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 documents beyond the reach of congress.

It reminds me of their position on the fillibuster circa 2006 vs. 2007.

WHAT A BUNCH OF FLAMING HYPOCRITES!

It all comes back to Clinton, Florida, and the war. Virtually every post thus far by libs mentions one or more of these controversies.

So, is this entire hoopla about justice and good government?

Or is it simply about payback?

DocJim, I think there is a big difference between payback and calling out someone's previous position as contrary to their current one. If any argument could be mustered in defense protecting the behavior of the current administration against impeachment contrary to Mr. Clinton's it would have to be that Dear Leader acted in official parameters of his elected duties. Mr. Clinton got caught lying about something personal. Anyway that argument falls apart because the political arm of Dear Leader's administration was blatantly involved for political expediency reasons, abusively and unnecessarily removing an understood precedent for maintaining an independent DOJ. I have to chuckle at all of the commentators who have brought up anything related to voter fraud. I firmly assume the GOP won the elections quite fairly. With that being said I also give them full responsibility for the current state of affairs and their dismal record of providing the government and addressing issues their constituents were promised in exchange for their loyalty and votes. Just because someone votes for a so called conservative because anything is better than a Liberal doesn't mean that the republicans shouldn't be held accountable to the rule of law, ESPECIALLY during the execution of the people's business, and use of their tax dollars.

For those behind in the news curve re ACORN:

"Remember ACORN? (Some old Kerry Spot coverage here and here, if your memory needs refreshing.)

"Well, in the state of Washington, King and Pierce County prosecutors filed felony charges today against seven paid employees and supervisors of ACORN "who allegedly committed the biggest voter-registration fraud in state history."

"The announcement of criminal charges came after the King County Canvassing Board revoked 1,762 allegedly fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN employees.

"Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Stephen Hobbs told the board that six ACORN workers had admitted filling out registration forms with names they found in phone books last October. The canvassers filled out the forms while sitting around a table at the downtown Seattle Public Library, Hobbs said.

"County prosecutors charged the six canvassers with one to eight counts each of filing false information on voter registration, and charged a supervisor with providing false information and making a false statement to a public official.

"Two of the ACORN workers were also charged in Pierce County with submitting 55 phony registrations.

"The story gently concludes, "ACORN canvassers in other states also have been the subject of investigation."

"Actually, they've been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado, and had various forms of reprimand, investigation, indictment, and other run-ins with the law and state election authorities in Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Ohio, New Mexico, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, and Arkansas.

"At what point does this group stop getting the benefit of the doubt?"

Links within this post can be accessed here:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWNjNjM4MDEwOGQxODNmOGRlODc1YmE2ZDRiZDkzODg=

Flail away moonbats. Flail away.

Liberals are such good comedy.

Today Tony Snow told the White House press corps that what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee was correct: there was no disagreement in the Justice Department about the "terrorist surveillance program" which President Bush described to the American people in 2005. There was controversy, but that was over a different set of intelligence activities:

The terrorist surveillance program, as it has been labeled -- it was not so labeled at the time -- was a program of doing surveillance on communications of al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda members internationally -- internationally into the United States. The legal basis of that was accepted by the Department of Justice, and it was not a matter of controversy. To the extent that there were controversies on -- there are many different things that involve the gathering or use of intelligence; some of those may, in fact, themselves have been subjects of controversy, there were controversies about those. It is also the case that whatever controversy had been raised by the then acting Attorney General had been resolved. And that is something that he has said publicly.

That seems pretty simple, but what is striking about the transcript of the press gaggle is the dim-wittedness of the reporters. It is hard to understand how well-paid professionals (I assume) can fail to follow such a simple point. One reporter went so far as to say that Snow was "contradicting himself" by drawing a distinction between the "terrorist surveillance program" and other intelligence activities. It's an interesting window into the thinking, or lack thereof, of the White House press corps.

In fairness to the journalists, however, they didn't go as wild as the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee when they interrogated Gonzales earlier this week. The transcript is here; it's hard sometimes to tell the Democratic Senators from the protesters. If the Senators went any wilder, they'd be raising their shirts in exchange for beads.

Worst of all was Chuck Schumer, who made a show of pretending to misunderstand the basic facts that Gonzales told him. Given the anti-Gonzales tone of the press coverage, it is interesting to read what the Attorney General actually had to say. Here, he describes the hospital interview with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, and what led up to it:

The consensus in the room from the congressional leadership is that we should continue the activities, at least for now, despite the objections of Mr. Comey.

There was also consensus that it would be very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program, but that we should look for a way ahead.

It is for this reason that within a matter of hours Andy Card and I went to the hospital. We felt it important that the attorney general knew about the views and the recommendations of the congressional leadership, that as a former member of Congress and as someone who had authorized these activities for over two years that it might be important for him to hear this information.

That was the reason that Mr. Card and I went to the hospital.

Obviously, we were concerned about the condition of General Ashcroft. We obviously knew he had been ill and had surgery. And we never had any intent to ask anything of him if we did not feel that he was competent.

When we got there, I will just say that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. We were there maybe five minutes -- five to six minutes.

Mr. Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form, as I've heard him talk about legal issues in the White House. But at the end of his description of the legal issues, he said, "I'm not making this decision. The deputy attorney general is."

And so Andy Card and I thanked him. We told him that we would continue working with the deputy attorney general and we left.

And so I just wanted to put in context for this committee and the American people why Mr. Card and I went. It's because we had an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room, where the congressional leadership had told us, "Continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity."

Gonzales could see that some of the Senators were confused, and he offered to explain to them where the controversy resided, and why it was different from the "terrorist surveillance program" that President Bush had publicly disclosed. Of course, this would have to be done in closed session, since it involved disclosure of classified information:

SPECTER: Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?

GONZALES: Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you're asking me to hint or talk -- to hint about our operational activities. And I'd be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.

