Today, President Bush insisted that he would not allow White House aides to testify under oath before congressional committees investigating the US Attorney purge. He made clear that he would go to court to fight any subpoena that Congress might issue — invoking, of course, executive privilege as the grounds for refusing to obey the subpoena.
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, was strangely off-message on the matter of executive privilege, explaining that the president apparently
wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time….
Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Odd, coming from the White House spokesman, no? Thing is, Snow wrote those words back in 1998, when the President was Clinton, and the scandal du jour involved an intern. I’m guessing he’ll be whistling a different tune now, but that’s just me.
The Dems, by the way, are holding firm that Bush’s offer to allow aides to be interviewed, but in private and not under oath, is unacceptable — so far.
Democrats’ response to [Bush’s] proposal was swift and firm. “Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability,” said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Please, Democrats, don’t wimp out on this one. Please….
http://www.americanc…
Condi and Chertoff. And it’s four dollars to one Amero.
Three nations merge and the bankers take the rest.
I don’t think he’ll stop, David.
<
p>
Question is, when courts tell Bush to make Rove testify, will Bush obey the courts?
….if he refuses he will be thrown in jail.
The Court has long held that an executive privilege does exist. John Marshall told Thomas Jefferson that its not absolute (and other courts have told other presidents the same), but in US v Nixon the court ruled that the president should have pretty big leeway unless it is “demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial.”
<
p>
<
p>
The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure, so I don’t know that firing them was a criminal offense. I don’t like what Bush did, but I think he has got a Constitutional leg to stand on.
<
p>
By the way, the best book I ever read on the subject is Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy, and Accountability by a professor named Mark Rozel. Its in its second edition, and covers the Clinton and first two years of the Bush presidencies. I first heard him testify when I was working for the Congress a couple years ago. I don’t remember what the specific reason for the hearing was, but it was on executive privilege.
…While executive privilege will be a legitimate issue here, trying to distinguish this case from the US vs. Nixon case on the basis that this case is not a criminal case, is probably a distinction without a difference. The Congress does have some fairly broad oversight powers over the executive branch for purposes of crafting legislation and determining whether impeachment and removal are in order, and if Congress can justify that it needs the documents and the testimony for either purpose, it will probably get the courts to agree.
….there is common ground between the legilative and executive branches regardin US Attorneys. The are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President but they are subject to Congressional confirmation. If Congress wanted to question Carl Rove on a matter completely out of the pervue of the traditional functions of the legislative branch then the invocation of Executive Privelege would be at its most compelling.
there is common ground between the legilative and executive branches regardin US Attorneys. The are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President but they are subject to Congressional confirmation.
<
p>
I don’t know the details, but apparently somebody sneaked something into the renewal of the “PATRIOT” act that allows the president to appoint US Attorneys without Congressional confirmation. And he has done so in several districts recently.
<
p>
That is the crux of this issue.
….not an absolute provision. It is a provision to fill seats that become vacant mid term and the Senate just voted overwhelmingly to repeal it. Nonetheless, when the President is appointing US Attorneys at the start of a term they are still subject to Congressional confirmation.
…even if it passes the House, certainly not by this president. And there probably aren’t enough votes in both houses of Congress to overturn a veto.
<
p>
And I suspect, but cannot prove, that, if the Dems hold onto both houses of Congress and win the presidency, they won’t push for repeal. Why? They might want a president of their party to have the same power to replace US Atty’s that Bush now has.
….as it looks now, it may be veto proof. 94 to 2 in the Senate in favor of repeal verges on astounding. We’ll see what happens in the house.
…but the political dynamics do change in a veto fight.
<
p>
On the other hand, since Bush can’t really do anything for Republicans in Congress since the Democrats control the agenda, maybe they (the Republicans) will vote their consciouses and not their loyalty to a president of their own party.
Didn’t we learn from the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Myers v. United States that the President can fire whomever he wants, even if that position is Senate confirmable?
