Contempt of Congress: What’s Next?

In the heat of the summer, it seemed inevitable that the White House and Congress were destined to clash in court over a number of subpoenas, most relating to the U.S. attorney firings investigation. But that’s appearing less and less likely.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has been warning since the beginning of the week that the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general depended on the White House turning over certain “information.”

Leahy has been uncharacteristically vague about just what “information” that might be, as the negotiations are ongoing, but there are a number of outstanding requests that Leahy might have in mind. Below is our accounting of where those many requests, along with those from Leahy’s House counterpart, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), stand. It’s also a reminder of the many loose ends that remain in the U.S. attorney firings probe.

Chief among the so-far-stonewalled requests are documents relating to the administration’s warrantless surveillance program. Leahy, along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), has been seeking documents concerning the legal basis for the program since the beginning of the year. The requests cover the entire history of the program, back to 2001, and including the infamous Comey/Gonzales showdown in John Ashcroft’s hospital room. After being rebuffed by the Justice Department, Leahy finally issued a subpoena to the White House, DoJ, the Office of the Vice President, and the National Security Council in late June. Since then, the administration has repeatedly asked for more time, even missing Leahy’s extended deadline August 20th.

But what the White House has not said (yet) is no. So when Leahy refers to information that he hopes to acquire, he’s likely referring to these documents.

On the other hand, Leahy and Conyers have gotten a whole series of “No”s in the course of their investigation of the U.S. attorney firings.

Leahy and Conyers say that their investigation now points squarely at the White House, since nobody at the Department has taken responsibility for selecting which prosecutors were fired. But the White House has claimed executive privilege for all correspondence (both internal and external) that Congress is seeking; prevented two of Karl Rove’s aides, Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor, from testifying about internal White House discussions; and asserted that Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers did not have to respond to the subpoenas at all. The White House has also indicated that it would assert executive privilege for White House staffers’ emails, even if those staffers were using their Republican National Committee email addresses — a number of Karl Rove’s aides, remember, mostly used RNC addresses for White House business.

Here’s where all that stands:

— The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to vote on whether to cite Karl Rove in contempt, a likely next step. Leahy has been clear that Rove’s departure last month (after he defied a committee subpoena by not showing August 2nd) won’t change the committee’s pursuit of his testimony.

— In late July, the House Judiciary Committee passed contempt resolutions against Miers and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for not providing the documents. Both were subpoenaed, neither deigned to respond, except to say that they didn’t have to respond. The next step is for the full House to vote on the resolutions, but there are indications that the Democratic leadership is less than eager to do so, postponing any vote to late September, and possibly October. One gets the impression that it’s not clear if there will ever be a vote.

— Both of Rove’s former aides, Scott Jennings (who remains at the White House) and Sara Taylor, (who left this spring) testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but refused to discuss internal deliberations based on the White House’s assertion of privilege. The hearings, as a result, were underwhelming. Leahy has publicly said that he’s still considering citing both aides with contempt.

— Conyers has been engaged in an extended back and forth with the RNC for White House staffers’ emails since the spring. Back in April, the White House claimed “a clear and indisputable Executive Branch interest” in the emails and requested that the RNC turn them over before passing any on to Congress. Since then, Conyers issued a subpoena, the deadline for which passed July 31st. The RNC has still refused to comply due to “instructions” from the White House. And although Conyers has threatened to find the RNC chairman in contempt for withholding the documents (the instructions of the White House not being legally binding), there’s been no indication that he will take that step imminently — especially since the Democratic leadership appears uneager to force a vote on his committee’s prior contempt citations against Miers and Bolten.