by Mark Silva
The U.S. House has voted today to hold President Bush's chief of staff and a former White House counsel in contempt of Congress for not cooperating with an investigation into possible political motivations behind the firings of several federal prosecutors.
The contempt citation, the first of its kind in 25 years, has no force unless the Justice Department prosecutes Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, however, and the Bush administration does not plan to ask Justice to press charges. The White House called the contempt citation "absurd."
Repblicans staged a walkout over the vote, which went 223-32 in favor of holding Bolten and Miers in contempt -- Miers, for failing to testify in a congressional investigation of the firings of several U.S. attorneys, and Bolten, for refusing to provide documents demanded by Congress.
(Three Republicans voted for it, including Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a presidential candidate.)
"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us," complained House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), leading a walkout of Republicans from a chamber refusing to enact the president's terrorist surveillance legislation but eager to act on the contempt citation.
.
Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House's second in command, said that if the House didn't act, it would "be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial presidency, above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances."
The White House reacted angrily -- noting that Bolten and Miers had acted under the direction of the president, exercising his executive privilege not to disclose confidential matters.
"This action is unprecedented, and it is outrageous," Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said in a written statement. "It is astonishing and deeply troubling that after months of delay on passing a bill that will help our intelligence professionals monitor foreign terrorists who want to kill Americans, the House has instead turned its attention to the silly, pointless, and unjust act of approving these contempt resolutions."
The House could bring a lawsuit to enforce the contempt citation, but, Perino said, if Democrats to do, "they will be met with opposition at the courthouse door and at every step of the way."
The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt of Congress citation was 1983, with the House voting 413-0 to cite former EPA official Rita Lavelle for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.
This is the statement that Perino issued late today:
"Today, the United States House of Representatives did something that had never been done in the entire 150-year history of the contempt of Congress statute: it voted to hold in contempt two top White House officials who had been directed by the President not to comply with House Judiciary Committee subpoenas on the basis of the President’s assertion of Executive Privilege. The officials in question are the Chief of Staff to the President and the former Counsel to the President, two of the very closest advisers upon whom a President must rely. This action is unprecedented, and it is outrageous. It is also an incredible waste of time – time the House should spend doing the American people’s legislative business.
"The absurdity and unfairness of the vote on Josh Bolten, the President’s Chief of Staff, are plain. The House Judiciary Committee arbitrarily designated Mr. Bolten -- in his official, not personal, capacity -- as the “Custodian of Records” for documents that the Committee had subpoenaed. The Committee subpoenaed Mr. Bolten even though he is not alleged to have had anything to do with the resignations of the U.S. Attorneys. There is no allegation, no suggestion, of wrongdoing against him. Mr. Bolten’s conduct was not contemptuous of the House – far from it. He acted at the express direction of the President in the exercise of executive privilege for the purpose of protecting the institution of the Presidency. And he did so in reliance upon a thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the Solicitor General of the United States serving as the Acting Attorney General.
"Ms. Miers was Counsel to the President. She too acted at the express instruction of the President in an exercise of Executive Privilege. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part. The President is constitutionally entitled to the candid advice of his close advisors, including his counsel, in a manner that is free from Congressional encroachment. He is particularly entitled to such advice on a matter that is committed to the Executive’s exclusive discretion, such as the nomination and removal of U.S. Attorneys. It is clear that House Democrats want to punish Ms. Miers for no reason other than that she was the President’s top lawyer. This is as a blatant sop to the far left and shameful behavior by House Democrats.
"That Mr. Bolten’s and Ms. Miers’ actions were not in the least contemptuous is further demonstrated by the extensive efforts made by the Administration in attempting to accommodate Congressional interests.
"The President’s constitutional interest in the appointment and removal of U.S. Attorneys -- power that the Constitution has given exclusively to the Chief Executive --far outweighs any legitimate Congressional oversight interest. Nonetheless, beginning in March of last year, the President committed to cooperating and accommodating Congress’s interests in the U.S. Attorney replacements. The President did so not because he was compelled to, but rather out of respect for Congress and its inquiry.
"In the past year, DOJ has released or made available for review more than 10,000 pages of documents. More than 20 present or former DOJ officials, including the then-Attorney General, the then-Deputy Attorney General, and the Attorney General’s former chief of staff, have testified publicly, submitted to committee staff interviews, or both.