…particularly in Myers v. US is that the Congress cannot require the President to seek its permission before dismissing an appointed official. The Court did not hold as a blanket rule that the President can just fire whomever he pleases without consequences. Further, the issue of whom the President can or cannot fire is irrelevant as to whether Congress can question presidential aides under oath in an investigation into the circumstances surrounding a dismissal.
I think executive privilege as laid out in US v Nixon is broad enough to cover them. There was nothing criminal in firing them. Without a criminal case I don’t think Congress can compel them to testify.
….was about audiotapes, was very narrowly written and jam packed with dicta about how the Pres and his staff are not given blanket protection by executive privilege. And then there is what happened to Nixon and those tapes that makes the decision seem flawed in retrospect. The SCOTUS considers these issues on a case by case basis based on the merits of the individual situation. Nixon v. US will no doubt be in Bush’s brief to the Court if it comes to that, but there is no reason to presume that it would control.
Please me know if I get this straight. Executive privilege has been invoked by President Bush to protect the constitutional right of Karl Rove and his WH colleagues to to lie in a private, unrecorded, and informal meeting with Pat Lahey and his Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues.
<
p>
I have a better idea, President Bush. Why not just let Scooter Libby, who has some time on his hands before his June sentencing, leak some “new and improved” falsehoods about the justifications for the U.S. attorney firings to Robert Novak, the Justice Department correspondent for the New York Times, Matt Cooper, Tim Russert, and other selected members of the White House press corps.
<
p>
Then, rest assured, as these “new and improved” false explanations proliferate and become uncritically accepted in the national media and by the public, at large, Congress will abandon its constitutional oversight function. Does this sound like an excellent plan to you, Mr. President? Should I call Mr. Libby at home or at his lawyer’s office to begin “Operation Legal Eagle?”
partisan bickering as I am? What’s in all this for the American people? What ‘s the point? Who cares? I wish they’d all spend as much time and taxpayer money on how we get a national health care system that works instead of their petty political vendettas.
Bush started this round of “partisan bickering” by firing attorneys who weren’t being partisan enough for his taste.
What happened to Mrs. Pelosi’s “end to partisan differences” and concentration on the business of the people of America? Why haven’t we heard more about the “first 100 days” lately instead of this nonsense?
The only individuals that will benefit from all this are attorneys who will stuff their pockets with taxpayer money while the rest of us have no health care. Frankly, I have no use for Republicans or Democrats and don’t really care who has the latest Latest ‘gotcha”. Just partisan politics at it’s worst ….a total waste
Lawyers were fired, ostensibly for not looking the other way while friends of the administration broke the law. Or fired for not supporting certain aspects of the President’s agenda.
<
p>
You want the law to applied evenly, right? You want the judicial branch to maintain its autonomy from the whims of the executive branch, right?
<
p>
It’s sad we even have to explain this to you, really.
your condescending remarks
<
p>
“It’s sad we even have to explain this to you, really.”
<
p>
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about as the attorneys in question ARE NOT part of the Judicial branch of Government. They “work” and “report” for and to the President of The US , whoever that may be, and can be hired or fired at his discretion. Need more be explained?
<
p>
The point I have been and continue to try to make is that this whole affair is a collosal waste of time and money when there are so many much more important things to be done than “getting revenge”.
<
p>
Any guesses as to what this little vendetta is going to cost the American people in terms of legal fees alone ( to the nearest $ 10 million)? for what?
…need my condescending remarks.
<
p>
Any attorney ISN’T part of the judicial branch? An attorney is an officer of the court, and while they serve at the pleasure of the President, you MUST be disingenuous when you suggest that you see nothing wrong with sabotaging the judicial process by firing attorneys because they prosecute friends of the administration for corruption, or because they won’t round up enough illegal immigrants to make it look good on the O’Reilly Factor.
<
p>
For what? How about the integrity of the justice system. Or aren’t Republicans interested in integrity?
Could you give Mr Ed here a crash course on attorneys? Maybe you could spend a little extra time explaining to him the difference between being a member of the “Judical branch” of the Federal Government and being an Officer of the Court. I think he’s a little confused. Thanks
You conservative posters are all the same. As soon as you’re flustered, your first refuge is personal attack and changing the subject.
