« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DOJ Cites Exec. Privilege; Rejects Clinton Precedent in Revealing Documents
As we mentioned earlier today, House Oversight's subpoenas for Bush and Cheney's interview records from DOJ Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's inquiry into the Valerie Plame leak case were rebuffed by the Justice Department.
Since then, we've obtained a copy of the letter dated June 24 that the Justice Department sent to Congress, declining to comply with the subpoena.
Their reasons? The ever-ready assertion of executive privilege because the write ups of the FBI interviews with White House officials during the Plame leak investigation contain accounts of of internal White House deliberations, including those involving how to respond to the fallout from the infamous 16 words on Niger yellowcake in the President's 2003 State of the Union address:
However, these reports also contain considerable information detailing the internal White House deliberations and communications of senior White House staff concerning how they should respond on behalf of the President to public assertions challenging the accuracy of a statement made in the President's State of the Union Address.
The DOJ was also concerned that by releasing their interview records with Bush and Cheney, they would create a disincentive for future voluntary interviews from the executive branch. . . despite the fact that it's all been done before. In 1999, the FBI surrendered interview records of former President Bill Clinton and former Vice-President Al Gore:
We are aware that in 1999 the Department made available to this Committee the FBI reports of interviews with President Clinton and Vice President Gore that were taken during the Department's campaign finance investigation. We consider that situation to be fundamentally different from the present situation. We understand that the intrusion on Executive Branch confidentiality interests was significantly less because the Clinton Administration interview reports presumably did not involve the substance of internal White House deliberations and communications concerning official White House business, but rather concerned campaign-fundraising political activities.
The full text of the letter, after the jump.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20530
June 24,2008
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 205 15
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This responds to the Committee's subpoena, dated June 12, 2008, which we received on June 16, 2008, regarding documents from the files of the Department's investigation into the leak of classified information.
We are disappointed that the Committee issued the subpoena. As acknowledged in your letter of June 3, 2008, the Executive Branch has made substantial efforts to accommodate the Committee's oversight interests, including by producing or making available for the Committee's review dozens of Federal Bureau of Investigation reports summarizing interviews with senior White House, the State Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency officials. As indicated in our letter of June 11, 2008, we are consulting with the White House about the remaining 302s for White House staff and other White House documents sought by the Committee. We expect to complete our consultations soon, and we anticipate offering to make the remaining interview reports sought by the Committee (other than those of the President and the Vice President) available for the Committee's review on the same basis as the reports previously reviewed by. Committee staff. We also expect that other White House documents sought by the subpoena (beyond the interview reports) will likely be offered for Committee review with limited redactions.
As we have explained in letters and informal communications with the Committee, we have been, and remain, open to considering all reasonable accommodations that might satisfy the Committee's requests for information. In particular, we are prepared to discuss with Committee staff the possibility of making available for review, upon a showing of particularized need, specific redacted portions of the White House staff interview reports previously reviewed by the Committee. In seeking to accommodate the Committee's requests, however, we must take into account core Executive Branch confidentiality interests and fundamental separation of powers principles, and we must avoid taking steps that could compromise the effectiveness of future criminal investigations involving White House personnel. Consequently, as we have informed the Committee, we are not prepared to provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or the Vice President from the leak investigation. To do so would allow Congress to obtain through access to Justice Department investigative files information that it otherwise could not gather through its own inquiry because of separation of powers.
Your various letters on this matter have explained that the Committee's legislative purpose for its inquiry concerns the review of White House procedures for handling classified information. We have attempted to accommodate this interest by permitting the Committee to review the reports of interviews of senior White House staff, which contain some information relevant to this subject. However, these reports also contain considerable information detailing the internal White House deliberations and communications of senior White House staff concerning how they should respond on behalf of the President to public assertions challenging the accuracy of a statement made in the President's State of the Union Address. The Executive Branch has important institutional interests in the confidentiality of such White House deliberations and communications, and we therefore accommodated the Committee's interests by making interview reports of senior White House staff available for review but not copying, with limited redactions of presidential and vice presidential communications and personal information not germane to the leak investigation.
