House files contempt lawsuit.
AP reports:
The House Judiciary Committee has filed suit to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
The lawsuit filed in federal court Monday says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress. […]
[House Judiciary Committee Chairman John] Conyers says he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration’s claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with constitutional principles.
UPDATE: Read the complaint here.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sports
Surveillance
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
If this fails to gain traction, will they have the chutzpah to go for INHERENT CONTEMPT>????
March 10th, 2008 at 11:22 amComment by RUCerious — March 10, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Ah — you beat me to it…
March 10th, 2008 at 11:23 amI just hope they managed to find a federal judge NOT appointed by this administration. Now they just have to keep it from going to the SCOTUS.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:24 amstop or they’ll say stop again!
yawn…. impeach these assclowns…
the real terrorists everyone should be worried about is our very own american taliban… bushco.
want to fight the war on terra? you know who our enemy is.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:25 amYeah, who appointed the judge?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:25 amLLLLLETSS GET IT ONNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 10th, 2008 at 11:27 amOne question — how long will it take to get a ruling?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:28 amPlease listen to us, or we’ll have to send a very nasty letter….
March 10th, 2008 at 11:29 amDoes the US have an extradition arrangement w/ Paraguay?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:29 amThe hell with that ; just send the appropriate law enforcement official out and have that person arrest them both immediately and thrown into jail until they decide to cooperate………..
March 10th, 2008 at 11:30 amDoes the US have an extradition arrangement w/ Paraguay?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
They do not.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:31 amComment by missmolly — March 10, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Good point, misshusseinmolly.
The administration may see this as a good opportunity to be a repeat customer of John D. Bates.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am*sigh* I wish I believed that the judge who will rule on this contempt case is not in the Bushies’ pockets…
But I don’t.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:32 am[…] =
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said, “We will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress.”
me thinks that’s a little too late, sir…
March 10th, 2008 at 11:33 amThis is the worst comments site on the InterTubes. Most of the time my comments never come through. What is up with that shit?
Otherwise, ThinkProgress rocks!
March 10th, 2008 at 11:33 amThrow them into jail together.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:33 amThat will certainly get Josh Bolton to start talking.
“Let me out of here. Aagghhhhhhh..!”
but good on ya anyway…
w00t!
March 10th, 2008 at 11:33 amDoes the US have an extradition arrangement w/ Paraguay?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
They do not.
Comment by Nevar — March 10, 2008 @ 11:31 am
—-
Arrangements can be made.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:33 amThey do not.
Comment by Nevar — March 10, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Why am I not surprised?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:34 amI’d recommend more pro-America interest groups to file many more civil
March 10th, 2008 at 11:34 amand criminal complaints against Bush directly, since impeachment is so off the table. The precedent is that it “shouldn’t distract the president from his duties.”
Most of the time my comments never come through. What is up with that shit?
Otherwise, ThinkProgress rocks!
Comment by Daddy-O
You’ve answered your own question.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:34 amI thought contempt of congress was serious business?
File suit? Throw them in the pokey!
Well, it is a step up from a letter.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:35 amI distinctly remember being promised lots and lots of Subpoena Parties. So far…
I’m looking forward to a new Majority Leader and maybe Speaker of the House next year. I HAD BEEN defending Pelosi and Reid for months, but these two are just not getting the job done.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:35 amConyers will now write to the White House letter #………what number are we at now?
Uncle Hussein Ho
March 10th, 2008 at 11:35 amyou gotta watch out for the f-filter, daddy o…
but recently, as evidenced by your comment, we have been
March 10th, 2008 at 11:36 amallowed to say “shit”! … not b!tch, though…
Hey, Nevar, I know what I’m talking about. Nobody is more surprised than I am that these comments actually made it onto the Internets Tubes.
If it had happened to you, you’d feel exactly the same way. I don’t know why it’s happening to me so often–but I don’t like it.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:36 amkaty, that must be IT! I had no idea there was one. Thank you!
I will watch my mouth from now on–and I promise not to abuse the comments.
I will abuse Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al, instead. Thanks again!
March 10th, 2008 at 11:37 amWelcome Daddy (0)!
Yeah, the fu(k word will definitely getcha canned, as beeyitch, but there are obvious workarounds..
[;>}
March 10th, 2008 at 11:41 amHey, Nevar, I know what I’m talking about. Nobody is more surprised than I am that these comments actually made it onto the Internets Tubes.
Comment by Daddy-O
No offense intended, Daddy-O, just tossing out a random observation.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:41 amI usually manage to slip in an infrequent nasty or two, as long as I don’t make a habit of it.Can you dig it? :)
Oh, and feel free to abuse the trolls, as well, Daddy-(0).