<
p>
My orginal point was Gonzales’s actions threaten the autonomy of the judicial branch. It’s not hard to understand: Why should politics play a role in who is, or is not, prosecuted for corruption. Or for illegal immigration? I never said the prosecutors didn’t serve at the pleasure of the President.
<
p>
I’ll assume that because you didn’t address my point that you can’t. Thanks for playing.
** (Sorry; any equine references are purely incidental.)
<
p>
It seems — at least from my view — that you went on the offensive in this thread before Center Aisle did, not that it makes retaliaition/escalation any more justified. Let’s chalk this up to too much coffee, eh?
<
p>
Actually, I don’t think that Center Aisle’s question was too far off the mark. I’m not an expert, but I certainly presumed that Federal prosecutors fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice — and therefore the Executive Branch, rather than the Judicial Branch (which presumably deals with Federal judges, etc.). I could well be wrong, but I certainly understand where Center Aisle is coming from here.
<
p>
Anyhow, I did a little digging around on the Net and found this, tho I don’t know how helpful it really is.
<
p>
That said, I’m already on record elsewhere as thinking that the Sentate investigation of the DOJ is most certainly NOT a waste of time and money.
My point was NEVER that a federal prosecutor ISN’T a part of the executive branch. Sigh…what a silly tangent…
<
p>
but that meddling from the administration compromises the integrity of the judicial system.
<
p>
Yeah, anyway…sorry for the tone.
…which time has come and long passed.
<
p>
The “first 100 days” was 1995, after Gingrich and his Republicans took over the House.
I was just giving the new majority a little more time. At any rate, it doesn’t matter. I’m definitely not seeing any results….just more partisan hatred and counter productivity where the big loser is the American people. Nothing changes except the lawyers get richer.
…Pelosi said that she would bring up six specific matters for a vote in the House. She didn’t promise that they would be passed in the House, just that they would be brought up in the House for a vote. It was modelled after Gingrich’s promise regarding the first 100 days in the Contract on America.
<
p>
I don’t know what the status of any of the six specific matters was. If they were brought to the floor for a vote, she did what she said she would do.
(i) US Attorneys are definitely not part of the judicial branch. If they were, it would be a conflict within the judicial branch for them even to bring and prosecute cases before the courts. They are part of the executive branch, specifically political appointees within the Justice Department. They represent the executive branch–which, according to the US Constitution, puts the obligaton on the President to see that the laws be faithfully executed. That is another reason that the US Attys are part of the executive branch and not the judicial branch.
<
p>
(ii) Lawyers are registered with the bars of their respective states or administrative agencies. The bars of the respective states are, indeed, maintained by the courts, but they are not part of the judiciaries of those states. The judiciaries set the standard required to become and remain members of the bars, but those members are not employed by the courts just because they are members of the bar. A subtle, yet real, distinction. Lawyers may not–or are not supposed to–make misrepresentations to the court, hence the “officer of the court” part of the mantra. But they are not employed by the court. There’s a huge difference. If Gonzales had made misrepresentations to a court, I’d agree with Edprisby that he should be disbarred. But I know of no misrepresentations that he has made to a court.
<
p>
(iii) To center aisle, you err, as well. You seem to be under the misapprehension that matters in Congress need to go seriatim–in series–and that they cannot take things up in parallel. Given the army of persons in the Congressional branch–not only the Members, but also the staffs, it would be a simple matter to have investigations into matters such as health care financing go in parallel with the investigation into the US Attorneys matter. You might hear more about the US Atty’s matter than other matters in the noise–sorry “news”–media, but that doesn’t mean that other matters are not being attended to.
<
p>
(iv) center aisle, regarding What happened to Mrs. Pelosi’s “end to partisan differences” and concentration on the business of the people of America? I’ll again repeat Joan Rivers: “Oh grow up.” Don’t you recognize public relations spin when you see or hear it? Pelosi has been very circumspect, with an ability for which she should be admired. Not for what she is circumspect about, but for the way she executes it.
I’m an idiot.
