Activist Judge Alert: Rules Bush Advisors NOT Immune from Congress Subpoenas

Judge John G. Bates of the US District Court ofor the District of Columbia has ruled against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, saying they have no immunity when it comes to testifying before Congress about the firings of US Attorneys. I suppose the Bush appointed judge, a US Attorney himself once upon a time, respects US Attorney independence.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

Well, look to the right wingers to hammer Judge John G. Bates of the US District Court for District of Columbia. He’s made a ruling against the claims by Bush advisors that they hold immunity from Congressional subpoenas. Of course, the Bushies will appeal. They’re likely going to hope that the US Supremes will find in their favor, as so many of them were appointed by Bush, or are sympathetic to him. From the New York Times:

The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But President Bush says they are immune from such subpoenas. They say Congress can’t force them to testify or turn over documents.

U.S. District Judge John Bates disagreed. He said there’s no legal basis for that argument. He said that Miers must appear before Congress and, if she wants to refuse to testify, she must do so in person.

“Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena,” Bates wrote.

He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all non-privileged documents related to the firings.

But wait, wait! According to his biography, Judge John G. Bates was appointed in December of 2001. That would mean he was appointed by Dubya himself! So is he an activist judge or not? I’m thinking the guy is merely following the law. Perhaps this is Bush incompetence at its finest, where they can’t even appoint judges who will consistently rule in their favor, thus cover for their crimes.

A note by Marty: If a crime is suspected and can be duly shown to a judge in this light, there is no kind of privilege that can keep Congress from seeing documents and questioning aides under oath. That is part of the balance of powers between the three branches of government. Of course there is separation of power, but balance of power is of more importance if a crime is suspected of having been committed by anyone in the executive, and this goes all the way to the top echelons. There is enough evidence already known for impeachment, quite frankly. Now it is only a matter of finding out who all was involved. It is against the law for the president or anyone else, for that matter, to use any agency of the executive for purposes of partisan electoral politics. The DOJ is the worst possible agency for people like Karl Rove to punish and file false charges against Democrats for political reasons. When people lose faith in their social institutions, LOOK OUT! It's a very bad sign for a society.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Incontriverable Evidence Bush Not Involved In U.S. Attorney Mess

Therefore, the claim of executive privilege is out the window. If these criminal tricksters don't show up, hit 'em with contempt and send the capitol police to put them in jail until they honor the congressional subpoenas.

As far as Bush goes, he is does seem guilty of participating in the cover-up that followed.

Leahy: White House aides must comply with subpoenas

From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected White House claims of executive privilege and demanded Thursday that key White House aides testify in the case of the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Patrick Leahy ruled that president has no claim of executive privilege protecting Karl Rove and others.

The committee's investigation has found "significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said. Thus, the White House can't claim executive privilege or immunity, which are meant to protect private communications between a president and White House aides, he ruled.

The committee has issued subpoenas for White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former political adviser Karl Rove, among others.

The Bush administration has insisted that last year's firing of the attorneys was handled properly, but critics have charged that they were forced out for political motives and, in one case, to allow a protégé of Rove's to take one of the posts.

The ruling, which was expected, is a formal step necessary before the committee can vote to find the White House in contempt. Such a move would require a vote of the full Senate before being turned over to the U.S. attorney in Washington.

The attorney would have to decide whether to prosecute the administration that appointed him.

Don't Miss

• Senate's No. 2 Republican to resign by end of year
• New AG threatens veto of Leahy surveillance plan

Besides Bolten and Rove, the committee issued subpoenas for former White House political director Sara Taylor and her deputy, Scott Jennings, both of whom Leahy and others on the committee think were involved in making political judgments on which U.S. attorneys to fire.

"In light of the evidence gathered by the committee showing the significant involvement of White House political officials in improper politicization of law enforcement, the White House is not entitled to withhold key evidence," Leahy wrote in his ruling.

He accused the White House and Justice Department of "lying, misleading, stonewalling, and ignoring the Congress" in its investigation.

"It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover-up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort," Leahy wrote.

The White House has offered to allow Rove and others to be interviewed privately about their actions. The Democratic-led Congress has rejected that offer, in part, because of White House insistence no transcript be made.

The Judiciary Committee is likely to move on the matter in December, an aide to Leahy said.

Though U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president, the Justice Department's initial characterization of the dismissals as "performance-related" triggered angry protests from the former prosecutors

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

House votes along party lines: Contempt Citations

For Miers and Bolton.

White House will stall and stonewall and then Bush toadie Judge at the District Court will throw the whole thing out of court, providing Bush toadie DOJ even prosecutes the matter.

House Panel Votes for Contempt Charges in Firings Case

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; 2:48 PM

The House Judiciary Committee voted today to issue contempt citations for two of President Bush's most trusted aides, taking its most dramatic step yet towards a constitutional showdown with the White House over the Justice Department's dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.

The panel voted 22-17, along party lines, to issue citations to Joshua B. Bolten, White House chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, former White House counsel. Both refused to comply with committee subpoenas after Bush declared that documents and testimony related to the prosecutor firings were protected by executive privilege.

"If we countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother to show up . . . then we have already lost," committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said before the vote. "We won't be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other."

The vote represents the first overt step towards finding Bolten and Miers in criminal contempt of Congress. Next would come a vote of the entire House, followed by a referral to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

But the Bush administration has made clear it intends to block prosecution of any contempt charges, arguing that a presidentially-appointed U.S. attorney cannot legally be forced by Congress to flout the president's determination that the materials and testimony sought are protected by executive privilege.

White House spokesman Tony Snow responded with strong language.

"Now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington and in particular to use criminal contempt charges against the White House chief of staff and the White House legal counsel," he said.

Republicans on the panel argued strongly today against issuing contempt citations, and Democrats shot down two proposed GOP amendments before voting for the contempt findings.

"I believe this is an unnecessary provocation of a constitutional crisis," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). "Absent showing that a crime was committed in this process, I think the White House is going to win an argument in court."

Sensenbrenner, the Judiciary panel's former chairman, said lawmakers would have a better chance by filing a lawsuit that challenged Bush's executive privilege claim, rather than pursuing contempt charges.

But Conyers responded that the administration had provoked the constitutional showdown. Democrats have rejected a proposal from White House counsel Fred F. Fielding to allow private, off-the-record interviews of presidential adviser Karl Rove and other aides about their roles in the removal of the prosecutors.

Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by as much as one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

Brian A. Benczkowski, principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter to lawmakers Monday that the Justice Department had a long-standing position, "articulated during administrations of both parties, that the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the president or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

The same assertion also applies to Miers, Benczkowski wrote.

Today's actions come after seven months of hearings and subpoenas in the investigation of last year's prosecutor firings. The dismissals culminated a two-year effort by the White House and Justice Department that targeted some U.S. attorneys for removal based in part on their perceived disloyalty to the Bush administration and GOP priorities.

Several of the fired prosecutors were improperly contacted by GOP lawmakers or staff about politically sensitive investigations. Democrats complain that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others have not offered any reasonable explanations for why most of the nine prosecutors were removed.

More than a half dozen senior Justice Department officials have resigned during the investigation.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.