BREAKING NEWS: Federal judge sides with Congress, says Bush aides can be subpoenaed

Banner Headline, no details yet!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

APNewsAlert 10:32 = WASHINGTON (AP) — US judge sides with Congress, says Bush aides can be subpoenaed.

It is doubtful they can manage an valid appeal after such a complete face slap from the court.

If the SCOTUS decides this in favor of Bushco, will the PUMA's get it or will they remain dense? They seem to think that all will be well with judicial nominations as long as the Dems hold a bare majority of the Senate.

Great news.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijDA5bgxiHlTvS_r-SSjskS1Tq1wD928ST500

add link

Get the show on the road, Congress. You've wasted too much time already!

The k and the r.

You make me blush and tingle with your writings.

snap!


:rofl:

US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed

8 minutes ago

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq-4ZBiiUcq8IsbGQ0SHW04WS4kgD928SUOG0

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has sided with Congress in its fight with the Bush administration over whether top White House aides can be subpoenaed by Congress.

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.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said there's no legal support for that stance. He refused to throw out the case and said the aides can be subpoenaed.

They are just trying to run out the clock now.

since the Bush administration appointed him.

and, Scalia is about as RW as you can get.

"Suicide Watch"

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html

Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1968 and received a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1976. From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. Judge Bates clerked for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1997, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1987 to 1997. Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/Litigation Department and a member of the Executive Committee. Judge Bates has served on the Advisory Committee for Procedures of the D.C. Circuit and on the Civil Justice Reform Committee for the District Court, and as Treasurer of the D.C. Bar, Chairman of the Publications Committee of the D.C. Bar, and Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2005, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

do they serve two places at once? anyway he made a good decision today and that's something.

Her boyfriend will probably take it higher, though.

I still say there is no way they are going to allow a Democrat to take over the WH. Mark my words! Look at how hard they've worked to this point to keep everything under wraps.

UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION or is that being too patriotic? Something to remind Congress that they too, need to get their shit together and start doing the same thing? Oops, never mind. I forgot. We're talking about our ("impeachment is off the table") Congress- the spineless group we voted into power thinking they too would protect our democracy.

But in all seriousness, it would be interesting to find out which judge actually did the right thing here, given how many judges we know were hired illegally-- or excuse me-- "inappropriately".

US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed
By MATT APUZZO, AP - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/31/national/w073907D76.DTL

(07-31) 07:46 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

President Bush's top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches.

............

U.S. District Judge John Bates ..... 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......

"WASHINGTON - A federal judge has sided with Congress in its fight with the Bush administration over whether top White House aides can be subpoenaed by Congress.

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.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said there's no legal support for that stance. He refused to throw out the case and said the aides can be subpoenaed."

More later: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25949309/

www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Court Rules on Miers/Bolten Subpoenas

Just in: A federal district court in DC has overruled the White House-backed motion to dismiss the House lawsuit to enforce contempt of court against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The court also granted the House's motion for partial summary judgment in part.

In doing so the court ruled:

" Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate"

and that:

"Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date"



More soon.

So Judge Bates actually does the right thing? It's a shame one had to even doubt, but so be it. GAME ON!

This now forces Muck-asey's hand...he now MUST serve and follow through or himself face contempt charges.

I see Harriet Meiers trembling right now. :rofl:

This is not the end-all, but the beginning of the end...the sham of "Executive Privilidge" is gone.

:bounce:

US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed
The Associated Press - 30 minutes ago
The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers ...

House panel votes to find Rove in contempt Reuters = http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3046458020080730

Judiciary Panel Approves Contempt Resolution Against Rove CQPolitics.com = http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002929926


This is BAD news for Karl Rove!! His grounds for refusal are now MUTE!!!

BREAKING: HJC Wins Round One of Contempt of Congress Case
By Kate Klonick - July 31, 2008 - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/breaking_hjc_wins_contempt_of.php

The House Judiciary Committee has won the first round of its lawsuit against the White House over contempt of Congress in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

From the order:



...........

BFD.

Apparently, not all outletsw are running the complete story!!
They are leaving out the part that slams Bush's stance completely.

