As chairman, Conyers is taking the lead on a groundbreaking civil lawsuit in which the committee is asking a federal judge to force White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to comply with subpoenas the committee served as part of its investigation of the Bush administrationÕs firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

ÒThe [administration] was thumbing their nose at the legal process,Ó Conyers said in an interview with Politico. ÒAs commander in chief, [Bush] thinks he is above the law.Ó



Conyers says he ÒdidnÕt have any choiceÓ but to file the suit after Attorney General Michael Mukasey made it clear that the Justice Department would not prosecute the HouseÕs contempt charges against Bolten and Miers.

Predictably, the suit has not gone over well with Republicans, who argue that the two aides are protected by executive privilege. One aide to House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called the lawsuit nothing more than Òpandering to the left-wing fever swamps of loony liberal activists.Ó

ConyersÕ determination to proceed is just the latest sign that he is not afraid to stir the pot.

From his chairmanÕs perch, Conyers has launched an ambitious oversight agenda, holding hearings on the U.S. attorney firings, voting irregularities in several states and several other hot-button topics. He has been warmer than most House Democrats to the idea of exploring impeachment proceedings against Bush. Legislatively, he has introduced bills to ban racial profiling by law enforcement officers and to provide for universal health care.

On the contentious issue of an update to electronic surveillance laws Ñ another key committee flash point Ñ Conyers has opposed granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that aided the government in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Conyers said he would be willing to reconsider his opposition if the Bush administration would make available full details of the program, something it has so far refused to do.

ÒThere is no case in American jurisprudence in which it had been held that retroactive immunity would apply if you donÕt know what it was you were granting immunity for,Ó Conyers said.


... (WaPo)