<
p>
<
p>
Why would I type that when this is what I meant:
<
p>
<
p>
Thanks, RAJ.
Is about as non-partisan an issue as you can get.
<
p>
From my perspective, this is a legitimate attempt to restore the system of checks and balances that supposedly exists between the 3 branches of federal government.
I should add, is why you also have Republicans like NH’s John Sununu on board calling for resignation or termination of AG Gonzalez.
…The reason he’s on board is probably more due to the fact that he’s fearing defeat in his next election in the increasingly Democratic New Hampshire.
Perhaps I’m being charitable.
<
p>
😉
but 18 USC 1001 might be applicable in a “lying to Congress” situation.
<
p>
The problem is, without a transcript or recording, it is difficult to verify whether the deponent was lying.
First off…..U.S. Attorneys are in no way a part of the Judicial Branch like some here have baselessly claimed.
<
p>
They very clearly fall under the Department of Justice…..which is an EXECUTIVE Branch Department.
<
p>
While U.S. Attorneys ARE nominated by the President and appointed by and with the consent of the Senate, the ACTUAL LAW says that “Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.”
<
p>
That, in very plain english, means that they may be removed BY THE PRESIDENT.
<
p>
Read the actual law for a change….which is USC Title 28, Chapter 35, Section 541….I’ll even provide it for you…pay particular attention to clause (c): http://www.law.corne…
<
p>
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
<
p>
…and then you can delete this post too.
But please work on the tone.
that was meant for me. Yeah. I know. That wasn’t what I was saying.
What about the letter of the law is unclear? It’s plain english…not even one of them hard to understand because of the legalese laws.
<
p>
“Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.”
<
p>
Not “subject to removal, but only with Congressional oversight” Not “subject to removal but only a Democrat can do it without question” (like 93 attorneys in one fail swoop)
<
p>
……subject to removal by the President. Period. That means “at his whim”…every month if the President so chooses…..every day.
<
p>
As you say….thanks for playing.
I know. That wasn’t what I was saying. But feel free to keep beating me over the head with it.
<
p>
Perhaps you can answer my question then:
<
p>
Doesn’t the dismissal of a US attorney for prosectuion of a corrupt politician, who happens to be aligned with the Bush administration, compromise justice? And if so, isn’t that a big deal?
premise… let’s tell our ‘politicians” to direct their attention,energy , efforts and our tax dollars to what is really important… health care… poverty… enough of this nah nah nah nah na nah bullshit… don’t you agree?
Sorry for my earlier tone.
<
p>
To your question: Yes, and no.
<
p>
Yes: let’s tell our ‘politicians” to direct their attention,energy , efforts and our tax dollars to what is really important… health care… poverty…
<
p>
But, I do see the point of this whole mess. A US attorney wields a tremendous amount of power. They’re charged with prosecuting violations of federal law. They represent the United States in federal law suites. Any attempt to sway a prosecution or a lawsuit…or to shift the focus of an investigation by a particular attorney by firing an attorney involved…
<
p>
Imagine for a moment that you were the subject of prosection by the US attorney’s office simply because the Bush administration didn’t like your postings on Blue Mass Group. That’s an arbitrary abuse of power, right? Is that all too different from firing an attorney because that attorney sought to prosecute a Republican for corruption?
<
p>
I don’t think so. Justice should be blind.
…They are also subject to removal by congress, not only by impeachment and removal, but also by effectively defunding their positions.
<
p>
Nobody, as far as I can tell, has suggested that the president can’t remove them. The Atty General can, too, as delegatee of the president.
<
p>
The issue is not whether they can be removed by the executive, but whether Congress, through its oversight powers, can investigate the reasons for their removal.
<
p>
Stick with the issue.
here are some good ones to check out:
<
p>
<
p>
Mr. Strawberry, you and your friends have done an excellent job of demolishing a strawman. Yes, you have convinced everyone that the President has the legal right to fire any US Attorney at any time, because they serve at his pleasure. Problem is, everyone knows that. That’s not what this burgeoning scandal is about.
who knows little if anything at all about “law” this whole excercise has the appearance of a “bunch of lawyers” ( viewed to be a cut below “used car salespeople” by most Americans)
involved in a “legal fencing, dare say money making” excercise at a cost of tens of millions of dollars for what? For What? What is the benefit to the average poor slob in the street trying to pay his health care premium or sweating if his ARM is going to go up? Again , when are the likes of Chuck Shumer going to tell me that I can afford Health care for my family?