====================
http://www.fresnobee.com/649/story/766117.html

The administration can appeal the ruling. White House spokesman Tony Fratto and Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said they were reviewing the court's opinion and declined immediate comment.

Bates, who was appointed to the bench by Bush, issued a 93-page opinion that strongly rejected the administration's legal arguments. He noted that the executive branch could not point to a single case in which courts held that White House aides were immune from congressional subpoenas.

"That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law," Bates wrote .....

I bet Bush is regretting the day he ever appointed that guy to the bench! :rofl:

instead of getting them on the record right now?

US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed
By MATT APUZZO – 4 minutes ago - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq-4ZBiiUcq8IsbGQ0SHW04WS4kgD928TVKO1

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush's top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas .....

House Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law. ....

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it "very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances."

Democrats swiftly pledged to call Miers before the Judiciary Committee ..... Conyers, D-Mich., said he hoped that Miers and Bolten do not appeal the ruling, but that was far from clear. .... Conyers signaled election-season hearings will be held on the controversy .....

"We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims," Conyers said in a statement. "We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers to testify in September."

Bates, who was appointed to the bench by Bush, issued a 93-page opinion .....

as they populated the judicial branch with bush whores.

Looks like you better respond to that next subpoena, Karl m'boy, or they'll be coming for you with the cuffs.

:shrug:

it might mean the judge has ruled against Mukasey's excuse not to.

the Democrats will seek a court order, if they haven't received one already. If Miers and Bolten refuse that, that would be obstruction of justice. The law is much clearer on that.

US judge: White House aides can be subpoenaed
By MATT APUZZO – 15 minutes ago - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq-4ZBiiUcq8IsbGQ0SHW04WS4kgD928V0183

.... Democrats announced plans to open hearings at the height of election season.

The Bush administration was expected to appeal.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Bates said there's no legal basis for Bush's argument .......

The House Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, said he was pleased the court ruled in Congress' favor, but he cautioned that an ongoing showdown in federal court could ultimately curtail Congress' powers, and he urged Democrats and the White House to strike an agreement.

"Unfortunately, today's victory may be short-lived," Smith said in a statement. "If the administration appeals the ruling, our congressional prerogatives will once again be put at risk."

.........

Judge to White House: Cough up Harriet Miers
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/no-executive-pr.html


... Judge John Bates, a Bush appointee, ruled in a 93-page opinion that former White House counsel Harriet Miers is not immune from congressional subpoena and is required to testify ....

And attention, Karl Rove: The judge rejected procedural arguments by Miers and White House Chief of staff Josh Bolten, ruling that they have to cough up documents. ....

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it "very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. pledged to call Miers before the committee as soon as September to testify about whether the White House played any role in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

.........

Bush Judge Does the Right Thing on Executive Immunity
By DAVE LINDORFF - http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff07312008.html

.... Of course, it is a certainty that the Bush administration will appeal Judge Bates’ ruling to a higher court, and the process could end up dragging on beyond the end of Bush’s term of office, which ends on Jan. 20. But with this ruling, Congress should feel much more confident about going after those, like Miers, Bolton, Karl Rove (recently cited for contempt of Congress himself) and others, who refuse orders to appear and testify. Congress should also be more willing to consider using its own power of inherent contempt to go after such witnesses by having their own officers arrest and jail recalcitrants.

The other important thing about Judge Bates’ ruling is that it suggests, happily, that there are principled Republicans, even among the slew of so-called conservative “constructionist” judges that Bush has been larding the federal bench with, from the district level to the Supreme Court. At least some of these judges, apparently, once confirmed in their lifetime offices, do take their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution seriously. Judge Bates (who, though I didn’t know him personally, attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut at the same time I did, graduating in 1968) worked as a deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater Investigation of President Bill Clinton, which was an obvious political plus in his gaining a federal judgeship nomination by the Bush White House. In 2006 he was also appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that is supposed to oversee domestic spying activities of the National Security Agency.

I am assuming the best of Judge Bates, i.e. that he ruled based on his reading of the Constitution and court precedent. But of course it could also be that this ruling is a sign that Bush judicial appointees are reading the political handwriting on the wall .....