"The President made an unprecedented offer to go even further by providing Congress with additional documents and to make available for interviews several former White House officials, including Harriet Miers, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Deputy Counsel Bill Kelley, Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor, and Scott Jennings, a Special Assistant to the President in the Office of Political Affairs.
"That Mr. Bolten’s and Ms. Miers’ actions were not contemptuous is further demonstrated by this fact: the President, in an exercise of Executive Privilege, directed them not to comply and did so on the basis of a thorough, well-reasoned opinion of the Solicitor General. That opinion offers persuasive authority that the President must be able to obtain the frank advice of his closest advisors, particularly on a matter committed to the Executive’s exclusive discretion, without Congressional intervention. The underlying opinion was even described by one leading liberal law professor, Cass Sunstein, as “more than respectable.”
"The Majority “Report” of the House Judiciary Committee, which served as the basis for the contempt resolution presented to the full House, is based on the flimsiest of speculation and clearly demonstrates that after all these many months, despite all of the information provided by the Administration, and all of Congress’s bluster, there is no evidence of any improper conduct by White House officials in the replacement of United States Attorneys.
"The House has critically important business before it, most importantly FISA modernization legislation that the Senate passed by a wide bipartisan majority, which the House must pass before the Protect America Act expires this Saturday. It is astonishing and deeply troubling that after months of delay on passing a bill that will help our intelligence professionals monitor foreign terrorists who want to kill Americans, the House has instead turned its attention to the silly, pointless, and unjust act of approving these contempt resolutions.
"Throughout history, the Executive and Legislative Branches frequently have had disputes. In every other instance, the two Branches worked out their disagreements without either the House or Senate ever approving a resolution holding any White House officials -- let alone the Chief of Staff and Counsel to the President -- in contempt under its statutory contempt power.
"The willingness of the House to pursue a course leading to such a resolution speaks volumes about its true motives. The House Judiciary Committee approved the contempt resolutions last July, nearly seven full months ago. The full House took no action on them in that intervening period. Rather than confront their legislative obligations, the Democrats have opted to revive this stale matter to distract from their legislative failures and appeal to the far left in their party by trying to embarrass the President and his close advisors. They have instead managed to embarrass themselves by revealing their nakedly partisan motivations.
"As the House is fully aware, the Department of Justice has long been of the view that the law does not require a U.S. Attorney to convene a grand jury or otherwise to pursue a prosecution of an individual who carries out a President’s instruction not to provide documents or testimony on the basis of the President’s assertion of Executive Privilege. In fact, Attorney General Mukasey himself reaffirmed this view just last week in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, referencing a 1995 Opinion authored by Walter Dellinger, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton Administration, which stated that "the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert Executive Privilege."
"If the House Democrats try to bring a civil case in federal court, they will be met with opposition at the courthouse door and at every step of the way. The President’s case rests on a strong opinion from the Solicitor General, and the President would not have asserted Executive Privilege if he did not believe he would prevail in the face of attempts to challenge his decision.
"So if the Democrats choose to press this dispute, we are confident that the Administration will prevail against this unprecedented and wholly unwarranted vote of contempt.''
'
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Well, he is contemptible, considering he has killed 4k Americans based on lies.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 14, 2008 7:12 PM
I think it's time something was done to take the Bush Administration down a few notches. They have been allowed to get away with far too much for far too long. And my hope is that this is just the beginning of a road leading to jail for Bush, Cheney and their co-conspirators.
Posted by: B. Feagin | February 14, 2008 7:31 PM
Look, I've been here a long time without comment, but enough is enough! The democrates (thats how you want called, right?) are traders! It's time to clean house.
Out with the roges!
The few with a clue, Johnd, joe, etsetera know whom they are.
Posted by: Bushman | February 14, 2008 7:40 PM
These democrat libs are unhinged and have now destroyed any chance for Obama or Hillary to become president!
I'm loving it!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | February 14, 2008 8:01 PM
Bushman, (Aroo?)
With John D, watch your back, buddy. Really.
And get a spell checker.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 14, 2008 8:02 PM
YES!!!!
It's about freaking time!
I hope this gets the traction it deserves, a good follow up would be to stop the retro immunity that went through the Senate version of the FISA update.
