Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - Executive Privilege

Judge orders Bush staffers, Bolten and Miers, comply with Congressional subpoenas

crew — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:57:35 -0500

CREW filed an amicus brief in the case Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. We've been awaiting today's decision, which found that the Bush administration's claim of executive privilege did not prevent high level staffers from testifying.

Here's our statement from Chief Counsel Anne Weismann:

This decision affirms Congress' right to investigate executive branch misconduct and rejects as unfounded the White House's view that it is above the law. This administration has consistently attempted to expand the definition of executive power and privilege beyond any possible legitimate constitutional interpretation. Today's opinion stops this effort cold. Although the government undoubtedly will appeal, we expect the Court of Appeals will follow Judge Bates' well reasoned opinion.

Rove won't testify before House Judiciary Committee

crew — Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:24:57 -0500

Want to make sure this article wasn't overlooked over the holiday weekend. Karl Rove has apparently invoked executive privilege and will not appear at the House Judiciary Committee later this week:

Karl Rove, former White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's top political adviser, is refusing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify on "politicization" within the Justice Dept. Rove had been scheduled to appear next Thursday, July 10.

Rove's refusal to respond to a Judiciary Committee subpoena drew a stern response from Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee.

"We want to make clear that the subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote in a letter to Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.

Luskin, in a letter to the two Democratic lawmakers on Monday, pointed out that the committee is already involved in a civil lawsuit against the Bush administration over the White House's claim of "absolute immunity" from having to respond to subpoenas issued to current or former senior aides once the president has asserted executive privilege.

White House lawyer: House "could have arrested Bolten and Miers and jailed them in a cell in the Capitol complex"

crew — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:10:38 -0500

As mentioned in the post below, a Federal District Court Judge heard arguments today in the case, Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. The first reports from the hearing are coming out:

House counsel Irvin Nathan said Democrats were forced to file suit because the White House was stonewalling and obfuscating.

“Not only doesn’t [the Judiciary Committee] have the facts from the White House, it has false and misleading facts from members of the Department of Justice,” Nathan said during hearing.

But Carl Nichols, the principal deputy associate attorney general, who argued the case for the White House, said Democrats in Congress failed to negotiate in a reasonable way. He also said they had alternatives to filing suit. They could have arrested Bolten and Miers and jailed them in a cell in the Capitol complex built for holding people in contempt of Congress.

He also said Congress could have decided to withhold Justice Department appropriations or refused to pass judicial nominations.

“They could have said, ‘We’re not going to exercise these powers,’ ” Nichols asserted.

For the record, it was Tom DeLay who had similar idea in mind for CREW's Melanie Sloan:

It wasn't long before Tom DeLay got to know Sloan by name, at one point asking the House Rules Committee to hold crew in contempt of Congress for its role in helping draft an ethics complaint against him in 2004. "I thought, 'This will be great—they can lock me in the basement of the Capitol,'" Sloan recalls.

Court will hear arguments today in executive privilege case over Bolten and Miers testimony

crew — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:12:51 -0500

Last month, CREW, with three other organizations, filed a friend of the Court brief in the executive privilege case, Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. The lawsuit, brought by the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, seeks to "compel Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers to comply with subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys."

Cheney still pushes claim he's not part of executive branch

crew — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:37:34 -0500

Yesterday, the Bush administration failed to meet the deadline for subpoenas from the Senate. That's really not a surprise. However, Dick Cheney sent separate responses and apparently still contends he's not part of the executive branch:

Vice President Dick Cheney’s office on Monday responded separately from the White House to a Senate subpoena for documents on warrantless wiretapping and resurrected the controversial contention that Cheney is not part of the executive branch.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) set Monday’s subpoena deadline after granting an extension request by the White House. Presidential counsel Fred Fielding, as expected, told Leahy in a letter that a second delay, until after Labor Day, would help Congress and the administration “expeditiously seek a means of accommodation that will negate the need for an assertion of executive privilege.”

So is Cheney refusing to answer a subpoena from his Senate colleagues? He really thinks he is a fourth branch of government.

Melanie Sloan: Congress must protect its oversight rule

crew — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:27:35 -0500

Melanie Sloan has an op-ed in today's San Francisco Chronicle with an important message for Congress to reassert its constitutional oversight role and restore the balance of power. The Bush administration is trying to run rough-shod over Congress with claims of executive privilege. But, Congress is a co-equal branch -- and has the ability to pass legislation to deal with enforcement of Congressional subpoenas. They need to use that power:

This leaves one final option: Congress could pass a statute specifically granting federal courts the authority to hear either just this specific matter or to hear any cases involving the enforcement of congressional subpoenas against the executive branch. In 1973, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Finances sought civil enforcement of its subpoena for Watergate tapes and documents. After a lower court refused to hear the matter, Congress passed legislation authorizing jurisdiction over just this specific suit. Ultimately, the committee lost, namely because the House Judiciary Committee already had the tapes. Nonetheless, by enacting the statute, Congress had its day in court.

In the current showdown, Congress could not only provide federal courts with jurisdiction, it could also provide for direct review by the Supreme Court, thereby ensuring that the White House's efforts to further expand the boundaries of executive privilege is heard while the administration is still in office. That alone would be a victory. In any event, the stalemate in which the Bush administration is taking an unprecedented and expansive view of executive power demonstrates how critical it is for Congress to provide the courts with the power to step in and resolve such controversies.

The Bush administration is trying to run out the clock. Congress needs a new game plan.

Harriet Miers fails to appear at House Judiciary Committee Hearing

crew — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:59:54 -0500

Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers heeded the directive from President Bush today, Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker reports:

Harriet Miers, as expected, defied a Congressional subpoena and did not show for her hearing before the House Judiciary Committee this morning.

In response, subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) ruled that the White House's claim of executive privilege was invalid.