Glad to see this, but who here thinks it'll be just more "I do not recall".... "I can't remember" or.. oh what's that other excuse/lie they all give to get out of telling the truth?

She will frantically scrub the table!





There,there my little monkey.With Nancy,there's no Worry:

...Bush aides to appear before Congress is now necessary

It's about fucking time that a subpoena is enforced...are we a land of laws or not?

Thanks for the good news!

"NO SHIT Bush Jr's aids can be subpoenaed."

What fucking country do these people think they live in? This includes the clueless congress...

Or is there?

Ambiguity.

It was great to see another judge stand up to this corrupt administration.

... surprises his boss (and all of us) by NOT going along to get along. :thumbsup:

Senate Reacts To Court Ruling With New Call For Testimony From Rove And Bolton
By Andrew Tilghman - July 31, 2008 - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/senate_reacts_to_judges_ruling.php

Just hours after a federal judge shot down the White House's claim to sweeping immunity from Congressional oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) fired off a round of letters renewing his demand for testimony from Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding asking whether the two officials will agree to testify in light of today's ruling against the Bush administration's blanket claim of executive privilege.

The investigation at issue is the allegedly political firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The Senate committee issued subpoenas in June and July 2007 for Bolton and Rove to testify on Capitol Hill.

"Today's decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove's refusal to comply with the Committee's subpoenas moot," Leahy wrote in the letter to Fielding. ....

.....
======================
Leahy Presses Rove, Bolten To Testify
After Court Rules Against Immunity For White House Officials
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200807/073108d.html


http://leahy.senate.gov/POD/08July/073108Floor.rm


http://leahy.senate.gov/POD/08July/073108Floor.mp3

WASHINGTON (Thursday, July 31, 2008) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday pressed for testimony from former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in connection with subpoenas issued by the Committee in June 2007 and July 2007. A ruling today by District Court Judge John Bates rejected President Bush’s claim that senior White House officials are not required to comply with congressional subpoenas.

On Thursday, Leahy sent letters to Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, and White House Counsel Fred Fielding, instructing them to advise the Committee by August 7 when Rove and Botlen would appear to provide documents and testimony related to the mass firing of U.S. Attorneys. Leahy also sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking when the Department would withdraw memoranda and opinions justifying the White House’s non-compliance with the subpoenas.

“I will be sending letters to Karl Rove’s lawyer and the White House counsel to schedule Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten’s long overdue appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Leahy said in a statement on the Senate floor Thursday. “The White House’s response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas has been to assert blanket claims of executive privilege and novel claims of absolute immunity to block current and former officials from complying. Based on these claims, neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Bolten even appeared before the Committee to respond to the subpoenas. Now, a court has said that they must.”

The Judiciary Committee last year authorized Leahy to issue subpoenas to Rove and Bolten. Both failed to comply with the subpoenas, citing a presidential claim of executive privilege. The White House has argued that presidential advisors are immune from subpoenas issued by Congress. In November, Leahy ruled the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity to be invalid, paving the way for the Judiciary Committee to report contempt citations for Rove and Bolten in December.

“The effects of the White House’s assertions of privilege and immunity have been unmistakable — amounting to the withholding of critical evidence related to the congressional investigation,” Leahy continued. “And all along they have contended that their blanket claim of privilege cannot be tested but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word. Today’s ruling from Judge Bates is a resounding rejection of this White House attempt to thwart accountability and a reaffirmation of Congress’s ability to conduct oversight and the right of the American people to learn the truth about their government.”

The ruling comes in a case filed by the House Judiciary Committee, which has been conducting a parallel investigation of the hiring and firing practices at the Department of Justice. In June 2007, the House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas for Bolten and then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The House adopted resolutions of contempt in February, and filed its case in the D.C. District Court March 10, 2008.

The full text of Leahy’s prepared remarks follow. The text of Leahy’s letters to Luskin, Fielding, and Mukasey follow. PDFs are also available online.