I Don’t care which lawyer goes to jail or doesn’t go to jail. It’s not important to “common people”
But what I would say is that while this won’t fix the health insurance crisis, it addresses the problem of arbitrary justice (arbitrary punishment)metered out by a vengeful administration.
<
p>
The lead character in The Firm (yes, the book is better) is a government weary tax attorney, distrustfulof a government that “arbitrarily” took his grandmother’s house for failure to pay taxes. And from that moment he realized the power of the federal government (or something).
<
p>
And that’s what we’re talking about here. The power od the government to meter out punishment being used for less-than-ethical purposes. Personally, I think that’s scary, and I would think people would get that.
…I’ll try one more time….. I, ( and most ‘common” people) don’t CARE about the “vengeful administration” that you describe.. Perhaps you’re higher up on Maslows scale of needs but most people aren’t and don’t have a nice trust fund to enable their visions of what’s “right ” and how to destroy the big bad conservative boogieman.
Again, this whole “legal masturbation” circus is a total farce andd a complete waste. Frankly , common people don’t give a s—.
If you’re having bad dreams about the “big bad republican” or GWB , buy a “nite lite” , get a night’s sleep and think about what’s really important. Ed, try the decaf
….slipped into “doth protest too much category.”
<
p>
Seems like someone is spending a little too much time “not” caring about this.
Purely anecdotal among the staff at my office is the general consensus that this whole thing is “just political”– political in the sense that politics is a shade below the practice of law, and two shades below selling used cars.
<
p>
The bad things that David outlined– great outline! Can I have it before next week’s exam?– above don’t compress very well. I don’t think that many people “get it.”
<
p>
Bush’s posturing on this is muddying the water further. Of course it does, he still has fight in him, and they haven’t run up the white flag yet. The counter attack–that this is all political posturing– is classic Rove; it ducks the real issue by making his opponent’s motives the issue, and yet it may resonate.
<
p>
Stalemate is victory for Bush; he doesn’t have to run again. The Congress does, in two short years. If they haven’t gotten anywhere in the meantime, they will be the net loser.
<
p>
That doesn’t mean it is bad policy. Hooray for a Congress that acts like a Congress–an actual branch of government– instead of a Politburo. But I hope they don’t get sucked into trench warfare over it.
You asked why anyone would want to care about this. I’ve offered the same explanation a bunch of different ways. If you still don’t care, I can’t make you.
<
p>
I do think it’s funny you called me a trust fund baby, though. No man, I’ve had a job since I was 16, and I’ve got all the student loans that come along with being middle class. I’m as common as they come.
<
p>
I don’t think it’s true that the common man doesn’t care. I think you don’t want people to because you’ve got a horse in this race, and it’s getting beat.
much appreciated, . .. Anthony , however has declared it ” meaningress and pointless” so lets not boor any readers further . Good to debate with you! I’ll be back later
…the “common man” will appreciate your restraint.
….and completely pointless.
I don’t know who you think my “friends” are, but simply show the law broken….WITH evidence to support a charge…and I’ll gladly support these subpoenas. Until then, this scandal is a scandal that isn’t….it’s an expedition to get a perjury charge. Empty claims of “corruption” are just that…..empty…..unless you’ve got evidence of it.
<
p>
Executive priveledge is designed to prevent these expeditions by one branch into the other branches of gubmint. Unless it is a criminal investigation…as in…a known crime WAS committed (like a break-in of an opposing party’s campaign headquarters), those protected under “Executive priveledge” do not fall under title 18 S1512 in these expeditions to get a perjury charge. The minute illegal activity has been charged, with evidence, THEN Executive aides aren’t protected and I will support a complete grilling of Presidential aides.
