by D. Cupples | Two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee -- Arlen Specter (photo from Senate Web site) and Charles Grassley -- joined 10 Democrats yesterday in approving a contempt of
Congress citation against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and ex-presidential Adviser Karl Rove. The only "No" votes came from seven
Republicans.
Bolten and Rove refused to comply with subpoenas for information about politicization of the Justice Department, which is supposed to be apolitical. Evidence suggests that political agendas had played a part in the U.S. Attorney firings and in decisions about whether to prosecute certain cases. Since Congress's investigations began, Alberto Gonzales and roughly a dozen Justice Department officials have resigned.
Over the summer, the White House ordered Bolten and Rove to disobey the subpoenas based on an executive-privilege claim. In November, Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy ruled that the claim was invalid. Yesterday's committee vote was another step toward a contempt of Congress citation.
The next step is a full Senate vote. Republicans will likely filibuster the contempt citation, which would require 60 votes just to bring it to a vote. The Senate's breakdown is 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents -- and most Republicans still goose-step with President Bush.
The Washington Post reported:
"The White House yesterday repeated its offer to allow Rove and other current and former senior aides to testify about the firings behind closed doors, not under oath and with no transcript.
Translation: President Bush will let Rove and others talk, as long as they don't swear to tell the truth and as long as the press can't report to the public precisely what the witnesses say. Sen. Leahy commented:
"White House stonewalling is unilateralism at its worst, and it thwarts accountability. Executive privilege should not be invoked to prevent investigations into wrongdoing."
One argument supporting executive-privilege claims is that a President needs candid advice from advisers, who might avoid being candid if they face the possibility of having to testify about their advice.
Leahy argued that President Bush and staffers claim that Bush wasn't involved in the U.S. Attorney firings; thus, presidential advisers hadn't advised him on the firings; thus, complying with subpoenas would not reduce advisers' willingness to give Bush candid advice. (See Leahy's report)
Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) commented:
"'I vote for the contempt citations knowing that it's highly likely to be a meaningless act.... In this context we have no alternative.'" (Associated Press)
If Congress fails to follow through with contempt charges, a dangerous precedent would be set: one that encourages the executive branch to ignore future congressional subpoenas whenever it doesn't feel like complying.
Such a precedent would severely hamper Congress's constitutional duty to exercise executive oversight.
Memeorandum has other bloggers' reactions: The Newshoggers, Daily Kos, Comments from Left Field, Crooks and Liars and Shakespeare's Sister
Other BN-Politics Posts:
* Justice Department: Weapon Against Political Enemies?
* White House Whines About Oversight
* Republican ex-AG Thinks DoJ Selectively Prosecuted
* How Just is our Justice Department? Ask ex-USA Paul Charlton
* Fired U.S. Attorney Builds Case Against Gonzales
* U.S. Attorney General Resign Facing Perjury Investigaion
* DoJ's Schlozman Alters his Testimony
* Another U.S. Attorney Targeted for Political Reasons?
* DoJ's Goodling Admits Administration "Caged" Votes in 2004
* Fired U.S. Attorney Scandal Overview
Comments