This crooked Republican administration deserves to get its nose rubbed in the crap they've dumped upon the country.
http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh89%2Fbataleigh%2Fwarcrimes.jpg&searchTerm=war%20crimes&pageOffset=9
Posted by: John E | February 14, 2008 8:11 PM
"THE BOEHNER SPEAKS"
ON FEBRUARY 14, 2008 THE HOUSE VOTES TO ADHERE TO A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.
ON FEBRUARY 14, 2008 THE HOUSE VOTES TO ADHERE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES.
ON FEBRUARY 14, 2008 THE HOUSE HAS THE AUDACITY TO VOTE ON MEASURES OF "AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES"
ON FEBRUARY 14, 2008 THE HOUSE HAS THE NERVE TO VOTE AFTER WE WALKED OUT UNANIMOUSLY AS A GOP, SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BOTH FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC.
HOW DARE THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES UPHOLD "CONGRESSIONAL" SUBPOENAS UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE. MS. JACKSON. WHO.
HOW DARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STAND BY AND WATCH IT'S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE TAKE TIME OUT TO DO THE "PEOPLE'S WORK" WHILE AT WORK ON "VALENTINE DAY 2008"
ON TO THE ROSE GARDEN MEN! SCREW THEM, WE DID THAT, BUT IT WAS FOR "THE DECIDER"
HOW DARE THE HOUSE TO NOT WANT TO GIVE THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS TELECOMMUNICATION "BAND OF BROTHERS" IMMUNITY FROM BREAKING "THE LAW"
HOW DARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THINK THAT IF WE DO NOT LISTEN TO YOUR PHONE CALLS "WITHOUT ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE" OR A "COURT ORDER." OR EAVESDROP ON YOUR MOST INTIMATE CONVERSATIONS.
WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ON FEBRUARY 14, 2008. VALENTINES DAY.
"HOW DARE AMERICA VOTE TO GIVE AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGINEERS, INVENTORS, SCHOLARS A "VOTE" INSTEAD OF GIVING THE PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN "IMMUNITY."
IS THAT IMPORTANT ON FEBRUARY 14, 2008.
HOW COULD YOU DO THIS? "HOUSE"
231 YEA 5 NAY, SHOULD OF STUCK AROUND.
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 14, 2008 8:20 PM
Dana,
YOU are outraged?
WE are outraged!
Posted by: TheLeninSisters | February 14, 2008 9:14 PM
Ya gotta hand it to GWB and the Christian Reich Wing; They have effectively created a bottomless pit of liberal rage in this country.
Joe, John D, Paulo, Dick#ick;
You ain't gonna like what we have been dealing with for 3 decades.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 14, 2008 9:16 PM
Whoa Mr. Morris, I suggest you lay off the sauce.
As for those of you who compare this to the Third Reich, you might want to have actually lived through it before you compare this DEMOCRACY to it (actually, we're a Republic).
I suspect this will turn out much the same way every other witch hunt against this admin has - to nothing.
Posted by: Trey | February 14, 2008 9:52 PM
Glad Howard Dean's crop finally got a SPINE!
Hilary and Barack---yeah you!
You won't have the monicker "Senator" in front of either of your names until and unless you suspend your campaigns if need be and take turns filibustering to make sure this passes the Senate!
Pssst.--It's okay to work the DAY JOB!
Posted by: Nearlygreenbutgladnow | February 14, 2008 10:31 PM
Well C.Morris,
Blame your own limp-di#k party.
What have they accomplished for you lefty loons?
Impeach Bush...NO!
Impeach Cheney...NO!
Rove in jail....NO!
Out of Iraq...NO!
Stop finding the war...NO!
Get the ball player...YES!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | February 14, 2008 10:35 PM
Ahhh...the Imperial Presidency is outraged.
Posted by: dt | February 14, 2008 10:54 PM
Look, I've been here a long time without comment, but enough is enough! The democrates (thats how you want called, right?) are traders! It's time to clean house.
Out with the roges!
The few with a clue, Johnd, joe, etsetera know whom they are.
Posted by: Bushman | February 14, 2008 7:40 PM
"The few with a clue" need to learn how to spell...must be a Republicans.
The above post is proof positive that W's "no child left behind" has failed to do anything but make his brother Jeb rich on the taxpayers dime.
Posted by: John E | February 14, 2008 10:56 PM
The best part is that as King George, Dick "the Real President" Cheney and KKKArl Rove have tried to create a "Permanant Republic Majority" they have managed to secure the presidency for the democrats. They have also lost the house and the senate.
