Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiContempt of Congress
No one was all that surprised when the Bush administration announced Thursday that it would not cooperate with congressional demands for documents and testimony by prominent former officials that would likely confirm this White House's reckless disregard for the rule of law.
What was surprising, and encouraging, was the decisiveness with which key players in Congress responded.
After the White House asserted executive privilege in rejecting subpoenas issued by the House and Senate Judiciary committees as part of the ongoing probe of abuses within the Department of Justice, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers wasted no time expressing his sense that a Contempt of Congress citation is in order.
"The President's response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government," explained Conyers, a Michigan Democrat who is the only Judiciary Committee to have participated in the fight between Congress and the Nixon White House for Watergate-related documents. "At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas."
The best way to enforce the rule of law is by issuing a Contempt of Congress citation. The rules of Congress permit standing committees, such as the House and Senate Judiciary panels, to compel witnesses to produce documents and testimony required to complete inquiries. Committee chairs are permitted to issue subpoenas seeking documents and testimony. And, when the targets of those subpoenas refuse to cooperate, a Contempt of Congress citation -- outlining a criminal offense against the legislative branch of the federal government -- can be drawn up.
The issuance of a Contempt of Congress citation would provoke the sort of Constitutional showdown that it now appears will be required if this administration is to be held to account for its abuses of power. In such a showdown between the legislative and executive branches, the third branch of the federal government, the judiciary, would be asked to decide whether the White House has a right to assert, as White House counsel Fred Fielding did in a letter telling the committee chairs that their demands would not be met.
The "fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress" would prevent presidential advisers from communicating "openly and honestly" with the president," wrote Fielding.
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy suggests, there is another sort of fear in play: the fear of having improper and potentially illegal schemes exposed.
Fielding's assertion of executive privilege came in response to subpoenas for documents and testimony relating to the firing of nine federal prosecutors in 2006. Leahy and members of his committee have explored the question of whether those U.S. Attorneys were dismissed for improper political reasons as part of a broad move by the White House to politicize federal investigations and prosecutions.
"This White House cannot have it both ways," says Leahy. "They cannot stonewall Congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred."
The Vermont Democrat described assertion of executive privilege in an investigation of official misconduct as a "further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling."
"Increasingly," says Leahy, "the president and vice president feel they are above the law -- in America no one is above law."
The senator is right, at least in theory.
But, in practice, this administration has operated above, or more precisely outside the law for more than six years. Without proper congressional and judicial oversight, the White House has expanded the reach and authority of the executive branch far beyond the limits imagined by the founders. And it will continue to do so until Congress reasserts itself as a coequal branch of government.
That process begins with the issuance of Contempt of Congress citations.
For the sake of the Republic, those citations cannot be dispatched quickly enough.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
14 Comments so far
Show AllKevin Hopkins: thanks for sharing the interview, most informative.
Maybe Cheney's transplant won't go too swell. Let us pray.
I don't understand why Congress doesn't issue a subpoena to Abu Gonzales ONLY, then procede to impeach him when he refuses to comply. Keep it simple.
The contempt of Congress charge becomes even more murky. John Dean of Watergate fame discussed this on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Thursday (June 28).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19507102/
OLBERMANN: Does the solicitor general [Paul Clement], from the Justice Department, have any business advising the White House on the legal basis for an executive privilege claim in the first place? That would seem to be, I don't know, the White House counsel's job?
DEAN: Well, it's not unusual for a White House counsel to seek the advice of the Department of Justice. In this instance, the solicitor general is really the only man standing, with the attorney general recusing himself, the deputy attorney general, who's involved in this whole matter as well, has both recused himself and resigned.
So there's only one person to offer the opinion, and that's the person who did in the next line of succession, and the solicitor general.
OLBERMANN: But the Justice Department, which is supposed to enforce that subpoena, a solicitor general, even under those circumstances, who is supposed to lead an investigation, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who, were he independent, one can infer, would have been the 10th federal prosecutor to be fired, does it not seem that the entire deck of government has been successfully stacked, in this case, at least, in favor of the White House?
DEAN: Well, I think that's a fairly accurate description of it. We've been here before. We have a basically flawed law when you have this situation, because the Congress cannot necessarily insist that the Department of Justice go forward and prosecute a contempt citation that they send down to the Department of Justice or to the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia. It's a flawed law, and it needs correction. And the only way it can be solved is really through political pressure.
OLBERMANN: If it's up to Justice to enforce those subpoenas, is there recourse for Congress if the Justice Department fails to act, short of changing the laws? What could lawmakers do next, if anything?
DEAN: I think the only thing—option really available for Congress is to insist upon calling for a special counsel. Now, only the attorney general or the next in succession, in this instance the solicitor general, could appoint that special counsel, and he's not very likely to do that either.
So as I say, it really comes down to pretty much a fight, political fight, where the Congress has got to educate the American public about what this White House is doing, why they're doing it, and how they're doing it, because I think the public would find it intolerable.
Hear ye. Hear ye. Hear ye. These two words, thrice repeated, began the impeachment of the last democratic president by his republican opposition. Move along to 2000 and these four words: IT'S THEIR TURN NOW, whispered in Al Gore's ear by the powers controlling the democratic party, pressured him into dropping the fight to secure the victory he won and that was being outrageously stolen. DOCUMENTED... from the mouth of his campaign manager, Donna Brazil. Interview on WKYY, Terry Gross. Last Year. Repeat after me:IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE.
And why? It's filled with fascism, nukes and obstruction of justice. IS IT STILL THEIR TURN? COME ON CONYERS! IT'S OUR TURN NOW. IMPEACH. CONVICT. REMOVE. IMPRISON. LET'S CLEAR THE TABLE.
Seven Days in May. No__ July. Start boiling the tar and Get the Dead Dork and Lame Dick.
Alias' gratefully provided by Clark Kent
But, but, but, . . .
Sorry to sound like a motorboat, but if this goes to the "courts" -- ultimately to the Supreme Court -- we're screwed. The only way to do this is impeachment.
Call me superstitious, but December 12, 2000 was my 31st wedding anniversary.
Raise you hand if you think the Loonitary Vice-Executive/Not Executive theorists will give a hoot about criminal citations... They've killed and wounded millions of innocents and handed the Treasury to their "friends" without a shred of compunction - a demand for paper? Please...
How hard is CrazyCheney working right this moment to abolish Congress?
Go Conyers, Go!
Mr. Nichols states: "What was surprising, and encouraging, was the decisiveness with which key players in Congress responded."
No surprise. Such 'decisiveness' comes cheap when you don't have to back it up. With impeachment off the table, there is no way Congressional Dems are going to get blood from a Cheney stone. The GOP and the Cheney shadow government better have another 9/11 in the wings ready to grab the headlines and the American people's attention and faux patriotism. Anything short of that and the GOP will become a regional phenomenon in '08, along with NASCAR, fried chicken and 'strange fruit' from the 'Liberty' tree.
Been waiting years for some "sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution" Congressional person or Senator to do what's right. Remember that todays majority leaders were yesterdays minority leaders and they didn't have the stones back then.
Prediction: This Democratically-controlled Congress will never issue Contempt of Congress citations against Bush or Cheney, despite being elected for the express purpose of standing up to the tyrants in the executive branch. It's very sad that they're so completely whipped by the least popular administration in history.
Funny right wing apologists used the rationale for wire taping as "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about."
Doubt they still stand by that.
DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Throw the book at them and cut off their funding and while they are at it get after the high court.It is going to come to that anyway.If they dont, forget the Constitution.Tony