Contempt of Congress for Harriet Miers? Text of Conyers letter to Miers' attorney.

[swag]

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=571

July 11, 2007

BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL

Mr. George Manning
Jones Day
1420 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 800
Atlanta, GA 30309-3053

Dear Mr. Manning:

We write in response to your letter dated July 10, which was not faxed to us until 7:15 pm last night. We are disappointed and very concerned by your statement that, based upon a July 10 letter to you from White House Counsel Fred Fielding, your client Harriet Miers intends to disregard the subpoena that was duly issued to her by the Committee on the Judiciary, and refuse even to appear at tomorrow’s hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. A congressional subpoena, such as the one issued to Ms. Miers, carries with it two obligations: the obligation to appear, and the obligation to testify and/or produce documents. Even if a witness intends to assert privilege in response to a subpoena, that intention to assert privilege does not obviate the obligation to appear.

We are aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in response to a Congressional subpoena. To the contrary, the courts have made clear that no present or former government official – even the President – is above the law and may completely disregard a legal directive such as the Committee’s subpoena. In fact, both present and former White House officials have testified before Congress numerous times, including both then-serving and former White House counsel. For example, former White House Counsel Beth Nolan explained to our Subcommittee that she testified before Congressional committees four times, three times while serving as White House counsel and once as former White House counsel. A Congressional Research Service study documents some 74 instances where serving White House advisers have testified before

Congress since World War II.1 Moreover, even the 1999 OLC opinion referred to in Mr. Fielding’s July 10 letter refers only to current White House advisers and not to former advisers and acknowledges that the courts might not agree with its conclusion. Such Justice Department opinions are not law, state only the Executive Branch’s view of the law, and have no legal force whatsoever. We note finally that another former White House adviser subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Attorney matter, Sara Taylor, appeared today pursuant to Congressional subpoena and testified about many of the relevant facts while also declining to testify about other relevant facts based on the assertion of executive privilege.

A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

We are prepared at the hearing tomorrow to consider and rule on any specific assertions of privilege in response to specific questions. We strongly urge you to reconsider, and to advise your client to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow pursuant to her legal obligations. The Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Ms. Miers to appear as required by her subpoena.

Sincerely,

____________________________________

John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman

____________________________________

Linda T. Sánchez

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law

cc: The Honorable Lamar S. Smith

The Honorable Chris Cannon

[blondeatlast]

1. Miers likes accessories--handcuffs wouldn't be overdoing it.

Bring it on--how far are we from conspiracy ?

[aquart]

9. About 6 and a half years in, why?

[blondeatlast]

19. Good point. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Can't they charge Bush too?

If he's telling her not to appear, isn't that conspiracy to committ a crime?

[blondeatlast]

3. That's what I'm thinking--and the conspiracy is what brought Nixon down. nt

[bunny planet]

15. according to talkingpointsmemo.com Bush cannot legally instruct Miers to

not appear when called to do so by a subpoena.

snip...
Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years....or both

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including....withholding, concealing....information...

www.talkingpointsmemo.com


and here's more about this at daily kos
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/11/15343/4452

[Star80]

17. By that line of reasoning,

* is guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice, and obstruction of justice, both of which are impeachable.

[partylessinOhio]

4. Conyers should be leading the House.

:yourock:

[vanboggie]

8. I'll give you an Amen on that statement n/t

[TexasLawyer]

5. And this lady was almost a Supreme Court justice?!?

sheesh!

[swag]

7. She would make Clarence Thomas look postively stellar.

[hootinholler]

11. Not even close. n/t

[Blaze Diem]

6. Thank You John Conyers..No Guts No Glory..

He's going in for the "kill"...

Well Harriet, a fine mess George has gotten you into.
Bet they all expect a pardon if they go down for the resident criminal.

Suck it up Harriet, that's the price of loyalty.
..um oh ya, don't forget to bring an extra pair of Depends, this could get messy.

[spanone]

10. mr. bu$h* must have watched sara today and knew harriet would crack.

maybe harriet actually cares about law???????? naw.

[Swamp Rat]

12. Subpoena her boss too!

[Oreo]

13. TPM is saying Bush is committing a felony

by "forcing" her not to testify

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, concealing ... information.

[Blaze Diem]

14. Sounds perfect, except for the "executive privilege" argument..

and THAT is where Bush will stubbornly stomp his feet and refuse to comply.

He wants 'executive privilege' redefined. ( to suit him, that is.)

[Harry Monroe]

18. E-mail this to the White House over and over...

...and over and over and over and over... Deluge them!!

"18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, concealing ... information."

[Spazito]

16. Here is some very interesting information on Inherent Contempt and

and why it differs from Statutory Contempt of Congress procedures:

A few astute commenters observed that Congress has another weapon in its arsenal for backing up the subpoena power: the long-dormant "inherent contempt" process, described below in the Congressional Research Service's "Congressional Oversight Manual" (PDF):

Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

The most obvious benefit of inherent contempt is that it's conducted entirely "in-house," that is, entirely on the authority of the legislative branch. The most obvious drawback? Spending time on a trial. Well, that and the scene of having the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police physically barred from entering the White House to arrest those who've defied subpoenas.

But is there another choice? What other power, besides impeachment, does the Congress have in its arsenal to enforce the "subpoena power" we were all told this election was about? There are no other direct options, only oblique approaches to using indirect leverage.

I found this info on thenexthurrah:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/03/dusting_off_inh.html


Here is the link to the Congressional Oversight Manual, the key pdf pages are 42/43:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf