Category: Contempt of Congress

Scott Bloch, the former head of the Office of Special Counsel, the office charged with protecting government whistleblowers against retaliation, wasn’t very popular with the employees in his former office, and they went to Congress to complain. Among other things, they accused him of retaliating against those who voiced concerns about his policies. You get the irony.

Anyway, by and by this attracted the attention of congressional investigators, who requested a transcribed interview with Bloch. During the interview, they asked Bloch about an incident where he had used an outside service, Geeks on Call, to perform something called a “seven level wipe” on certain computers at the Office of Special Counsel, including his own. The suspicion was that he wanted to remove evidence that would substantiate some of the allegations against him.

According to a later information filed against him, Bloch, “having been requested by the House Oversight Committee to provide information upon a matter of pertinent inquiry before the Committee, unlawfully and willfully did make default by refusing and failing to state fully and completely the nature and extent of his instructions that Geeks on Call perform ‘seven level wipes’ on [the computers in question].”

Bloch entered into a plea agreement, in which he agreed to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor count of contempt of Congress, 2 U.S.C. § 192. Under the plea agreement, the prosecution would not oppose “a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range,” which the agreement calculates as “0 to 6 months.” In other words, the prosecutors promised that they would not object to Bloch’s position that he should serve no jail time (although the actual sentence would be up to the court).

After Bloch pled guilty, however, the U.S. Probation Office prepared a presentence report that noted the minimum sentence for contempt of Congress is one month in jail. This did not require any lengthy legal research; the statute provides on its face that the offense is punishable by “imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”

Nevertheless, both Bloch’s lawyers and the prosecution objected. They pointed out that the last two prosecutions for contempt of Congress had resulted in sentences of probation. In the most recent case, United States v. Miguel Tejada, 09-mj-077, the defendant, who pled guilty just a year before Bloch, was given probation and the Probation Office did not raise any objection.

The magistrate judge did not buy it. Not only did she conclude that the statute was clear on its face in requiring a one month minimum sentence, but she refused to allow Bloch to withdraw his guilty plea. She was clearly irked by the joint position of the prosecution and defense that Bloch should be allowed to negotiate a new plea deal in which he would plead guilty to a different offense (presumably one that would permit no jail time). Responding to this suggestion, she stated “[c]onfidence in the fair and orderly administration of justice is undermined by the suggestion that the court should participate in a process by which a sentence is first determined by Defendant and the government, and then an offense expected to guarantee such sentence is alleged.”

Maybe so, but it seems to have escaped notice that Bloch could not have committed the offense to which he pled guilty. The contempt of Congress statute provides that “[e]very person who having been summoned as a witness . . . to give testimony . . .  upon any matter under inquiry before . . .  any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. . . .”

Bloch was not “summoned as a witness.” He was asked to provide a voluntary interview. He did not appear before a committee. He met with congressional staff. He did not “willfully make default” (ie, fail to appear). If he had refused to answer one or more questions posed by the staff, it does not seem that he would have violated the statute (and it is not apparent from the information whether he actually did refuse to answer questions). What Bloch apparently did was to fail to provide accurate or complete answers to questions regarding the computer incident. This may have violated the False Statements Act, but it is hard to see how it constituted contempt of Congress.

This is not the first time that the contempt of Congress statute has been used to convert the felony of lying to or obstructing Congress into a misdemeanor charge. Nor has it been a secret. In 1988, when Robert McFarlane pled guilty to contempt of Congress, the New York Times pointed out that what McFarlane did was not actually contempt of Congress, but lying to Congress. Nevertheless, it noted that prosecutors used the “euphemism” of equating lying to Congress with a refusal to answer questions as a means of reducing the charge from felony to misdemeanor. This technique was also used in the plea bargains of Richard Kleindienst and Richard Helms.

