House Files Lawsuit to Force Bush Aides to Testify on Justice Firings

[Dos Equis]

Absolutely.  That's what a subpoena is.
I don't care what the underlying crime is.  When Congress says, "Jump" with a subpoena, you/and the president and his staff say, "how high".
Is it a witch hunt?  I don't know.

But I do know that subpoenas were issued and ignored. 

That's a crime.

Well I have to disagree with you.  There is almost always some exception somewhere.  There are ways around subpoenas.  And it isn't clear to me that a Congressional subpoena trumps executive privilege. 

I don't know if the subpoenas were "ignored."  There may have been a response to the subpoenas by their lawyers, explaining why they didn't believe they needed to appear.

I'll be interested to see how the courts deal with this.

This entire "investigation" is dumb IMO.  It's undeniably partisan.  It's a garden variety partisan witch hunt.  If both parties were involved in this, I'd pay more attention.     
 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Not unless they have an excuse, which they apparently believe they have.  

But that doesn't answer my question:  what specific law was broken?  What the heck are they investigating?  They should get back to investigating steroids in sports or something . . . .

Christ, you're a bonehead, either that or you just play devils advocate for the fuck of it.

[Straw Man]

Christ, you're a bonehead, either that or you just play devils advocate for the fuck of it.

this is exactly the place that anyone who spends any time talking with BB eventually finds themself.

sometimes I think it's the latter

most of the time I think he might be semi-retarded

[Decker]

Well I have to disagree with you.  There is almost always some exception somewhere.  There are ways around subpoenas.  And it isn't clear to me that a Congressional subpoena trumps executive privilege. 

I don't know if the subpoenas were "ignored."  There may have been a response to the subpoenas by their lawyers, explaining why they didn't believe they needed to appear.

I'll be interested to see how the courts deal with this.

This entire "investigation" is dumb IMO.  It's undeniably partisan.  It's a garden variety partisan witch hunt.  If both parties were involved in this, I'd pay more attention.     
 

House Files Suit Against Administration to Enforce Subpoenas

The Judiciary Committee, as plaintiff, is asking the Court to find the following:

(1) Ms. Miers is not “immune” from the obligation to appear before the Committee in response to a duly authorized, issued and served Committee subpoena;

(2) Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten must produce privilege logs identifying all documents withheld on grounds of executive privilege;

(3) Executive privilege does not cover documents not involving the President or undertaken directly in preparation for advising the President or whose contents are widely-known, previously released or previously the subject of extensive, authorized testimony, and that Ms. Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s claims of executive privilege are, in any event, overcome by the Committee’s compelling need for the subpoenaed testimony and documents.

(4) that Ms. Miers is required to appear before the Committee to respond to questions put to her pertinent to the Investigation and to invoke executive privilege only if and when appropriate;

(5) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to provide, as required by the subpoenas, a detailed privilege log, identifying by author, recipient, date and subject matter those documents responsive to the subpoena that have been withheld on executive privilege grounds;

(6) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to the subpoenas.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________________

Executive Privilege is not a tool of obstruction for use by all Bush administration people.

[War-Horse]

I wish I had more faith in our court system to produce justice.  We've seen Dictator Bush get his way, time after time.  Hes one of the greatest, fascist Presidents the world has ever known...

[Hugo Chavez]

Isn't this horse dead?  

House Files Lawsuit to Force Bush Aides to Testify on Justice Firings
Monday, March 10, 2008

 E-Mail Print Share:
DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
WASHINGTON —  The House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee has filed suit to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

The lawsuit filed in federal court Monday says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers says "we will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress."

Conyers says he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration's claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with U.S. constitutional principles.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336393,00.html

The horse is not only NOT dead, if they get the balls, they can hold them in contempt and actually jail them right there in congress.  It's old, hasn't been done forever, but it's still valid. If they do that, it will launch this constitutional faceoff to a full out battle and they probably won't go there being the spineless twits they are.

