Guardian : House Democrats Push Contempt Citations

House Democrats Push Contempt Citations

By LAURIE KELLMAN | Associated Press Writer | July 25, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats drove toward a contempt citation Wednesday against a pair of President Bush's aides who refused to answer subpoenas as a key Republican said the wiser move might be for Congress to sue over executive privilege.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner argued that a civil lawsuit in federal court would be less perilous for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches than a constitutional fight over contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former presidential counselor Harriet Miers.

``I think that the White House is going to win an argument in court'' over the contempt matter, Sensenbrenner, a former Judiciary Committee chairman and senior House Republican, told the panel.

``The proper thing to do is to determine the executive privilege claim aside from who said what, who refused to submit to what, who didn't show up to subpoena,'' the Wisconsin Republican said. Instead, Congress should ``direct the general counsel to the clerk of the House of Representatives to file a civil suit,'' Sensenbrenner added.

Chairman John Conyers, did not discount that option. But he said that faced with presidential aides flouting congressional subpoenas, the House has nothing to lose by pursuing a contempt citation.

``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, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest basis and in the broadest possible manner, then we have already lost,'' said Conyers, D-Mich. ``We won't be able to get anybody in front of this committee or any other.''

Democrats widely agreed, and the citation was expected to pass the committee on a party-line vote and be sent to the full House. A senior Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity said a vote by the full House would most likely happen after Congress' August recess.

The fight over the limits of executive privilege erupted after Miers and Bolten refused to comply with subpoenas compelling testimony and documents about the White House's role in the firings of U.S. attorneys. White House counsel Fred Fielding has said that Bolten, Miers and other top presidential aides are immune from congressional subpoenas under executive privilege protections.

Democrats reject that claim and had drafted for a vote Wednesday a resolution citing Miers and Bolten with contempt of Congress. That would be a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100,000 fine and a one-year prison sentence. If the measure wins support from a majority of the Judiciary and the full House, it would be advanced to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia - a Bush appointee.

And that's as far as it's likely to go, the Justice Department said in a letter to the committee late Tuesday.

Brian A. Benczkowski, principal deputy assistant attorney general, cited the department's ``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.''

Benczkowski said it also was the department's view that the same position applies to Miers, who left the White House earlier this year.

Republicans said Democrats couldn't win this fight, noting the White House has offered to make top presidential aides available for private interviews about their roles in the firings. Republicans also suggested that the Democrats' rejection of the offer leaves only one reason for the dispute: politics.

``If the majority really wanted the facts, it could have had them,'' said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

If history and self-interest are any guide, the two sides will resolve the dispute before it gets to federal court. Neither side wants a judge to settle the question about the limits of executive privilege, for fear of losing.

But no deal appeared imminent.

Contempt of Congress is a federal crime, but a sitting president has the authority to commute the sentence or pardon anyone convicted or accuses of any federal crime.

Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.

The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt citation was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

NYT : Panel Holds Two Bush Aides in Contempt

Panel Holds Two Bush Aides in Contempt

By DAVID STOUT | July 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 25 — The House Judiciary Committee voted today to seek contempt of Congress citations against a top aide to President Bush and a former presidential aide over their refusal to cooperate in an inquiry about the firing of federal prosecutors.

The 22-to-17 vote along party lines escalates the battle between the administration and Congressional Democrats over the dismissals of nine United States attorneys last year, an episode that Democrats say needs airing but that many Republicans say is much ado about nothing.

“It’s not a step that, as chairman, I take easily or lightly,” the head of the panel, Representative John D. Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, said before the committee voted to cite Joshua B. Bolten, the president’s chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel.

To take effect, the Judiciary Committee’s recommendation must be voted upon by the full House, where Democrats have a 231-to-201 edge, with 3 vacancies. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not said whether she would seek House action before the lawmakers recess in early August, or allow the issue to simmer until the House reconvenes after Labor Day.

Or a compromise could be worked out between the White House and the legislators, despite the hard-edged words on both sides in the months since the controversy over the firings erupted. Recent history offers several examples of disputes between the executive and legislative branches being settled.

The White House has refused, on the grounds of executive privilege, to make Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers available for sworn testimony before Congress. To do so, the White House argues, could stifle frank, confidential advice to the president, and future presidents, by their closest advisers.

Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the judiciary panel, argued that the White House had already offered to provide all the information the committee needs, by making presidential aides available for semi-formal, private interviews in which the aides would not be under oath.

“The majority knows that the president’s assertions of executive privilege go back to George Washington and rest on long-standing and well-reasoned court rulings and bipartisan executive practices,” Mr. Smith said today.

But Democrats have scoffed at what several of them have termed the administration’s arrogant, “take it or leave it” offer. Mr. Conyers said before today’s vote that members of Congress could not tolerate a situation in which “our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn’t even have to bother to show up.” Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers refused to even appear before the committee.

In the event that the full House voted contempt citations against Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, the next legal step would be a referral to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia (a Bush appointee) for prosecution.

But there is a further complication: the White House asserted last week that the law does not permit Congress to require a United States attorney to convene a grand jury or otherwise pursue a prosecution when someone refuses on the basis of executive privilege to testify or turn over documents. That stance was repeated in a Justice Department letter to the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to a year in prison and a fine of $100,000, increased from the long-standing $1,000 in 1984, the judiciary panel’s press office said today. But it was by no means clear today that the cases of Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers would ever reach that point.

In 1998, a House investigating committee voted along party lines to charge Attorney General Janet Reno with contempt of Congress in a dispute over whether an independent counsel should be appointed to prosecute campaign finance abuses. The issue never got to the full House. The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt citation was May 18, 1983. By 413 to 0, the House cited Rita M. Lavelle, a former official of the Environmental Protection Agency, for refusing to appear before a committee investigating hazardous-waste programs. She was acquitted in court of the contempt charge but convicted of perjury in another trial and served several months in prison.

In late 1982, the House voted, 259 to 105, to charge Anne Gorsuch Burford, administrator of the E.P.A. , with contempt, but the case was dropped after lawmakers were given access to the documents they wanted, and the United States attorney for the District of Columbia refused to prosecute in any event.

Earlier in 1982, a House committee voted to cite Interior Secretary James G. Watt for refusing to turn over documents related to energy-related policies. But President Ronald Reagan then gave the committee enough access to the papers to satisfy them.

In 1975, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was cited by a House committee. That issue was also settled by compromise.