# # # # #

Letter to Robert D. Luskin, Attorney to Karl Rove
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/073108Luskin.pdf

Letter to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/073108Fielding.pdf

Letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/073108Mukasey.pdf

Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On The Court’s Rejection Of Administration’s Claims Of Immunity From Congressional Subpoena
July 31, 2008

Today’s ruling by the Federal court evaluating the contempt charges against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers is a rejection of the administration’s unprecedented and unfounded blanket claims of executive privilege and immunity. This ruling is a rebuke of the White House’s arrogant cover up, which is designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of this administration. It is also a reaffirmation of the principles of separate, co-equal branches that have guided our Republic since its inception despite the best efforts of this administration to accrue unchecked executive power.

I commend Judge Bates, himself a former prosecutor who was appointed by President Bush, and Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Conyers for their steadfastness in pressing this matter.

I have long pointed out that this administration’s claims of executive privilege and immunity, which White House officials have used to justify refusing to even show up when served with congressional subpoenas, are wrong. Last November, I issued a ruling that the White House’s privilege and immunity claims not legally valid to excuse Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to the Judiciary’s Committee’s investigation into the unprecedented firing of U.S. Attorneys. Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten’s continued non-compliance with the Committee’s subpoenas even after my ruling led us to hold them in contempt of Congress. Still they have not appeared to testify.

This week the House Judiciary Committee also cited Mr. Rove for contempt. They had previously cited Ms. Miers for her failure to appear, as well as Mr. Bolten.

It is past time for senior administration officials to abide by the law and appear before Congress to offer testimony compelled by subpoena. The ruling by Judge Bates could not have been more plain. He wrote: “he Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.” I will be sending letters to Karl Rove’s lawyer and the White House counsel to schedule Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten’s long overdue appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Moreover, Judge Bates explained why the Bush-Cheney administration’s blanket immunity claims were an unjustified encroachment on the constitutional powers of Congress. He wrote: “f the Executive’s absolute immunity argument were to prevail, Congress could be left with no recourse to obtain information that is plainly not subject to any colorable claim of executive privilege.” The result, which the court concluded was “unacceptable,” would be that the “Executive’s proposed absolute immunity would thus deprive Congress of even non-privilege information.”

Despite the administration’s attempts at every turn to short-circuit Congress and even the courts from being able to evaluate their privilege claims, Judge Bates’ concurrence in these principles is a significant milestone. I will be sending a letter today to Attorney General Mukasey asking when he intends to withdraw the erroneous Office of Legal Counsel opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court. In addition, I intend to ask him whether the court’s decision will cause him to reevaluate his memos in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorney investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making.

The court’s decision today undercuts the White House’s blanket claims in all of these matters. Judge Bates wrote that “clear precedent and persuasive policy reasons confirm that the Executive cannot be the judge of its own privilege.” That is why we have asked for over a year for the White House to provide us with the specific legal and factual basis for its privilege claims. We must be able to probe the basis for those claims and their validity ourselves rather than on the say-so of the President’s lawyers. The court was explicit that “both the Court and the parties will need some way to evaluate the privilege assertions going forward.”

Indeed, we need to be able to assess the basis for any executive privilege claim at all in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the President had no involvement in the U.S. Attorney firings.

I have asked and I continue to ask whether the White House’s continued assertion of the executive privilege in this matter means the President takes responsibility for the decisions to fire the well-performing prosecutors. To date, after more than a year and a half, he has not done so, instead seeking to have it both ways— “mistakes were made” by others, yet somehow executive privilege still applies.

The White House’s other blanket assertion is that there was no wrongdoing in the firings. We have asked for the basis for this assertion. None has been provided. If the White House has information that led the President and others to discount the evidence of wrongdoing the investigating Committees have gathered so far, then it should be produced. Otherwise, we must conclude that they do not have it and it does not exist.

To the contrary, the Judiciary Committees’ investigations, which led to the resignation of the Attorney General, the entire senior leadership of the Justice Department and several high-ranking White House political officials, has uncovered grave threats to the independence of law enforcement from political manipulation. The evidence we have shows that the list for firings was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Karl Rove. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of Federal prosecutions and whether Federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It has long been apparent that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up.

