Considering Conyers' charge that such assertions of privilege are not accorded the presumption of "good faith", no thanks.

Bush may be a criminal, but he's not an idiot. No, no, no, he may be an idiot, but he's not a.. um.. he's not..
No, wait!
Bush may be a war crim.. no that's not going to work either.

NO! You can't talk to Bush's peeps under oath. Why, that'd be like lifting a huge boulder and watching all the little creepy things scurry about!

GOP translates to quid pro quo, no? "The entitled" worry about others feeling "entitled." What a joke.

Guys & gals:
Don't respond to trolls.
Better deal with mental patients or small kids.

Just keep reminding yourselves what utter losers such persons must be to engage in such behavior.
Just imagine what it takes to devote oneself to defending George Bush.
What profits a man he gain the world and lose his soul -- for Bush? For friggin' George W. Bush????

I guess I would be "lying" then by pointing out that Clinton was no longer President when he "waived" executive privilege as to Marc Rich's pardon and Bill never testified personally on the subject?

TPM...wheres my DELETE JAKE POSTING button goddamnit?

Hes made a mess of himself at Think Progress and now hes here to embarras himself yet again for being a 26%'er. Sheesh have a heart. Install that button and ill protect him from himself - like all the repuglicans want to protect Americans from their freedoms.

Whether through fear, anger, revenge or conscience someone will talk and that will trigger a cascade of information that will lead to the resignations of Bush & Cheney in 08.
You heard it here.

there's a fine story in today's LA Times about Drew Westen, a brain researcher who says the dems need to tap voters' emotions to win, and he says, and I believe, the democrats' response to bush not letting his subordinates testify under oath should be, "Mr. Bush, just what is it about 'So Help me God' that you find so offensive".

This is a good answer to his use of executive privilege---as the republicans have proven over and over again, this public doesn't need responses that apply to the facts....... we have got to start nailing these dictators.

I wonder if anyone can answer this. I know Bush has absolute powers regarding pardons and commutations, but Bush apparently pardoned Libby without being asked. Libby did not make a formal request for a pardon or commutation(as far as I know). So in theory if Bush wants, can he just make a statement like "I hereby free all prisoners currently in US prisons". My question is does someone not have to ask for a pardon before Bush can act or can he just do whatever the heck he wants?

I don't expect any meaningful response from the Executive Branch. It would be counter to the groundwork they've laid to increase the power of the Executive, since Executive Privilege seems to be one of its linchpins.

That said, I am still glad every time a member of Congress writes to the President with a reasonable request. What this does is to put on record the actions these members are taking to fulfill their oversight function, as mandated by the Constitution.

If this ever ends up in a court, the preponderance of evidence that supports Congress's actions should carry weight. If a court (especially the Supreme Court) ignores Congress's adherence to the rules while the Executive either has skirted or flouted them, this would be damning of the Judiciary as well as the Executive, indeed.

It's an overwhelming prospect, but it may just be time for the States to step up and force a Constitutional review. While our early statesmen anticipated and even expected this kind of periodic shakeup of the status quo, they could hardly have imagined its organization among 50 states.

But if the only branch of the government that is even attempting to adhere to its Constitutional mandate is the Legislative, the States, as representatives of its people, are morally bound to take the action necessary to correct the balance and accountability.

Roberta:

I am glad every time a member of Congress writes to the President too; as long as they don't submit Articles of Impeachment, keep the letters faxing.

PK:

The President can pardon every single federal prisoner with the stroke of a pen.

Scribe:

Did you read Conyer's letter? You know, the THREAD TOPIC: "It is in this spirit that I call on you too to waive Executive Privilege and provide the relevant documents and testimony of any relevant aides regarding the decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence. Given that then President Ford testified before our committee in 1974 about his pardon of President Nixon, there is ample additional precedent for your taking such a step."

I wasn't aware that Libby was a former President of the United States too.

Roberta: "It's an overwhelming prospect, but it may just be time for the States to step up and force a Constitutional review."

Practically, that's unlikey to happen within a year. Even if it were possible I doubt it would impact, sway or motivate this particular administration to comply with the law. There's nothing that will reign in an Executive Branch that has usurped the power of the Legislative Branch, short of removal from office, either unforced (through impeachment/resignation) or forced (through military power).

That's how bad things have gotten in America.

PK - Bush can pretty much do whatever he wants, with respect to pardons. But he also (at least as far as the Constitution is concerned) is answerable to Congress, and the people. Furthermore, according to James Madison at the Constitutional Convention:
"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty….”
In other words, the President is not allowed to "shelter" someone via pardon or commutation, when the effect is, or appears to be suspicious.
Thus, by commuting Libby's sentence he has committed an impeachable act.

New Blog coming: trolls4jake

At the cafe

In 2 days time

Waste your time with trolls at trolls4jake!

Keep the threads here clean!

notKeith:

As long as Congress uses the same exact standard and impeaches Bill Clinton for any "suspicious" pardons as well, fine by me.

JNagarya:

You want me to "Substantiate" that Bill Clinton was not President of the United States after January 20, 2001? Did you watch the Inauguration that day? Do you live on that island in "LOST"?

word is "screw"

really!

'...the democrats' response to bush not letting his subordinates testify under oath should be, "Mr. Bush, just what is it about 'So Help me God' that you find so offensive".'

That is brilliant!

Click on Jake to read about Chris Cannon calling David Iglesias an "idiot" on Fox News Sunday.

A message for Jake.

