Let's be clear--the contempt vote against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers is the fault of the Bush administration, despite the public temper tantrum shown by House Minority Leader John Boehner before the vote. Boehner used the "the Congress has more important business" argument, the same one that fell on Boehner's deaf ears during the Clinton impeachment vote. We reap what we sow, yes?
But here we are. The House voted 223-32 to refer contempt charges to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, although he falls under the supervision of the attorney general, who falls under the supervision of the president--you see where this is going. So did the House Democratic leaders. They argued that this vote gives them a clear path to the US Courts, with the House paying for representation against the US Government, represented by the solicitor general. The NBC drama The West Wing was hardly this good!
Since there is not a lot about what happens next in these cases, our media is digging up the last executive branch official who faced a contempt of Congress charge. She is Anne Buford Gorsuch, who was the EPA administrator for President Reagan in 1982 (actually Interior Secretary James Watt was the last to face contempt charges, but the Reagan administration stepped in at the last minute before the vote could take place.). In 1982, the House voted contempt charges, and the matter was referred to the US attorney for the District of Columbia, but before he could begin the investigation the Reagan administration worked out a deal that allowed some Committee members to review the contested documents in secret, with no staff and no ability to take notes.
That is not instructive to the case today. In 1982, the Reagan administration protected the privilege. They felt that Congress could not demand whenever it wanted to see executive branch communications and documents. To preserve the privilege, they worked out a compromise with the House and all was right with the World. But what is the Bush administration trying to protect? The privilege? Nope. They are trying to protect their hides--communication that showed officials in the White House ordered nine attorneys to be fired for political reasons--something they claimed to not be the case. How do you compromise in that situation? Thus a pickle that the administration now has to deal with--and unfortunately for them, without the assistance of the congressional Republicans who helped hold the nose of the administration when it acted in a way that contradicted the Constitution and the office of the presidency. The congressional Republicans get reminded of that everytime the House holds a hearing--particularly the House Judiciary Committee. It begins with a statement that "we require you (the witness) to take the oath to conform to the practice of this committee." When the Republicans held control of Congress, they allowed executive branch witnesses or appointees to testify without taking the oath. Can you imagine how many in the White House think wistfully of those days?