The tragic and corrupt politicization of Federal law enforcement by this administration is wrong. Reports released by the Justice Department’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, the latest just this week, have shown the reach of the political operatives of this administration, infecting the hiring for career prosecutors and immigration judges with improper and illegal political loyalty tests designed to embed “loyal Bushies” throughout the Department. So far, neither the Justice Department nor the White House has taken responsibility. Apparently, the White House intends its excuses that “mistakes were made” and that there were just a “few bad apples” to suffice. What we have uncovered is a widespread effort described by the Department’s own Inspector General as “systemic”, one that that involved the highest ranking office holders at the Justice Department funneling White House loyalists into career positions.

The White House’s response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas has been to assert blanket claims of executive privilege and novel claims of absolute immunity to block current and former officials from complying. Based on these claims, neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Bolten even appeared before the Committee to respond to the subpoenas. Now, a court has said that they must.

The effects of the White House’s assertions of privilege and immunity have been unmistakable—amounting to the withholding of critical evidence related to the congressional investigation. And all along they have contended that their blanket claim of privilege cannot be tested but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word. Today’s ruling from Judge Bates is a resounding rejection of this White House attempt to thwart accountability and a reaffirmation of Congress’s ability to conduct oversight and the right of the American people to learn the truth about their government.

# # # # #
Letter to Robert D. Luskin, Attorney to Karl Rove
July 31, 2008

Mr. Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Luskin:

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting the administration’s claims that White House advisors are immune from testifying in response to Congressional subpoenas. The court’s decision also reaffirmed the President’s burden to provide the specific basis for any executive privilege assertions sufficient to give Congress a means to evaluate those assertions. The administration has not provided that basis despite my requests to do so for more than a year. For your convenience, I attach a copy of the court’s opinion.

Your client, Karl Rove, failed to appear and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last August 2 in response to a subpoena I issued July 26, 2007, as part of the Committee’s investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It is my understanding that Mr. Rove’s failure to comply was based on an August 1, 2007, letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding informing the Committee that the President would invoke a blanket claim of executive privilege to direct Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify before the Committee, and citing a memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to assert that Mr. Rove was “immune from compelled congressional testimony” as an “immediate presidential advisor.” Today’s decision renders these grounds for Mr. Rove’s refusal to appear and testify moot.

Please advise me by next Thursday, August 7, when Mr. Rove will comply with the Committee’s subpoena by appearing and testifying before the Committee. I attach for your reference copies of my ruling of November 29, 2007, that the White House’s executive privilege and immunity claims are not legally valid to excuse Mr. Rove from testifying and producing documents, and the Committee’s bipartisan resolution of December 13, 2007, finding Mr. Rove in criminal contempt of Congress.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

cc: The Honorable Arlen Specter
Enclosures

# # # # #
Letter to Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President
July 31, 2008

Fred Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. Fielding:

Today the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting the administration’s claims that White House advisors are immune from testifying in response to Congressional subpoenas. The court’s decision also reaffirmed the President’s burden to provide the specific basis for any executive privilege assertions sufficient to give Congress a means to evaluate those assertions. You have not provided that basis despite my requests to do so for more than a year. For your convenience, I attach a copy of the court’s opinion.

White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten failed to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify and produce documents on June 28, 2007, in response to a subpoena I issued two weeks earlier, on June 13, as part of the Committee's investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It is my understanding that Mr. Bolten’s failure to comply was based on a June 28, 2007, letter from you informing the Committee that the President would invoke a blanket claim of executive privilege to refuse to turn over any documents compelled by subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committees of both houses of Congress.

In addition, your letter of August 1, 2007, was the basis for Karl Rove’s failure to appear and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last August 2 in response to a subpoena I issued July 26, 2007 as part of the same investigation. That letter cited a memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to assert that Mr. Rove was “immune from compelled congressional testimony” as an “immediate presidential advisor.”

Today’s decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove’s refusal to comply with the Committee’s subpoenas moot.

Please advise me by next Thursday, August 7, when Mr. Bolten will comply with the Committee’s subpoena by appearing, testifying and producing documents. Please also advise me when you will be rescinding your August 1 letter regarding the subpoena to Mr. Rove.

