Captain's Quarters -

Thanks for reporting the administration's talking points, Captain Steno. You have a reputation for being a rational thinker, so how's about a little more in-depth analysis of the legal merit of the points? I suspect an objectively-thinking attorney (if any exists anymore, in this political climate) would scoff at several assertions here (such as whether, in an analogous situation, there would be enough evidence to support a warrant).

I'm not an attorney, Lieutenant Lookie-Loo.

Some thoughts

Claiming executive privilege is one thing -- not answering a legal demand to appear by the US Congress is another, -- as is lying to Congress.

These rights, like other privileges, can be asserted and there is precedent to support the President's position, but legal form must followed. You appear, and then you can make your claim to privilege. Additionally the President must personally make the claim that specific documents or areas are covered by executive privilege.

Regarding the perjury, you can't forget that perjury is criminal and Gonzalez's handling of the congress has been less than artful, even Spector has had enough. Sure he is stopping short of supporting contempt charges, but he thinks and wants Gonzalez to correct his testimony.

About options available to the Dems -- inherent contempt is option that John Dean brought up and appears to be one option if DOJ refuses to follow up on a referral to Congress. Inherent contempt allows someone to be arrested by the Sargent at Arms, brought to Congress and with a trial held on the floor.

Ed
I have to wonder if you will be defending executive privilage when it's President Hillary Clinton.

The core of this (complete with seeds) argument is “Does the Legislative branch have the Constitutional authority to compel testimony under oath of Presidential advisors about matters of the Executive branch’s core responsibilities without a criminal charge?”

The correct answer is “Of course not.” There is a “However” in there. The President has been very patient, provided thousands of pages of requested documents, and has permitted extensive and almost unprecedented Congressional access to his staff without any cooperation coming the other way. In my opinion, he has had enough of their whining and crying, and has put his foot down. Its about time. Kick their (censored).

It's really pretty simple.

Over the last thirty years or so, the Democrats who gain seniority have been increasingly liberal. It is these people who hold the chairmanships now. Also, the reawakened radical left is now participating in Democratic Party politics. They give money, time, support on the internet . . . but they want results in return.

The Democrats are utterly powerless to enact legislation unless it is truly noncontroversial or the sort of thing Republicans are afraid to oppose (like the minimum wage). They just don't have the votes for anything else. The far left wants impeachment, but the Leadership understands that doing any more than talking about that would cause the same sort of backlash seen when Clinton was impeached.

So all that remains to them is the abuse of the oversight power to "investigate" matters which strike some political tone or gain favorable news coverage. It's harassment of the Administration and appeasement of the Nutroots base - all in one ready-to-use package!

Sober heads will likely prevail and prevent submission of these issues to the Courts for resolution. No sense risking a damaging precedent over this stuff.

It's all just Kabuki theatre in a Potemkin village.

Careful, there Skippy. You may regret allowing all these moves to protect your boy Bushy from himself. Can you imagine Hillary with all this power to ignore Congress? Also, does the White House pick out your ties for you too?

If the Democrat-led Congress cannot get anything done, then it'll see to it that the Bush administration gets nothing done as well. These apparently meritless displays tie up Executive resources and keep it in a defensive posture. This, of course, plays well for red meat Democrats and the MSM megaphone which can play up the Democrat perspective (with their own nuance tossed in for grins) to an audience that doesn't have the patience or desire to enter such political weeds.

Short-term, the Democrats get lots of traction. Mid-term, lots of posturing while government gets further mired in senseless partisanship while NOT doing the public's work. Long-term, the Democrats lose but all of government takes a hit as the majority of the nation recognizes dysfunctional branches playing political games for their own grabs of power.

What a waste of time, but the Executive must defend its turf. The Legislative will either back down or lose, so I agree with your ultimate assessment, Ed.

The Cap'n reports: "I suspect the Democrats may indeed try a lawsuit soon, and that will turn out quite badly -- for Congress."

Ha! Cap'n you've been all over the map with this one. First it's bad for Congress, then it's bad for Abu, then it's bad for Congress again! Let me spell this out for you and Georg Felis so you understand.

The only ones that are looking bad for shamelessly covering for an ineffective AG liar and a president hurtling towards irrelevancy, are the republicans who unwaveringly still support this corrupt cabal.

C'mon guys. Do you want to win another election sometime in the distant future or not???

Exactly, Adjoran! Exactly, George!

Lying to Congress and the people, politicizing law enforcement, and ignoring Congressional subpoenas are not at issue at all! The only question to be asked is, which side is someone on? Them over there? They are bad! It doesn't matter how well documented their outrage may be. All that matters is whether or not they get in line.

My heroes, Adj and Geo, are toe to heel, self-blindered and dripping with sweet, sweet sanctimony. I dare anyone to name even one standard more worthy than that!

Of course, if anybody blows the President, he's out, baby!

"They have released 8500 pages of documentation, and a number of officials have testified or been interviewed as part of the probe. Bush also offered to allow senior members of his staff available in "an interview setting" -- but no oath or transcription, as Presidents have always maintained that Congress has no authority to demand testimony from presidential advisors."

2 issues:

They've released 8500 documents out of how many? Waxman claims over 2 million. Even cutting that in half, that's still only .0085% of the total. The numbers may be off, but announcing how much you've released w/o how much there has been requested is misleading.

The idea that Presidents have always maintained Congress can't demand testimony seems to be this official's own interpretation. See http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf for a pretty good overview. From it:

"Generally, a congressional committee with jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is conducting an authorized investigation for legislative or oversight purposes, has a right to information held by the executive branch in the absence of either a vlaid claim of constitutional privelege by the executive or a statutory provision whereby Congress has limited its constitutional right to information."

It lists several advisors since 1944 who have testified b/4 Congress and some that didn't.

I suspect the Democrats may indeed try a lawsuit soon, and that will turn out quite badly -- for Congress.

With the Kos Kidz and moonbats running the Dems? They will demand it. They already are. The practical upshot will be that Congress will be rendered largely impotent, the ultimate "nuclear option".

Congress has no choice now except to hold Miers and anyone else who ignores a subpoena from Congress in contempt. After Gonzales' evasions, answers to questions pertaining to the firing of the U.S. attorneys and the midnight visit to Ashcroft's hospital bedside have to be answered, and answered in public under oath, not in some one-time, secret interview that the White House deems to be their kind of "cooperation". Executive privilege does not give the White House carte blanche to exempt the government from Congressional oversight.

RE: ahab (July 27, 2007 2:44 PM)

Grow up. Then explain how/why what was stated was, in your opinion, propaganda. Some could reasonably rebut the Democrat position on the matter as propaganda and talking points, too.

I'm assuming you'll be able to better manage your phallocentrism in any subsequent commentary.

I have been about as hard on the GOP as they come but when I here what is being said here by the other side it kinda makes me want to go ahead and vote GOP even tho I don't want to.

I would pay real money to see the Congressional Sargent at Arms try to "arrest" someone from the Executive branch.

Where? At home? In the White House?

And then what? Drag this person to Congress, tie him to a chair for the kangaroo court, and then confine him in a barred cell in the Capitol's basement?