Or would you have no problem with the FBI questioning every Congressional aide every day to “see if a law, ANY law, has been broken” (read: looking to get someone to contradict a previous statement so you can charge ’em with “lying to a federal agent”) and then busting ’em when their answers don’t match yesterday’s answers….and in the meantime, an egregious violation of “Congressional priveledge” has occurred.
<
p>
Unless you’ve got a law that was broken, with evidence…I’ll run and get a bucket to collect the drool all the way to the Supremes.
Otherwise, Bush will–has already started to- make this little more than a political pissing match. If in the public’s mind, it is just a pissing match, it will become a stalemate. That’s a win for a President who will never run for anything again and a loss for a Congress that must run in two years, and must protect some distinctly purple seats.
<
p>
I do think it is important to rein in the buffoons in the Executive Branch, but would prefer it be done in a politically successful way.
that’d be mine.
That’ll get the good ole boys to notice 😉
<
p>
for more discerning tastes, we have:
“Justice is Blind, Political Retribution Isn’t”
“Justice is Blind, Republican Retribution Isn’t”
<
p>
just trying to tune the slogan to the specifics of this situation.
Especially the bare breasted justice. How much did those drapes cost, by the way?
<
p>
I’m not sure that they will break through the sense that this is just a urination contest.
….fair to categorize this as a pissing contest in other cirmumstances but after six straight years of exectuive power grabbing strong, unapologetic opposition by the Congress is absolutely necessary to set the balance of powers back where they should be, which is checking and balancing eachother. This is one of the reasons I am happy that the Republicans lost power in Congress. The current administration could not come to an end without a legitimate challenge to its attempt to monarch-ize the executive branch. I hope, from this point forward that every time Bush tries to requisition a paper clip that a subpoena is threatened if the wrong form is filled out. At this point it goes well beyond partisan. It is a constitutional imperative that one branch of governmnent not be allowed to dominate without question for any real length of time.
Mass being a totally one party (Legislative Branch )State for almost forever? LMAO!
<
p>
“”It is a constitutional imperative that one branch of governmnent not be allowed to dominate without question for any real length of time.””
The Constitution doesnt provide any privilege of executive immunity to the President. It is case law that has defined the privilege under limited circumstances. For example, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald the Court held that the president is absolutely immune from civil liability for his “official” acts. The idea is that it impedes the president’s ability to carry out his functions.
<
p>
Nixon tried to invoke this privilege in withholding the watergate tapes, and the court in United States v.Nixon held that the Presidential immunity is NOT ABSOLUTE. Judicial needs may outweigh a blanket protection FOR THE PRESIDENT.
<
p>
President Bush now claims, “If the staff of a president operates in constant fear of being hauled before congressional committees…the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served.”
<
p>
*He wishes to extend his implied privilege granted by the Supreme Court in case law, out to all of his executive aids so that they do not have to provide SWORN testimony. He says they shall provide any information Congress wants, but they shouldnt have to swear to it!! This is ridiculous. They can tell us whatever we want but they shouldnt have to promise its true??
<
p>
Is the president’s duty to faithfully execute the law really impeded by his aides swearing to what they say?
<
p>
Anyway, my point is if United States v. Nixon held that the President does not have absolute immunity from the Judicial branch, why would Executive Officials–which NO CASE LAW has ever afforded any Executive privilege (and past case law seems to specifically reject the idea)–be entitled to refuse to testify or provide information? especially when the Senate has the power to haul them in by Impeachment anyway?
<
p>
Moreover, while the Constitution does not give excecutive officals any immunity (which the president wishes to suddenly establish) the Constitution DOES give Congress the power to remove any Execute Officer through the impeachment process. Wouldnt denying Congress the opportunity to investigate executive officials impair their means to carry out their express Impeachment power-check on the Executive?
<
p>
Final thought, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. Oslon, where Congress provided for appointment of an independent counsel who had the pwoer to independently investigate and prosecute executive officials. How can the President make his claim today (that excecutive officials share his immplied immunity) when the Supreme Court has already decided in Morrison that such officials were subject to investigation?