They didn't save the GOP they have cripled it.
Posted by: Carl L | February 14, 2008 11:21 PM
"Nonetheless, beginning in March of last year, the President committed to cooperating and accommodating Congress’s interests in the U.S. Attorney replacements. The President did so not because he was compelled to, but rather out of respect for Congress and its inquiry. "
This explains why Dana put it in a letter. Even she couldn't have pulled this off with a straight face.
Posted by: Carl L | February 14, 2008 11:23 PM
Nobody believes the rightwing lunitic fringe's fearmongering anymore.
Nobody who's not still addicted to Fixed News, anyway. Bush/McCain and Boehner's Republicans have shot their credibility with about 70% of our fellow citizens, and more fear-mongering is no way to get it back.
The real tragic justice will come this spring and summer, violence in Iraq is slowly rising again and John McCain has tied himself to the mast of the SS Prez Chimpy chasing the great white whale of "victory in Iraq". It's very unlikely that Moqtada al-Sadr will allow Mr. 100-years-in-Iraq to go through the general election campaign without humiliating him by killing more of our troops. More human sacrifices to Bush's ego.
I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind will vote for a man (McCain) who admits that he knows nothing about the economy or how to fix it and proudly states that he'd like to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Posted by: Leo | February 15, 2008 12:27 AM
Bush reinforces his status as "Worst President Ever". See you in court Dubya.
Posted by: Tom O | February 15, 2008 1:03 AM
This is long overdue. The House Republicans can walk out and keep walking back to their districts and stay there forever as far I'm concerned. Time for a whole change top to bottom: Congress, Supreme Court and the Presidency.
Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 1:48 AM
Bush: "We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!"
Boehner: "Harumph!"
Fellow Republicans: "Harumph!"
Bush: "Uh,oh. It's the press. Quick, say something Dana."
Perino: "This is an outrage! You can't question the Decider Guy. The House has no evidence against the president. We know that because Karl and Dick deleted it all personally. We'll fight you on the beaches, we'll fight you in the streets. We'll never surrender."
Posted by: Tom O | February 15, 2008 1:51 AM
Kudos to House Democrats! About time they stood up to the Occupant of the White House and his lawless minions. Better late than never.
And Kudos to Ron Paul for voting to cite Bolten and Meirs. It's refreshing to see a principled Congressman.
Posted by: Bill- Hoffman Estates, IL | February 15, 2008 1:58 AM
The biggest hoax so far is to convince many Americans that torture, preemptive war and racial intolerance are tantamount to "taking the moral high ground". They, the religious right, have folks out waving flags for our troops who are encouraged to continue a grave mistake. We had no right to burn their babies in bombing missions in Baghdad.
Rather than correct the situation, we are supposed to pretend like we didn't get caught with our hand in the cookie jar. They have really stomped on morality in America and if it takes pecking off the Meyers' and Boltons, we have an obligation to do it.
Posted by: Giraffe | February 15, 2008 2:11 AM
"GOP PUMKINS TURN INTO COACHES"
HERE A RIDE THERE A RIDE.
GIVE MY PRESIDENT IMMUNITY OR ELSE, WE WILL NOT BE LISTENING OR PROTECTING YOU AFTER "FEBRUARY 16, 2008"
BACK TO 2001 YOU GO, BACK TO PRESIDENTIAL MEMOS UNREAD. BACK TO "CHENEYS LAW."
BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD ON THE "PATRIOT ACT"
THE "PROTECT ALLOFASUDDEN ACT" DIDNT'T HAVE IMPACT.
WHO CARE IF IT TOOK 237 YEARS FOR AMERICA TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE "CONSTITUTTION DID NOT PROTECT THEM"
WHO CARES IF IT TOOK 237 YEARS FOR US TO CONTROL EVERYTHING.
"PROTECT AMERICA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS"
"I'M THE DECIDER"
"IT WOULD BE EASIER IF I WAS A DICTATOR AS LONG AS I AM THE DICTATOR"
NOW HAS ANYBODY SEEN CINDARELLA, IT'S ALMOST MIDNIGHT AND MY PUMPKIN IS ABOUT READY TO TURN INTO LARRY CRAIG OR SENATOR FOLEY.
WHAT DO I DO WITH THE "THREE BLIND MICE"
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 15, 2008 2:14 AM
C Morris, what's this about watching one's back with me? As usual, you are just as deranged as your bud, John E.