If Leahy and Shumer try a stunt like this, they will bring the Democratic party to ruin. Half the country already think the Dems are the Keystone Kops of government as it is. This would just make it clear to everyone that they have no interest in government and a lot of interest in destroying this Administration...by whatever means.

Calling John Cleese, the twits are out of their cages!

I especially love the remarks from people who said perjury was OK when Clinton lied under oath about a blowjob, but isn't OK when the opposition party is in the White House. Great double standard there, folks.

I deleted ahab's comment.

I should point out that I was mostly trying to report what was said on the call, which should have been painfully obvious to anyone who read where I started my own analysis.

Also, to answer the question of consistency about Alberto Gonzales, this is a different issue than whether Gonzales should go. I still think Gonzales should go -- but that has nothing to do with the use of executive privilege and the Congressional subpoenas of Miers, Bolten, and Rove.

Uhm, Scott. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but this administration is destroying itself and the entire republican party with barely any help from the democrats. One needs only to look as far as the current status in GOP fund raising. Voters are no longer buying the republican brand. It must suck.

I still think Gonzales should go -- but that has nothing to do with the use of executive privilege and the Congressional subpoenas of Miers, Bolten, and Rove.

Ed, you can't disentangle Gonzales from Miers and Rove, because it's been Gonzales' deliberate evasiveness on the firing of the U.S. attorneys that makes it necessary for Congress to have to ask them about their involvement in the matter. To borrow a line from a similar case, the fact that Gonzales is throwing sand in the eyes of Congress doesn't mean that Congress can't look for answers to their questions elsewhere.

Democrats were caught lying yesterday about the non-conflict in testimonies between the AG and FBI. And like childish punks, the dhimmies were trying to force the AG and FBI to out yet another NSA program, which they are declining to do.
The question that is interesting is this:
Why are so many dhimmies so committed to outing secret programs? They have outed the money wiring monitoring, the intercepts of terrorists calling the US, the CIA air transport system, bases to hold terrorists, and other legal, effective operations helping us during war.
And now there is apparently yet another program, and they need to out it as well.
Do they hate Bush so much that they want us to get hurt at home and lose a war? Or are they simply committed to helping Al Qaeda win?

I would bet anything that all these right wingers would not stand for this if it were a Clinton denying Congress access to everything they wanted. And as I recall, Bill Clinton allowed EVERYONE to go before Congress when the Republicans were on their witch hunts that went no where.

What is it that Bush is hiding that he refuses to allow anyone to go before Congress and tell the truth? When this administration is finally out and we are allowed to view all of their criminal activities, as well as is fathers and Reagan's, new light will be cast on the "party of the people".

jeez, you guys crack me up.

Executive privilege does not remove the responsibility to show up for a subpoena, sorry. You can't just ignore the law when it is inconvenient to you, even if you work in the White House.

If it comes to inherent contempt, then yes, the Sargent of Arms will go to the house of the perp, arrest them, and bring them in front of Congress to be tried, legally. You are aware that there is ample historical precedent for doing exactly this?

I have a little hint for you , dwyvan,

We are at war.

That does not forgive everything. I was and still am very worried about some of the patriot act (tho some concernces have been addressed).Like a Dem commentor said above would you want Hillary having this power? I would not. I trust the Bush toadies to use the powers to protect me. To listen and collect data on folks that wish harm on the country but I think Hillary would use those same powers to collect data on political foes.

We are at war.

However, that has nothing to do with the Gonzales crap fest. The Dems put him in front of a question session enough times that he has tripped himself and the administration up. Now we get a new Plame/Scooter investigation. No underlying charges but a story from the investigations themselves.

Legal privileges are frequently misunderstood. They typically do NOT cover all communications. For executive privilege it does NOT cover everything that occurs in the executive branch. If it did then congressional oversight of the executive branch would be impossible.

There are serious questions as to whether executive privilege would even apply to documents or communications that were not reviewed or prepared specifically for the president, i.e., something prepared for someone else in the White House or Justice Department.

When dealing with the question of who made the decisions and why to replace several US Attorneys there has been a scarcity of answers from the Justice Department, particularly from Gonzales, the guy in charge.

While the President has authority to terminate any US Attorney, he cannot do so for an improper reason such as to interfere in the prosecution of a case. The more Gonzalez testifies the worse it appears for him.

He contradicts himself regularly, fails to recollect important information that you would expect him to know such as who came up with firing these prosecutors and why, etc. His testimony from Tuesday of this week, already contradicted by FBI Director and contemporaneous memorandum from John Negroponte places Gonzales in jeopardy of perjury.

Bottom line is that he is, quite frankly, a disgrace as the Attorney General of the United States.

Cyclo,

The last trial for inherent contempt was 72 years ago, and it didn't involve a presidential advisor.

Wingbat? Kos Kidz? Clinton did too?

I'm shaking me head. Of course I realized back about 6 years ago that there existed a portion of this citizens of this country that would absorb and regurgitate whatever the tv or radio told them without doing any research or thinking for themselves. Limbaugh and Hannity SCREAM at you with their opinions. And you take it, accept it with little or no fact-checking. Then you post it on a blog in the comments section.

You call people "liberals" and "far-left" when you fail to realize that, according to your own definition of these terms, a majortiy of this country is exactly that.

The moonbats and far-left want impeachment? Uh, most people in this country want impeachment. There's absolutely no way you can convince me in a logical manner that this president should not be impeached. Nor can you make a solid argument for the Vice Pres.

But, alas, this article is about executive privilege. Not Bill Clinton. Not impeachment. This is about a president and an administration that is clearly the most dangerous and worst in the history of our country. Congress and the "wacky" democrats are trying to call them on it. They are doing their job and representing the American people. ....correction: they are representing MOST of the American people and the LAW.

Whether 20%-ish percent of the population disagrees with the majority of the rest of the population and with the majority of congress is not mine or their problems.

To all of you hannity and limbaugh wannabe's. I respect your right to free speech. I wish you would do your homework and learn to not trust everything you see. Think logically. Even if it hurts because it goes against everything you've been told and every thing you've held onto as "truth".

Why?

Because when you stop doing your homework and watching your back and when you just roll over and let the White House, the television, the radio, even the internet tell you what to say and what to think then you have effectively given up and handed over your right to live in a democracy and to be truly free and protected from your own government.

I'm sorry if this hurts but I am just one of those crazy, moonbat, koolaid drinking, hippy, non-educated, bush haters.

What do I know?

Do yourselves and your fellow Americans a favor.
Rethink your reality. Investigate your "truths".

-steve

I thank those of you who have stayed on-topic with this discussion. Why don't the rest of you go outside and play, we'll call you when dinner is ready.

The investigation has failed to turn up any "crime" other than political stupidity.

Odd that the Democrats are irrtitated with Gonzalez and his 'half-truths'. They all flocked to defend Billy and his 'half-truths'. Remember the bus trip to the White House and the solidarity photo on the lawn?

