# House cites Bolten & Miers for contempt; Pubs stage walkout **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677 "2008-02-14T23:33:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/1 "2008-02-14T23:33:20Z")
In connection with its year-long investigation of the [U.S.-attorney-firings scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy) (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.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021402415.html) Most Republicans pointedly walked off the floor before the vote was taken. > [@](#): > > By law, the contempt citations now go to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, but the White House and Justice Department have said that no executive branch employee would face a grand jury inquiry. > > Testifying at his confirmation hearings last October, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that current and former White House officials who refused to testify in a congressional inquiry likely did so based on the Justice Department’s ruling that Bush’s assertion of executive privilege was proper. That meant the Justice Department could not now criminally charge someone for defying Congress based on its own prior legal advice, he said. > > The resolutions approved by the House contain a second mechanism that, if Mukasey and Taylor refuse to impanel a grand jury, would allow the House general counsel to file a civil lawsuit in federal courts seeking a declaratory judgment against Bolten and Miers that would compel their congressional testimony. 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. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/2 "2008-02-14T23:41:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/3 "2008-02-14T23:57:56Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/4 "2008-02-15T00:07:26Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. NO! I want to hear more about drug scandals in the NBA. Or NFL. Or wherever it was. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/5 "2008-02-15T00:26:38Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] > [@](#): > > Testifying at his confirmation hearings last October, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that current and former White House officials who refused to testify in a congressional inquiry likely did so based on the Justice Department’s ruling that Bush’s assertion of executive privilege was proper. That meant the Justice Department could not now criminally charge someone for defying Congress based on its own prior legal advice, he said. Constitutional showdown on the horizon? Or just more noise? [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/6 "2008-02-15T00:31:26Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/7 "2008-02-15T00:32:55Z")
Nifty legal maneuver! Elegant in its simplicity and breathtaking in its cynicism. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/8 "2008-02-15T00:35:59Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] 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? [/QUOTE] Not that I’ve ever heard of. Nothing [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel) 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. ---
**Author:** ![2nd\_Law](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/f475e1/32.png) [@2nd\_Law](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2nd_Law)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/9 "2008-02-15T00:39:55Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] 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? [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/10 "2008-02-15T01:08:01Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/11 "2008-02-15T01:17:56Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] 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… [/QUOTE] We discussed the practicalities [last July](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=430372) 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. See also [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429740) [threads.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=428461) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/12 "2008-02-15T01:26:33Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] 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? [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/13 "2008-02-15T01:28:36Z")
It all comes down to [this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455418) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/14 "2008-02-15T01:28:58Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] 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? [/QUOTE] He’s talking about entrapment by esoppel. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=965244opn](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=965244opn) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9950060](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9950060) I’m not so sure it applies in a case like this. \*See, e.g., \*: > [@](#): > > “Entrapment-by-estoppel is an affirmative defense that provides a narrow > exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no defense.” United > States v. Eaton, 179 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks > and citation omitted). “To assert this defense successfully, a defendant must > actually rely on a point of law misrepresented by an official of the state; and such > reliance must be objectively reasonable–given the identity of the official, the point > of law represented, and the substance of the misrepresentation.” Id. (internal > quotation marks and citation omitted). “The defense applies only when an official > tells a defendant that certain conduct is legal.” Id. (internal quotation marks and > citation omitted). [http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200411671.pdf](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. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/15 "2008-02-15T05:50:02Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] 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! [/QUOTE] 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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/16 "2008-02-15T07:30:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/17 "2008-02-15T13:59:15Z")
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus] So anything the Attorney General tells his boss, the President, is legal, by so doing, the Attorney General makes it legal. Wow. [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/18 "2008-02-15T14:09:54Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] To me, it’s an example of the problems with politicizing the DOJ, which is what they’re investigating. [/QUOTE] It’s, like, something out of Escher . . . ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/19 "2008-02-15T14:10:06Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] 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. [/QUOTE] I wonder if **Bricker** will always feel this way? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2008, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677/20 "2008-02-15T15:16:32Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-cites-bolten-miers-for-contempt-pubs-stage-walkout/437677.md?page=2)