We are not prepared to make the same accommodation for reports of interviews with the President and Vice President because the confidentiality interests relating to those documents are of a greater constitutional magnitude. The President and the Vice President are the two nationally elected constitutional officers under our Government. The President heads the Executive Branch and, as the Congress has by law recognized, the Vice President often advises and assists the President in the President's performance of his executive duties. It is settled as a matter of constitutional law, reflected in court decisions, and congressional and Executive Branch practice, that the communications of the President and the Vice President with heir staffs relating to official Executive Branch activities lie at the absolute core of executive privilege. The interview reports sought by the Committee deal directly with internal White House deliberations and communications relating to foreign policy and national security decisions faced by the President and his immediate advisers. Congressional access to those reports would intrude into one of the most sensitive and confidential areas of presidential decision-making.
Moreover, from the institutional perspective, the Committee's request for copies of FBI reports of interviews with the President and the Vice President raises a very serious additional separation of powers concern relating to the integrity and effectiveness of future law enforcement investigations by the Department. There is an admirable tradition, extending back Through Administrations of both political parties, of full cooperation by the White House with criminal investigations. In keeping with this tradition, the President and the Vice President (as well as the White House staff) cooperated voluntarily with the Special Counsel's leak investigation and agreed to be interviewed informally outside the presence of the grand jury. Were future Presidents and Vice Presidents (or their staffs) to perceive that providing such voluntary interviews would create records that would likely be made available to Congress, there is a clear and unacceptable risk that they might limit the scope of any voluntary interview or insist that they will only testify pursuant to a grand jury subpoena and subject to the protection of the grand jury secrecy provision, Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, if the Department were to make available records of voluntary interviews with the President and the Vice President (or release copies of the interview reports of senior White House staff), this precedent could create an unfortunate disincentive for voluntary cooperation with future Department criminal investigations involving official White House actions. Such a result would significantly impair the Department's ability to conduct future law enforcement investigations where such investigations would benefit from full White House cooperation.
We are aware that in 1999 the Department made available to this Committee the FBI reports of interviews with President Clinton and Vice President Gore that were taken during the Department's campaign finance investigation. We consider that situation to be fundamentally different from the present situation. We understand that the intrusion on Executive Branch confidentiality interests was significantly less because the Clinton Administration interview reports presumably did not involve the substance of internal White House deliberations and communications concerning official White House business, but rather concerned campaign fundraising political activities.
In closing, we want to reiterate that we remain ready to work to accommodate the Committee's legitimate legislative interests. Although we will not make available records of any interviews of the President and Vice President in the leak investigation or produce copies for public release of the reports of interviews with senior White House staff, we remain prepared to discuss alternative accommodations that will address the Committee's needs in a manner consistent with the Executive Branch's confidentiality and separation of powers concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact this Office if you would like additional assistance regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Keith B. Nelson
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
cc: The Honorable Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member
Josh
Zachary
If nothing else, the picture is a classic.
June 30, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So 'official White House business' now includes treason? I would mark that as cause for concern. No wait, I didn't mean cause for concern, I meant grounds to impeach.
June 30, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In particular, we are prepared to discuss with Committee staff the possibility of making available for review, upon a showing of particularized need, specific redacted portions of the White House staff interview reports previously reviewed by the Committee."
Pretty damned generous of Mukasey.
How many offers they couldn't refuse does DOJ have to make to the ungrateful congress? At least as many as it takes to run the clock down. They know they just have to bide their time since Impeachment already sleeps with the bitches.
June 30, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes SadButTrue, you got it. We have an executive branch that is allowed to use Exec Priv. to hide from its illegal actions - just like Panama, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, N Korea, Egypt, Bulgaria, Laos, Guatamala, Ethiopia, etc...All the bellweathers of democracy, right?
In the old days - before Bush - the Congress had a spine. Not so uch anymore.
June 30, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The internal deliberation-related comments could be redacted. The public is less interested in the deliberations about the responses to the subpoena; than the original interview.
