Harriet Miers? She's a lawyer. She was a prospective Supreme Court appointee. She should have known better. You don't not show up.
Invoking privilege in response to particular questions might have been warranted — the courts could have decided that later. But simply flouting a Congressional subpoena is not an option...
Together, Ms. Miers’s and Mr. Bolten’s response to Congress has simply been: “Go away” — a position that finds no support in the Constitution.
In other words, there's no excuse anywhere, least of all in the Constitution, for the behavior of these two (and many more) administration officials. Executive privilege simply doesn't apply here.
If these privilege claims make it to court, it is likely that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten will lose. The Supreme Court has held that a president’s interest in keeping communications private must be balanced against an investigator’s need for them. In this case, the president’s privacy interest is minimal, since the White House has said he was not involved in purging the United States attorneys.
Just because we're getting used to the Attorney General clearly lying to Congress doesn't mean we should let him get way with it.
He repeatedly refused to answer legitimate questions, and he contradicted himself so frequently that it is hard to believe he was even trying to tell the truth.
So the House Judiciary Committee did the right thing yesterday, no question about it, in issuing contempt subpoenas to Miers and Bolten.
The Bush administration has been acting lawlessly in refusing to hand over information that Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed. If the White House continues its obstruction, Congress should use all of the contempt powers at its disposal.