The Senators declined Gonzales's invitation. That tells you everything you need to know: they are not interested in learning the truth, but only in seeking political advantage. Finally, we have this colloquy between Schumer and Pat Leahy, who are sputtering over Gonzales's testimony that the controversial program was something other than the TSP:

SCHUMER: But, Mr. Chairman, if I might, now what the attorney general is saying the way this is clarified is that Jim Comey was not talking about the program the president...

LEAHY: I'm going to ask for a review of the transcript, both of what Mr. Comey said...

SCHUMER: Everyone knows that's not true.

LEAHY: ... and what Mr. Gonzales said. There's a discrepancy here in sworn testimony. We're going to have to ask who's telling the truth, who's not.

Actually, Schumer and Leahy were wrong. There is no discrepancy between what Gonzales said and what Comey testified to. As we noted here, Comey refused to identify the program that was controversial at the time of the hospital visit. Maybe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate Schumer and Leahy.

PAUL adds: Arlen Specter set a bad tone at the hearing. When Gonzales first testified that the hospital visit to Ashcroft pertained to other intelligence activities than the terrorist surveillance program the president announced to the American people, Specter asked "do you expect us to believe that?" The Dems and the MSM have been using Specter's reaction as cover for accusing Gonzales of lying about this. However, at a press conference in which he questioned Democratic calls for a special prosecutor in this matter, Specter, having had time to think things over, noted that a basis exists for believing that the Gonzales visit did in fact pertain to a different program.

Specter is a cranky old litigator (I'm beginning to know the feeling). He still has plenty of aggression (apparently that's the last thing to go), but his discernment seems to be waning. Yet unlike Schumer, Leahy, and company, Specter was honest enough to weigh the evidence after he cooled down, and to realize he had been too quick to attack on Gonzales on this point. (powerline)

Docjim nailed the realities of the status of current law makers... Is this really what we want from our government? Gotcha; no I got you; bullshit, I got you better....

How bout fixing the SS crisis; how bout that illegal immigration nightmare that has been kicked down the road by administrations from both sides of the isle; how bout protecting the label that reads "made in America", while slowing down the label that reads "made in China"; just for starters... No, we are 100% invested in the witch hunt you dummy. You guys went after our boy Clinton; now it's pay back time, and it's going to be pay back time until we decide it's over.

I say we rid ourselves of all Lawyers in DC for at least 25 years... Let's put some MBA types in power for a while and see if they can run this country better than lawyers...

I'm not a partisan. When Clinton was in office, I was disappointed in the GOP for pursuing him over the Lewinsky thing. I supported Clinton's forcing E. Gonzales' return to Cuba. I didn't vote for him, but respected the office he held (I had more respect for the office than he, but who am I to be his moral judge). I felt at the time what he did in his personal life was between him and God and I'd leave it up to God to judge him.

That said, I believe the pursuit of the AG is nothing more than payback for the Clinton years. I'm tired of the gotcha games on both sides of the isle. Congress needs to get back to doing the peoples' business.

I don't blame the WH for not allowing staff to testify under oath. In pursuit of another non-crime (Plame), they already caught one member of the Staff for inconsistencies under oath. The firing of the judges by the AG is also proving to be a non-crime that Congress is trying to criminalize.

I'm sure there are other Democrats who see it this way just as I saw the pursuit of Clinton for what it was - Partisanship and gotcha.

I think Jeralyn has written a compelling deconstruction of your analysis on her blog.

Executive privilege, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support indy media.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

The problem is this:

Executive Branch: Loyal to Bush's agenda over the American people's
Judicial Branch: Loyal to Bush's agenda over the American people's... all the way to the Supreme Court
Legislative Branch: Highly divided with a fragile and ineffective "majority" for the opposition party.... not enough to win cloture votes, not enough to override vetoes... no effective power other than a newly won power to make noise (thanks to the fragile majority).

Given the above... if the Bush administration decides to act dictatorial, secretive and deceptive... who can stop them?
The press?
The states?
The people?

The loyal Republicans tell us that "the wet feeling on our legs is "just rain" and is normal"... "don't worry, we're in good hands because we're at war (thank GOD Bush is President) and they want to come over here and kill us and the commie pinko liberals want to take your SUV away. Those "Bush Haters" are just on a vendetta against GWB who has done nothing wrong".

The loyal Democrats want to see some action from their team, but don't realize that their party is weak, ineffective and just as "sold out" to big business as the Republicans. In many countries, our Democrats would be considered "right wing".

We are living in a "banana republic" that claims to be "exporting freedom"... it's just mind-bogglingly Orwellian.

Pretty depressing, really.

Captain why throw in with the people that are against the internet and Net Neutrality? Murdoch's trying to crush Google and YouTube, not that I give these 70 year olds much of a chance to suddenly take over Silicon Valley. They are mobilizing the evangelicals against Net Neutrality and alacarte cable, so every media outlet can be Fox (Let's hear it for foreign ownership!) Will conservative bloggers really sell out their principles?

About those "2 million documents." Just John McCain is sitting on 750,000 pages of Dept of the Interior docs , much of it regarding Jack Abramoff. Then there's the Hookergate scandal that put Duke Cunningham in federal prison where he will soon be joined by several other lawmakers from California. There's the bribery scandal at the CIA that took down the #1 and #3 guys there almost as soon as they arrived. And the White House has locked up its visitor logs, so we don't now anbout the parade of lobbiests (and gay prosititutes). Then there is the secret email system using RNC email servers probably to coordinate voter fraud.

All this bribery and money laundering did not just start in 2000. Google the names of people being indicted by Carol Lams investigation and the words "IRANCONTRA." Yep, these folks all got their start laundering drug money and pimping death squads. This is the financial side of the GOP's shadow government, that is why the DC was suddenly knee deep in bribe money in 2000. And as soon as the Iraq war started, these guys suddenly became "defense conttractors" really in sole source contracts, started bribing GOPers, and the Defense Dept money just poured into their pockets.