Putting that side, FBI File from Guantanamo #265A-MM-C99102 sheds light on the problem the President and Mukasey have in refusing to respond:
Why isn't the President willing to show us the evidence of his cooperation during the orignial responses, unrelated to the delberations about the responses?
The House should issue arrest warrants for the AG and President.
June 30, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I as others here have no idea what "Guantanamo #265A-MM-C99102" is. I imagine it is another made up document that you seem to be so prone to do.
Anyhow, what power do you envision that congress has to arrest the president? Congress can not even get a subpoena for documents and witnesses enforced. Do you somehow envision that they could get the president arrested, which I do not believe they have such power to do?
June 30, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A failure/refusal of DOJ AG to consider redactions of the information does not show, as required, comity or good faith efforts to accommodate anything. The privildge claim could, in this case, be trumped by the crime-fraud exception.
June 30, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either the dems want to be able to use the same abuses of power when they get in OR some REAL news is going to start happening (i.e. arrests). I think exec priv has been played one too many times and arrests are on the way. Maybe not the big cheese, but someone is coming in cuffs (and not cuff links)
June 30, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need an affidavit from the AG on this. Once sworn, his statements are subject to review.
The court can reject a claim of executive privilege. A presumption of government "good faith" fails when the government has a habit of lying, as it has done with the POW-FISA issues. Consider the following court statement:
Make Mukasey swear under oath, and in writing what he is saying.
June 30, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly how is congress going to get the AG to do such an action? The AG won't enforce subpoena's for information and/or witnesses. He is not about to provide an affidavit that could be used against him.
June 30, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just who would go about getting that sworn affidavit?
And why does it matter since it would appear that everyone in the beltway is colluding with the cabal in some fashion.
June 30, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is his nickname Stonewall Mukasey?
June 30, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Atty Gen. Janet Reno, I mean, Michael Mukasey must prove his independence from the White House!
Remember when conservatives thought that was important? Yeah, only when there's a Democrat in office. All other times, IOIYAR.
June 30, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'precedent' is Richard Nixon . . . not Clinton.
BTW Thank you Barak Obama again for telling us your voice did not matter on the Mukasey nomination. Your enduring legacy of your Senate tenure is looking to be the shitcanning of the Fourth Admendment and the rule of law in America. I'm going to damn proud to pull the lever next to your name . . . NOT!
June 30, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
A crime was committed; the outting of a CIA undercover agent. The trail of evidence leads to two people and/or into their offices.
Those offices are the office of the President of the United States and the office of the Vice President of the United States.
We are supposed to believe via the above letter that to reveal any and all documentation originating in and by those offices related to that "outting" will violate executive priviledge.
Mr. Mukasey knows, as does everyone, that the information that is being sought can be extracted from the documents he is claiming would be compromised and without revealing the information of any other douments of "executive priviledge."
What we are left with is the "executive priviledge" of being above the law and committing a crime and not be prosecuted for it by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Mukasey is playing games.
You don't have to be a blind connservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
June 30, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let history record, the appeal to hopelessness, for failure to make a compelling argument, is rejected. Congress' decision to do nothing, or not challenge the states does not oblige the prosecutors to inaction. This sitting President and AG can be prosecuted outside impeachment, outside Congress.
Here is the FBI case number, which you can confirm by contacting the AG: 265A-MM-C99102. Oh, wait, the AG isn't responding to subpoenas, so you can't verify the quote in his FBI files.
If people have this attitude, "Nothing can be done," why do you bother posting on TPM?
June 30, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you reference a book of someone's view as the law of the land. Nice one.
June 30, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the future, post the documents.
June 30, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The appeal to confusion and ignorance is telling: "Oh, now that we have a problem, how do we do this?" Ask Jonathan Turley: "How do we go about arresting the President". He answers that question in his paper, "From Pillar to Post":
Turley is the one claiming there is collusion; and he's outlined a solution to arrest the President and prosecute him. Whether the Congress or States arrest him hardly seems worth debating: The country and this TPM appears clsed minded in considering the possibility that arrests could be possible.