Anyway, the Dems continue to play their little games. Most folks don't like it and it will only come back and bite their dumb little tushies come November.
Posted by: John D | February 15, 2008 2:23 AM
The Rethugs are really starting to self-destruct and if they think they have it bad now just wait until after 08 when the Dems have a supermajority in Congress and the White House.
Congrats to the Dems for FINALLY standing up to this lame duck criminal thug of a Republican President, it's far past time that we start nailing him and Tricky Dick Cheney for their crimes against America.
The GOPer's have become so pathetic that even farm animals are laughing at them:
http://s227.photobucket.com/albums/dd66/mkfarkus/?action=view¤t=Piglol.gif
Posted by: chucky | February 15, 2008 3:49 AM
Leave it to the Dems for bringing up this issue to divert attention from their refusal to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The reason the Republicans walked out is that the Dem leadership would not bring the FISA renewal up for a vote, because they knew their side would lose. Just another demonstration of the fact that almost the entire Democratic party (except for Joe Lieberman) has been McGovernized. These tactics will become a big issue in the upcoming Presidential election, and I believe John McCain won't be shy about calling the Dems out on this.
Posted by: Jim Libbe | February 15, 2008 6:37 AM
"The President’s constitutional interest in the appointment and removal of U.S. Attorneys -- power that the Constitution has given exclusively to the Chief Executive --far outweighs any legitimate Congressional oversight interest."
What Perino is really saying, of course, is that President Bush is above the law.
I applaud the courage of the democratic leaders to stand up to the big bully Bush. This is a matter of national security that is far more important than the fear-mongering and clammoring the Repubs have done for the FISA bill. If we follow through with the prosecution of this rogue and illegal adminstration, it will tell future presidents (republican or democrats) that this clandestine behavior is unacceptable to anyone who believes in freedom and transparacy in government.
If you republicans really think it is o.k. for the president to hide any document from the American people, then don't complain if the next democratic president (which will be Jan '09) does the same thing. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: syj | February 15, 2008 8:46 AM
Just to show how off-base you are in your analysis, Mr. Libbe, Joe Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. You could look it up!
Posted by: athena | February 15, 2008 8:51 AM
Jim Libbe:
All the Democrats are asking for is that W. give up on immunity for the telephone companies.
I guess that shows that keeping the telephone companies safe from prosecution from breaking the law is more important than keeping the American people safe.
Posted by: BobinATL | February 15, 2008 8:54 AM
It appears that they are finding a backbone, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Tom | February 15, 2008 9:19 AM
Actually, I'm outraged too.
I hold the entire planet of apes occupying the White House in contempt.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | February 15, 2008 9:53 AM
Hey at least the WH is now being consistent.
Before it was just Congress that they were accusing of putting America in danger.
NOW they are accusing the courts of doing the same thing.
They want the Supreme Court to overrule an appeals court which said the administration had to provide extensive evidence that prisoners at Gitmo were "detainees" instead of POWs.
Wow, I can feel the pressure from all these guys being held in jail.
Posted by: dogjudge | February 15, 2008 10:38 AM
John D,
Because you stick it everyone, eventually.
All it takes is a slight disagreement, so I gave fair warning to the newbee.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 15, 2008 7:02 PM
Well Paulo,
Credit where credit is due.
You made a rare point there.
We'll see what happens when the Dems really control the Senate and WH, hey?
Posted by: C.Morris | February 15, 2008 9:28 PM
Memo to BobinATL
The phone companies need that immunity lest they be sued by the Trial Lawyers, the most generous contributors to Democratic candidates. If they don't get immunity there will be open season on them from the Trial Lawyers for cooperating with the warrantless wiretap program, which is the only way to battle foreign terrorists in the Internet Age.
Posted by: Jim Libbe | February 16, 2008 3:46 PM
This article seems blatantly written to trumpet the administrations position, without giving due space to the important issues involved in this case. The politicization of the justice department for the purposes of election-rigging as well as the position that the presidency is above the law are tears in the fabric of our democracy. But the Tribune seems more interested in being a mouthpiece of the administration. This is an outrageously slanted story. Give the truth its day. And be more wary of the political slants that are disguised as objective reporting in this and many other mainstream media sources. There is nothing fair and balanced here. Where is the press release from congress explaining the action?
Posted by: Tim B | February 17, 2008 10:10 PM