8,000 pages of doicuments? Pfffft.

Look guys, the GOP abandoned its members years ago and can't be redeemed. Many of the midlevel people are going to prison, while the uper level people will be allowed to retire in wealth. Get busy starting a new party.

Jeeze all the lefties commenting on this thread have the same raw nothing they wish to chew on.

The issue is clear for anyone who is willing to look.

The flood of lefty comments doesn't make correctness it only makes more fools on the hill.

A collective effort by many wrong fools doesn't invoke wisdom now matter how much they wished it did.

I will sit back now and continue to watch the jaw yappers rant.

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.
Posted by: GOP08_DOA at July 27, 2007 3:17 PM

What a tool you are and don't even know it.

You've got most of that money going to the dems to cut each others throat and the republican side is waiting for the real election season to start before they commit money to candidates.

Hell even the Kos Kids haven't been trolled to give up money yet and thats one
of the first place they go to but that will probably change after their smooth and drool convention shortly.

You are giving air to a non point, but don't have a clue that the air is out of your basketball.

Sad really.

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.
Posted by: Captain Ed at July 27, 2007 3:13 PM

Captain your trying to talk with reason to a bunch of kids shouting for lollipops when they don't deserve them.

They have got the fever of their own version of religion and will not be swayed.

Don't try logic it simply does not apply in the zone they are at.

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. Posted by: GOP08_DOA at July 27, 2007 3:17 PM

Gee Keith Olberman love how you took the time out of your day to rant here instead of your usual nest. 

mick,
Show one example of where democrats have not opposed the simple reform of using photo ID identify voters. Show one example of where democrats have not fought to lower standards for ballot security.
democrats blocked and killed a modest proposal in Texas to increase ballot security this year, just for starters.
I will not apologize for your ignorance.
And ACORN was involved directly in the voter fraud in Washington.

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. Posted by: starfleet_dude at July 27, 2007 3:20 PM

Your obvious infatuation with the Fitz dude suggests baser motives I wouldn't wish to explore.

Take a self help personality improvement project and let yourself live.

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? Posted by: Cycloptichorn at July 27, 2007 4:16 PM eez, you guys crack me up.

Even Ben on his worst drunk days over at DU couldn't spout screed like this , do you practice it often?

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.

Posted by: legalwarrior at July 27, 2007 4:33 PM

Bottom line here is each an every point you have presented has been proven legally worng.

Get a clue and in the meantime get a life. 

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

Posted by: steve at July 27, 2007 4:38 PM

Moonbat professors unite we have a live one here.

The drooling on the chin is a shure sign. 

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.

Posted by: wrb at July 27, 2007 6:04 PM

You fools are simply to easy to shoot at, I'm quitting this thread since none of you can come up with a proper argument that has any sense in the least.

A pox on you. 

DouglasS,

I read the entire document you provided and all the posts since my initial request, yet I have not seen any references to specific statutes that may have been violated. No one has provided anything more than allegations and suppositions. This includes a google search which turned up a hell of a lot of hits but no resolution to my question. (In the interest of fairness, I should point out that I didn't research every reference google provided as they totaled in the hundreds of thousands and it would take several lifetimes to investigate every link)

I am interested in the actual statute(s). the federal code, (statute, 18 U.S.C. 3290, for example) that these dismissals allegedly violated so I may research this myself and not have to rely upon some one else's interpretations.

I would be grateful for any help in this matter.

keemo: "Let's put some MBA types in power for a while and see if they can run this country better than lawyers..."

You're joking, right? Is it possible you actually don't know that Dubya is our first MBA president? Then again, your premise might be that he's done a super job running the country.

" 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.
Posted by: jpe at July 27, 2007 8:54 PM"

The Justice department may be a creation of Congress as you submit but they apparently surrendered all authority over said department to the administration when they did not include a provision to assert Advise and Consent authority to appointments within that department.

Since Congress created that department it would be impossible for that administration to dissolve it, but since Congress has no authority over the appointments of personal within that department, they have no authority in the any dismissals as well. Congress granted the authority over DoJ personal solely to the President.

Looks to me as if the game is going into sudden death overtime.

"You're joking, right? Is it possible you actually don't know that Dubya is our first MBA president? Then again, your premise might be that he's done a super job running the country.
Posted by: DouglasS at July 28, 2007 9:51 AM "

According to the latest polls, America thinks the President is doing a much better job than Congress in the performance of their respective duties.

Ray, you're high. Disapproval rating in congress are basically a constant.

Now check out your guy.

BWA-HAHAHA. Now that's funny.

At the risk of the appearance as a kissass, I would like to congratulate Captain Ed for providing an excellent thread topic and the numerous posters for their comments.

There has been a lot of debate and a lot of opinions expressed here and I believe that this is what makes our society stronger. Participation in public debates and the free expression of opinions by ordinary citizens is what the Founding Fathers strove for when creating this wonderful country and it is refreshing to see their dream of an open and informed society being expressed.

ray: "I read the entire document you provided and all the posts since my initial request, yet I have not seen any references to specific statutes that may have been violated."

I appreciate your polite language, but I'm having a very hard time taking you seriously.

The document we're talking about is here (pdf). You "read the entire document?" Really? And you have not seen any "references to specific statutes that may have been violated?"

Did you skip the Executive Summary (p. 4 in the pdf)? Because it makes reference to the Presidential Records Act. And I guess you skipped a bunch of other pages, too, since that Act is mentioned in the document at least half-a-dozen times. The Hatch Act is also mentioned about half-a-dozen times (e.g., p. 14).

Those are indeed "references to specific statutes that may have been violated."

"No one has provided anything more than allegations and suppositions."