When the public stops making excuses for inaction, and presses the President and AG to respond -- otherwise face prosecution outside Congress -- you'll get the idea who has the problem: The President.
June 30, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anytime some asserts information must be withheld on a state secrets claim, there must be an affidavit. The argument that the AG would "never" provide an affidavit is absurd. He has to when invoking a state secrets claim. There is a way to make him assert that claim. Again, we're not hearing compelling reasons for hopelessness, but excuses for inaction.
Here is a sample case where state secrets was invoked; and an affidavit was required.
The point is that there is no compelling evidence to support any assertion that the AG will "never" sign an affidavit. If he wants to assert a state secrets claim on anything -- such as rendition-related evidence that the FBI has taken in -- then he will have to file an affidavit.
The job of the House Oversight/Judiciary Committee is to accept the Mukasey refusal as a green light to expand the subpoenas; and force the AG to invoke the State Secrets claim on something else, requiring him to sign an affidavit, and then show the AG is abusing that claim through the crime-fraud exception.
We need to discuss solutions, and stop making excuses to believe that this arrogant abuse of power cannot be challenged.
June 30, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to stay within the realms of relevance and reality. Two areas you seem to constantly deviate from.
Even if the AG signs such an affidavit, there will be no way to initiate discovery to start such an investigation of him. Your argument or what you propose as a solution is dead on arrival.
June 30, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is George W. gassing up AF/1 for a farewell trip to Harare? "President" Mugabe might like to see him.
June 30, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress ever decides to grow enough cojones to use its inherent contempt powers, it could deputize a team of contractors with special ops backgrounds as Sergeants-at-Arms so they can do extraordinary renditions on contemptuous Justice Department lawyers to the floor of the House for trial.
June 30, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a nice one:
You would ask that we believe you're an expert on conducting searches. Did it occur to you to use the file number to [wait for it], do a search?
June 30, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
More of an expert than you apparently.
June 30, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
More sweeping assertions and misdirection:
- Where is the "made" up document?
- Where is there "another" makeup document?
- Where is the evidence that documents are being "made up" to support an assertion that someone is "prone" to doing something?
You've got a blog, but you're not using it. Why not lay out the facts for everyone to see there.
Share with the world what backs up the statement, and maybe we'll take you seriously -- Mr. "I can't decide what my argument is"-today. Maybe I'll change my mind and hope nobody notices my misdirection"
June 30, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen here asshole, in the future why don't you provide links to the documents. In the past, you have only provided self referential shit that adds nothing to the issue at hand. Also, stop attempting to defame me you little piss ant weasel.
June 30, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is interesting:
Let's review the TPM standards of conduct:
June 30, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing,
You should learn the comment policy:
1. Does TPM have a comment policy?
Yes! TPMCafe and the TPM Media network follow a simple set of rules for acceptable commenting. 1. All political viewpoints are welcome. However, hate speech of any kind, libelous statements or threats to fellow users or others will be deleted and may be grounds for suspending or terminating a users account.
2. Four letter words are not banned, but we ask that they be used sparingly as overuse coarsens and undermines the debate.
3. TPMCafe is a venue for lively and passionate debate. But insults, personal attacks and the like make that sort of enlivening exchange impossible. If you just want to scream and taunt, please go somewhere else. If you have any question about what is and what's not acceptable, follow this rule: If you wouldn't use a certain word or talk to someone a certain way in a real-life political discussion at a Coffee House, don't do it here either.
June 30, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much more of this do you want to read on TPM? It is absurd to force people to agree to terms and conditions; but those terms are not enforced. This sounds strangely like the problem Congress has with this President. Credible oversight means imposing standards, not talking about them, but doing nothing. Until we see some leadership in Congress, there is no reason to believe this is going to end on TPM. Why is anyone bothering to post to a site that refuses to enforce standards?
June 30, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
See the comment policy. The standards are enforced. It is clear you do not know what they are though.
Stop overburdening the comments here with off topics.
