An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Federal District Judge Rules White House Aides Are Not Immune from Congressional Subpoena

At least one judge—federal District Judge John Bates (a Bush appointee)—-doesn’t think Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten are above the law (AP), or to frame it in DoJ speak, ‘absolutely immune from Congressional subpoenas.’ If the House Judiciary Committee calls, they must respond…in person. (The Gavel) [Remember when Miers didn't appear and they yelled at her empty chair? Good times.] Furthermore, they have to turn over all non-privileged documents. I spot a catch in this last. (The Gavel)

I guess, as conservative blogger Ed Morrissey puts it, you could call this Bush taking [another] one on the chin.

No doubt but that the ruling will be appealed.

Even so, Bates seemed to be pretty clear that there’s no absolute immunity extending to the president and downward to his confidants.

Indeed, the aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that Ms. Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. The Supreme Court has reserved absolute immunity for very narrow circumstances, involving the President’s personal exposure to suits for money damages based on his official conduct or concerning matters of national security or foreign affairs. The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law. The fallacy of that claim was presaged in United States v. Nixon itself (id. at 706). (Emptywheel; more)

Morissey commented on what he calls this ‘game of chicken.’

[T]he ruling comes as both a legal and a public-relations setback for the administration. They had played a game of chicken with Congress on the subpoenas, probably hoping to run out the clock more than anything else. They can still do that with appeals, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court, which won’t even meet again until October, but the rather emphatic ruling by Judge Bates undermines their case for the effort, at least on a political basis.

The ruling may not make a lot of difference, practically speaking, for the investigation. Bolten and Miers will likely take Bates’ advice if forced to appear and simply refuse to answer any questions. The documents under subpoena will force another fight over which specifically should be covered under executive privilege, and which should not. That will also take months to sort out, and in the end Congress may lose interest in the issue before that takes place.

I wonder why Conservatives are so unconcerned about these claims of immunity? Picture this, Republicans: an Obama administration making the selfsame claim. Morrissey has certainly commented on this issue (unchecked [Democratic] executive) before.

Anyway, as Dan Sweeney said at Huffpost:

Just yesterday, Karl Rove, who has thus far avoided testifying by all manner of clever schemes, from citing the White House’s desire to stand up for the executive branch to being conveniently out of the country, dismissed the Judiciary Committee’s contempt recommendation as “ludicrous.” Today, he continues his inexorable slide toward actually having to show up on Congress’ doorstep.

Law professor Jonathan Turley comments:

For months, many experts (including myself) have been arguing that the Bush Administration’s claim of privilege in the congressional investigations (and the refusal to comply with subpoenas) is untenable, if not laughable….The decision not only puts pressure on Mukasey to stop his obstruction of the process, but it clearly reaffirms the view of many that Karl Rove is also in flagrant contempt.

Meirs and Bolton were previously held in contempt in the Senate…

[I]f these officials are clearly in contempt, then Rove is an even more egregious case. Rove virtually fled the jurisdiction to avoid testifying. The House this week reaffirmed his criminal contempt status… While this decision does not directly cover Rove, the underlying claims rejected by the court are largely the same. The Democrats will likely fire off a new letter to Mukasey. However, if he will not yield to the courts or to Congress, it is time for Congress to use its own inherent contempt power. (More)



8 Responses to “Federal District Judge Rules White House Aides Are Not Immune from Congressional Subpoena”

  1. DLS says:

    They may stall, appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court just to buy time.

  2. kritt11 says:

    That's exactly what they are doing. Just hoping for a favorable ruling on the way up. They know the law is not on their side.

  3. Neocon says:

    I really find this troubling.

    So how about the DOJ sending subpoena's to Senators aides asking them about their business dealings and when they are found to lie they can be tried for perjury.

    Pretty soon congress is one big witch hunt.

  4. jwest says:

    Can you imagine what would have happened to the Clinton administration had we conservatives exercised this power?

    If this is the precedent the democrats want, it’s OK with me. Just don’t scream when it gets turned around on you.

  5. runasim says:

    jwest,
    What's your point? That every administration should be given a pass on accuntablility?
    Is there any principle you care about higher than party loyalty?
    That's a sad state to contempalte. :

    BTW. the GOP already demonstrated what it would do for the sake of an attempted political assassiantion. Your threats come a tad too late.

    if you'll notice, the Dems haven't come anywhere near playing tit-for-tat, much to their credit. Be grateful. Be very grateful.

  6. jwest says:

    Runasim,

    I guess my comment left too much to the liberal imagination.

    My point was more targeted to the people working for the president. It’s hard enough to find good people who will put their careers on hold for a number of years in order to serve the country. Now that the democrats want to eliminate the concept of separation of powers, it will be even more difficult.

    If there are people in the administration who have committed crimes, of course they should be indicted and tried. However, to grant carte blanch to hyper-partisan committees looking to score points with outrageous statements on C-Span seems like taking things too far.

    Republicans do put principle before party, as opposed to democrats. Just check the record of republicans ousting anyone with even the appearance of impropriety. Democrats, on the other hand, help each other wrap their bribes in tin foil for freezing.

  7. GeorgeSorwell says:

    Surely I'm not the only one who remembers that a special prosecutor investigated the Clintons?

    Surely I'm not the only one who remembers that the Republican Congress impeached President Clinton?

  8. runasim says:

    jwest,
    I can't believe that you believe your own talking points.

    This is just silly: “the democrats want to eliminate the concept of separation of powers”
    As you well know, they want to restore three EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, They wnat to ensure that not even a Democratic president can establish the kind of unitary execuitve that Bush-Cheney did. They want more transparency and less lawyerly smoke screens, no matter who the succeeding presidents turn out to be

    “Ousting anyone with even the appearance of impropriety” only started when the GOP lost control of both houses, and their dirty linen was costing them votes. This came about the sane time the GOP disscovered fiscal responsibility and obstruction by filibuster.

    Are Dems inherently better people? No. They screw up, too. .
    But don't feed me silly lines that are fact checkable.
    ,
    .

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity