Bush directs defiance of order to testify

[Neil D]

Claims of executive privilege mean ex-aides won't explain roles in firing of attorneys

By Jesse J. Holland

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush, again claiming executive privilege, directed former aides Monday to defy congressional subpoenas ordering them to explain their roles in the firings of U.S. attorneys over the winter.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith in withholding documents and directing Fielding's predecessor, Harriet Miers, and Bush's former political director, Sara Taylor, not to testify before congressional committees this week.

Fielding renewed the White House offer to let Miers, Taylor and other administration officials meet with congressional investigators off the record and with no transcript -- an offer congressional Democrats have rejected.

As a result, a showdown looms in which lawmakers could hold the subpoenaed officials in contempt of Congress.

Here are questions and answers about the process of contempt of Congress:

Q: What is contempt of Congress, and why would Congress want to use this power?

A: Congress can hold a person in contempt if he or she obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: to punish someone (1) for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, or (2) for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.

What is the process for holding someone in contempt of Congress?

A: The procedure can start in either the House or the Senate. The two chambers do not work together on contempt citations. It takes only one chamber to refer a person to be prosecuted for contempt.

It takes a majority vote for the citation to move to the full House or Senate. There, it must be debated by the full chamber like any other resolution. It is subject to the same filibuster and procedural rules as any other resolution. It takes a majority vote to be approved.

Once it's approved, the House speaker or the Senate president pro tem then turns the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to present to a grand jury.

However, that U.S. attorney is Jeff Taylor, a Bush appointee. ``On a case like this, does anyone believe the U.S. attorney is going to bring a criminal contempt citation against anyone?'' Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asked Monday. ``The U.S. attorney works for the president, and it's a discretionary matter what the U.S. attorney does.''

Later, on the Senate floor, Specter said, ``I can see how a U.S. attorney might not want to spend a whole lot of time on this matter.''

Q: What is the punishment upon conviction for contempt of Congress?

A: Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in federal prison.

Q: Is the contempt-of-Congress power used often in fights between the legislative branch and the executive branch?

A: Since 1975, 10 Cabinet-level or senior executive officials have been cited by subcommittees or committees for contempt for failure to produce subpoenaed documents. The 10 include Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1975, Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano Jr. in 1978, Interior Secretary James Watt in 1982, Attorney General William French Smith in 1983 and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.

The White House and Congress negotiated agreements in each case before criminal proceedings could begin.

Q: Does the president's executive privilege trump Congress' contempt citation?

A: That's the big question that both sides really don't want answered. In the past, neither side has been willing to let the matter go up to the Supreme Court for fear that its side would lose.

If Congress loses, then it would have a hard time investigating future presidents, Republican or Democrat.

If the White House loses, Bush and future presidents can expect numerous requests from a reinvigorated Congress, whether controlled by the Democrats or Republicans.

[David Koot]

Awww cmon Neil, this kinda stuff been going on for 200 years or thereabouts. T. Jefferson, the liberals' darling lol, defied a subpoena by conservative Mr. Chief Justice Marshall. In fact, you know what he said? "Let Mr. Marshall enforce his subpoena." Just think of the outcry if W were to say that now!

Dave