June 30, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at this one, another one:
June 30, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
All,
The individual Testing has written defamation about me since I first joined TPM. While I usually hold back on four letter words, I felt this time it was justified.
The person known as testing has constantly put out misinformation about the Wecht case for his or her own personal ambitions to push his or her agenda that seems to be singly focused at arguing every wrong in the world is a war crime of GW Bush.
I and others have pointed out the flaws in his arguments and the misinformation he repeatedly writes and in turn get attack.
I hope that TPM will ban him from posting his blog posts that are singly focused at attacking those personally through slander and defamation who disagree with his or her absurd viewpoints.
I am sorry though that you all have to be forced off topic with testing's flooding of the comment posts here.
June 30, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want more evidence of misconduct on this board, but no action; but then you have the arrogance to expect Congress to do against this President what you refuse to do on this board: Enforce standards?
This US government is out of control on war crimes, FISA violations, witness intimidation, and outing of CIA agents using information warfare because the standards of conduct -- called laws and treaties -- are explained away as irrelevant.
The disgusting comments on TPM will likely continue as long as the TPM board refuses to do what it says Congress will not do: Enforce standards.
June 30, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now congress enforcement of the law is equated to a comment policy on TPM that has not been broken. Please stay on topic or get off the board.
June 30, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The failure to enforce standards is on topic.
June 30, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it is off topic and it is absurd that you have now taken up multiple comment posts with such off topic information. You should know better. Hopefully TPM will enforce the standards in the comment policy for your actions here.
June 30, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone appears to be selectively ignoring some standards; and claiming that those inconvenient standards do not apply. The same problem Congress is confronting with this President. This comment thread is about enforcement of standards; and whether the President will or will not make excuses to avoid accountability
Sample Oversight Problem of Congress For All To See on TPM
The issue is a selective parsing of standards, and only focusing on standards some would like to follow; and ignoring other standards.
Here is the rest of standard:
This is what we have, but no examples or textual references to help with the discussion:
And this:
Standards, to be credible, need to be enforced; not, as Addington as done, selectively cherry picked from the Constitution, and then told Congress to jump in a lake. Are we confused why the President has no respect for the Constitution? Because some TPM-posters have no respect for all the rules.
June 30, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have informed the administrator that you appear not to heed the comment policy and are posting of topics here.
As for your latest argument, the fact you equate the issues of the DOJ and the Bush White House to a disagreement with a fellow commenter on a blog is both troubling and absurd. It truly demonstrates just how warped you are as a person.
Please go away. You are not welcome on TPM
June 30, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
All,
Since this individual is selectively quoting my comments, let me provide the background.
The first post was one in which I asked for the 100+ time for the poster to provide actual documentation opposed to self referential postings to his blog rants.
The second posting is a response to Testing's attempt to silence debate through arguing he owns TPM and will attempt to enforce legal peril on those that dissent with his arguments. After the opening phrase, I go on to say:
I think under the circumstances, I was perhaps to rash with the four letter words; however I refuse to have individuals cut off debate on TPM for their own personal gains or goals as Testing has attempted to do here. Such is not the goal of TPM and such should not be tolerated at all.
June 30, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's TPM going to do, continue spending time commenting on TPMM thread, providing more information about the problems Waxman-Conyers have; but do nothing about the full list of standards? Pelosi took impeachment off the table, so why is TPM bothering to comment on anything?
When you look at your standards, and make a decision to enforce them, you'll understand -- maybe -- why Waxman, Pelosi, and Conyers are or are not doing what they're doing.
June 30, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you truly feel that way, then stop posting on TPM.
June 30, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM doesn't enforce standards, remember; just like Congress:
This topic is about the absurd action of Congress in pretending it is conducting oversight; and then wondering why the President, AG Mukasey, and others refuse to take those standards seriously.
The President, rather than complying with the laws of war, retaliated against Valarie Wilson. Let's see whether TPM does the same as the President; or whether it dares to do what Congress should do: Enforce the standards.
June 30, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully TPM does enforce standards and bans you from the blog.
