MotherJones Blog: Pelosi Throws Down Gauntlet on Contempt

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Pelosi Throws Down Gauntlet on Contempt

Today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a major step forward on contempt. In a letter to Jeffrey Taylor, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Pelosi certified the subpoena breeches by Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten:

The undersigned, The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, pursuant to the attached House Resolution 979, One Hundred Tenth Congress, hereby certifies to you the failure and refusal of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, to appear, testify, and furnish certain documents in compliance with a subpoena before a duly constituted subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. The undersigned further certifies to you the failure and refusal of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to furnish certain documents in the custody of the White House in compliance with a subpoena before said committee. These failures and refusals are fully shown by the certified copy of the House Report 110-423 of said committee which is also hereto attached.

In a second letter—this one to Attorney General Michael Mukasey—Pelosi demanded to know within one week whether the Justice Department plans to forbid Taylor from considering the charges.

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that "enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his∑ not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents." Hearing on Oversight of the Dep't of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a "long line of authority," but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will "act promptly" to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

And so, the gauntlet has been thrown. The letters can be accessed here.

Comments

Well, well, looks like the Dems (or at least Pelosi) are growing a backbone. Will wonders never cease? Of course, it *is* and election year, and the Dems are looking pretty strong. Let's just hope that Pres. Obama doesn't get hit by the backlash. You see, Congress wouldn't oppose Bush because they were afraid of him (or of being voted out of office). But with a Dem in the W.H., Congress fears nothing and no one (SEE: Clinton/Lewinski/impeachment. Need I say more?). So, in 2009, look for lengthy battles on the Hill to get anything passed. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Bleeding-Heart Liberal on 02/29/08 at 3:56 PM Respond

I'm really just about sick of all the posturing, which poses as definitive action/throwing down the gauntlet, on the part of the Democrats.
I've switched to the Independent party, for just that reason, in fact!
We, the people, voted the Democrats in, making plain that there was a mandate to change the course that the Bush administration, and, the Republican Congress, had taken the nation. To that point, they have not gotten the job done.
Sure, I understand the numbers game, and, that they just don't have sufficient numbers to override presidential vetoes, but,...we, the people spoke, and, even to the point of shutting down the government, by denying Bush the funds he demands for everything (and, always receives, ultimately), the Democrats should have let we, the people judge, for ourselves, just who was actually being obstructionist, by refusing to comply with enacting the desires of we, the people.
To confront Bush on this issue (amongst many) is definitely the right thing to do. To confront Bush NOW, though, seems to be a waste of time, since, by the time that all the legal maneuvering is accomplished, Bush will be out of office, and, for all practical purposes, we, as a nation, will have immensely greater problems to be addressed, than after-the-fact trying to parse out which of many laws were broken, in the interest of pursuing Bush's policies, and, usurping the Constitution.

Posted by: Nat Turner, Jr on 03/01/08 at 5:19 PM Respond