This may be a situation where the courts are on the sidelines and resolution will only come from a showdown between the Executive and Legislative  branch. If the house committee requests the full house to hold a "trial" on whether a person defying its subpoena is in contempt, it seems the courts may decline to intervene.

EASTLAND v. UNITED STATES SERVICEMEN'S FUND, 421 U.S. 491 (1975)

Argued January 22, 1975.
Decided May 27, 1975.

The Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, pursuant to its authority under a Senate resolution to make a complete study of the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950, began an inquiry into the various activities of respondent organization, to determine whether they were potentially harmful to the morale of United States Armed Forces. In connection with such inquiry it issued a subpoena duces tecum to the bank where the organization had an account, ordering the bank to produce all records involving the account. The organization and two of its members then brought an action against the Chairman, Senator Members, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee, and the bank to enjoin implementation of the subpoena on First Amendment grounds. The District Court dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although courts should hesitate to interfere with congressional actions even where First Amendment rights are implicated, such restraint should not preclude judicial review where no alternative avenue of relief is available, and that if the subpoena was obeyed respondents' First Amendment rights would be violated. Held: The activities of the Senate Subcommittee, the individual Senators, and the Chief Counsel fall within the "legitimate legislative sphere," and since it is determined that such is the case, those activities are protected by the absolute prohibition of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution against being "questioned in any other Place" and hence are immune from judicial interference. Pp. 501-511.

(a) The applicability of the Clause to private civil actions is supported by the absoluteness of the term "shall not be questioned" and the sweep of the term "in any other Place." P. 503.

(b) Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question is a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate, and the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses. Pp. 503-505.

(c) Inquiry into the sources of the funds used to carry on activities suspected by a subcommittee of Congress to have a potential

Page 421 U.S. 491, 492

for undermining the morale of the Armed Forces is within the legitimate legislative sphere. Pp. 505-507.

(d) There is no distinction between the Subcommittee's Members and its Chief Counsel insofar as complete immunity from the issuance of the subpoena under the Speech or Debate Clause is concerned, and since the Members are immune because the issuance of the subpoena is "essential to legislating," their aides share that immunity. P. 507.

(e) The subpoena cannot be held subject to judicial questioning on the alleged ground that it works an invasion of respondents' privacy, since it is "essential to legislating." P. 508.

(f) Nor can the subpoena be held outside the protection of speech or debate immunity on the alleged ground that the motive of the investigation was improper, since in determining the legitimacy of a congressional action the motives alleged to have prompted it are not to be considered. Pp. 508-509.

"By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush's White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers, to the advantage of the White House."

My questions as a layperson are even the presumption that the White House can do what they will, despite settled law and precedent and do it so brazenly is enough for me to question the integrity of the Judiciary Branch. Is this why President Bush hoped to install Hariet Miers onto the Supreme Court, in hopes that she would act against the Constitution, knowing of course her position would be a life long appointment?

How could anyone be so arrogant as to simply assume that the particular judges will side with them? Unless they actually "know" that these will happen and also with the US Attorneys, which is why it seems they used the Patriot Act to sneak in the USAs in full understanding that Congress would be investigating the White House. So the USAs scandal appears to be a pre-emptive strike against the rule of law and pre -meditated obstruction of justice.

This alarms me. But there is one thing Mr. Dean does not mention and I clearly do not understand well enough in terms of legal questions about impeaching members of the Judiciary Branch. If it appears that the Jurist in question or the USA in question has been compromised, then should Congress not undertake an investigation to see just how or why or even if their is an issue of collusion with the Executive Branch?

Finally, it is quite clear that President is instructing government official by a flimsy edit to engage in law-breaking activities to help cover up possible crimes. Even if there were no crimes committed by the Executive, the crime of issuing an order to officials that they must ignore and/or violate the law, is a crime. In fact, it is an impeachable offense.

But here is where things get tricky and where I need a legal genius to explain it to me (Pontificator, you around?).