March 10th, 2008 at 11:42 amWe try not to feed them, but kinda like a zoo, we note how smelly, unkempt and generally hilarious they are!
What federal court has the jurisdiction here?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:43 amI’d recommend more pro-America interest groups to file many more civil
and criminal complaints against Bush directly, since impeachment is so off the table. The precedent is that it “shouldn’t distract the president from his duties.â€
Comment by McWars — March 10, 2008 @ 11:34 am
when has he EVER focused on his duties?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:44 ambut recently, as evidenced by your comment, we have been
allowed to say “shitâ€! … not b!tch, though…
Comment by katy HUSSEIN katy — March 10, 2008 @ 11:36 am
—–
Probably because TP doesn’t want us to bad mouth Hillary
Hey-yo
March 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am/rimshot
From Dailykos this morning:
“The case has been assigned D.C. District Court Judge John D. Bates.
Judge Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, was Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997, ruled in 2002 to dismiss for lack of standing the GAO’s suit seeking access to the Cheney Energy Task Force documents, and in 2006 upheld the validity of Bush’s signature on an a bill not properly passed in the same form by both houses of Congress.”
Oh well, good luck with that!
March 10th, 2008 at 11:51 amComment by A Patriot Acting — March 10, 2008 @ 11:51 am
So much for this lawsuit. Inherent contempt anyone….?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am[House Judiciary Committee Chairman John] Conyers says he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration’s claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with constitutional principles.
Yeah, right, I’m so sure they will agree with you Conyers. Good luck with that.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:59 amLet’s see whose courtroom this winds up in?
March 10th, 2008 at 11:59 amBates is nothing more than a political hack.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:08 pmJudge Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, was Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997, ruled in 2002 to dismiss for lack of standing the GAO’s suit seeking access to the Cheney Energy Task Force documents, and in 2006 upheld the validity of Bush’s signature on an a bill not properly passed in the same form by both houses of Congress.â€
Oh well, good luck with that!
Comment by A Patriot Acting — March 10, 2008 @ 11:51 am
If this Judge (master) Bates rules in favor of Chimpy and Co , he too should be thrown into jail…………
March 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pmComment by good_golly — March 10, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Would have been a lot easier to just post he’s a Chimpy appointed suckhole ; that would have saved time and space…………
March 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pmLet’s see whose courtroom this winds up in?
Comment by Doc Rock — March 10, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Well, let’s see. Bates can find in favor of the defendent, in which case that will be the end of it. Bates can dismiss the whole thing, in which case that will be the end of it. Bates can find in favor of the plaintiff, in which case it will go to the Supreme Court, who will rule in favor of their master, Bushco.
Inherent contempt is the only “check and/or balance” left against this administration. It would have been a great deal more efficient and a lot less time-consuming, too.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm…and in 2006 upheld the validity of Bush’s signature on an a bill not properly passed in the same form by both houses of Congress.â€
Comment by A Patriot Acting — March 10, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Whoa - I don’t remember that one. What was the bill?
March 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pmAnd by the time the court FINALLY looks into this, these two will be long gone, as will Bush. Thanks, Pelosi, for letting them run out the clock.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pmOh well, good luck with that!
Comment by A Patriot Acting
You never know. With it becoming quite evident that the next administration will be heavily Democratic, I would not be at all surprised to see these activist Republican judges starting to side with the constitution and the rule of law. It’s ok for the Republicans to abuse the law, but it is NOT ok for Democrats to do the same thing. I expect to see a quick reversal of all the “unitary executive” privileges the Republicans have awarded themselves. They can’t allow the Democrats the same powers they awarded themselves.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pmThis is the same Judge that tossed the Valerie Plame lawsuit.
Comment by good_golly — March 10, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
You must be positively orgasmic. You and your subjective morality.
Get your boy those steroids, he’ll start playing better. Anything to “win.”
March 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pmHey GG, given what you know about this judge, can you seriously say that this charge will get a fair shake?
If not, what does this say about our judicial system?
March 10th, 2008 at 12:43 pmIf not, what does this say about our judicial system?
Comment by jpoke42 — March 10, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
That it sucks balls…………..
March 10th, 2008 at 12:44 pmShort of dropping the suit or accepting an adverse ruling, there is no way to keep it from eventually making it to SCOTUS.
Comment by good_golly — March 10, 2008 @ 11:36 am
So Gigi assumes that, in the event of a ruling against the administration, right-wing judges at every level will agree to consider appeals until Congress is frustrated and simply drops it, or until the Scalia crew of the Roberts SCOTUS gets their hands on it.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pmThat it sucks balls…………..