Ed, you're right, Congress will come out on the short end. The courts are no going to issue Congress a blanket license to go fishing thru executive branch documents in the hope of finding something criminal.

From the Next Hurrah
The USA Purge, to Date
by emptywheel

This is my general review of the interim report on the USA Purge. If you haven't already done so, make sure you read the post on the Iglesias cover-up, which I believe to be the most important aspect of the report.

The report on the findings to date in the USA purge lists the following crimes and violations that may have been committed in the course of the USA firings:

Obstruction of justice, attempted obstruction of justice [18 USC 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2)]
Criminal Hatch Act violations [18 USC 606]

Presidential failure to ensure that laws are faithfully executed [Constitution, Article II, Section 3]

Civil Hatch Act violations [5 USC 7323(a)(1)]

Federal Civil Rights laws [18 USC 242]

Conspiracy [18 USC 2, 371]

Perjury [18 USC 1621]

False Statements [18 USC 1001]

For a number of these potential crimes (particularly obstruction and criminal Hatch Act violations), the report cites multiple possible violations. .. because it puts in concrete terms what this whole investigation is about.

This report, for the first time, makes clear that Congress is investigating real criminal violations, that evidence suggests a crime was committed, and that by invoking executive privilege, the White House is obstructing the investigation into potential crimes.

For more, see:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/the-usa-purge-t.html

This privilege is “inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution” and “flow[s] from the nature of enumerated powers” of the President. Id., 418 U.S. at 705; 121 F.3d at 743.

No way.

The way I see it, the President has ten powers under the Constitution:

1. Commander in Chief of armed forces, commissioning all officers of the United States

2. May demand an accounting from agencies in the Executive branch

3. Reprieves and pardons

4. "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," (the laws themselves being the province of the Congress)

5. Make treaties (with advice and consent of Senate), receive ambassadors and other foreign ministers

6. Power of appointment within Executive Branch and Federal Judiciary (with advice and consent of Senate)

7. The power to call Congress into session under extraordinary circumstances, and State of the Union

8. The power to adjourn Congress if the two houses can't agree on when to adjourn

9. Recess appointments

10. The Veto

Now nothing in there says that Congress can't check to see if the President is doing his job - and in fact, since Congress has the power of Impeachment, it's one of the Congress' responsibilities to make such judgments.

Right now the question the Congress is attempting to answer is, is Bush faithfully executing his job of "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed?" There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which obstructs them from getting the answer to that question, ecstatic fever dreams about executive power notwithstanding.

Seems to me your briefing amounted to little more than sweet nothings being whispered in y'all's ears.

From the Next Hurrah
The USA Purge, to Date
by emptywheel

For more, see:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/the-usa-purge-t.html

...for Congress to contest Paul Clement's claim that Congress has no legislative need for more information into the USA firings. And this report does so in style, citing the same section of the Constitution I keep citing:

First, a variety of legislation is already under consideration regarding the manner of appointment of U.S. Attorneys in response to issues surfaced by our investigation, and one statute has already been enacted and signed by the President. Congress's authority to legislate on this subject derives from Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution: "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." Under that provision, Congress may permit certain officials--the president, courts, or the heads of departments--to appoint "inferior officers" of the United States and may establish the rules governing such appointments, and federal courts have held that U.S. Attorneys are such "inferior officers." Congress acted pursuant to that constitutional authority when it created the existing statutory processes for the appointment, removal, and replacement of U.S. Attorneys. [my emphasis]

Mr. Clement? Mr. Fielding? Do you still want to argue that Congress has no business pursuing this matter?

The author of the statements from Next Hurrah is a lawyer, who wrote a book about the Libby trial and has been following the legal implications of the situation in great detail.

It helps to read what someone with expertise has written.

Is Justice Stevens 90, yet?

Is Ruth Bader Ginsberg fading?

By the way, off to the side, there's an "inner circle" discussion of breaking up the 9th Circuit; to form another upper echelon branch.

And, all of this stuff is "tactics."

The congress is aware of the president's powers. They're probably also aware that they're not nicking Bush the way Nixon got shredded. And, Bush remains a very stubborn man. (Which is a good thing.)

The rest of this stuff plays out in a very politicized world, where the left's been sore losers since 2000.

I have no idea how this will affect outcomes, ahead. But no one owns such a crystal ball.

All you do know is that congress' ratings have plummeted. They don't have anything to show for their "majority takeover," except, perhaps dead Immigration Bill. And, this bill died because of lots of Americans pitching in and screaming loudly enough; that the elites in congress saw "the handwriting on the wall" get writ large.

I still think a lot of stuff is just not spoken out loud.

Start with this. Two Jews are leading the senators, they are not Moses and Aaron. They're two whores. Feinstein and Schumer. Feinstein's been there longer. And, every time these two idiots show up in the spotlight, I cringe. They're not representing me, ya know.

And, since I live in California, I voted against Feinstein on principle. Don't know if other Jews decide on doing things this way; but I've left the temple. And, I notice that world world's not the same as the one my parents knew; on the Lower East Side. Heck, even Bella Abzug and her hats are gone.

And, the way people used to vote "ethnically?" I think this takes a hit, as well. (Even though I have a lot of liberal relatives, it's not as wall-to-wall pervasive. Among the reasons? Intermarriage. Not belonging to any temple. Walking away from the whole shibang.) And, then the sickening reminders, every time Schumer approaches a microphone.

I think Bush is in control.

The Left, meanwhile, is all about defeat. If they can toss this ball at Bush? Well, they've been trying. Heck, ever since Dan Rather blew it; Bush advances on the mistakes made by the Left.

No one ever said politics isn't dirty.

But it seems worse than ever.

And, I label it the lessons we're getting from SORE LOSERS! Be they academics. Or the spoiled brats of the Limousine Liberals; we've got the problems, because even though they're not large in number; they do have the wealth. And, they're motivated. What motivates them, though? Nope. Can't imagine. Couldn't imagine what would make anyone like Marx, either. Especially if there was inherited wealth, involved.

You know when we got lucky? In 1962, when Ronald Reagan, formerly a democrat, walked onto the platform of the GOP train; and entered it, alone.

Histories has such interesting stories.

Captain Ed,

Have you thought about doing a cross-posting, or something along those lines, with the folks at some of the law blogs, i.e. Scotusblog or Balkinization? They might have a liberal tint to them generally, but they usually have some decent legal insight. You could run through the points that the Admin made and see the how the other side views them...

Just a thought.

Thanks for the response, Captain.

'Cyclo,

The last trial for inherent contempt was 72 years ago, and it didn't involve a presidential advisor. '

So what? There is no law which says that members of the executive branch have immunity from answering a duly enacted subpoena. There is no 'blanket' executive privilege, either. The witness has no idea which questions will be asked before the hearing; therefore, there is no possible way that they could know whether or not they have the right to invoke executive priv.

You do know that US v. Nixon solved a hell of a lot of this argument, right? And not in the Admin's favor, unfortunately. I just re-read it, and it says nothing about executive privilege pertaining to anything about dealing with the DoJ:

'Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.'

