Judge reluctant to wade into White House subpoena fight

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - Congress was trying to be diplomatic when it brought an unprecedented lawsuit to settle its subpoena fight against the White House, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday. After all, lawmakers could've just arrested the president's former lawyer for refusing to testify.

The judge's response?

Maybe they should have.

Congress has the authority to hold someone in contempt, U.S. District Judge John Bates said. Did it really need to go to court?

House counsel Irvin Nathan said it did. The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents and testimony from the president's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former counsel, Harriet Miers, about the firing of U.S. attorneys. Congress needs the information to determine whether the Bush administration politicized some of the nation's top federal prosecutor jobs.

"Not only doesn't it have the facts from the White House, it has false and misleading facts from former members of the Department of Justice," Nathan said during the three-hour hearing over whether the court should enforce the committee's subpoenas.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_go_co/congress_contempt

the guts to do so...

Who do we send to make the arrest, the Sergeant at Arms and a bunch of pages?

If Bolten or Miers are not in DC then, I believe, the Sergeant at Arms can ask local law enforcement anywhere in the country to execute the warrant.

Capitol Police have arrest powers in about 270 square blocks of the District surrounding the U.S. Capitol. The area is bounded by H Street to the north, Potomac Avenue to the south, Seventh Street to the east and Third Street to the west.

As for the rest of the country, it would have to be US Marshals executing the warrant, and they answer to the Judicial branch.

Hence the need to involve the courts.

What if an attempt to exercise inherent contempt leads to an armed standoff between the House Sergeant at Arms (and his deputies) and the FBI or Secret Service or (God forbid) the military?

I like to think that, in their shoes, I would have the balls to have them arrested - but I can understand why they might be reluctant to try it.

this judge is never going to rule in their favor anyway.




In U.S. attorneys case, a judge the White House should welcome


Lawyers for Congress argued in court this morning that executive privilege does not give two top Bush administration officials immunity from testifying about the firing of nine U.S. prosecutors. Democrats charge that the prosecutors were removed for political reasons. And they want the testimony and related documents to prove it.

The Justice Department countered, as it has in court papers, that the president is "constitutionally entitled to autonomy and confidentiality" in talking to Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. "The relief sought by the committee is unprecedented and would fundamentally alter the separation of powers," said attorney Carl Nichols.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates is hearing the case. The administration is probably pleased with the judicial draw.

Bates, who worked for Kenneth Starr and the independent counsel's office during the Whitewater investigation into President Clinton, was appointed by President Bush in 2001. As a judge, Bates in 2002 dismissed the General Accounting Office's effort to learn who met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force.

He also dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson, against Cheney, White House political advisor Karl Rove, former vice presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, accusing them of leaking her identity.


more:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/06/white-house-dra.html

the wall and realize they have much more to lose in not arresting.

AS YOU POINT OUT HERE THATGIVES OUR SPINELESS GUTLESS PISSANT BALLESS (enough names I guess) congress an out thad that is what they were looking for anyway... they don't have the balls to uphold the constitution nor the laws that they pass.. Bunch of no account bastards for sure....



(quote)
Bates suggested that the two sides might still settle the dispute before he rules, avoiding a final court showdown altogether.

That hinted at one option the judge has that could pre-empt his own ruling: He could order both sides to negotiate further and, if nothing came of it, Bates could just put the case on a shelf until the end of the year. When the new Congress begins its term in 2009, the subpoenas essentially vanish and the case would be moot.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

these people took an oath for the jobs they have and yet when the time comes for them to do their job they cower.

The question the judge asked was, "You already have have the power to hold Miers and Bolton in contempt. Why do you need me then? Why are you wasting my time?"

The non-answer Nathan gave was, "Uh, let me give you a non-answer to that, and simply rehash the reasons we want them to testify."

Reason for the non-answer: Congress wants the public to see the courts, and not itself, to be the ones doing the arresting. But it IS Congress' Constitutional right to hold witnesses in contempt! The Democrats fear some sort of political consequences should they hold Miers and Bolton (and Rove) in contempt. But only the most idiotic moron sitting in front of his/her tube would be outraged if Congress enforces the law.

that can't enforce them.

land of oz folks, land of oz.

Yes, Congress could try arrests on its own; but the Bushistas will try to undermine that as well.

I'm bitter! This gives me flashbacks of the Clinton administration. Bill could have pulled the same thing and behaved in a defiant manner, And then just lied his ass off with denial. The Neocons kept him chasing his tail for years dancing around all that legal hocus pocus. Kept him in public confessions, depositions, transcripted question sessions. Now they can't even get the hired help to squeal under oath. Life's unfair. Huhrumphf.