Furthermore, even if Bloch had committed the offense to which he pled guilty, the court would not have had jurisdiction to convict him. The D.C. Circuit has held that a conviction for contempt of Congress is invalid unless the contempt has first been properly certified by the House or Senate (or, during adjournment, by the Speaker or President of the Senate) to the U.S. Attorney under 2 U.S.C. § 194.  Wilson v. United States, 369 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1966). (Indeed, the reason that there is a minimum sentence for contempt is undoubtedly to ensure that the U.S. Attorney is sufficiently vigorous in acting on such a congressional certification). No such certification was made here.

In short, it appears that Bloch pled guilty to a crime that he didn’t commit in order to get a sentence to which he was not entitled from a court that was not empowered to pronounce one. Chief Judge Lamberth has now reversed the magistrate judge, finding that Bloch should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Judge Lamberth seems to have accepted the view that contempt requires a minimum one month sentence, however. Thus, it will be harder for this provision to be used as the basis for plea bargains in the future.

             The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Karl Rove to appear and testify at a hearing on Monday, February 2.  Rove’s attorney has responded by forwarding the subpoena to the Obama White House and asking, in essence, whether President Obama agrees that Rove should continue to abide by former President Bush’s instruction not to appear.  Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the matter has been turned over to the White House Counsel for consideration. 

            Some have asked why Rove should be entitled to an advisory opinion from the Obama Administration on whether he must comply with a congressional subpoena.  After all, the ordinary witness does not have that option, but must choose between complying with a congressional subpoena or facing a possible criminal prosecution for contempt. 

            Rove, however, is not in the position of an ordinary witness.  The former president has directed him not to appear before Congress based on an asserted absolute immunity.  This immunity has been claimed by the Office of Legal Counsel not only in the Bush 43 Administration, but in the Clinton and previous administrations.  Moreover, there is a case currently pending before the D.C. Circuit (Miers v. House Judiciary Committee)  in which the court may rule on the existence of the immunity.  Up to this point, the Justice Department has argued in favor of the immunity in Miers, and the Obama Administration will have to decide whether to change this position.  

            Given this state of affairs, the Obama Administration has several possible responses.  First, it could tell Rove that it does not recognize the existence of the immunity.  In that case, Rove could choose to ignore this advice and refuse to testify anyway, taking the risk that he might ultimately be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.  More likely, Rove will tell former President Bush that he intends to appear unless Bush brings a legal action to vindicate the claimed immunity.  Otherwise, Rove would appear on Monday and invoke executive privilege on a question-by-question basis.  

            Second, the Obama Administration could tell Rove that it has not yet decided on what position it intends to take in the Miers case and that the matter is under review by the Department of Justice.  In addition, or in the alternative, it might tell Rove that to the extent the immunity is controlled by the current president, Obama declines to assert it.  Such a response would give Rove somewhat more cover to refuse to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.  Rove could argue to the committee that the question of whether the immunity exists is an unresolved legal question and that the committee should either bring a declaratory judgment action against him (as it did for Miers and Bolten) or should await the outcome of the case pending in the D.C. Circuit. 

            Third, the Obama Administration could tell Rove that the immunity belongs to the current president, not the former president, and inform him that Obama waives it.  I think this response is less likely than the first two.  If one accepts for sake of argument that the immunity exists in the first place (IMHO, a very dubious proposition), it would not make much sense to allow the current president to waive the immunity for aides of former presidents.  The whole idea of the immunity is that a presidential aide acts as the “alter ego” of the president for whom he or she works.  Allowing a different president to control the assertion of the immunity would be like allowing the assertion of Speech or Debate privilege for a congressional aide to be controlled by the successor to the congressman whom the aide served. 

            Finally, the Obama Administration could tell Rove that he should abide by the instructions of the former president, at least for the time being.  In that case Rove is off the hook for the moment. 

            Of course, the Obama Administration might not respond at all.  In that case, Rove and his attorney will probably construe the non-response as meaning that the current administration adheres to the previously expressed views of the Justice Department, and decline to appear on that basis.     

             My bet would be on some variant of the second response.  But we shall see.