The firing of prosecutors for illegal and immoral reasons is neither a military, diplomatic, or national security secret. There is no valid executive privilege in this instance, no matter what the WH claims.

To my mind, there is a deeper problem here, one with potentially grave consequences for the future of our country.

Neither side trusts the other, and so the rule of law becomes a game of "gotcha!", with the losers whining "no fair" for years afterward until John Q. Public doesn't even know (or care) what caused the original complaint. I mean, we ARE talking about the fact that a handful of US attorneys were fired, right? Does anybody dispute that the president, through his deputies, has the authority to do this?

But it's gotten beyond that. It would appear that the USAG is either breathtakingly stupid or he's lied to the Congress. The former is serious; the latter is illegal. The dems are out for blood... for partisan reasons. The GOP is out to stop them... for partisan reasons.

Allow me to ask:

Conservatives - Is it OK with you that the USAG appears to be a totally incompetent fool? Do you think he has lied to Congress? Would it be OK with you if he did?

Liberals - Is it OK with you that the Congress appears to be on a fishing expedition, attempting to make a crime out of something that, on the face of it, is not only totally legal but fairly routine?

Some commenters have brought up the Hilldabeast and wondered whether people's attitudes would be different if she were in the White House (God save us!) rather than Bush. The knife cuts both ways: what if Republican senators were promising "hearing after hearing after hearing" and "vote after vote after vote" and demanding tons of documents while making hysterical allegations about a democrat president and his appointees?

Is this what we want for our country? To have the White House and the Congress locked in perpetual battle with each other? A nice little Cold War between Pennsylvania Ave. and Capitol Hill?

From my perspective, neither side has much credibility. Gonzales seems to have lied. The White House seems to be trying to cover something up. On the other hand, the dems have made it crystal clear that they'll use ANY excuse to make political hay. Let me put it this way: I no more trust or believe Trashcan Chuckie or Leaky Pat than a dem would Karl Rove or George Bush. It's like trying a Black Panther with a jury of KKK members.

Maybe we SHOULD let the dems have the "blue states" and seceed. If both sides are determined NOT to get along, then why not let them bid each other adieu (or, more accurately, shout "F*** off and die!" as they part)?

TBone,

It's a good suggestion, but I don't see any analysis of the White House's assertion on Scotusblog, which tends to focus more on actual SCOTUS stories anyway. One of the Volokh writers was on the call; I've been waiting for their analysis.

Cyclo,

I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your responses. The issue regarding Nixon was one of established criminality, ie, the break-in. No one has established that any crime has been committed in this example or even proposed any specific allegation -- and the President has the inherent and presumptively valid power to hire and fire US Attorneys. It may not be smart to do it in the manner it was done, and the DoJ may not have handled the aftermath very well, but that's an issue of competency and not criminality.

It's apples to oranges, or more accurately, apples to lampshades.

try Volokh-a conservative site

Dang! Hit Post too soon ....

Also, the opinion you cite notes that Congress asked to see the material in camera. The White House has offered to present their advisors in an in camera session as an interview rather than as testimony. That preserves executive privilege for this and succeeding administrations. Congress has refused this offer a number of times now.

Could the Trent Lott and the Dems cover for Jeffersons office raid come into play? I Know one is the executive and one the (umm,, whats the word) legislative.

Captain,

I think that there is, at least in the case of some of the fired prosecutors, evidence that the law was in fact broken. Surely you realize that many times, criminals go to great lengths in order to hide what they have done. The fact that it is not 100 percent visible at the start of an investigation is not proof that no crime took place. What more, there is only one group in America who has the authority to look into this case, and that's the Congress, through the power of their subpoenas.

Setting that aside for a minute - do you believe that members of the executive branch have the right to ignore subpoenas, that is, to simply not show up? I would ask where you believe they derive this right from. If you don't believe they have this right, one would think that you would support the charges of contempt.

Cheers - it's nearly beer thirty...

Hit post too soon as well! But as for your second part...

I think the Dems would have taken up the WH offer, if not for two stipulations Fielding put on: First, that the one meeting would be the final meeting, with no possibility of a follow-up, and second, that there would be no transcript.

I cannot for the life of me imagine why there would be no transcript for such a meeting. Is there any explanation of this? And can you understand why the Dems wouldn't accept this? The AG's recent performance in Congress should be proof enough that transcripts are necessary to keep people honest about/during their statements.

And getting closer to beer:45!

I believe that Congress simply doesn't have the authority to demand testimony that infringes on executive privilege, and therefore subpoenas directed to White House advisors are invalid under these circumstances. Gonzales would have to respond to a subpoena as an advisor subject to Senate confirmation, but not political advisors who work at the complete discretion of the President.

Pat Leahy believed that as well -- at least in 1999.

[Note: I edited this for clarity after I posted it.]

A transcript sets a precedent as testimony, as does taking an oath. That's what the White House wants to avoid, not having Miers, Bolten, and Rove talk to Congress.

Staving off beer...

'I believe that Congress simply doesn't have the authority to demand testimony that infringes on executive privilege, and therefore subpoenas directed to White House advisors are invalid. Pat Leahy believed that as well -- at least in 1999. '

But, how does this square with US v. Nixon, which found that outside of Diplomatic, Military, and National Security matters, there is no valid claim of executive privilege?

It would seem that opinion, whether it's Leahy or any Dem trying to protect their power, or any Republican trying to protect their power, would be trumped by the law itself.

Seeing as these Hearings can cover a wide range of topics - AG AG was asked about border patrols and Crack cocaine as well as the current flap - how can one avoid showing up to a legally enacted subpoena, when they don't know the nature of the questions that will be asked? I don't think that there's any evidence that the WH can decide whether or not something falls under Exec. Privilege before they've heard the question.

Obstruction of justice and attempting to influence federal elections through bogus voter fraud cases are crimes. No one has established that those crimes have been committed precisely because Bush is using his claim of executive privelege to withold evidence of these potential crimes. Nixon is relevant because exec privelege can't be asserted to cover up a crime. You sound like my rep Chris Cannon (R-UT) in your
claim that no crime has committed so lets wrap it up. You're talking from the same set of memos no doubt. What you're essentially arguing is hey we've stonewalled long enough, now let us get away with it.

You should read the new analysis from the CRS.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/crs.contempt.report.pdf

I'd say, reading it, the smart move for congress is nherent comptempt (p 12) followed by trial in comittee, rather than on the floor (p 15). This leave the administration the option of a habeas petition (a bit of irony) to free the prisoner. However there the grounds appear to be quite narrow.

Because by the nature of their positions, anything for which they could provide testimony by definition falls under executive privilege. They exist to provide advice to the President, and operate completely within his authority.

Congress can compel testimony from people in other executive-branch agencies, because the executive and the legislature share authority over those functions -- which is why the political appointees to those agencies require Senate confirmation.

The only exception appears to be when specific crimes have been established, and that's a necessarily high bar. It doesn't apply to fishing expeditions, looking for crimes.

Beer:45!

A relevant piece from American Thinker reveal this meaningful tidbit about voter fraud in Washington state that has been finally addressed:

"In what is being called the "worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history," 7 employees of the liberal advocacy group ACORN have been charged with filling out fake voter registration forms."