June 30, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the fear of discussing standards, and the ineffectualness of Congress to enforce those standards? Talking about standards is one thing; but making diversions is something else. Congress hasn't needed the lessons of the President.
June 30, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A credible system of oversight will enforce the standards, not do as this President has done: Make excuses to twist the laws, and run to the FBI to tamper with witnesses and prosecutors.
When Congress issues an arrest warrant, maybe TPM might think about enforcing standards on its board. Maybe.
June 30, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly how is the TPM COMMENT POLICY even remotely related to the topic? You fail to answer the question and instead have overburdened the board with off topic comments.
July 1, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahem . . .back to the matter in hand (don't feed the trolls).
I'm really surprised at this WH tactic. I'd never have expected them to say "executive privilege means we cannot release the documents".
Right. Read Alice in Wonderland and see the playbook. These people are all deranged with greed, but know perfectly how to game the system. The strategy is simple:
1 - receive subpoena
2 - bend fingers and place palm down under chin
3 - flick fingers outward in a dismissive motion.
4 - say "nah nah nah executive privilege". Not coming.
All these posts, and here it is in 4 lines. They know it's absurd. They know that nobody can argue against it in any way that makes a difference. They know that too many people are exposed too much for anyone to actually do anything.
Good night America - it's over.
And : Don't. Feed. The. Trolls.
July 1, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guest,
Am I incorrect in stating the courts refused to enforce prior subpoena's of congress? If so, congress has little ability to investigate without the cooperation of the DOJ. It seems everything will be in a stalemate until after the election.
July 1, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
jAMES DD-
You do us all a disservice by engaging in these schoolyard attacks against testing . Johnathan Turley has in fact laid out a course of action against this "Imperial President ' .Kindly refrain from calling others names and please remain on topic !
July 1, 2008 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Albie,
You do yourself a disservice by constantly supporting testing who engages in cyber bullying and misinformation. I have remained on topic unlike testing who has diverted a TPM thread here for his own topic of non-importance.
Also, since you seem to have testing ear, please inform him to stop threatening others that disagree with his illogical viewpoints.
July 1, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets not forget....who are real enemies are.
Be nice.
Be patient.
Forgive and forget.
Share your toys or info.
July 1, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
JamesDD,
You are incorrect in supposing that Congress is powerless here. Merely think back to what Judge Bate told Congress last week- Exercise Inherent Contempt.
Congress cannot go through the other branches for redress here. It must send the sgt.-at-arms to arrest the subjects of its subpoenas.
The courts have spoken. Moreover, this was predicted last year by John Dean, as well as anyone who knew that Mukasey was Gonzo on steroids.
Arrest Mukasey, Miers, whoever. Realistic? Legally, yes. Practically? If there's a will, there's a way. It is perfectly legal, and the sole option. The seriousness of Waxman et al. can be determined from their willingness to use the only option they ever had. Peruse at pleasure:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=cannons_prec_vol_vi&docid=f:cannon_clxxxv.pdf
July 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
diachronic,
Thanks for clarifying the issue I raised. It appears from what you wrote the likelihood of congress taking action is low. Perhaps they will, yet I do not think you will get necessary agreement to go about such actions.
Hopefully in a few months, these fools in the administration are gone and we have a US Attorney and President that will put the law back in place on these issues. There is going to be one hell of a clean up here.
July 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
JamesDD,
it is flabbergasting to me to admit that you are right, as the Plame scandal, in which inherent contempt is 'off the table,' would seem to be of far greater moment thatn the Teapot Dome scandal, in which Congress was able to compel Harry Sinclair to appear via its inherent powers of enforcement.
(According to wikipedia, the teapot Dome scandal only involved the illicit transacting of $4 million in 2000 currency).
As a side note, Judge John Bates, who told Congress that he would not adjudicate what he saw as a mere wrangle between the branches of government, was the same one who employed exactly the same rationale in dismissing Plame Wilson's civil suit, the difference being that in Plame's case he saw it as an intra-
departmental squabble, while Congress' dispute was an intra-branch squabble (the actual merits of the cases being wholly irrelevant).