 

            The D.C. Circuit has at last ruled on the stay motion in the Miers case.  In a brief per curium opinion, the court grants the motion to stay and denies the motion for an expedited briefing schedule. 

The court first holds that there is appellate jurisdiction, noting that the declaratory judgment that Miers must testify is the “functional equivalent” of an injunction, and thus appealable, because the court presumes that executive officials (or, in Miers’s case, former executive officials) will act in accordance with the court’s declaration.   

            The rest of the opinion is very peculiar because it makes no reference to the four factors that the court is required to consider in ruling on a stay.  There is in fact no explicit discussion of any kind regarding the merits of the stay application.  Instead the court first notes that this is a “case of potentially great significance for the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive Branches.”  It then explains that “the Committee recognizes that, even if expedited, this controversy will not be fully and finally resolved by the Judicial Branch—including resolution by a panel and possible rehearing by this court en banc and by the Supreme Court—before the 110th Congress ends on January 3, 2009.”  Accordingly, it concludes that there is no reason to expedite the case. 

            Somewhere, though, the court seems to have missed the step of explaining why the stay should be granted.  The question of expediting the case only becomes relevant if one assumes that the case is stayed.  One gets the impression that there may have been some additional discussion that was deleted at the last moment. 

Judge Tatel’s concurring opinion does discuss the stay issue. He suggests that an appellant who will suffer irreparable injury need only make a “modest” showing of probable success on the merits. He then indicates that issues before the court satisfy this standard, “[e]xcept for the executive’s assertion of absolute immunity from congressional process.”

Of course, that is a very big exception, seeing as how absolute immunity is the main issue in the case. (Presumably, the other issues Judge Tatel refers to are the threshold jurisdictional issues raised by the Executive). Moreover, while Judge Tatel apparently accepts that the Executive would suffer “irreparable injury” if a stay were not granted, he does not explain why that would be the case. The Executive’s argument with regard to irreparable injury was simply that Judge Bates’s order “negates” Miers’s asserted absolute immunity by requiring Miers to appear and testify before the Committee. But how could Judge Tatel find that to be irreparable injury if the absolute immunity is meritless?

The real point of Judge Tatel’s concurrence, though, was to state that he was “perplexed” by the majority’s willingness to grant a stay without definitively rejecting the possibility that “the expiration of the 110^th Congress would moot the case before it is heard on the merits.” “Never before have we granted a stay that would have the effect of irrevocably depriving a party of its victory in the district court.” Nonetheless, because Judge Tatel believes that the case would not be moot (and therefore that a stay will not greatly harm the Committee), he concurred in the court’s judgment.

The one thing that seems clear from both the majority and concurring opinions is that the panel hopes that a new President and new Congress will find a way to resolve this dispute without the need for further judicial intervention. I think that the court would have been better served if it had simply expressed this view directly, rather than reaching the result through dubious (or entirely absent) legal reasoning.

           I attended yesterday’s D.C. Circuit argument on the Justice Department’s stay application in the Miers case.  The panel consisted of Judges Randolph, Ginsburg and Tatel.  A few takeaways: 

            Despite having asked the parties to brief appellate jurisdiction, the court didn’t seem interested in that subject.  The sense I got was that the judges are satisfied that they have jurisdiction over at least some part of the case. 

            It seemed as if the judges were interested in granting a stay, but it was not clear why.  The judges did not give much indication of disagreement with the rulings of the court below.  Judge Randolph made a point of noting, in response to House Counsel’s assertion that the Justice Department’s position on absolute immunity was “bogus” and “frivolous,” that this was the position of every administration since the Nixon Administration.  However, while the panel may believe that absolute immunity is a question of first impression, I did not detect any indication that the judges disagreed with how Judge Bates resolved that question.  Toward the end of the argument, Judge Tatel asked DOJ attorney Carl Nichols what was his “best case” in support of the absolute immunity position.  Nichols cited Nixon v. Fitzgerald (holding that the President is immune from civil suits) but acknowledged that Harlow v. Fitzgerald (denying the same immunity to presidential aides) “would be difficult for us.”  I am probably biased here (as I don’t think much of the absolute immunity argument myself), but I don’t think the judges found that very convincing.