[Dos Equis]

House Files Suit Against Administration to Enforce Subpoenas

The Judiciary Committee, as plaintiff, is asking the Court to find the following:

(1) Ms. Miers is not “immune” from the obligation to appear before the Committee in response to a duly authorized, issued and served Committee subpoena;

(2) Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten must produce privilege logs identifying all documents withheld on grounds of executive privilege;

(3) Executive privilege does not cover documents not involving the President or undertaken directly in preparation for advising the President or whose contents are widely-known, previously released or previously the subject of extensive, authorized testimony, and that Ms. Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s claims of executive privilege are, in any event, overcome by the Committee’s compelling need for the subpoenaed testimony and documents.

(4) that Ms. Miers is required to appear before the Committee to respond to questions put to her pertinent to the Investigation and to invoke executive privilege only if and when appropriate;

(5) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to provide, as required by the subpoenas, a detailed privilege log, identifying by author, recipient, date and subject matter those documents responsive to the subpoena that have been withheld on executive privilege grounds;

(6) that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten are required to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to the subpoenas.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________________

Executive Privilege is not a tool of obstruction for use by all Bush administration people.

In other words, Miers and Bolten have claimed they are immune and can rely on executive privilege.  Maybe the courts will agree with them,  maybe not.  We'll see. 

But you still have not identified the alleged underlying crime. 

[Dos Equis]

The horse is not only NOT dead, if they get the balls, they can hold them in contempt and actually jail them right there in congress.  It's old, hasn't been done forever, but it's still valid. If they do that, it will launch this constitutional faceoff to a full out battle and they probably won't go there being the spineless twits they are.

It is possible that this partisan witch hunt will uncover some (as yet unnamed) crime, but I doubt it.  Meanwhile, the Congress is flushing more of my hard earned money down the toilet. 

[Straw Man]

One underlying crime would be perjury from Gonzo and other who testified about the reason for the purpose of the firings.  

There's nothing wrong with getting testimony for all parties involved and making sure all stories match.

Remember - according to Gonzo the firings were not political yet we have no coherent reason for why these individuals were in fact fired.

[War-Horse]

Where are all these attornys that claim they were wronged.  Why are they silent now??    We're kickbacks paid to keep quiet.  I understand no comments being made while under investigation but that rarely holds true.

Have they fallen under the protection of the Patriot Act, and been givin millions of dollars in a swiss bank account?

[240 is Back]

i can't wait until president hilary starts abusing her power.

seeing beach bum defend it on a daily basis will be hilarious.

seeing joelocal talk about how the bush admin had so much integrity... will be priceless.

ahh, this place will be so cute when a new party takes over.

[Dos Equis]

May 10, 12:20 PM EDT
Invoking history, Bush wants court out of subpoena fight

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- If there's one thing Congress and the Bush administration can agree on, it's that they've got a fight of historic proportions on their hands.

The House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents and testimony from President Bush's closest advisers about the firing of federal prosecutors.

When the White House refused, the Democrat-led committee went to court. Lawyers called the president's actions the most expansive view of presidential authority since Watergate.

Late Friday night, the Bush administration responded with court documents of its own, similarly steeped in history. Lawyers called the lawsuit unprecedented. Citing George Washington and Grover Cleveland, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, they said these types of clashes get resolved without going to court.

"For over two hundred years, when disputes have arisen between the political branches concerning the testimony of executive branch witnesses before Congress, or the production of executive branch documents to Congress, the branches have engaged in negotiation and compromise," Justice Department lawyers wrote.

The idea the Congress can't order the president or his advisers to do something is a principle known as executive privilege. That privilege isn't spelled out in the Constitution and courts are rarely asked to decide exactly what it means. And when they have been asked, judges have tried to avoid getting too specific.

"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.

That makes for a murky area of law and the Bush administration is urging U.S. District Judge John D. Bates not to tidy it up. The ambiguity fosters compromise, political solutions and the kind of give and take that the Founding Father envisioned, attorneys said.

Clearing it up "would forever alter the accommodation process that has served the Nation so well for over two centuries," attorneys wrote.

Congress wants to know whether the Bush administration fired several U.S. attorney for political reasons. That controversy contributed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigning last year.

The Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify and demanded documents from President Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten.

The White House argues that the hiring and firing of presidential appointees is strictly the business of the executive branch. The administration has offered to let White House officials discuss the matter privately with Congress but objects to formal testimony under a subpoena.

Congress says it has tried negotiating and is left with no other options but a court case. The Bush administration countered in court documents Friday that, if Congress really wants to put up a fight about this, the Constitution offers plenty of ways for lawmakers to dig in their heels.

Congress can block presidential appointments until its demands are met, attorneys said. And since Congress controls the government's purse strings, it can cut off funding for the Executive branch agencies.

The stakes are high in a court fight.

Bush, who has prided himself on taking strong views on presidential authority, risks a legacy as the president who forever diminished that power in disputes with Congress. Congress risks having its subpoena authority - one of its most powerful oversight tools - permanently curtailed.
 
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_CONTEMPT?refresh=1

[240 is Back]

"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.

Never has the White house fired judges solely upon their political beliefs and partisan actinos.

[Dos Equis]

Never has the White house fired judges solely upon their political beliefs and partisan actinos.

lol.  The White House cannot fire judges.
 


 

[Straw Man]

the reason is that the courts have traditionally tried to stay out of disputes between the other two branches of government.  That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)

"Never in American history has a federal court ordered an executive branch official to testify before Congress," lawyers for the White House wrote.

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Nolan070329.pdf

As a general matter, I agree with the proposition that the President’s White House
advisers should not be called to testify before Congress—or even to provide
interviews—without careful congressional consideration of the needs justifying
such a request. To use one standard we have recently heard much repeated,
Congress should not use White House officials to engage in “fishing expeditions.”
But I can assure you that, despite the impression that some have recently sought to
create, the testimony of White House advisers is far from unprecedented. Close
advisers to the President have indeed been subpoenaed by congressional
committees, testified under oath, had their testimony transcribed and made part of
the public record—and been called back for subsequent testimony. As the
Congressional Research Service has reported, there have been at least 73 occasions
since 1944 when White House advisers have testified before Congress.

[240 is Back]

lol.  The White House cannot fire judges.
 

they can by proxy, which is exactly what Alberto gonzalez did.  Well, we'd know for sure, except he developed amnesia on the stand.

[War-Horse]

the reason is that the courts have traditionally tried to stay out of disputes between the other two branches of government.  That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Nolan070329.pdf

As a general matter, I agree with the proposition that the President’s White House
advisers should not be called to testify before Congress—or even to provide
interviews—without careful congressional consideration of the needs justifying
such a request. To use one standard we have recently heard much repeated,
Congress should not use White House officials to engage in “fishing expeditions.”
But I can assure you that, despite the impression that some have recently sought to
create, the testimony of White House advisers is far from unprecedented. Close
advisers to the President have indeed been subpoenaed by congressional
committees, testified under oath, had their testimony transcribed and made part of
the public record—and been called back for subsequent testimony. As the
Congressional Research Service has reported, there have been at least 73 occasions
since 1944 when White House advisers have testified before Congress.

LOL.  Beachbum, your new name should be "Bubblegum".

[Dos Equis]

the reason is that the courts have traditionally tried to stay out of disputes between the other two branches of government.  That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Nolan070329.pdf

As a general matter, I agree with the proposition that the President’s White House
advisers should not be called to testify before Congress—or even to provide
interviews—without careful congressional consideration of the needs justifying
such a request. To use one standard we have recently heard much repeated,
Congress should not use White House officials to engage in “fishing expeditions.”
But I can assure you that, despite the impression that some have recently sought to
create, the testimony of White House advisers is far from unprecedented. Close
advisers to the President have indeed been subpoenaed by congressional
committees, testified under oath, had their testimony transcribed and made part of
the public record—and been called back for subsequent testimony. As the
Congressional Research Service has reported, there have been at least 73 occasions
since 1944 when White House advisers have testified before Congress.

Off base.  A subpoena is compelling someone to testify and the article doesn't say that Congress has never served a subpoena.  It says the courts have never enforced a Congressional subpoena. 

[Dos Equis]

they can by proxy, which is exactly what Alberto gonzalez did.  Well, we'd know for sure, except he developed amnesia on the stand.