Who brought the charges?

"Ed Lasky points out that the prosecutor who is bringing the charges is one of those Bush Administration appointees who replaced another US Attorney who evidently didn't care about the fraud."

It appears that the firing of the US Attorneys is justified and well within the purview of Executive Constitutional power.

Are Congressional Democrats creating a Star Chamber in retaliation over being caught in their own voter fraud through the auspices of ACORN?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/rotten_acorn.html

I just don't find cridible the assertion that there is not sufficient evidence of crimes being comitted to invalidate priveledge credible. A single warrantless wiretap on a US citizen is a felony. As is a false statement to the congress, Can anyone believe that the AG hasn't made one? . As is a single action that violates Article 3. The grounds for criminal investigation are well laid.

"They've released 8500 documents out of how many? Waxman claims over 2 million. Even cutting that in half, that's still only .0085% of the total. The numbers may be off, but announcing how much you've released w/o how much there has been requested is misleading.

Why would Waxman, or anyone else, need to review over a million documents (assuming that Waxman's assertion is incorrect by by a factor of two) in this investigation? Couldn't he try to narrow the record request to just those directly relevant to this investigation? Even 8500 seems excessive but, as this is a government bureaucracy we're dealing with, I can accept that number as necessary. But does Waxman REALLY need as many documents as he claims?

"The idea that Presidents have always maintained Congress can't demand testimony seems to be this official's own interpretation.

I don't think the President is asserting that Congress can not require testimony from any member of the administration for any reason, but that Executive Privilege does limit what testimony Congress can request. For example, the conversation between the President and his advisers regarding matters that are not subject to congressional Advise and Consent requirements.

>>why would Waxman, or anyone else, need to review over a million documents (assuming that Waxman's assertion is incorrect by by a factor of two) in this investigation?

The problem has been that the documents have been those chosen by those being investigated. The investigated will always release any damning ones last, thus the investigator needs access to all for which there is not a damned good justification for concealment.

I don't see why Congress is even investigating the Bush administration for dismissing federal prosecutors. What are they trying to accomplish? Isn't the appointment and dismissal of these prosecutors at the sole desecration of , and thus under the sole the authority of, the President? If so, what is the controversy here? His reasons for dismissal? He doesn't need a reason.

I can understand if President fired a federal judge and Congress demanding to know why, for example, as Congress must approve the appointment of judges and thus has authority in this process. In this case, though, Congress has no authority over the appointment of federal prosecutors so what authority does Congress have in demanding information regarding their appointments or dismissals?

Congress has the ability to confidentially debate and discuss matters pertaining to their duty as members of Congress, like discussing a bill in closed session, and the President, or any federal officer, does not have the authority to demand information about the discussions that occur during confidential deliberations. The Attorney General and his prosecutors, for example, has no authority to compel statements from members of Congress or their aids regarding confidential deliberations, so how can Congress demand statements from administration officers or advisers, about their confidential deliberations?

It seems to me that Congress is overstepping their authority and is violating the separation of powers when they demand information about private deliberations amongst the Administrative branch over matters that solely in under the authority of the President and have not been shown to be illegal. I would apply this critique to a Republican controlled Congress as well as I see this as a Constitutional problem and not a political one.

I too appreciate the candor of many of these comments, as well as Ed's willingness to express his opinions. The part I disagree with is that the WH's interpretation of separation of powers is, essentially, that executive privilege covers ANY communication by a WH staffer, to anyone. This gives far to much power to the executive branch, in my thinking about the nature of checks and balances. What about communications between a WH staffer and another federal agency's employees -- where's the privilege there? In that kind of situation, I think it's reasonable to say that the WH is overstepping its bounds in exerting the privilege, as it impinges on the congress's oversight power.

>> I don't see why Congress is even investigating the Bush administration for dismissing federal prosecutors. What are they trying to accomplish? Isn't the appointment and dismissal of these prosecutors at the sole desecration of , and thus under the sole the authority of, the President? If so, what is the controversy here? His reasons for dismissal? He doesn't need a reason.

There is a subtlety here: the justice department is a creation of congress. The congress can abolish and replace it. Congress delegated the the power to fire of USA''s to the president in trust that he would handle the task responsibly. IThe congress can reclaim the power. Investigating whether that president has properly handled the powers granted is congress's duty.

This is well supported by the Teapot Dome case McGrain v.. Daugerty

Because by the nature of their positions, anything for which they could provide testimony by definition falls under executive privilege. They exist to provide advice to the President, and operate completely within his authority.
Posted by: Captain Ed

Wow. Captain. Too much. Where does this circle of "authority" that protects the president end? Pray tell.

"The investigated will always release any damning ones last, thus the investigator needs access to all for which there is not a damned good justification for concealment."

You're making an assumption that there was some kind of crime committed by the Bush administration when no one has accused Bush of violating the law for dismissing the prosecutors. it is not illegal for any President to dismiss a federal prosecutor. If no crime has been committed, then why is Congress investigating?

Also, when investigating a crime, the government does not have the authority to collect evidence that doesn't pertain to the investigation at hand. They can not, for example search all my love letters to my wife when investigating an alleged tax fraud. If the law protects me from unreasonable searches and seizures, it should also prevent Congress from doing that same. Congress is not above the law.

If Congress thinks that Bush is withholding pertinent documents, they should appoint an independent auditor to determine which documents pertain to the investigation and which do not. Congress should not have unrestricted access to every document produced by the administration simply to ensure they collect those documents that may pertain to the investigation. That is a clear violation of separation of powers and a blatant abuse of office.

>>You're making an assumption that there was some kind of crime committed by the Bush administration when no one has accused Bush of violating the law for dismissing the prosecutors.

This is incorrect. Many people, including some of the dismissed prosecuters, have accused the administration of violating the law for dismissing the prosecuters. The most common charge is obstruction-- closing down prosecutions, for example that of Lamm again Abrahamoff, etc.

Thus the need for an investigation to find the truth.

If Congress could get some straight answers from Abu, republicans wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

Ron Beasley said:

" Ed
I have to wonder if you will be defending executive privilage when it's President Hillary Clinton. "

Ron, I doubt that we will ever get to any question about President Hillary Clinton's executive privilege as I'm sure we will be operating here under Sharia Law at least halfway through her term.

This is incorrect. Many people, including some of the dismissed prosecutors, have accused the administration of violating the law for dismissing the prosecutors. The most common charge is obstruction-- closing down prosecutions, for example that of Lamm again Abrahamoff, etc.

Tell me which statute was violated by the dismissals. If Congress thinks that there was obstruction, then they should be investigation just the obstruction allegations. That would not require them to request testimony form those with no connection with that allegation, like Miers.

Admit it, this is nothing more than a fishing expedition in which to find something that can be used to smear the President and his administration. It is unnecessary and unwarranted and it reminds me of the useless investigations that permeated the 90's during the Clinton administration. Investigations which a lot of people, like myself, thought were unnecessary, especially the Democrats. But now the Democrats have control of Congress and have started a political battle against a Republican President and suddenly these unnecessary investigations are starting all over again. And that's what this is all about isn't it, payback for Clinton?

You wonder why Congress is suffering the worst approval ratings in history? A large part of it is because a lot of people, like myself, are tired of both parties wasting time and tax dollars on this continual game of political oneupmanship and character assassination.

Ray:

I have to go to dinner.

-If you follow the testimony it iappears that Miers was a central actor in the firings.

- Here is a video of a Bush appointed ex-USA talking about it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i2ma0jKLXo

DocJim505 asked,

"Conservatives - Is it OK with you that the USAG appears to be a totally incompetent fool? Do you think he has lied to Congress? Would it be OK with you if he did?"

No it is not, that is defending the undefencible. It sucks but we have got to live up to our faults. (I want to say we but can't) You claim to be better at the holding people accountable then the Dems (which you have proved you get rid of the people in your camp who get caught they put thiers in leader positions) but I want you to get rid of them when the inside circle finds out a person is a bad person not after the media breaks the story.

Captain, the rich irony of showing that leaky Leahy is simply a rank hypocrite, feeding the sheep here and elsewhere used fodder is wonderful. Thanks for the link.
I think that the indictment of ACORN for massive voter fraud on behalf dhimmies is exactly why the dems are so frantic to divert attention to the lawful firings of the prosecutors and are desperately trying to out yet more secret intel tools that are working to protect us in this war.
ACORN apparently was part of the dem theft of the Washington state governor's election, and unlike the dhimie fantasies in Florida and Ohio, actually happened. And the outing of secrets by lefty extremists is what they do - out operations, then lie about them to keep the gullible agitated and buying into their delusions about "Bushitler".
But nothing is as sweet as seeing Leahy exposed for the cynical sanctimonious, pompous pathological liar he really is.
Thanks, Captain.

Here is a link to Kyle Sampson's testimony regarding a plan to lie to congress if the Whitehouse thought they couldn't replace the fired USA's.
Any ideas why Kyle Sampson hasn't been convicted of conspiracy for his suggestions. I think conspiracy is still a crime even if you don't carry out your crime.
I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night so maybe someone with more knowledge could enlighten me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cawImvCo6Dw

I cannot believe that there were anywhere near 2 million Administration documents pertaining to the firing of the eight US attorneys. Have any of you idiots on the left done the calculations? 2 million divided by 8 is an average of 250,000 documents per fired US attorney. If each document took only 15 minutes to compose, publish and distribute, about 60,000 man-hours of documentation work would be required per fired US attorney. As there are about 1800 man-hours in a man-year, about 35 man-years of effort would be required to finalize the documents for each fired US attorney or about 280 man-years of effort for all eight fire US attorneys. Don’t any of you left-leaning people out there think that 280 man-years of effort is completely unreasonable and unbelievable? Waxman, like his defenders on this site, just has to be off his rocker. 8500 pages of documentation appear to be a lot to me - more than a thousand per fired US attorney.

It’s now about time for the Democrats to get over this fishing expedition! This country has many pressing problems that the dysfunctional leadership of this Congress should be but are not addressing such as a practical energy policy (incorporating nuclear power, domestic oil exploitation and new refineries as major components), border security, the high cost of education, the failure of public education, the high cost of medical care, illegal immigration, tort reform, protection of individual rights in an age of group rights, protection of property rights, the war on terror, funding and support of the Surge and CIA leaks to the media that give aid and comfort to our Islamofascist enemies.

ConChem

Ed,

Kudos for being up front about the WH contact, for which you've taken some heat.

Don't you think the other bloggers involved should do likewise? Otherwise, when we're reading how do we know if it's original or re-fried Snow? Ethics would seem to call for transparency on the issue. Given your laudable approach I'm curious about your take.

Best,
m

Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, said the conversation in question was about a NSA surveillance program. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the conversation in question was about the TSP secretive wiretapping program.

If they are both telling the truth, then there is another secretive wiretapping program of the president that has not been exposed to the public. Mr. Mueller stated “yes” in a broad sense that it was one in the same program. Mr. Gonzales says it was not the same program, but could not say more as to expose a national security breach. I want to know more... illegal wiretapping is illegal under whatever name you want to call it!

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?
Mr. MUELLER: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a…on a…NSA program, yes.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: I guess we use TSP, we use warrantless wiretapping, so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?
Mr. MUELLER: It was…the discussion was on a national…a NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.

HUNTER:
You don't know about ACORN, what else don't you know about? Get informed!!

ACORN was NOT the problem. 2 people cheated ACORN by submitting false signatures. ACORN was the VICTIM not the problem. Go back and re-read -

Oh, how we forget the gop relentless pursuit to find something on Bill Clinton.

The thousand subpoenas, the millions wasted, the wag the dog bullshit.

So, they do not want to man up to accountability.

Cowards never do.

This sets a very bad precedent for future Presidents.

The next President will be a Dem, so they should think about that.

I think the Dems should wait until w is out power and then prosecute.

No pardons, no commutations, no mercy.

Ed I have to wonder if you will be defending executive privilage when it's President Hillary Clinton. Posted by: Ron Beasley at July 27, 2007 2:00 PM

Won't be necessary -- Pat Leahy will beat everyone to the microphone and dust off the arguments set forth at the end of the Captain's post. The MSM will nod knowingly at his wisdom and that will be the end of it.

the justice department is a creation of congress. The congress can abolish and replace it.

Game, set, match. The DoJ is a congressional creation, and oversight of it is fully within the vested powers of Congress. The Congress can peer into the workings of the DoJ to see if the structure needs changing.

All the White House has to do is invite bloggers to a conference call... and suddenly Bush is a victim?

the Leadership understands that doing any more than talking about that would cause the same sort of backlash seen when Clinton was impeached.

I really doubt that. Do you know why Clinton's poll numbers remained so high during the impeachment process? The American people believed that Clinton was steering the nation in the right direction and that his lies didn't represent a threat to democracy or to the principles enshrined in the US Constitution. Clinton's dishonesty was connected to his personal life- his sex life- not to affairs of state or the nation's policies.

Bush, on the other hand, is largely seen as having repeatedly bent the law in pursuing a war that fulfilled his political goals. I don' think that impeachment would harm the Democrats. Look at history. Under Nixon and Clinton, impeachment was followed by elections in which the opposing party gained power. The Democrats' decision to not impeach Reagan over Iran Contra didn't stop Bush from winning in 1988.

Our Constitution makes zero references to God but it makes 6 references to impeachment as a means to protect the nation. The authors of the Constitution urge Americans not to hesitate to pursue impeachment when the executive branch has over-reached. Above all else, our founding fathers repeatedly wrote about the danger of a president who acted as a 'king for 4 years' or who undertook an unjust war in order to heighten his political power. Jefferson, Mason, and later Abrahan Lincoln all expressed grave concern over the danger of a long-term war that eroded our freedoms. So you have to ask yourselves- why aren't the Democrats impeaching Bush? Isn't there amble evidence that Bush and Cheney have assumed more power than the Constitution envisions for the executive?