I attach for your reference copies of my ruling of November 29, 2007, that the White House’s executive privilege and immunity claims are not legally valid to excuse Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove from testifying and producing documents, and the Committee’s bipartisan resolution of December 13, 2007, finding Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove in criminal contempt of Congress.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

cc: The Honorable Arlen Specter
Enclosures


# # # # #
Letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey
July 31, 2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Mukasey:

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting the administration’s claims that White House advisors are immune from testifying in response to Congressional subpoenas. The court’s decision also reaffirmed the President’s obligation to provide the specific basis for any executive privilege assertions to provide Congress a means to evaluate those assertions. The administration has not provided that basis despite my requests to do so for more than a year. For your convenience, I attach a copy of the court’s opinion.

Karl Rove failed to appear and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last August 2 in response to a subpoena I issued July 26, 2007, as part of the Committee’s investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It is my understanding that Mr. Rove’s failure to comply was based on an August 1, 2007, letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding informing the Committee that the President would invoke a blanket claim of executive privilege to direct Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify before the Committee. Mr. Fielding’s letter cited a memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to assert that Mr. Rove was “immune from compelled congressional testimony” as an “immediate presidential advisor.”

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous OLC opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court’s decision will cause you to revaluate your memos and those from OLC in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making. Which of these do you now intend to withdraw?

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

cc: Hon. Arlen Specter
Enclosures

Why Harriet's Got What the HJC Wants
By Kate Klonick - July 31, 2008 - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/harriets_got_what_the_hjc_want.php

Now that we have a partial decision on House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/contempt-suit-may-12/), maybe it's a good time for a little refresher on why the HJC wanted White House documents and Miers' testimony in the first place.

Miers name came up repeatedly over the course of congressional investigations into the U.S. attorney firing scandal (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php), over her communications with former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, Kyle Sampson.

Those communications revealed that Sampson and Miers began exchanging emails (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818_pf.html) discussing the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, almost two years before those attorneys were purged from the department in December 2007. In March 2006, Sampson famously sent an email (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/attorney-firelist/) to Miers, ranking all of the sitting U.S. attorneys in order of "loyalty to the Attorney General."

Though Miers initially suggested that all 93 U.S. attorneys be dismissed, Sampson vetoed that idea, with the approval of the Attorney General, and arranged for limited dismissals, ultimately providing Miers with a seven person list of targeted candidates to be considered for removal. ....

........

Conyers Tries to Talk Rove Down from Ledge of Contempt Proceedings
By Kate Klonick - August 1, 2008 - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/conyers_trys_to_talk_rove_down_from_ledge.php


Following the letter sent by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) sent his own demand for the testimony and documents following the ruling yesterday in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.

In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-fielding-08), Conyers called for "quick compliance" with the ruling and an answer to the subpoena issued to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for documents relating to the politicization of the Department of Justice.

Conyers also wrote to Miers attorneys, reminding him that the ruling meant his client was "legally required to testify" in answer to Congress' subpoena.

Lastly, Conyers penned a missive to Robert Luskin (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-luskin), Karl Rove's attorney, informing him that his client had been held in contempt of congress by the House Judiciary Committee, but that in light of the recent decision, he hoped that it would not be necessary to carry out the contempt proceedings:

...........

===========
In Contempt Vote on Karl Rove, the Ayes Have It
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/in_contempt_vote_on_karl_rove.php

CREW ANALYSIS ON COURT’S DECISION TO UPHOLD HOUSE JUDICIARY’S RIGHT TO QUESTION MIERS AND BOLTEN
http://citizensforethics.org/node/33587

31 Jul 2008 // Washington, DC – Today U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates recognized Congress' right to sue to enforce its own subpoenas. The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten as part of its investigation into the improper firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. The White House refused to allow them to testify or provide documents and, after negotiations to resolve the dispute broke down and the Justice Department refused to enforce the subpoenas, the Committee sued Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. CREW filed an amicus brief in support of the Committee's right to enforce the subpoenas.

CREW's Chief Counsel Anne Weismann said, "This decision affirms Congress' right to investigate executive branch misconduct and rejects as unfounded the White House's view that it is above the law. This administration has consistently attempted to expand the definition of executive power and privilege beyond any possible legitimate constitutional interpretation. Today's opinion stops this effort cold." Weismann continued, "Although the government undoubtedly will appeal, we expect the Court of Appeals will follow Judge Bates' well reasoned opinion."