"JNagarya:

"I don't know that Libby was the person who lobbied for the Marc Rich pardon . . . ."

It was common knowledge at the time -- except, of course, among Republicans who are required to hate anyone even remotely associated with the Clinton Admoinistration. After all, jealousy trumps truth: Clinton was actually elected, both times.

". . . . -- he testified he stopped representing Rich in the spring of 2000 -- that was ONE YEAR prior to the pardon. . . ."

That Libby is a Republican isn't sufficient to overcome the fact that he is a convicted felon, having lied to investigators, to Fitzgerald, and to the grand jury.

"Also, since I am not a "Republican" I can only guess they are defending Libby because he was Cheney's top commander and is being attacked by the Democrats as a scape goat for both Cheney and Bush."

Of course you're not a "Republican"; you're a Republican -- and never miss an opportunity to be intellectually dishonest -- see above your effort to pretend Libby's word can be trusted -- as you do by dragging in the smear against Democrats because they had nothing whatever to do with his prosecution and conviction on 4 felony counts.

The Democrats are irrelevant to the fact that Libby is a convicted felon: all involved with the prosecution, with the exception of non-partisan Fitzgerald, and non-partisan juries, were Republicans, Republicans, and even "Republicans".

"That probably stems from the fact that Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against Cheney will never make it to the floor of the House."

You should stick to one-liner lies; when you endeavor to cobble together two or more sentences you become increasingly incoherent.

54 per cent (others are reporting 56 per cent) of the US citizenry want Cheney impeached. As We the people are the ultimate check on gov't, and impeachment is the ultimate assertion of the rule of law against the lawless, it is secondary what Congress thinks or feels about the issue. A majority of We the people demand Cheney be impeached; and it is Congress' duty to fulfill that demand.

Keep watching 26-percenter/dead-ender: the cowardly Republicans in Congress who are currently foot-dragging and obstructing -- of which latter they've boasted -- will begin to break for enforcement of the law -- imepachment -- come fall, in hopes they can save their political careers.

Doubtless you'lll still be lying then because you simply won't let go of your hatred for the rule of law and your country. Nazis put party before country too. You like the snappy uniform, do you?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 3:13 PM

P.S. Dan -- HUNDREDS of Bush Administration officials have testified before Congress -- what are you talking about "Having ANY official from within the White House actually forced to testify"?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 2:37 PM

Name five who did so without having to be hauled in kicking and screaming about how they're Republicans/"Republicans" therefore exempt from the rule of law except where it gives them rights separate from responsibility, accountability, and penalties.

And explain why that is excuse for the claim that no one from the Bushit criminal enterprise need testify if such invokes, as does EX-employee Sara Taylor, their "I-am-a-Bushit-loyalist" privilege.

You're welcome to read the views of law professors and actual lawyers (Balkinization) of Bushit's invocation of the privilege over what is essentially a subpoena for discovery, based upon solid evidence, and on-the-record statement that Congress is investigating crimes. That evidence includes emails by and from Taylor showing she was intimately involved in the removal of Cummins in order to appoint Rove's personal segregationist in his place.

And in the efforts to deliberately mislead Congress about that and other attorney-purge issues.

In short: among the evidence is that of wrongdoing by one Sara Taylor, who talks out of both sides of her mouth: I'm willing to testify voluntarily, except that I'm not, therefore am invoking my "I'm-a-Bushit-loyalist" privilege.

"Roberta:

I am glad every time a member of Congress writes to the President too; as long as they don't submit Articles of Impeachment, keep the letters faxing."

Yeah, that's scares the willies out of professional lying shitheads such as you. So long as you can pretend what Congress is doing is "ineffective," you can applaud it. But when Bushit -- who has calculated that the only option by means of which to hold him accountable is impeachment, but that the Democrats "don't dare" -- is served with Articles of Impeachment, he'll possibly realize he miscalculated: impeachment isn't in the hands of Congress as to initiation; it is in the hands of We the people, and at least 45 per cent want Bushit impeached. That number will be above 50 per cent by September-October-November.

"PK:

The President can pardon every single federal prisoner with the stroke of a pen."

Substantiate.

"Scribe:

"Did you read Conyer's letter? You know, the THREAD TOPIC: "It is in this spirit that I call on you too to waive Executive Privilege and provide the relevant documents and testimony of any relevant aides regarding the decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence. Given that then President Ford testified before our committee in 1974 about his pardon of President Nixon, there is ample additional precedent for your taking such a step."

"I wasn't aware that Libby was a former President of the United States too."

In fact, as Nina Tottenberg makes clear, the Watergate holding re. Congress' demands for documents set a rather high bar to overcome. But since then -- in a suit on the issue against Bushit himself -- the court held that Congress need only show that the documents demanded are "relevant" to their investigation.

As welll, as result of the unconstitutional houndings of Clinton, holdings on Executive Privilege resulted in several narrowings of that.

Be careful what you wish for: you might shoot yourself in the foot.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 2:54 PM

You can do your own "Substantiate" homework, yourself, JNagarya.

Nice written slight-of-hand.

What White House official?

W-H-I-T-E H-O-U-S-E O-F-F-I-C-A-L

We are talking about Executive Privilege, right? Did the conversation of to ALL Executive branch officials?

your = you can start here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/connaughton-bio.html

WHEN THE DEMOCRATS START LEGISLATING INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATING.THEY ARE DOING A GREAT DISERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.300 INVESTIGATIONS IN 100 DAYS,THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS.