Federal Judge Rules Against Miers, White House On Subpoenas

A federal judge ruled Thursday that top advisers to President Bush are not immune from congressional subpoenas, striking a blow to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, current White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and other current and former administration officials who have claimed executive privilege in refusing to testify before Congress.

The House Judiciary Committee wanted to question Miers about the firing of nine former U.S. attorneys and review White House paperwork related to their dismissal. The Bush administration argued that the documents and the former aide were protected under separation of powers and refused to allow Miers or Bolten to respond to the subpoenas. Bolten, as White House chief of staff, was subpoenaed by the panel for documents.

But U.S. District Judge John Bates disagreed with the White House argument, ruling that Miers must appear before Congress in order to assert an assert executive privilege claim.

Bates also rejected the White House's argument of absolute immunity in refusing to turn over a detailed list, known as a"privilege log," of documents it withheld from the commttee. Bates, instead, said that the White House must provide the committee with more information before making any decision.

The text of Bates' opinion is available here.

The decision is a vindication for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other Democrats who supported the precedent-setting civil lawsuit. Some Democrats, backed by the GOP leadership, had opposed the lawsuit on the grounds that if the House lost, it would give more power to the executive branch at Congress' expense.

"Today’s landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law," Conyers said in a statement. "Judge Bates’ decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the U.S. attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the committee was entitled to challenge that claim in court."
Continue reading post...