Waxman should have read Bates' earlier opinion and spared himself the trouble.
July 1, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
diachronic,
Waxman/congress could always appeal the decision further can they not? In my viewpoint, it appears that the normal channels open to congress are being shut down which is leaving them the option of impeachment without the entire record or no action. Since the days are counting down on this administration, I am not in the viewpoint that congress will initiate impeachment proceedings.
July 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
JamesDD,
I think Waxman can appeal, but if it goes to the Supreme Court, we will not see a resolution this decade, at which point it will have become moot
As for the "normal channels of congress being shut down," you are exactly right.
This is the Admin's way of keeping incriminating materials out of Congress' hands, and to weaken any impeachment case that firebrand Dems could make to Pelosi and the Blue Dogs- but i would also add that it reflects the twisted views of David Addington, which dictate that even non-incriminating materials would never be handed over, willngly, to Congress.
Addington's philosophy would seem to invite criminality, since it states that any oversight from another branch is illegitimate. Where overseers are necessary, the strategy is have 'foxes guard the henhouses.' The temptation to commit crime is almost too obvious. It is no accident that this philosophy had its first application in the Nixon administration. But that was a botched trial run. They are serious and seasoned now.
July 1, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
diachronic,
Even if a cert goes to the supreme court, it is unlikely that the court will pick up the case. It will probably die on the vine like other such petitions.
July 1, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
diachronic and /or Mr Beebers ,
if the impeachment of any of these assorted criminals 'is off the table " , what are the chances of President Obama taking up the prosecution of bushcheny for assorted violation of law in 2009 ?
And james dd if you can be civil in our discussion of civics here -I would also welcome your thoughts about what our 44th President (assuming its Obama) could /would do to right the wrongs committed by our 43rd President ?
July 1, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Albie, still carrying water for testing I see. Love the personal swipe you pull yet again.
I highly doubt there will be any investigations of the bush and company team when Obama takes over. The question that needs to be asked is what is gained through such actions? Such proceedings will cause partisanship to increase, it will burn political capital, it will hold up or stall needed legislation, and it will set forth a precedent of all new administrations investigating the actions of the old.
What is more likely to occur is that the president and the attorney general will review the mandates, executive orders, etc. of the prior administration and reverse the ones that are unconstitutional and unlawful. These reversals may or may not be made public. Other than that, little will occur.
Unless someone killed a person, there will be no action taken to go after the president or his cronies by the next president in my opinion.
congress on the other hand is a different beast. Hopefully they won't waste the next two years on investigations when we need to focus on healthcare, the wars, etc. Time will tell.
July 1, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
James DD-
I asked a respectful question & I get a more uncivil trash talk -then an answer .
Here is where we can again disagree- I believe that once the electorate ( fellow citizens )figure how badly our laws have been usurped we will see a thorough house cleaning from misdeeds done by gwb 43 -(assuming its Barack 44 ). One of the many ways the misdeeds are kept alive is by the civil suits that have been filed or will be filed -(re CACI , Abu Gharib , -remember one Titan contractor has already been criminlaly charged -if not convicted ) .The other way the misdeeds are kept on the front burner to be adddressed is by keep reminding our conservative friends just how much money this bunch has squandered and or stole.
The Barry Goldwater /Ron Paul wing of the GOP will want this bunch held to account as much as we do ...
And its a better then even chance Madam Speaker will be replaced by some member much more forward leaning about criminals being held accountable/
July 2, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Albie,
Please grow up. You attack me in your previous post and then get upset that I point out that you add little except carrying water for testing.
Now for your opinion. Our nation is in a recession, it is dealing with two wars, and it is also dealing with a healthcare crisis. These are the issues that should take priority of congress. If the next congress instead spends time and political capital on investigation after investigation of the prior administration, the voters will revolt by the midterm election.
Any such investigation should be handled by the new AG and the president and should be focused on preventing future issues as we had here opposed to assigning blame. These alleged criminals in the Bush administration will be judged by history. Little is gained by public show trials as you are pushing here. In fact, such activities will surely do more harm than good.
