Foot-Dragging to the Finish

President Bush often talks about how he intends to " sprint to the finish." Meanwhile, his legal team is engaged in an entirely different race against time.

A federal judge last week sternly rebuked the White House for asserting that its aides are immune from congressional oversight, ordered a former and current staffer to comply with outstanding congressional subpoenas, and strongly encouraged the White House and Congress to reach some sort of compromise.

But Bush White House officials apparently aren't interested in anything other than running out the clock. Can they postpone potentially incriminating testimony until after the November election? Can they make it all the way to Jan. 20?

Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers yesterday asked a federal judge to delay an order to cooperate with Congress while they appeal the ruling.

"The court filings indicate that Bolten and Miers will continue to resist subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee as the Bush administration heads into its final months. . . .

"Lawmakers are seeking testimony from Miers and documents from Bolten related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. After [U.S. District Judge John D.] Bates's ruling, Democrats announced they would schedule hearings on the issue in September -- less than two months before the presidential elections."

Jesse J. Holland writes for the Associated Press: "Bates did not immediately rule on their request. . . . The judge asked House lawyers to respond by next week. . . .

"Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers," the Bolten and Miers request said."

After last week's ruling, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy reasserted his demand for testimony from Bolten and former chief White House political guru Karl Rove, in connection with Senate subpoenas issued in June and July of last year. He also asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to publicly retract his finding of absolute immunity for top aides.

In a letter to Leahy yesterday, Fielding struck a defiant tone. "[W]e believe that entertaining any requests for Mr. Bolten's compliance with the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena should await a final resolution by the courts. In regard to my August 1, 2007 letter to Mr. Rove, please be advised that, consistent with the above, the view stated therein remains the position of the Administration on the question of immunity for close Presidential advisors."

Leahy responded with this statement: "For more than a year, Karl Rove and the President's chief of staff have hidden behind baseless and unprecedented claims of 'absolute immunity' not to appear in compliance with subpoenas. They continue to withhold critical evidence and testimony and to act as if they are above the law because they work at the White House. This claim was rejected by Judge Bates after months of consideration. Still, the White House refuses to appear or cooperate. This continuing contempt of Congress is another example of the lengths to which this administration will go and how it uses government lawyers to protect its actions from scrutiny and increase its power, rather than respect the rule of law."

Also yesterday, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) sent a letter to the Republican National Committee arguing that the ruling also applies to e-mail records the RNC has refused to turn over in connection with the U.S. attorneys probe.