You seem to be suggesting that an investigation should not begin until there is proof of wrongdoing. What you seem to not understand is that one of the major reasons to have an investigation to begin with is to discover such proof. Proof is what we typically have once an investigation is concluded. Here's what we typically have at the start of an investigation: "allegations and suppositions."

"I read … all the posts since my initial request"

That seems to be a coy way of admitting that you didn't read the portion of this thread prior to your "initial request." Or maybe you'd like to pretend you didn't read the earlier portion of this thread. Either way, you should take a look at what shelley posted at July 27, 2007 4:41 PM. And July 27, 2007 4:49 PM. Those comments reference about half-a-dozen specific statutes that may have been violated, with links to a place where you can read more about those statutes.

"I am interested in the actual statute(s) … that these dismissals allegedly violated"

You are missing many things. One important thing you seem to be missing is this: the possible violation of a statute is only one of many legitimate reasons for Congress to conduct an investigation. Oversight is concerned with a lot more than that (Congressional Research Service, pdf):

Oversight, as an outgrowth of this principle, ideally serves a number of overlapping objectives and purposes:

! improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental
operations;

! evaluate programs and performance;

! detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and
capricious behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct;

! protect civil liberties and constitutional rights;

! inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the
public interest;

! gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend
existing statutes;

! ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and

! prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives.
In sum, oversight is a way for Congress to check on, and check, the executive.

You're suggesting that Congress cannot or should not launch an investigation until it has proof a statute was violated. That's pure baloney. Congress can launch an investigation based on an allegation a statute was violated, and it can also launch an investigation for many other reasons that don't even allege that a statute was violated.

It's quite an eye-opener to discover how little Bushists understand about democracy. Or maybe I'm being too charitable: they understand how the system is supposed to work, and they are interested in deliberately undermining that system, even though it's worked for 231 years.

keemo: "Let's put some MBA types in power for a while and see if they can run this country better than lawyers..."

You're joking, right? Is it possible you actually don't know that Dubya is our first MBA president? Then again, your premise might be that he's done a super job running the country.
Posted by: DouglasS at July 28, 2007 9:51 AM

The President is the Commander in Chief; Congress makes the laws.

What is your point Douglas? Are you stating that Dubya runs this country by himself? This country is run by lawyers Douglas, and they "are now and have been for decades" doing a piss poor job of it... Dubya has pushed hard for tort reform; the lawyers have resisted... Bring on more MBA types; sooner the better.....

http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm

"... the free expression of opinions by ordinary citizens is what the Founding Fathers strove for..."
Posted by: Ray

Who are you and what did you do with Ray???

J/K -- awww, that was nice of you Ray. Really.

"Ray, you're high. Disapproval rating in congress are basically a constant.

So you're saying that America always feels that Congress never performs their duties in a manner that meets with American approval and that America always has a better opinion of the President?

If that's the case, Congress should be more supportive of the President no matter which party he or she belongs to. The American people, acting together as a single deliberative body, chose the President and Congress would be well advised to support the people's choice or suffer the consequences. That Is what your saying, isn't it?

keemo: "The President is the Commander in Chief; Congress makes the laws."

I guess you're someone else who is determined to prove how little you understand about democracy. The President is a lot more than just "Commander in Chief;" he's also the Chief Executive, which means that it's his job to carry out the laws that "Congress makes."

"This country is run by lawyers … bring on more MBA types; sooner the better....."

The current Chief Executive is an MBA, not a lawyer. If you're trying to make the point that Bush is an example of highly competent executive management, the kind of management we want more of, you should have the guts to say that directly. Then we can all have a good laugh.

day trader.... I am genuinely frightened at the thought of you as a "daytrader." At the very least I do hope and trust that you are still living in your mother's basement and nobody else is dependent on your acumen for their daily subsistence.

All of you... please stop the insane preening over the "low approval rating of Congess" as if those numbers are somehow good news for Republicans.

Congress has a low approval rating because it has failed to stop the Iraq war and impeach George W. Bush.

How that fact can possibly be of any comfort to Republicans is beyond my comprehension.

It's time to get real, or prepare to get slaughtered.

Filistro

No Ray. What I'm saying is that congress almost always sucks. But it is your president who had the prime opportunity to shape your conservative dream for all of America, but he really sucked at it. That's what I'm saying. Why do you still support him so feverishly?

ray: "since Congress has no authority over the appointments of personal within that department, they have no authority in the any dismissals as well"

Aside from complete ignorance about our system of government, Bushism is also marked by hypocrisy and amnesia.

You seem to not remember that on 5/19/93 Clinton fired seven employees of the White House Travel Office. The GOP made a giant fuss over this for several years. That fuss included subpoenas, hearings, and contempt citations. For some strange reason, the GOP at the time decided to not be guided by the idea that "Congress has no authority over the appointments of personal within that department."

But alleged improper behavior regarding the White House Travel Office is a lot more important than alleged improper behavior regarding the United States Department of Justice, right? Just like lying about a blowjob is a lot more important than lying us into war, right? Makes perfect sense.

ray: "According to the latest polls, America thinks the President is doing a much better job than Congress in the performance of their respective duties."

There are clear indications that many people currently disapprove of Congress because they think Congress is not doing enough to stop Bush's lawlessness.

Actually Douglas, you are trying your best to ruin a really good thread; insults & meaningless thumping into one's chest does not add to the discussion. A quick review of your comments here on this thread leads me to believe that you are nothing more than a typical troll; out to spread vile behavior and Liberal talking points. The point I'm trying to make is perfectly simple and clear; lawyers (such as Schumer) are an embarrassment to the American people; an embarrassment to our political system. We either need a new breed of lawyer to step up to the plate, or we need to try something new. This Congress (much like the congress that proceeded) have brought to light just how bad things have become in DC... We, the people, need to demand much more from our leaders.

Enough of you...

proceeded should have been "preceded"...

DouglasS,

I do thank you for your assistance and I did read the pdf you requested but i am still at a loss as to what laws were violated due to the dismissal of federal prosecutors in this case.

The Presidential Records Act deals with the proper storage of presidential records and not with the appointments and/or dismissals of federal prosecutes. That doesn't help me understand what laws were violated when the prosecutors in question were dismissed.

The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees and lists the following restrictions:
These federal employees may not-
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches
* collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
* distribute campaign material in partisan elections
* organize or manage political rallies or meetings
* hold office in political clubs or parties
* circulate nominating petitions
* work to register voters for one party only
* wear political buttons at work

This is a direct quote form the Hatch Act. I fail to see how any of these restrictions were violated by the Bush administration through the dismissal of federal prosecutors as none of these restrictions are applicable to the appointment or dismissal federal prosecutors.

This doesn't help me at all.

"You're suggesting that Congress cannot or should not launch an investigation until it has proof a statute was violated."

You misunderstand me, I am asking what specific laws were violated by the dismissal of the federal prosecutors so I may do some research.

I believe that the Democrats are investigating this matter purely as a politic ploy and nothing more. So far, I've yet to see and evidence to change that opinion.

ray: "So you're saying that America always feels that Congress never performs their duties in a manner that meets with American approval and that America always has a better opinion of the President?"

As has been pointed out, Congress tends to get low approval ratings. Always. I've seen some intelligent commentary on why this is, but at the moment I can't remember where I saw it.

A long list of polls can be seen here. In 2006, approval for Congress ranged from 16-43%.

It also might be interesting to notice that in the Generic Congressional Vote, Dems currently have a 10-point advantage.

"You seem to not remember that on 5/19/93 Clinton fired seven employees of the White House Travel Office. The GOP made a giant fuss over this for several years."

I do remember those allegations and I also remember that nothing came of those investigations and they turned out to be an expensive waste of time. This type of investigation was a bad idea then, and it is still a bad idea now.

Let me repeat myself from an earlier post:
"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.

Posted by Ray at July 27, 2007 7:06 PM"

keemo: "We, the people, need to demand much more from our leaders."

It's interesting to hear you say that, since the GOP seems to be mostly OK with an AG who is a liar, totally incompetent, or both. Not to mention a POTUS who is at roughly the same level, in both regards.

You've also picked an odd moment to talk about the glories of MBA effectiveness, since our first MBA president is also arguably one of our worst presidents ever.

One point about the travel-office issue. The problem that Congress had with it was not the firings themselves, but the attempt to prosecute the terminated employees for embezzlement in order to explain away the firings. I don't recall anyone asserting that the Clinton administration didn't have the authority to fire them, but that they engaged in malicious prosecution as an excuse for a political decision to put their friends in what had been a non-political office.

I believe that the Democrats are investigating this matter purely as a politic ploy and nothing more. So far, I've yet to see and evidence to change that opinion.

Posted by: Ray

Sheesh Ray. You are high. But, you are welcome to your opinion. Don't let them pesky facts get in your way. This is America.

"No Ray. What I'm saying is that congress almost always sucks. But it is your president who had the prime opportunity to shape your conservative dream for all of America, but he really sucked at it. That's what I'm saying. Why do you still support him so feverishly?
Posted by: GOP08_DOA at July 28, 2007 10:59 AM"

I support the President because he IS the President. He was chosen by the people to do the duties required of his position. I don't care what party he belongs to, I vote for a president because i feel that this person is the right man for the job out of those running for office. I felt the same way about every President since I reached voting age. That included President Clinton. I may not have agreed with all of his policies and I may have disapproved of some his conduct while in office, but that never stopped me from supporting him as President even though I didn't vote for him.

The people choose the President to do his or her job for the duration of their term and we should accept and support that choice. We can disagree with policies and we can petition to change those policies, but we should never try to undermine the President and his or hers authority. These continual cycles of investigations and accusations by the members of the opposition party should stop and both parties should work together and do the jobs they were elected to do.

This type of political warfare, and both parties have been engaged in this for as long as I can remember, is not helping this country. They are a total waste of time and money and are, therefor, a drain on this country and it's resources.

"But, you are welcome to your opinion. Don't let them pesky facts get in your way. This is America.
Posted by: GOP08_DOA at July 28, 2007 11:44 AM "

I thought the purpose of these hearings is to investigate allegations and determine what are facts and what are simply opinions. Since this investigation, which you support, is ongoing and has not reached a conclusion as to the validity of any allegations, even you must admit that nothing has yet been determined to be a fact. But don't let a pesky inconvenience like that get in your way. After all, this is America.

I don't recall anyone asserting that the Clinton administration didn't have the authority to fire them

Posted by: Captain Ed

I think you're trying to claim a difference where there really isn't a difference. Yes, we "don't recall anyone asserting that the Clinton administration didn't have the authority to fire them." But I also don't recall "anyone asserting that [Bush] didn't have the authority to fire them [the USAs]."

The problem is not that Bush lacked the authority to fire the USAs. The problem is that the firings look improper, even though Bush had the authority to do them. This is similar to what was said regarding Travelgate: that the firings were unethical or improper, even if they were legal.

So what's similar is that in both cases a president fired some people who he unquestionably had the right to fire, but there was nevertheless an appearance of impropriety, for some reason. In the DOJ matter, however, there are indications that laws were broken, above and beyond the impropriety. In the Travelgate matter, I don't think anyone ever claimed that laws were broken. I think the accusation was only regarding unethical behavior, not illegal behavior.

Here's another difference: the DOJ is a hell of a lot more important than the White House Travel Office.

ray: "i am still at a loss as to what laws were violated"

We don't know what laws were violated. We're only in a position to talk about laws that may have been violated.

