WH refuses Congressional subpoenas -- constitutional showdown?

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Harriet Miers is now refusing to attend the hearing at all.

And Conyers responds by threatening contempt proceedings.

[Shayna]

Further clarification about Meiers’ refusal to appear; Bush has ordered her not to!

From CNN: Bush orders ex-counsel to defy congressional subpoena.

[E-Sabbath]

Think he’ll pardon her as soon as they cite her for contempt of congress? That’d work pretty well, right?

[RTFirefly]

DOJ Opinion says Miers, others can skip hearings

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 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.

<snip>

The Justice Department memo cited a 1999 opinion of then-Atty. Gen. Janet Reno in which Reno concluded that the White House did not have to turn over documents to Congress about a decision by President Clinton to commute the prison sentences of 16 members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group convicted of bomb-making and other crimes.

Reno held that because the pardon power was an exclusive right of the executive branch, Congress had no right to the documents.

Though Bush has the power to hire and fire U.S. attorneys, some observers said the two cases were not necessarily comparable.

Unlike the pardon power, Congress has “constitutional authority to create and regulate the general conditions of appointment and removal for U.S. attorneys,” said Peter M. Shane, a professor at Ohio State University law school. “Moreover, it is entitled to investigate whether executive branch officials who have already testified under oath have testified truthfully.”

The OLC opinion has short-circuited the usual contempt-of-Congress process. The only resource between that and impeachment would be inherent contempt, where either the full House or Senate would convene as a court, and send its Sergeant-At-Arms to bring in the party to be tried for contempt. But at this point, who would Congress try - the author of the (probably bullshit) OLC opinion? That would be pointless; the opinion is what it is because Bush and Gonzo have turned DOJ into a hackocracy. The DOJ isn’t an independent actor here in any way, shape, or form. It’s the unitary Executive in action.

I’m thinking that it’s time for Congress to call Bush on his ‘unitary Executive’ bullshit, assume unless proven otherwise that any actions of the upper echelons of the Executive Branch are the actions of the President, and begin an impeachment process on that basis. It should include Cheney, because the unitary Executive theory itself, of which Cheney has clearly been the prime architect, should be on trial.

[BrainGlutton]

Bush might be committing a felony by ordering Miers not to appear.

[Shayna]

House Panel Rejects President Bush’s Executive Privilege Claim

A House panel cleared the way Thursday for contempt proceedings against former White House counsel Harriet Miers after she obeyed President Bush and skipped a hearing on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Addressing the empty chair where Miers had been subpoenaed to testify, Rep. Linda Sanchez ruled out of order Bush’s executive privilege claim that his former advisers are immune from being summoned before Congress.

The House Judiciary subcommittee that Sanchez chairs voted 7-5 to sustain her ruling. The next step would be for the full Judiciary Committee to issue a finding that Miers, Bush’s longtime friend and former Supreme Court nominee, was in contempt. Ultimately, the full House would have to vote on any contempt citation.

Good. I hope they prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law. And then go after Bush next.

[RTFirefly]

@Shayna

House Panel Rejects President Bush’s Executive Privilege Claim Good. I hope they prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law. And then go after Bush next.

If they want to prosecute her, they’ll almost surely have to do it directly, without the courts’ help. That was one upshot of the link I posted this morning.

I guess, to be politic, they have to go through those motions anyway, before they resort to inherent contempt. I’d rather they point out the implications of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion, and jump directly to impeachment, but that’s not gonna happen in this particular universe, unfortunately.