July 2, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
jAMES dd,
Respectfully take a different view - it is vitally important to our national security and long term standing in the world community -to do a lesson learned clean up - of the gwb43 criminal enterprise -
We need to restore our standing in the world - we need to clean house . Besides do the true conservative amongst us really want to leave this much unitary executive power in place /with a liberal progressive President presiding ?
July 2, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Albie,
I have stated on all my prior posts that a clean up needs to occur and will occur. You seem to be mixing up a clean up with a blame fest.
A clean up will involve the next president of the unites states and his Attorney General reviewing the executive orders and other actions inacted by this current regime. Things that are unethical or unconstitutional should and will surely be reversed. Additionally, I imagine the next president, assuming it is obama, will go about working through congress legislation to prevent such re occurrences by another administration. This will be the lesson learned clean up that will occur.
What you and some others want is the Bush and co. head on a platter via massive public investigations. Such is not going to occur for so many reasons. To name a few, such actions will polarize the country and congress no matter what the merits of such actions are, such actions will prevent needed reforms in healthcare and our current war policy, such actions will set forth a precedent of investigations happening on all prior administrations when the opposing party takes over....should I go on.
Remember that Nixon was basically guilty, yet because he was no longer in office, the impeachment process and criminal proceedings ended. Such will happen with GW.
History will judge him in the end. Might as well leave it at that.
Now if the president does some crazy thing such as attacking Iran, impeachment will happen in less than 72 hours after such action. However, I pray even this president is not that stupid to start another war.
July 2, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
JAMES DD,
Ah yes lets just 'clean up the mess" from gwb43 and move along after we sing kumbayah in front of the Lincoln Memorial. You mentioned doing that with Nixon - after Ford's pardon we were told to move along. Now we can take the historical look back and see that many of the same actors presnt during Watergate are still with us - No there must be accountabilty to stop this from happening yet again ( And to some extent it happpened with Iran Contra too - no accountabilty with the same cause and effect -oh look right here , right now there's a secret finding to destabilize Iran -just funded by 400 million dollars -)
Without accountabilty we will just be repeating old behaviors expecting difference results- james dd that has a clinical name - its called "enabling"
July 3, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Albie,
When faced with an economy in recession, two wars, the devastation in the gulf region and mississippi river region, the healthcare crisis, a national infrastructure in disrepair, pretty much every government agency run by incompetents for over eight years, and the looming issues with social security and medicare, I think Obama and the dems will not spend time on running around trying to prove guilt of this person or that person. They will move to quickly reverse things such as executive orders and fix laws such as the patriot act, etc. that enabled such actions.
Of course there may be a few congress members that want to run investigation after investigation. These Kucinich's will be relegated to the back bench of politics.
The simple fact is that the nation is in severe crisis and no one is going to be pleased with having congress spending all its time on investigation after investigation of the prior administration.
I realize that you appear to be some sort of zealot that needs to assign blame and see people held accountable. The most egregious people surely will be held accountable, yet many will walk due to our nation having to focus on greater issues for the health of its populace.
As long as the new white house and congress reverse the unlawful orders of the prior administration and stop the unlawful acts, that is good enough for me.
As for a history lesson, you can also look at Joe mccarthy. I imagine there were many people that wanted to see him jailed. Instead of opening the wound of the nation yet again, the senate censored mccarthy and pushed him out.
July 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
jAMES DD,
Its not really about assigning blame -its about making sure there are consequences for illegal activity . Much of the national crisis that you have so well enumerated in your last post -is directly caused by the criminal activity that gwb43 has enagaged in the last eight years . Real dollars are missing from the FEMA recovery project regarding Katrina . Those missing dollars could be used right now for the MIdwest flood recovery - if they had not been lost to fraud & abuse . There are many ,many , more examples of how this criminal gang has cost us blood & treasure.
Lets have proesecution of wrong doing so we can protect our citizens & country from these gangsters. jAMES DD-buddy these ain't about being jOE McCarthy - this is about protecting ourselves from gwb 43 ...
July 3, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink