*updated* House Judiciary: RNC did NOT comply with subpoena

I've been waiting anxiously for word from the House Judiciary Committee about whether the Republican National Committee has complied, pusuant to subpoena, with supplying e-mails and other documents from key White House officials regarding the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys.

*UPDATE: Conyers Response at end of diary...

While no documents have officially been released on the House Judiciary Committee website, I did verify with a staffer who said: "The RNC did not comply citing executive privelege. Mr. Conyers issued a response letter to them yesterday."

Earlier this month, on July 13, the House Judiciary delivered a letter and a subpoena to the RNC ordering them to produce documents and e-mails to and from White House officials relating the contoversial firing of the nine U.S. attorneys.

July 13, 2007

BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL

Mr. Robert M. Duncan,

Chairman, Republican National Committee

c/o Mr. Robert Kelner

Covington & Burling LLP

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Duncan:

Enclosed is a subpoena for e-mail documents to be produced to the House Judiciary Committee by Tuesday, July 17, at 10:00 a.m. These are the e-mails, written by White House officials on their RNC e-mail accounts, pertaining to the Committee’s investigation into the circumstances surrounding the termination of at least nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006, possible related violations of federal law, and other related matters. The subpoena is being issued pursuant to authority granted by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on July 12, 2007.

As you know, I first requested these e-mail documents in a letter to you from myself and Subcommittee Chair Linda Sánchez on April 12, 2007. Following that letter, your outside counsel Mr. Robert Kelner and my staff have engaged in productive and cooperative negotiations to identify documents responsive to the request that could be obtained and produced without undue burden. Through that process, the RNC has identified, collected, and processed what I understand to be a substantial number of e-mail documents relevant to our investigation.

This subpoena is tailored accordingly, calling for you to produce only documents that the RNC has already identified through our cooperative process as responsive to the Committee’s letter, and which have already been collected and reviewed by both your outside counsel and the Office of the White House Counsel.1 As I understand the circumstances, these documents are ready and available for production, and it is for this reason that I am comfortable issuing a subpoena with this relatively prompt return date.

Your counsel has previously informed us that the White House has directed you to withhold many of these documents from the Committee. That direction, however, was made before the RNC was formally under subpoena, and before our Subcommittee hearing yesterday at which Chairwoman Sánchez quite correctly rejected the White House’s overreaching privilege claims as asserted on behalf of another private party (in that case Harriet Miers), and in particular the White House’s asserted right to direct a private party to violate a duly issued Congressional subpoena.

Please address any questions to the Judiciary Committee office at 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (tel: [phone], fax: [phone]). I look forward to your compliance with the subpoena next week.

On July 17, RNC Counsel Robert Kelner issued a letter back to the HJC refusing to comply with the subpoena citing a letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding claiming executive privelege, and that they needed more time to determine any documents that could be released.  

On July 18, Conyers and co-chair Linda Sanchez delivered a letter in response, allowing the RNC until July 31 to comply with the subpoena:

July 17,2007
BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL

Mr. Robert Kelner
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washngton, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Kelner:

I am writing in response to your letter today concerning the subpoena for documents served on Mr. Duncan last Friday, July 13. Of course the White House does not have possession,
custody or control of RNC documents, and accordingly we do not believe that the White House has any legal right to object to the production of documents from the RNC at this point. In any event, there has already been ample time for both you and the m t e House to prepare for the production of the documents requested. You will recall that we initially requested these documents on April 12, agreed to give the RNC until July 2 in part to provide additional time for consultation with the White House, and did not object to your request for another extension, until July 11, for purposes of such consultation. Nevertheless, our interest is in receiving the documents we have subpoenaed in order to proceed with our investigation and, as a further accommodation, I am willing to forbear efforts to enforce the Committee's subpoena until no later than 5 p.m. on July 31.

Until the House Judiciary Committee releases an official response, it is unclear whether RNC chairman, Robert Duncan, will face the same kind of subpoena enforcement actions by the House Judiciary as former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton, the current Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush, who were both issued contempt citations in response to their refusals to comply with Congressional subpoeanas.

Jonathon Godfrey, House Judiciary press office staffer, said a response from John Conyers should be available on the website "very soon."

**BREAKING UPDATE: Aug 3, 2007 5:25 pm EST

The House Judiciary committe has just released a response from John Conyers to RNC counsel Robert Kelner.  Conyers mentions receiving a letter on July 31 along with "some documents" that the RNC provided which did not meet the expectation of the subpoena.  Conyers writes:

I was very disappointed to receive your letter on July 31 concerning the subpoena for documents served on Mr. Duncan on July 13. On July 17, I granted your request and provided a two-week extension oftime to respond to the subpoena until July 31, because you requested additional time so that "specific determinations" could be made with respect to executive privilege claims. My July 17 letter made clear that by the revised deadline, the Committee was to receive all the documents requested or, with respect to any withheld, a document-by-document privilege log reflecting such "specific determinations." Although a small number of additional documents were provided late yesterday, most continue to be withheld based on "instructions" from the White House, many without even a formal claim of privilege, and with no privilege log or other detailed explanation ofthe reasons for the RNC's refusal to comply with the subpoena.

The House Judiciary has not yet release the letter from the RNC or the documents that Conyers referrs to.

It appears that John Conyers is extending, yet again, the deadline for the RNC to produce documents pursuant to Congressional subpoena until August 31.

I encourage further informal discussions with Committee staff on this matter, but must insist on hearing from you by August 10 on whether you are willing to pursue this course, and the process must be completed no later than August 31.  Otherwise, the Committee will have no choice but to assume that Mr. Duncan refuses to produce any of the category two documents, or to provide a log or any further basis for their withholding, without even an assertion of privelege by the RNC or the White House.

However, Mr. Conyers did reiterate "legal consequences" by the end of this new deadline:

Finally, I want to enphasize again that the Committee has directed this subpoena not to the White House, but to Mr. Duncan of the RNC.  The White House does not have legal control of the RNC.  Moreover, if the White House objects to your production of documents in your possession, it should raise a legal claim in court as in the AT&T case, rather than simplity "directing" a private party to refuse to comply with a subpoena.  Although we are willing to talk with the White House or anyone you designate to help resolve this matter, it is Mr. Duncan and the RNC who will bear responsibility for the legal consequences of refusing to comply with the Committee's subpoena.

The entire letter...

Is this another backdown, or is Conyers just crossing one more T?

Tip Jar put up...