For now, lawmakers seem to be working on dual tracks: keeping the door open for further negotiation while laying the groundwork for court action.
To proceed with a contempt action would require a majority vote of the judiciary committee issuing the subpoena as well as of the full chamber.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday July 11, 2007 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 1 inches; 38 words Type of Material: Correction
Attorney firings: An article in Tuesday's Section A on President Bush's claim of executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas said that Harriet E. Miers resigned as White House counsel in February 2005. Miers resigned in January 2007.
The matter would then go to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who would decide whether to prosecute.
Only one high-level contempt citation has ever gotten that far. In 1982, the House voted to hold in contempt Anne M. Gorsuch Buford, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, for refusing to produce documents concerning enforcement of laws on hazardous waste cleanup. President Reagan had ordered her not to produce the documents. The Justice Department declined to prosecute, saying that Congress was overstepping its bounds.
The current situation seems murkier. For one thing, it is unclear exactly who Congress would want to hold in contempt.
The attorney for Taylor, 32, who left the White House this spring, has argued it would be unfair to hold Taylor in contempt for obeying an order from the president. "She has two untenable choices. She can follow the president's direction ... or she can attempt to work out an accommodation ... which will put her at odds with the president," W. Neil Eggleston wrote to Leahy last week. "We urge the Senate not to use Ms. Taylor as the focus of the constitutional struggle."
Miers, who left the administration in February 2005 to return to law practice in Dallas, could not be reached for comment. Although she was involved in early discussions about replacing prosecutors -- she suggested firing all 93, the White House has said -- she left long before any were dismissed.
Timing is a consideration. Some congressional aides doubt that any final action will be taken before the August recess.
Some legal experts think Congress has a strong case if the privilege issue ends up in court.
"I think Congress has a very legitimate right to see whether there is corruption and illegality within the Justice Department," said Louis Fisher, an expert on executive privilege at the Library of Congress. "Are White House people involved in appointment and removal matters that should be done by Justice Department people?"
Fisher was alluding to testimony that some Justice officials considered politics in filling positions at the department, a possible violation of federal law.
"Once the White House people go away from purely giving confidential advice and start to administer or run a department, then I think they begin to lose their immunity," Fisher said. "Otherwise, Congress can never get to the bottom of anything."
rick.schmitt@latimes.com
Times staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this report.
