Next Steps In US Attorneys Scandal: Why Contempt Won’t Work -CREW Proposes Alternative Solution

[helderheid]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 12, 2007
2:05 PM


CONTACT: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Naomi Seligman Steiner 202.408.5565 [e-mail]

Next Steps In US Attorneys Scandal: Why Contempt Won’t Work -
CREW Proposes Alternative Solution


WASHINGTON - JULY 12 -Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) issued a new report explaining why holding former White House Political Director Sara Taylor and former White Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas in the scandal over the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys won’t get Congress the information it is seeking. CREW's report explains the legal hurdles involved in citing the two women for contempt and outlines alternative solutions Congress should consider.

A contempt case, which would be brought at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, could result in Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers being sentenced to up to one year in jail and fined up to $100,000. Such a case could take years and would not result in either woman providing Congress with any information.

The best option may be for Congress to pass legislation to give federal courts jurisdiction to enforce the congressional subpoenas. Congress passed a similar a law in 1973 in response to the Nixon administration’s refusal to provide Watergate tapes and documents to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Finances. Congress could also provide the Supreme Court with the authority to hear a direct appeal of the case, ensuring that the Bush administration’s efforts to radically expand the bounds of executive privilege is heard while the president is still in office.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today, “These two former White House officials are being needlessly pushed and pulled in a political and legal tug-of-war. While the administration continues to put up obstacles to stop the American people from learning the truth about the potentially illegal firings of nine U.S. Attorneys, Congress must find a route to make sure that the government officials responsible are held accountable for their actions.”

On July 2, CREW released Crossing the Line: The Bush Administration's Efforts to Expand Its Powerful Reach, which details the Bush administration’s repeated constitutional overreaching and abuse of executive power and prerogative.

***

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions.

[BuyingThyme]

1. What about inherent contempt?

(No USAs needed for that.)

[Vincardog]

2. What about inherent contempt? it has already been reviewed by the SCOTUS

[BuyingThyme]

3. I don't understand your response. I want to know why the

case in the OP ignores the power of inherent contempt.

[Vincardog]

4. As do I. I was seconding your emotion.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Oh, I see now.

:hi:

[helderheid]

7. You should write them and ask! Good question!

http://citizensforethics.org/

[onenote]

8. its highly unlikely that inherent contempt authority would be used

It hasn't been used in over 70 years. The reason that it was mentioned was to remind the WH and DOJ that if a section 194 contempt citation is issued and the US Atty fails to proceed, the House has another option. But its largely a game of high stakes poker and it is not terribly likely that it would come down to the invocation of inherent contempt. A more likely scenario in the event the US ATty fails to proceed would be for the House to bring an action seeking a writ of mandamus from the court to the US Atty on the grounds that it is not within the US Atty's discretion not to proceed in these instances. The reason that the House will go this route is that decisions from the courts will be inherently immunized against charges that the Democrats are attempting to convene a political kangaroo court the likes of which have not been seen in over 70 years (which is how the repubs will play the issue).

[VP505]

6. I might be

crazy but I doubt that: "The best option may be for Congress to pass legislation to give federal courts jurisdiction to enforce the congressional subpoenas." That has a snowballs chance in hell of passing and getting signed by *, or being enforced with the Reich wingers Bu$h has stacked the courts with.

[mmonk]

9. Yep.

Sounds like the graveyard for any legislation of that sort.