« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
White House Fight Might Turn on Bush's Role
The Hill had an interesting take on the looming legal battle between the White House and Congress this morning:
In an e-mail dated Nov. 15, 2006, Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asked then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, whether he had the green light to go forward with the firing plan.Miers responded that she was “not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss’s attention.” Her e-mail ended with the words: “We will see. Thanks.”
Sampson, who resigned last week, responded with a critical question: “Who will determine whether whether [sic] this requires the President’s attention?”...
The e-mail exchange is particularly relevant to Bush’s case because the Supreme Court has provided only limited protection for executive privilege. It acknowledges the need to protect communications between high-ranking government officials and those who advise and assist them, but it has also ruled that the public interest can outweigh that need in “non-military” and “non-diplomatic” discussions. Critics of the U.S. attorney firings argue that Bush’s case for executive privilege would be significantly weaker if his aides never discussed the plan for the firings with him.
In response to a barrage of questions from reporters yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said only that Bush had “no recollection of [the firings] ever being raised with him.”
Here's The Washington Post this morning on what happens next:
If the White House refuses to comply, the judiciary committees will meet in coming weeks to decide whether to issue citations for contempt of Congress. If they do, the full Senate and House would have to follow suit.That would set in motion the extraordinary spectacle of Congress enlisting the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to impanel a grand jury to seek the indictment of administration officials over their refusal to testify on the firings of eight of his colleagues.
Comments (16)
profmarcus wrote on March 22, 2007 2:11 PM:look... it's time to face the fact that the united states is in a constitutional crisis and has been for going on 6+ years... it just so happens that we've been able to avoid dealing with it up front the way it needs to be dealt with... either we face it now, or we might as well cede the rest of bush's term to a continuing accumulation of unfettered, unchecked, and abusive executive power...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
rusty wrote on March 22, 2007 2:23 PM:Did T-Snow already says that "The Boss" knew nothing about it? I'm pretty sure that came out in a press conference a couple of days ago. That will be interesting to rectify. I'm sure they will no shame in suddenly remembering it.
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 22, 2007 2:32 PM:As an aside, a 7/7/06 email exchange between Monica Goodling and Robert F. Hoyt, then Associate Counsel to the President, seems to indicate that Hoyt was involved in the USA issue.
Goodling and Hoyt apparently had a phone conversation and then Goodling emailed Hoyt to advise him that that Dan Koffsky, a career lawyer in OLC [Office of legal Counsel, would be calling to answer any questions he has and will give Hoyt the statutory language.
Hoyt again emailed Goodling to request a ballpark number of USAs in holdover position from Goodling.
Was Hoyt looking into the applicability of the revision to the PA in terms of firing USAs on behalf of the WH?
ndp wrote on March 22, 2007 2:58 PM:"look... it's time to face the fact that the united states is in a constitutional crisis and has been for going on 6+ years..."
profmarcus is entirely correct. The Republican controlled Congress ignored this issue, though it arose is numerous forms, because Republicans thought it served the party's interests. The resulting unitary/imperialist presidency has now been accepted by the public and the media to the point where the administration spokesman feels justified in saying point-blank that 'Congress has no oversight authority.'
If the new Congress does not quickly address this (latest and certainly most blatant) threat to the constitutional separation of powers, it will harm our democracy and further alienate the public. Which, of course, is exactly what the administration wants.
BinGA wrote on March 22, 2007 3:08 PM:I think that not only Tony Snow, but also Bush himself said that Bush did not make, and wasn't involved in, the removal decisions himself. But he can't have it both ways. Can he delegate the decision to remove a USA to someone else, and if he can, did he?
Mikes wrote on March 22, 2007 3:17 PM:I've been wondering - why is it that all the documentation that's been turned over to Congress has been email? Is that all they asked for? Are there no inter-office memos, meeting notes, nothing like that? Especially considering that this administration is known to avoid email, why would investigators not pursue other forms of documentation?
Joanie wrote on March 22, 2007 3:28 PM:I totally agree our country is in a total mess because of Bush & Cheney. I don't quite see how the democrats are going to get the troops out of Iraq.The republicans know the war is a complete disaster but is standing behind their president. Congress needs to have their OWN children fighting over in Iraq and you watch how quickly the war would end. I am so sick and tired of hearing "we need to support our troops and give them the funding to do their job." Get Real! No one, absolutely no one wants to leave the troops over there without proper equipment. But, by funding you are just furthering the war where there is no end. Actually, the republicans are hurting themselves by not voting to end the war. LOOK AT THE POLL NUMBERS!!!!! This tells me the public is paying attention and hopefully we will clean house in the next election with both parties. Also, just
Robin Boerner wrote on March 22, 2007 3:46 PM:remember, Bush wants this war. That is why they
are protecting the Iraqi oil fields and so he
and his buddies can continue to get rich.
"I know [Bush] is 'the decider' at the White House. He is not the decider for the United States senate."
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Sounds like the "Great Decider" is turning out to be the "Wizard behind the curtain" in the face of justice.
One detail that I haven't seen investigated yet: the Patriot Act let's Gonzales (the AG) appoint the PA USA's. So did Bush do the firing (at his pleasure) and Gonzales pick the Republican law grad whore replacements?
Plausible Denialbility built into the Patriot Act? Crafty little devils.
Upa Gainst Thewall wrote on March 22, 2007 3:52 PM:Re: WAPO 3-22-07 states
"If the White House refuses to comply, the judiciary committees will meet in coming weeks to decide whether to issue citations for contempt of Congress. If they do, the full Senate and House would have to follow suit.
That would set in motion the extraordinary spectacle of Congress enlisting the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to impanel a grand jury to seek the indictment of administration officials over their refusal to testify on the firings of eight of his colleagues."
Actually, the Congress has other tools at its disposal to compel compliance with its subpoenas - namely the House or Senate can direct its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the person or persons found to be in contempt of Congress.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf
What an image - Rove frog-marched into the sub-basement of the Capitol building!
Robin Boerner wrote on March 22, 2007 4:49 PM:What an image - Rove frog-marched into the sub-basement of the Capitol building!
Posted by: Upa Gainst Thewall
Date: March 22, 2007 03:52 PM
Naw....The Great Decider would hide little Turd Blossim. But Where? In the Oval Office under his desk? No, too blue dress like.
In Bush's private quarters? No, Laura doesn't allow hide and seek in the house.
At that private 100,000 acre compound in South America one of the Bush twin supposedly bought on daddies orders? Could be. Then Sec of Defense Robert Gates could go down and play CIA hit squad again. Just like the good old Ronnie days and Iran Contra.
Getting the Sargeant at Arms to catch Rove is like chasing a greased pig. Let's just hope C-Span covers it.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 23, 2007 12:22 AM:Is a ROLE defined as eating bananas, stratching ones armpits and saying "ooo-ooo-ooo-ah-ah-ah"?
The Chimp-in-Charge could not be counted upon to read a security briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." on the toilet WHEN he was told it was of paramount importance . . . Although he did manage to avoid the White House on 09/11 . . . How involved does anyone truly belive that Commander Codpiece is involved in anything involved with a topic he hates like being aware of the crap his staff pulls while runing amok during one of his black-out drunk sessions?
Golly . . . I seem angry.
doro wrote on March 23, 2007 3:44 AM:On executive privilege:
It acknowledges the need to protect communications between high-ranking government officials and those who advise and assist them, but it has also ruled that the public interest can outweigh that need in “non-military” and “non-diplomatic” discussions.
I think this sentence is one key to the discussion. Any adviser may give any opinion, but if a President acts on this opinion in a way detrimental to the constitution, morals, laws of the country the public interest dominates. As in this case.
HunterTT wrote on March 23, 2007 10:30 AM:"In response to a barrage of questions from reporters yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said only that Bush had “no recollection of [the firings] ever being raised with him.”"
If the President states he had no knowledge or communication with his staff about the firings.
formerRepublican wrote on March 25, 2007 7:00 PM:Then how can he claim Executive Privilege?
Can someone tell me where in the Constitution does the President get "Executive Privilege"? It's a bunch of horse crap, just like Bush who couldn't manage a McDonalds on the 11-7 shift.
witney@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 7:00 PM:hello
richard@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 7:30 AM:hello