Mr. Jose Sanchez, why is it now the Democrats responsibility to deal with and address all of the above mentioned Domestic policy issues that basically the GOP has ignored for 6 years? With such thin majorities compared to say THE LAST 6YEARS, which the Republicans had the trifecta of government control, why all of a sudden do you expect the opposition party to satisfy programs your now feebly weak, power hungry, warmongers conveniently ignored while they had the luxury of tackling anything they desired?
While overseeing the largest expansion of the Federal government, since when?.....

Ed: " … subpoenas directed to White House advisors are invalid under these circumstances. Gonzales would have to respond to a subpoena as an advisor subject to Senate confirmation, but not political advisors who work at the complete discretion of the President.

Pat Leahy believed that as well -- at least in 1999."

You are blatantly misrepresenting what Leahy actually said in 1999.

Miers was called. She failed to appear. This is outright contempt of Congress, which is very much like contempt of court.

There is room to argue that Miers has a right to refuse to answer certain questions. There is no room to argue that Miers can ignore a subpoena and simply fail to appear. This is an outrageous precedent that cannot be allowed to stand. If it does, anyone ever called by Congress can refuse to appear, as long as they can claim that they ever had a conversation with a president, where something resembling advice was given. That's obviously absurd (because the witness has no right to assume that 100% of the questions Congress could possibly ask are covered by executive privilege), but it's the logic Bush is using.

It is utterly false to claim that "Pat Leahy believed" that "political advisors," or anyone, can simply choose to refuse to "respond to a subpoena." That's not at all what he said. All he said was this:

… compelling compliance with a congressional subpoena in this context would be difficult … the only legal way to enforce this subpoena would be to hold a witness in contempt using its “inherent contempt authority,” but this would require a contempt trial on the floor of the Senate. Not many of us relished our role as jurors during the impeachment trial and are not anxious to reprise that role.

Leahy is not at all saying that it's legal or proper for anyone, even some ostensibly special category of "political advisors," to ignore a subpoena. He is simply saying that when push comes to shove in a situation like this, Congress has to jump through special hoops ("a contempt trial on the floor of the Senate") in order to compel compliance with such a subpoena, and that these are measures Congress was "not anxious" to take in that particular situation in 1999.

This is definitely quite different from what you claimed he said, that "subpoenas directed to White House advisors are invalid under these circumstances." That's not what he said. "Invalid" is definitely not the same thing as 'difficult to enforce.' Leahy said only the latter. You claimed he said the former.

Why are you putting words in his mouth? When you do this sort of thing, it sends your credibility into Gonzo territory.

jose: "I cannot believe that there were anywhere near 2 million Administration documents pertaining to the firing of the eight US attorneys … If each document took only 15 minutes to compose"

We live in an era when a "document" can be defined as a one-sentence email that took about a minute to write. And that email probably is redefined as a second "document" when the person who got it forwards is to someone else. And so on. Also, an email sent to 10 people might be defined as 11 documents, because it exists in 10 inboxes and 1 outbox.

Many thousands of DOJ pages have been released to the public. If you gaze at them for a while, you notice these kinds of patterns of redundancy.

This might be an appropriate moment to recall some facts about congressional oversight during the Clinton administration (pdf): 1,089 subpoenas issued, 2 million pages of documents received, 568 hours of testimony provided by White House officials, and $35 million spent. "When combined with the costs of investigations by independent counsels, the total amount of taxpayer funds expended on investigating President Clinton and his Administration exceeded $150 million."

hunter: "But nothing is as sweet as seeing Leahy exposed for the cynical sanctimonious, pompous pathological liar he really is."

Nothing is as sweet as noticing that Ed made something up and you fell for it.

ray: "Tell me which statute was violated by the dismissals"

Quite specific answers to that question have already been posted in this thread. The fact that you're still asking the question tends to create the impression that you're not really paying attention to the answers that were already given. But on the off-chance that you're sincerely interested in seeing a very detailed account of the significant evidence of wrongdoing, read this (pdf).

We don't fly-man,

Incase you missed it alot of us didn't vote for them the last go around.

This is just another dog and pony show by the democrats to cover up the 'fact' that they have accomplished '0' in seven months. They must think it's great that only 14% of the American citizens have any respect for them and everyone is still trying to figure out if 14% of the population is in a mental facility in this counrtry. We know that 46-48% + (same number that voted for the traitor Hanoi John) are in mental health treatment of will soon be. Study from the left wing liberal U or Ca in 2004. If pot smoking causes paranoia and other mental illnesses that means every dhimmi in congress is or was a heavy pot smoker. They are definetly mentally ill. I'm one of the 86% that has '0' respect for the dhimmi led congress and the liberal court system. Funny that everyone I know, democrat and republican, feel the same way. The country is burnt toast, just waiting to be discarded in the garbage.

DouglasS,
Are you denying that Leahy wrote the piece linked to, or are you simply denying it becuase it is inconvenient to your meme?
And as to your assertion that specific laws were broken in the firings - BS. You wish it were so.
And I do notice you don't bother to defend the ACORN election fraud.
So do tell us: how does used sheep food taste?

Hunter:
Did you read what DouglasS said? He said that Ed interpreted what Leahy wrote incorrectly.

As far as the laws being broken, nice comeback - sarcasm

I defended ACORN election fraud, because it wasn't ACORN who committed election fraud. Fraud was committed on ACORN. ACORN was the one who reported the discrepancies!!!!! They paid people to collect signatures. Signatures were fraudulently turned into ACORN by a couple people trying to make easy money. Before ACORN turned in the signatures they highlighted ones that looked suspicious. Because they flagged the suspicious ones, they were caught. Basically people tried to get ACORN to pay them money for doing nothing. ACORN had fraud committed on them!!!! The lawsuit had nothing to do with ACORN itself, only the two individuals who tried to commit fraud on ACORN. Get your facts straight please!!!!

So hunter, you going to apologize for your mistakes?

ck,
Are DouglasS or what?
I read the Leahy paper, tool. It says what it says.
Leahy is not only a known leaker of classified intel, he is a slime bucket hypocrite.
Acorn was cheated? lol@u. They are the ones who got fined. It was their people who committed the fraud, and ACORN is a front for the DNC. And democrats around the nation consistently fight any and all election ballot reform in favor of easing the commission of fraud.
And by the way, no laws were violated in firing US attorneys.
So how many names do you post under?

I noticed that one point that the White House and the rest of the commenters haven't touched is that some sort of legislation defining a legal ground work for clarifying when a phone call is domestic or international is pending in the Judiciary Committee.

Currently, there are some FISA judges that consider any call that is routed through the US to be a "domestic" phone call, even if it is between two al Qeada members in the UK and Indonesia. So long as it passes through phone equipment in territorial USA, they consider it "domestic" and under the supervision of FISA. There are "efforts" to change this "definition" underway in the Judiciary Committee, but the change is not a "slam dunk" by any means.