With regard to the Justice Department’s threshold arguments, standing and cause of action, there was no discussion of the latter and the former did not come up until the very end of the argument, when Judge Randolph pointed out that if the House were to exercise its “self-help” remedy by arresting an executive official for contempt, the court would have to hear the same issues in the form of a habeas petition brought by the detained official. None of the panel seemed to understand why this would be a more appropriate way to resolve the dispute than the declaratory judgment action brought by the House.

(Judge Randolph asked Nichols whether the House had ever arrested an executive official for contempt. Nichols stated that he was not aware of any such case. In fact, at least two executive officials have been arrested for contempt, but in neither case were they asserting executive branch privileges or refusing to testify on the direction of the President.)

Most of the argument focused on the how much harm the House would suffer if a stay were granted. This is a tricky question because, although both parties agreed that the subpoenas here would “expire” at the conclusion of the Congress (i.e., in the first week of January 2009), the parties themselves seemed unsure as to what that would mean for the case. Nichols argued that the case would “likely” be moot at the expiration of the Congress, but suggested that this might depend on several factors that he did not identify. He also argued that the only legitimate purpose for the subpoena was to obtain information in aid of legislation, and that there was no possibility, even if the case were not stayed, that the House would be able to get any useful information and use it for legislative purposes in this Congress. In other words, a stay would not really matter because the clock will run out either way. (For that very reason the Justice Department has previously taken the position that congressional subpoenas expire upon adjournment sine die, another position that it has apparently altered for the purposes of this case.)

House Counsel Irv Nathan acknowledged that the subpoena would expire at the end of the Congress, but suggested that this might not moot the case because it would fall within the mootness exception for cases capable of repetition but evading review. Judge Tatel pointed out, however, that this exception only applies if the case is capable of repetition for the same plaintiff, and is therefore arguably inapplicable because the House Judiciary Committee itself (along with the House as a whole) expires at the end of the Congress.

It is not clear to me that the case should be mooted by the expiration of the Congress. As both parties acknowledged at the argument, the court of appeals in the AT&T case apparently did not view the expiration of the Congress as mooting the controversy before it. Moreover, in the census litigation, the three-judge district court (which included Judge Ginsberg) rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the House lacked standing to assert the injuries of a future Congress. The court gave two reasons for its conclusion (1) it noted that the House is in some respects a continuing institution (such as for owning property) and (2) it found that in any event the House had a “special relationship” with its successors so as to allow it to vindicate the rights of the latter. It seems to me that similar reasoning would allow the 111^th Congress to continue to litigate the rights of the 110^th.

In the final analysis, I suspect that the D.C. Circuit’s decision here will turn on some fairly practical considerations. I think that the court may be nervous about letting the case go forward in the district court because of the possibility that the court will get further embroiled in this political dispute. On the other hand, the judges (particularly, but not solely, Judge Tatel) were clearly concerned about depriving the House of the opportunity (to which Judge Bates found it was entitled) to get the evidence needed for its investigation.

This suggests the possibility that the court will issue some sort of creative order (not unlike what happened in the AT&T case) designed to resolve the matter without the need for further judicial proceedings. For example, the court might give the parties a limited period of time, say a week, to reach a settlement of the matter. If the White House/Justice Department failed to make a reasonable offer to resolve the dispute, the stay would be lifted. As I have indicated before, I think that the offer of a private (preferably transcribed) interview with Miers would be a reasonable offer, if the White House dropped the condition that the House waive its right to seek additional information from Miers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today set oral argument in the White House subpoena case for September 16th at 2:30 p.m. before Circuit Judges Douglas Ginsburg, David Tatel, and Raymond Randolph. The sides each have 15 minutes.