# WH refuses Congressional subpoenas -- constitutional showdown? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2007, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771 "2007-06-28T15:14:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/21 "2007-07-01T00:31:11Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] **Tom** , I don’t believe Congress got the Supreme Court to rule against Nixon, period. That would have been Leon Jaworski, in his capacity as Special Prosecutor. A now-defunct office, alas. [/QUOTE] Regardless who brings the suit, the point was that it seems SCOTUS would generally protect Executive Privilege for any situation short of a criminal investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/22 "2007-07-01T00:35:02Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Regardless who brings the suit, the point was that it seems SCOTUS would generally protect Executive Privilege for any situation short of a criminal investigation. [/QUOTE] But if Congress can’t bring a suit, and there is no Special Prosecutor, how can it even get to SCOTUS? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/23 "2007-07-01T00:38:43Z")
If the SCOTUS determines to hear the case and bring their impartial judgement to bear, a way will be found. Who might complain, and to whom might they complain? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/24 "2007-07-01T00:44:06Z")
There is no constitutional bar to Congress suing the executive. The issue comes in the tricky question of standing. I am not aware that any court has ruled that Congress never has standing–it is just very difficult under the way that the powers are separated for the Congress to establish standing. My basic point remains, that Executive Privilege is going to be a formidable stopping point, with the president winning, unless _whoever_ brings suit can establish that they are investigating a criminal complaint. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/25 "2007-07-01T00:45:36Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Regardless who brings the suit, the point was that it seems SCOTUS would generally protect Executive Privilege for any situation short of a criminal investigation. [/QUOTE] Agreed. I had meant to say that this didn’t undercut your point, but I hit ‘submit’ a bit hastily. **Richard Parker** : the answer is, it can’t and won’t. Either Congress will use its contempt powers, or the Dems will be revealed as a still-impotent party, even in the majority. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/26 "2007-07-01T04:18:45Z")
Maybe the criminal investigation has to do with the supoenas issued for the warrantless wiretapping program instead. Have I misunderstood what you are saying, **Tomndebb**? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/27 "2007-07-01T05:51:51Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] So. What? Do you seriously believe that eiher Bush or Cheney will be impeached? Seriously? [/QUOTE] I seriously believe they **should** be, and I hope you do too. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/28 "2007-07-01T13:51:39Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] **Tom** , I don’t believe Congress got the Supreme Court to rule against Nixon, period. That would have been Leon Jaworski, in his capacity as Special Prosecutor. A now-defunct office, alas. [/QUOTE] Which Congress can revive whenever it wishes. Of course, the Pubs in the Senate might filibuster. But I’m thinking they can only do that so many times, in connection with all this, without it coming back to bite them in November 2008. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2007, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/29 "2007-07-01T21:59:29Z")
[Leahy is vowing to take the matter to court.](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_go_co/congress_subpoenas_2) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/30 "2007-07-08T18:31:15Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Not them, they’re no longer in the administration. The subpoena is directed to their documents, which are no longer under their control. [/QUOTE] Update: Well, maybe I got that wrong – because [Taylor now says she expects the WH to invoke executive privilege to block her (personally) from testifying before Congress.](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/07/breaking-white-house-to-block-testimony-of-former-rove-aide) [Here](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/eggleston_letter_7707.pdf) is a pdf file with her attorney’s letter to Pat Leahy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2007, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/31 "2007-07-08T21:14:33Z")
[WH will not comply with latest demand for information.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701275.html?hpid=topnews) > [@](#): > > Senate and House committees have directed President Bush to provide by tomorrow a detailed justification of his executive privilege claims and a full accounting of the documents he is withholding. But White House counsel Fred F. Fielding plans to tell lawmakers that he has already provided the legal basis for the claims and will not provide a log of the documents, the sources said. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/32 "2007-07-09T17:08:54Z")
[Leahy](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003626.php): _“I have to wonder if the White House’s refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one.”_ ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2007, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/33 "2007-07-09T17:42:44Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Update: Well, maybe I got that wrong – because [Taylor now says she expects the WH to invoke executive privilege to block her (personally) from testifying before Congress.](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/07/breaking-white-house-to-block-testimony-of-former-rove-aide) [Here](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/eggleston_letter_7707.pdf) is a pdf file with her attorney’s letter to Pat Leahy. [/QUOTE] It’s a nice letter, but absent the White House’s threatening Taylor with specific legal consequences should she testify, I fail to see what the alleged conflict is. The letter says Taylor “is unquestionably loyal and committed to the President and his agenda. At the same time, she recognizes the burden on any citizen to respect the Senate’s processes and to be responsive to its subpoenas.” And she “faces two untenable choices. She can follow the President’s direction and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate, with enforcement through the criminal courts, an action that regardless of the outcome, will follow her for life. Or, she can attempt to work out an accommodation with the Senate, which will put her at odds with the President, a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years.” That’s nice, but being a charter member of President Bush’s fan club only excuses her from Mensa, not from a Congressional subpoena. Fielding can ‘direct’ her not to testify, but a mere ‘direction’ to a former employee from a former employer, even if that employer is the President of the United States, doesn’t neutralize a subpoena. So where’s the beef? If I’m Sen. Leahy, I’m going to let her know that I expect her to show up Wednesday morning, with a copy of Fielding’s ‘direction’ in her hot little hand. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/34 "2007-07-11T14:53:41Z")
[Taylor](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071100249.html?hpid=topnews) now says she will appear before the committee – but she won’t answer any questions relating to WH internal communications. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/35 "2007-07-11T15:04:43Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [Taylor](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071100249.html?hpid=topnews) now says she will appear before the committee – but she won’t answer any questions relating to WH internal communications. [/QUOTE] [Here’s the letter from Fred Fielding](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/taylor-appearance/?resultpage=2&) relaying Bush’s ‘direction’ that he has invoked Executive Privilege and expects her to keep her mouth shut. I’ve started a GQ thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=428386) asking about the legal meaning of such a ‘direction.’ ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/36 "2007-07-11T19:54:55Z")
[Taylor denies she ever discussed the attorney firings with Bush.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071100249.html?hpid=topnews) Hey, waitaminnit – isn’t that the kind of thing she said she wouldn’t talk about at all?! ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/37 "2007-07-11T20:15:30Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [Taylor denies she ever discussed the attorney firings with Bush.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071100249.html?hpid=topnews) Hey, waitaminnit – isn’t that the kind of thing she said she wouldn’t talk about at all?! [/QUOTE] Hence Arlen Spector’s comment, “Perhaps it would have been better for you if you hadn’t said anything at all.” There’s some question about whether she can claim EP about some things, but not about others. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/38 "2007-07-11T20:17:47Z")
[Leahy to Taylor:](http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/11/prosecutors.taylor.ap/index.html) You took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold the president. Good one! [Harriet Miers is now refusing to attend the hearing at all.](http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=831) ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/39 "2007-07-11T20:31:16Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [Leahy to Taylor:](http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/11/prosecutors.taylor.ap/index.html) You took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold the president. Good one! [Harriet Miers is now refusing to attend the hearing at all.](http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=831) [/QUOTE] I hope they put both of these women in prison for their contempt. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2007, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771/40 "2007-07-11T20:38:15Z")
I read the thread title as VH1 refuses Congressional subpoenas. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wh-refuses-congressional-subpoenas-constitutional-showdown/409771.md?page=3)