“The program had different parts, but there was only one program,” Ms. Harman said, adding that Mr. Gonzales was “selectively declassifying information to defend his own conduct,” which she called improper. Rep. Jane Harman (D, CA) formerly the ranking member of the House Intel Committee.

After reading the Harman comment, I am beginning to wonder if there is another NSA program (or "different parts" of the same) that the New York Times hasn't told us about (yet) that may have some sort of controversial aspects (they all do) that the Leahy et al would like to keep their hands clean on .. or worse .. would like to leave only the Bush Administration's fingerprints on. Remember Comey and the Gang of 8 haven't revealed the true scope of what was discussed in those private briefings .. only the vague subject of NSA surveillance (but of course that hasn't stopped anybody from assuming perjury).

Now imagine that they could find a way to force the Bush Administration to reveal the existence of the program for "political purposes". Like, perhaps, an AG under threat of perjury.

Wow! Political firings of federal prosecutors .. followed by a political inspired release of classified information to save a political appointee of the Administration at the expense of the safety of "average Joe Six Pack". I can hear it now .. "how low will Bush and the Republicans go to put average Americans at risk .. for political purposes ?"

The fact that political jockeying by Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee to force the end of a large block of seemingly benign surveillance on America's enemies will be lost in the noise as all those programs are closed down. A real Democratic win-win as they could then blame Bush for any future attacks that might .. might have been avoided through "proper surveillance". And without any recorded votes to anger the ACLU et al.

Did Alberto Gonzales put them on record that they are now threading on dangerous ground ? Forcing them to leave a few fingerprints .. so to speak.

Did anybody notice ?

hunter: "Are you denying that Leahy wrote the piece linked to"

Of course I'm not "denying that Leahy wrote the piece linked to." However, unlike you and Ed, I'm actually paying attention to the words it contains.

Bush, Ed and you are trying to claim that such a subpoena is invalid. Ed is bringing Leahy's memo as support. Trouble is, Leahy didn't say such a subpoena is invalid. Leahy only said that such a subpoena can be difficult to enforce. Big deal. We already knew that.

The key words in the preceding sentences are "invalid" and "difficult to enforce." We're counting on you to be sharp enough to grasp what's obvious: those two things are not the same. I think you're going to let us down, though.

Ignoring a subpoena is a criminal act. Period. Leahy said nothing to contradict this. He said only that in certain circumstances, Congress has to exercise special means, which are difficult, in order to nail the criminal.

"as to your assertion that specific laws were broken in the firings - BS"

I notice you don't bother to explain any basis for your assertion. Lots of evidence is documented in the memo I cited. You should explain what about that evidence is incorrect.

"I do notice you don't bother to defend the ACORN election fraud"

That's because someone else already said what needed to be said. I notice you don't bother to notice that.

neo: "Did anybody notice ?"

Did anybody notice that Bush was always able to eavesdrop to his heart's content, as long as he got warrants from the famously compliant FISA court? Which even granted warrants retroactively, which means that Bush could always eavesdrop now as long as he got a warrant later?

Did anybody notice that Bush has never offered anything remotely resembling an explanation of why this wasn't good enough, and why he decided it was necessary to circument the FISA statute?

Did anybody notice that we still don't know what it was that Bush was doing for a couple of years, that was so egregious that Ashcroft and Mueller were prepared to resign over it, which finally made Bush decide to stop doing it?

Did anybody notice that Bush is acting like someone with something to hide?

Has it ever occurred to you to entertain the possibility that Bush's highest priority is not protecting us, but rather protecing himself?

It took a few moments to get the call started, but it started with a quick outline of the issues. A senior official called Congress' action an extraordinary act. Congress has never attempted a contempt citation against a president's staff in our history.

I wonder how many of them have flat out refused to show up in response to a subpeona? Meirs isn't claiming privilege, she's claiming immunity - the right to completely ignore a subpoena and thereby avoid answering any questions at all, regardless of whether they relate to presidential communications or not. Even if you have a privilege claim you still have to show up and answer any questions that don't relate to the subject of the privilege. If there's law out there saying she has immunity rather than just a privilege claim I'd like to see it. I strongly suspect there is no such law, as if there were, Sara Taylor would have invoked it and refused to show up as well. I suspect the difference between the two is that Meirs is more confident that Bush will go to extraordinary, Libby-like measures to bail her out of this.

hunter check this out
re."And democrats around the nation consistently fight any and all election ballot reform in favor of easing the commission of fraud."
CA SoS Bowen: 'Analysts Able to Bypass Both Physical and Software Security for Every System They Reviewed'in Landmark Independent 'Top-to-Bottom Review' of CA Voting Systems

or this :
BREAKING: Newly Obtained Emails Reveal GOP '04 Vote Supression Scheme

or this :
EXCLUSIVE: Milwaukee Election Records Indicate Apparent Forgery, Ballot Box Stuffing in 2004 Presidential Election

Ed: "Congress has never attempted a contempt citation against a president's staff in our history."

Cornellian, thanks for mentioning that. I had missed it the first time. Ed didn't mention that "our history" actually means 'in the history of the Bush administration.'

From the Congressional Record, 6/18/96:

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to again call on the Speaker and House leadership to bring forward the contempt citation against Mr. Quinn, legal counsel to the President, and other White House officials who have been involved in keeping documents relating to `Filegate' from the Congress and also from the Special Counsel.

Quinn is also mentioned here, from Fox News:

Q: Is the contempt of Congress power used often in fights between the legislative branch and the executive branch?

A: Since 1975, 10 Cabinet-level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt by subcommittees or committees for failure to produce subpoenaed documents. They are Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Commerce Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton in 1975; Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano Jr. in 1978; Energy Secretary Charles Duncan in 1980; Energy Secretary James B. Edwards in 1981; Interior Secretary James Watt in 1982; Gorsuch, known as Anne Gorsuch Burford after a 1983 marriage, and Attorney General William French Smith in 1983; White House Counsel John M. Quinn in 1996; and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.

The White House and Congress came to negotiated agreements in each case before criminal proceedings could begin.

Ed, nice job proving that the White House is putting out bogus information, and you're happy to help them propagate it.

I think Cornellian is right: what's unprecedented is the way Miers simply ignored the subpoena.

then theres this :
Calling for Paper Ballots, Kucinich Reiterates Dropped Support of Holt Election Reform Bill

So Hunter would you like to retract this lie ?
"And democrats around the nation consistently fight any and all election ballot reform in favor of easing the commission of fraud."

It was Stalin who said: "It is not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes",
was it not ?

The original post by Ed starts off, unfortunately, with an inaccuracy. The hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys is NOT solely the responsibility of the President.

1. The President nominates U.S. Attorneys, who then must be confirmed or rejected by the U.S. Senate--giving the Senate a clear role in their hiring.
2. The position does not exist in the Constitution and is created by and Act of Congress. Congress has the right to investigate to see if that law needs to be amended.

My goodness. When CLinton was in office, the republicans treated 'executive privilege' as though it was a farce and illegitimate and should not be an impediment to their subpeonas of docs concerning all matter of presidential info and documents

Now, it is a sacred doctrine, involitable and places any and all executive communications and docu