"The Legalities: What Happens When the Subpoenas are Defied?"

[AnnInLa]

I guess this falls under the category, "must read and understand if we are all going to talk about it every day." lol

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/26/115740/988

"What Happens When the Subpoenas are Defied?"

Snip, should read

The AP's Matt Apuzzo examines the risks:

President Bush has tried for years to reassert a White House right to keep secrets from Congress. Now he must decide how far he wants to go to keep aides from testifying about the firing of federal prosecutors.

If he claims executive privilege and the dispute ends up in court, the fight with Congress will be refereed by a judicial branch that recently has not been kind to the presidency in fights over subpoenas. Lawmakers, meanwhile, risk seeing a judge permanently curtail their power to summon presidential aides to Capitol Hill.

big snip, should read

Fisher's "anyone" could refer just as easily to any or all of the three branches. Both the executive and the legislature have substantial powers at risk, while the judicial branch would simply want no part in settling the question.

How do we know this about the courts? Because that's exactly what they did the last time such a case was brought. And that case is instructive today.

The last time the Congress actually voted to hold an executive branch official in contempt of Congress was in the 1982 case of EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford. Gorsuch (who was later remarried, to Bureau of Land Management head Robert Burford) was found in contempt by a House vote of 259-105 (with 55 Republicans voting in favor). The charges were, in keeping with practice in statutory contempt cases, referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.

snip....go read for the outcome

And a lightbulb switches on! The actual prosecution of contempt of Congress charges is the responsibility of a U.S. Attorney.

snip

So Congress was right? Right? Not according to the Reagan administration:

Following the Gorsuch contempt, the Office of Legal Counsel wrote an opinion on May 30, 1984, concluding that as a matter of statutory interpretation and separation of powers analysis, a U.S. Attorney is not required to bring a congressional contempt citation to a grand jury when the citation is directed against an executive official who is carrying out the President’s decision to invoke executive privilege.

(this is a must read article, and the diarist will continue another installment with what Congress can do, if anything.)

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Let me put it to you this way:

When you were called to testify in front of Joe McCarthy during his Communist Witchhunt Hearings, you were terrified of being branded with a contempt of Congress moniker. It meant penalty, imprisonment, and a criminal record. Not to mention your family and friends would have nothing more to do with you and you would likely be fired from your job.

[Bobbieo]

2. It's 'what Congress can do - IF ANYTHING' - that has my attention.!

[Rex]

3. Let him cry 'executive privilege' or plead the 5th.

The court of public opinion has already rendered a verdict - Repukes are corrupt SOBs and not to be trusted. The sooner we get them out of office, the better. Now we shall see if our government agrees with public opinion (which they haven't in years) or if they protect the office of the POTUS to save their own sorry asses.

[endarkenment]

4. DOJ refuses to process contempt charge against DOJ.

That much is a no brainer.

I say that impeaching Gonzales at that point is the only good move.

[Toucano]

5. Reno was cited by congress for contempt in 1998.

Not by the full house, but by the Reform and Oversight Committee.

Anyone remember how that played out?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/06/reno.burton/