"I fail to see how any of these restrictions were violated by the Bush administration"

That's not what you said before. What you said before was this:

I read the entire document you provided and all the posts since my initial request, yet I have not seen any references to specific statutes that may have been violated.

Why did you say that? Since the document does indeed provide "references to specific statutes that may have been violated."

"The Presidential Records Act deals with the proper storage of presidential records and not with the appointments and/or dismissals of federal prosecutes."

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is it something you do without trying? No one is claiming that the Presidential Records Act deals specifically with "the appointments and/or dismissals of federal prosecutes," or that the dismissals themselves were a violation of the Act. It's that in the course of investigating the dismissals, evidence has emerged that the Act was violated. For example (p. 9):

White House staff may have violated the Presidential Records Act by failing to properly save emails sent using Republican National Committee email accounts that concerned official business, including the U.S. Attorney firings

Why are you asking to be spoonfed text that is easily found in a document which you claim to have already read?

"This is a direct quote form the Hatch Act."

Wrong. The chunk of text you presented is not "form the Hatch Act." It's from a simplified summary and introduction to the Hatch Act.

"I fail to see how any of these restrictions were violated by the Bush administration"

You are doing something highly disingenuous by quoting those 9 items as if they represent the entirety of the Hatch Act. That's utter nonsense. They don't. The text of those items don't even appear in the Hatch Act. Those items are simply common examples of how the Hatch Act could be violated. The list was created to help federal employees understand the kind of things they need to avoid doing.

If you are sincerely interested in understanding the possible violations of the Hatch Act that are relevant in this matter, a good start would be to actually pay attention to what's said in the memo that was cited above. For example (p. 14):

… to the extent Mr. Iglesias may have been fired in retaliation for his failure to bring a politically useful prosecution, the firing could also violate the criminal Hatch Act prohibition on retaliation contained in 18 U.S.C. § 606. Under that provision, discharging a federal employee who failed to contribute a "valuable thing" for political purposes is a federal crime, and terms such as "valuable thing" or "thing of value" are traditionally given a very broad reading that could well reach failure to bring politically useful prosecutions.

"I am asking what specific laws were violated"

You seem to not understand that Congress has a right to conduct investigations even if no "laws were violated."

"So far, I've yet to see and evidence to change that opinion."

So far, it's becoming more and more clear that you haven't even read the document which you claim to have read. In order to "see," the first step is to open your eyes.

ray: "nothing has yet been determined to be a fact"

That's simply false. Lots of things have been "determined to be a fact." For example:

Mr. Iglesias testified he was pressured directly by both Representative Heather Wilson and Senator Pete Domenici (a political mentor to Rep. Wilson) to expedite indictments in a corruption case involving local Democrats on the eve of Rep. Wilson's tightly contested Congressional election

The existence of Iglesias' testimony is an example of a "fact." And it's a fact that warrants further investigation. There are many, many such facts.

Only someone who is not paying attention would make a sweeping statement that "nothing has yet been determined to be a fact."

Came over from the TalkLeft link posted above... Fascinating discussion/debate (for the most part... There're a few posters here that seem to prefer quantity & ad hom over quality... ...just like on every other blog, I guess...)

I'm inclined to think the executive branch is trying to stretch privilege beyond the breaking point, and that Mr. Bush & Mr. Gonzales will not fare well, should the Dems continue to push the issue.

I look forward to reading more here (& checking out some other postings to this blog, to see whether the quality’s the same, throughout…)

Douglas,

You must be a lawyer....

Bush has had some great successes; along with some real disasters. The Bush policy on immigration (both legal & illegal) is a disaster. Bush is no Conservative, but then again, he never stated to be one. Bush has teamed with the Socialist "Ted Kennedy" to create an absolute disaster of a school bill, and has spent our tax dollars like a drunken Liberal.

Bush has also answered an attack on the American homeland with courage & conviction; killing thousands of really bad creatures that desire to kill Americans. The Bush economy is cranking "full speed ahead".. Exactly what I would expect from a man that holds an MBA and has made a small fortune running his personal businesses (including a baseball team). Unemployment is at record lows; any American that seeks a job will find one in this economy. Bush has restored some integrity to the Supreme Court, following some of the worst years in the history of our highest court.

The "worst President in history" title absolutely belongs to Jimmy Carter; no getting around that fact with stupid Liberal talking points.

I'm no fan of AG, however;

Today the New York Times filled in the blanks on Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but that the program in question was not the "terrorist surveillance program" that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question.

This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. "Do you expect us to believe that?" Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. One thing I could never understand was why anyone cares: what difference would it make if Gonzales's hospital visit related to the "terrorist surveillance program," or to some other intelligence activity? And what reason would Gonzales have to lie about that fact?

Today the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's "data mining" project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.

What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated:

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.

First, this paragraph of "analysis" is contradicted by the reporting contained in the same article, which doesn't say that the dispute was "chiefly" about data mining. It says it was about data mining, period. Further, there is nothing "narrowly crafted," "legalistic" or "technically correct" about Gonzales's testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.

The Times adds to the anti-Gonzales tone of its article by mixing in a little false reporting. The paper says:

Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery.

In fact, James Comey's testimony did not contradict Gonzales's. As we have pointed out repeatedly, Comey refused to identify the program over which there was a legal disagreement that led to the hospital visit. He did not, contrary to the Times's assertion, challenge or contradict Gonzales's testimony that "[t]here has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

The fact is that the Senators who ridiculed Gonzales, questioned his credibility and called for a perjury investigation were wrong. They owe the Attorney General an apology. (powerline)

I think loyalty COUNTS. And, I think Bush has been loyal to Gonzales. Who did NOT lie to congress. What he "didn't say" was that DATA MINING was used.

And, he didn't say this, with regard to the "taps" because DATA MINING is NOT the same as listening.

And, he wasn't asked a math question by the congress critters, either.

Other than the mud slinging and the name calling, what's "new?"

And, who sez this halps the Bonkeys? Not with Hispanic voters, it doesn't.

It's now all wall-to-wall politics.

Is it efficient? No.

Is it "different" because women have been given elected slots? Perhaps, this is so. That's why things seem weaker in presentation.

That we've been at this since 2000? Yup. Algore was a sore loser. Who lost his own state of Tennessee; as well as Floriduh. On every single recount of all of Florida's votes. They even lost to the Supreme-O's.

Not getting over their losses all that well, is one way to diagnose the problem. Jon Cary (gigolo), also seems to have a hard time with reality. It's possible he still hasn't called to conceed to Bush, after his 2004 loss. You care?

I stopped caring about the shinanigans long ago.

Bush isn't any the weaker for these contests.

And, no matter what else happens, ahead. The whole Bonkey apparatus has been exposed. If you think that halps them, what can I say?

I've seen lots of wholesalers guess the market, wrong, though. Especially since I shop at discount stores. Where the usual stuff that doesn't move off the shelves at full price, later appears.

I don't know why changes aren't obvious. But they usually are not. Or we'd stop looking in mirrors.

Still, I can look back to the 1940's. And, my mom, who was born in 1905, had her memory banks full of nickel ice cream cones by the time I was born.

A nickel? Well, in my "yoot" Good Humor was a quarter. And, today, people don't even have summer jobs like that, anymore. Do you know why? Good Humor found it could sell more ice cream, year round, at grocery stores.

And, that's how the market place changes.

Filistro: The Military has a 70% APPROVAL rating.

And, since Immigration Bill died in spite of all the elite efforts to push it through; there's a lot more going on, now, in congress earning higher disapproval ratings than it's had in 54 years ... might mean you're only focussed on what YOU want.

Impeaching Bush and Irak are not "constants," except with nut bags and moonbats like Cindy Sheehan.

Yes, it's a slow summer.

I'd probably guess that lots of people are vacationing; and lots of them are also vacationing from the constant mud battles that come out of DC.

Public opinion can turn on a dime; but for now, Bush's numbers are going up, while the congress critters know there's are going down.

And, while most people are way too polite to say it, I will: Feinstein and Schumer are Jews. They are not embraced by most Americans at all. And, unlike Joe Lieberman who did get plenty of GOP and Gentile voters PUTTING HIM BACK INTO THE SENATE; Feinstein and Schumer are not in the same league of popularity. In fact, I do believe they represent only a very small slice of the Jewish world. One I know well. And, one where I no longer go back to temple. Where the heads turned grey before my own mane turned grey.

Vaudeville, as good as it was, went.

Yiddish, as much fun as I used to have listening to the jokes, has also died on the vine.

And, I think Bush is coming out of a very bleak period without Schumer, or others in congress, even laying a hand on him.

Since it's a long game. And, Bush has about sixteen months left in office, it's possible he's gonna do better and better each month, instead of worse and worse.

Maybe, the media thought they'd squeeze another Nixonian victory out of their old kit bag; but I think all it's given them is a case of collective heartburn. Losses in subscribers. And, a generally bleak economic outlook, for what was, once, like owning printing presses.

You see, it's not very expensive to run a newspaper. Unlike lots of businesses, where the costs are high; the costs for paper (just like the costs for toilet paper), are rather low, when considered as part of your household budget.

To lose money while owning a newspaper isn't easy. Still, it's being done. By magic.

Hunter said
"And democrats around the nation consistently fight ANY AND ALL election ballot reform in favor of easing the commission of fraud."

then you said "
mick,
Show one example of where democrats have not opposed the simple reform of using photo ID identify voters. Show one example of where democrats have not fought to lower standards for ballot security.
democrats blocked and killed a modest proposal in Texas to increase ballot security this year, just for starters.
I will not apologize for your ignorance.
And ACORN was involved directly in the voter fraud in Washington.
Posted by: hunter at July 28, 2007 8:50 AM"

Photo ID means nothing if the "count" is corrupt ,don't you thunk ?
So as too "I will not apologize for your ignorance." don't apologize for your narrow mindedness either

"So far, it's becoming more and more clear that you haven't even read the document which you claim to have read. In order to "see," the first step is to open your eyes.

I did read the document provided and yes, it does contain the references you provided. It is apparent that I missed the references. I am no legal scholar or lawyer and after reading 70 pages I did not remember the few sections that contained the references in question.

This Memorandum concerns the refusal of Meirs and Bolton to submit to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee and not the President himself, but you're right, both the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act are mentioned.

I made a mistake. I admit this. Are you happy now, or will you continue to insult me simply to shut me up?

I said it before and I'll say it again. This entire investigation is motivated by partisan politics as it is being used in an attempt to embarrass the President and his supporters. Conyers, Waxman, and others are attempting to expand this investigation and to acquire additional testimony and records not to uncover unlawful actions by the President and his staff but to dredge up possible embarrassing information which the Democrats will use during the 2008 elections as proof of their claims of a "culture of corruption" amongst Republicans. It is a Congressional version of the Fitzgerald investigation that lasted years, cost millions, and accomplished nothing but the destruction of one man's reputation, on man's career.

It is Congressional witch hunt, just like the Democrats claimed of the investigations of the Clinton administration. The Democrats all complained that those investigations were politically motivated and were only an attempt to embarrass the President, and thus were wrong and should not have been allowed, remember? Now the shoe is on the other foot and suddenly the Democrats are doing the investigations. Well, if these types of investigations were wrong when they involved a Democrat as President, they must also be wrong when they involve a Republican as President. Two wrongs do not make a right. But now the Democrats have the power, so it's pay back time! But what will it accomplish? Nothing.

The President will weather this political storm just as Clinton weathered his. Little will come from this and nothing will change. The only ones that will suffer will be a few low level aids and the American people themselves who are, once again, forced to watch (and pay for) both parties fighting their continual political warfare.

