Congress holds White House aides in contempt: Is this oversight or petty politics?

The Associated Press

Harriet Miers is being held in contempt of Congress.

Featured Topic | Posted 40 weeks 2 days ago

Congress holds White House aides in contempt: Is this oversight or petty politics?

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to cite Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, for contempt for refusing to testify about their participation in the firing two years ago of federal prosecutors.

The vote was 223-32, as Republicans walked out of the chamber to protest the vote and the Democrat' failure to take up the Senate-passed revision to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Are the contempt charges justified? Or does have Congress have more pressing business to attend to?

Ben likes: Is this investigation really necessary?

Paul Mirengoff/Powerline

Removing U.S. attorneys is strictly the president's prerogative, and there's nothing much for Congress to legislate about in this regard. Moreover, if Congress needs information for legislative purposes, it can get the information under the deal the president has offered.

Perhaps more digging by Congress would uncover evidence of partisan wrongdoing by the successor U.S. attorneys. But until it does, Congress does not have a strong interest in discovering what employees in the executive branch said to one another about which U.S. attorneys to remove.

Joel likes: Time to vote contempt

New York Times

Some of the people who likely know the most about the role politics has played in the Bush Justice Department have defied Congressional subpoenas to testify. Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, contend that they are protected from testifying by executive privilege. That is not enough. They have a legal obligation to appear before Congress and plead that privilege to specific questions.

If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding its subpoena power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial president — above the law and beyond the reach of checks and balances.