mycatharsis.com

ACSBlog has an informative analysis of the legal issues presented by each side in the flap over Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten ignoring Congressional subpoenas and the Attorney General’s refusal to allow the U.S. attorney referred in the case to follow the law and present the case to a grand jury. Reading the links for Miss Pelosi’s letter and Mukasey’s response, I gotta say that Pelosi sounds a lot more reasonable, presenting the point that even if they refuse to answer questions, they still should at least respect the subpoena and appear …

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so.  Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place.  Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury.

Not only that, but Mukasey’s refusal to even allow attorney Jeffrey Taylor to bring the congressional contempt charge before a grand jury IS pretty stunning.  Far from seemingly being independent as past attorney’s general (even Janet Reno angered Bill Clinton when she appointed independent counsel Ken Starr), this AG seemingly is willing to not only refuse to investigate his boss, but to actively interfere in a legal process taking place against him.  Maybe he has a stronger argument than he laid out in his response to Pelosi, because citing two memo’s from this own administration as evidence of a long-standing policy is not that strong in itself.  Again, it speaks to this administrations belief that they are above the strong law-and-order surveillance society they say is necessary for all of us.