It's noting more than a game, once that has been played this way for as long as I can remember. It is a game without any possible victory and it will continue year after year, decade after decade. The only losers in this game are the American people themselves. Isn't it time for this game to end?

"The existence of Iglesias' tesimony is an example of a "fact."

Testimony is not considered a "fact" in and of itself as we all know that any testimony can be incorrect as people can be mistaken in their recollections. People can forget or overlook critical details that, at the time, seems inconsequential. This is why, for example, most testimony need to be verified through documentation.

Simply stating something occurred doesn't make it a fact, even when you believe that what you state is the truth. Remember the old adage about how three people can witness the same even and give three different descriptions of it? It is well known that everyone perceives things differently from others, even when all witnessed the same event. This is why testimony needs to verified with other evidence.

I'm not implying that the testimony in question is ether fact or fiction, I'm saying that this has yet to be determined as the committee is still investigating. Since the investigation is still ongoing, no determination of any testimony as a fact has been accomplished.

ray: "I missed the references"

It's helpful to hear you admit that. It makes it a little easier to take you seriously.

"This Memorandum concerns the refusal of Meirs and Bolton to submit to subpoenas"

It concerns a lot more than that. It also goes into detail about many indications that something is rotten at DOJ. You're having a lot of trouble getting your facts straight.

"I made a mistake. I admit this."

You could have and should have done this in a much earlier post of yours (July 28, 2007 11:24 AM). Instead you ducked and weaved until after I shined a brighter light on your "mistake." This tends to create the impression that you're not operating in good faith.

The document I cited references the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act at least a dozen times. You said you read "the entire document," but somehow you missed all those references. One must conclude that you're either a liar, or an exceptionally careless reader. Either explanation indicates that it would be very unwise to take anything you say without a large grain of salt.

"will you continue to insult me simply to shut me up?"

I'm not interested in having you shut up. I'm interested in hearing you say things that aren't baloney. When you say things that are baloney, I will point that out. If you consider this an "insult," then I suggest you lay off the baloney.

Speaking of baloney, we're still waiting for you to explain why you presented text that was purportedly "from the Hatch Act," when in fact it wasn't. I guess this was just another "mistake."

"if these types of investigations were wrong when they involved a Democrat as President, they must also be wrong when they involve a Republican as President"

The problem is that you can't simply wave your hand and lump all sorts of things together under one umbrella as "these types of investigations." All things are not alike, and all investigations are not alike. Being a responsible politician, and being a responsible citizen, means considering facts and making judgments, because some investigations are justified and some are not. But you're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating that you're impervious to facts you don't like.

"Simply stating something occurred doesn't make it a fact"

I didn't say that Iglesias' testimony is correct. I said that the existence of his testimony is a fact. But there's also a fair amount of corroborating evidence, if you go to the trouble of paying attention to that sort of thing.

"Since the investigation is still ongoing"

Trouble is, you seem to be suggesting that the investigation shouldn't be "still ongoing." You're suggesting it's a "witch hunt," and it should stop.

Either Iglesias is a trustworthy person, or he isn't. If he's not, you should explain why Bush appointed him USA. You do know that Iglesias was appointed by Bush, right?

If Iglesias is a trustworthy person, then his testimony warrants further investigation. If his testimony warrants further investigation, then the people conducting that investigation are not conducting a "witch hunt."

Either you're claiming the investigation is a "witch hunt," or you're admitting that Bush chose an untrustworthy person to be a USA. Which is it?

And Iglesias' testimony is just one example. There are many other examples of credible evidence that warrants further investigation. You seem to be working hard to pretend this evidence doesn't exist.

Oops. My sentence above ("Either you're claiming … ") needed to be structured differently. But I think you know what I mean.

keemo: "The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's 'data mining' project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells"

There's one small problem with this latest spin from the White House. Bush led us to believe that he hadn't been doing data mining. He said this (5/11/06):

We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans

That's a bit disingenuous, to say the least, if what we're finding out now is that Bush really meant this: 'we're not doing it now, but we used to, until Ashcroft et al threatened to resign and forced me to stop.'

It's a lot like when Bush said this (4/20/04, video):

any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so

We ended up finding out that was an outright lie. Just like we're now finding out that Bush wasn't being straight with us when he told us he didn't do data mining.

keemo: "The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's 'data mining' project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells"

There's one small problem with this latest spin from the White House. Bush led us to believe that he hadn't been doing data mining. He said this (5/11/06):

We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans

That's a bit disingenuous, to say the least, if what we're finding out now is that Bush really meant this: 'we're not doing it now, but we used to, until Ashcroft et al threatened to resign and forced me to stop.'

It's a lot like when Bush said this (4/20/04):

any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so

We ended up finding out that was an outright lie. Just like we're now finding out that Bush wasn't being straight with us when he told us he didn't do data mining.

Oops, sorry for the redundant redundancy.

Onlineanalyst -
How wrong you are!

ACORN in Washington State happens to be something that I have a whole lot of information on. Now are you ready to be shown how wrong you are? OK

First of all NO Voter Fraud was ever committed and that's not what the indictments are about. Also, something very important you should remember, none of the names these people used were ever in danger of being used to actually vote with. It was only registering a name so that these "canvassers" could make money (they made money off the names they registered).

Second of all, ACORN is not at fault in anyway. In fact you should be thanking ACORN for finding and turning in some of these people. The fraud was committed on ACORN not the other way around.

As you clearly pointed out in the snippets you posted, some people got a really bright idea and decided to skip the actual registering of voters and instead go to the library, get a phone book, and register those names. This was done solely to get money for themselves. They turned the names into ACORN and ACORN went through them. As ACORN found a few bad ones they turned them into the the county prosecutor. Now they are being prosecuted.

ACORN was the victim. Stop spreading lies please.