Federal judges cannot be fired by the White House or by the AG.  They have lifetime appointments and can only be impeached by the Senate, the same body that confirms them. 

[Dos Equis]

LOL.  Beachbum, your new name should be "Bubblegum".

I would ask you what you're talking about, but about 90 percent of what you post is incoherent.   

[Straw Man]

Off base.  A subpoena is compelling someone to testify and the article doesn't say that Congress has never served a subpoena.  It says the courts have never enforced a Congressional subpoena. 

yes, and I addressed that in the first sentence of my post.  I don't suppose you bothered to look at the link?   The statement by the Bush administration is technically correct but essentially meaningless.  Using that argument as an excuse to avoid testifying is just a smokescreen to avoid the issue

More from the link:

The presumptive privilege, however, must be balanced against
the competing interests of a coordinate branch of government. In Nixon, therefore,
the Court recognized the privilege but found that a generalized assertion of the
need for confidentiality did not outweigh the judiciary’s need for evidence in a
criminal proceeding.

The Supreme Court has not addressed how this balancing would be done in the
context of a congressional demand for information, although the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals had applied a balancing approach prior to Nixon.6 That court
subsequently affirmed that neither the executive nor legislative branch has an
absolute power in this sphere—either to withhold or demand information from the
other—and that both have a constitutional duty to respect and accommodate the
needs of the other.7 It also made clear that the court would be reluctant at best to
intervene in an executive privilege dispute between the two political branches,
finding instead that the Framers expected “that where conflicts in scope of
authority arose between the coordinate branches, a spirit of dynamic compromise
would promote resolution of the dispute in the manner most likely to result in
efficient and effective functioning of our government system.”8 This “spirit of
dynamic compromise” is an essential part of the constitutional accommodation
process that is at the heart of the resolution of executive privilege disputes:
“[E]ach branch should take cognizance of an implicit constitutional mandate to
seek optimal accommodation through a realistic evaluation of the needs of the
conflicting branches in the particular fact situation.”9

[Dos Equis]

I addressed the first part of your post.  You said "That does not mean there is not a precedent of members of the executive branch being "compelled" to testify before Congress (or obviously, doing so in a voluntary manner)."

A subpoena is compelling a person to testify and no one said subpoenas have never been issued.  Did you miss that part? 

I agree with the balancing test discussed in the link.  That's likely what the court will do when it decides this thing.   

[Straw Man]

No I didn't miss that part 

My point was the statement by the White House laywers that the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify is, at best, a very weak argument in defense of their position.   

That's the point I made (or was trying to make) in the first sentence of my post in response to the article you posted

more from my link:

 What is clear from United States v. Nixon5 is that executive privilege is constitutionally rooted in the separation of powers. The public interest in a President receiving “candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions” justifies a presumptive privilege for communication with the President or among those who advise and assist the President. The presumptive privilege, however, must be balanced against the competing interests of a coordinate branch of government. In Nixon, therefore, the Court recognized the privilege but found that a generalized assertion of the need for confidentiality did not outweigh the judiciary’s need for evidence in a criminal proceeding

[War-Horse]

"Bubblegum" =  Lacking substance, seems like a food but isnt.  In a sentance: " Can you walk and chew bubblegum at the same time"?  ...............Simple, devoid of nutrition.    = Beachbum.

[Dos Equis]

No I didn't miss that part 

My point was the statement by the White House laywers that the courts have never ordered an executive branch official to testify is, at best, a very weak argument in defense of their position.   

That's the point I made (or was trying to make) in the first sentence of my post in response to the article you posted

more from my link:

 What is clear from United States v. Nixon5 is that executive privilege is constitutionally rooted in the separation of powers. The public interest in a President receiving “candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions” justifies a presumptive privilege for communication with the President or among those who advise and assist the President. The presumptive privilege, however, must be balanced against the competing interests of a coordinate branch of government. In Nixon, therefore, the Court recognized the privilege but found that a generalized assertion of the need for confidentiality did not outweigh the judiciary’s need for evidence in a criminal proceeding

That was one line from the article and one line from their argument to the court.  If that is their only argument, then yes it's weak.  I doubt that's their only argument.