Comment by MCMetal — March 10, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
I was going to respond with a wordy diatribe on the scourge of partisan politics into the once sacrosanct domain of the third branch of government, but your response really puts it perfectly.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pmAnything to “win.â€
Comment by Zooey — March 10, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
I think you nailed it. As evidence mounts of the amount of slime under the Bushco rock, and as fresh outrages appear daily, I have often wondered why 25% to 30% of this country still defends Bush.
It’s all about “winning”. People now see American politics the same way they see the Super Bowl. They align themselves with a team and will cheer for that team no matter what. Boo the ref if a guy on your side commits a flagrant foul against the other side. If the other side scores, find a way to discredit it. Cheer every time your guys get away with illegal play the refs don’t catch. Anything to win. Never mind what’s fair, what’s sportsmanlike, and what’s best to protect the integrity of the game.
Just a guess here, but I suspect that good_golly and his fellow Bushco defenders would have some issue with a Democratic president who amassed all these “unitary executive” privileges, or who issued signing statements at the rate Bush has, or who invoked “executive privilege” to keep staff members from testifying on matters having nothing to do with national security, or who worked with telecoms to subvert the constitution, or who lied to the American people to get us into war, or who erased records belonging to the American people (the list goes on).
And if he saw a Democratic president get away with abuse of power, enabled by a judicial system owned and operated by the Dems, he would be screaming like a prom princess with a broken nail.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pmCome on GG, I am waiting for your answer. I really want to try and understand the other side and this is a critical question.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pmSo Gigi assumes that, in the event of a ruling against the administration, right-wing judges at every level will agree to consider appeals until Congress is frustrated and simply drops it, or until the Scalia crew of the Roberts SCOTUS gets their hands on it.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — March 10, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Unfortunately, good_golly is probably right on this one. Bushco definitely DOES NOT WANT Meiers or Bolton to be put under oath on this matter.
Think about it. These people had been trying to influence elections by leaning on the USA’s to challenge close elections, harrass and investigate Democrats in order to discredit them or get them removed from office, look the other way when Republicans commit acts beyond the pale, and support voter caging and other election influence practices. And they went so far as to fire USA’s who were too moral and honest to go along with this agenda — or in the way of cronies they wanted to appoint under the Patriot Act (no Senate confirmation required). This could be the undoing of Bushco, because remember that a president can fire a USA whenever he wants, but doing it for blatant political purposes is illegal.
Bush and Cheney will fight tooth and nail to keep this whole sordid business from seeing the light of day. And as long as they can keep Meiers and Bolton from testifying, the situation is a stalemate.
They are going to use every tool in the toolbox on this one. And that includes their bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pmLook at the TIMING… now we are nearing re-election time the congress starts enforcing laws…. so much for standing up for justice on principal
March 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pmCheer every time your guys get away with illegal play the refs don’t catch. Anything to win. Never mind what’s fair, what’s sportsmanlike, and what’s best to protect the integrity of the game.
Comment by missmolly — March 10, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
And it extends into the international arena as well. This is why they defend torture and rendition and cluster bombs and backing right-wing dictators. It’s about doing whatever it takes to “win” in Iraq or “win” the war on terrorism. They don’t want to think about complexities of policy or shades of grey - it’s a win-or-lose game, no matter how many innocent people have to die in order to “win.”
March 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm“Conyers said he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration’s claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with constitutional principles.”
Not my area of expertise but it sounds like this may end up before the Supreme Court? If that happens I agree with missmolly that they will rule in favor of bushco.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:10 pmWhen you have Judges appointed by this Criminal Administration, do you really think that they would do something lawful? Not a chance, Bush has corrupted every facet of government to be good little Nazis.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Hussein Fush
March 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pmSLAP THESE CRIMINALS IN JAIL ALREADY! THEN THE PEOPLE CAN CHEER.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pmRead between the lines. John Conyers is doing everything possible to AVOID using his Inherent Contemp powers.
If he wanted to enforce the subpoena this wouldn’t be going on for a year.
He accuses Bushco of trying to run out the clock when that’s precisely what he’s doing.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pmLet’s see what happens after President Obama makes Elliot Spitzer AG and they get the DoJ back on track. We could be enjoying 4 years of richly deserved prosecutions starting 02/09. There will be a nationwide shortage of confetti and champagne.
March 10th, 2008 at 1:49 pmGG must be out scoring those steroids…
March 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm“… he would be screaming like a prom princess with a broken nail.”
Comment by missmolly — March 10, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Heh… good one.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pmComment by good_golly — March 10, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
You’re so good at playing the “victim.”
**playing tiny violin for GG**
Try to be consistent in your values, huh?
March 10th, 2008 at 4:22 pmre #62 - Looks like Elliot won’t attend that party.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pmwouldnt it be funny if this landed on the judges desk right about the time a democratic president was being sworn into office? would cast executive power in a differnt light, huh?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am