
I’m not sure about the timing, and It’s also pretty clear that these folks didn’t “actually rely on a point of law,” because they were instructed by their employer to refuse to comply. Also, they knew that the issue was disputed and that they’d be subject to citation for contempt before they refused, so their reliance might be found to be unreasonable. It’s an interesting argument though.
And Boehner called the vote a political stunt just before the Republicans pulled their political stunt walking out of the room onto the Capital steps where there just happened to be a podium and a rack of microphones set up. 
I was glad to see the Dems finally show at least a tiny bit of sack for once, even though nothing will probably ever come of it. Boehner complaining about “grandstanding” and then staging a grandstanding walkout pinned my irony meter.
I also enjoyed watching Bush whine like a petulant child after not getting his way and flat out lying about how the Dems were endangering America. Welcome to irrelevancy, you crippled, inarticulate waterfowl.
I know. Isn’t it great. Torture, illegal wiretaps, contempt. Just get some lawyer to tell you it’s OK in a memo and you cover your ass.
To me, it’s an example of the problems with politicizing the DOJ, which is what they’re investigating.
It’s, like, something out of Escher . . .
I wonder if Bricker will always feel this way?
-Joe
Let’s call it what it is.
There was an agreement to keep the House in recess during the Tom Lantos memorial service, so Republicans were understandably surprised (and a little pissed off) when the voting bells went off and the memorial was still going on. And amazingly enough, the first things on the agenda were the contempt citations.
At the same time as all of this, there is apparently no time to consider the FISA bill - already passed by the Senate with pretty strong support from both parties - 68 senators supported it, and there were a few absentees. That doesn’t signal a controversial bill - but Nancy Pelosi will let this expire rather than permit a vote containing the Senate’s provisions.
The walkout was over the FISA grandstanding, not the contempt charges - though this indication of Congress’ priorities isn’t helpful. A contempt charge can wait another day or so - this bill should have been acted upon. Hell, it already had been kicked down the road numerous times.