« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
And So It Begins
The fight between Congress and the White House over testimony from White House aides over the U.S. attorney firings has officially entered its second stage. The first stage, a stalemate punctuated by threats of subpoenas, lasted three months. The second stage is likely to last much longer.
We noted the subpoenas to Karl Rove's former aide Sara Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers earlier today. You can see the subpoena for Miers here.
Also among the subpoenas issued this morning were subpoenas from the House and Senate judiciary committees to the White House for "all documents in the possession, custody or control of the White House" that relate to the U.S. attorney firings. You can see the two letters to White House counsel Fred Fielding from the committee chairmen today below.
As CNN reports, the subpoenas are likely to lead to a long fight:
Two Democratic congressional sources say they decided not to subpoena Rove because they are building their case by talking to and gathering information from lower level witnesses and officials, before they get to the more senior, more important witnesses."We want to build up and get documents to have basis to ask questions of Rove," one of the sources said. "It's the way you do it in any investigation."
Having said that, the source said the reality is that this will end up in a constitutional showdown and they will never get a chance to talk to any of the White House witnesses.
The documents aren't likely to be any easier to obtain. In both of their letters to White House counsel Fred Fielding today (see below), the chairmen excoriate the White House for stonewalling their investigations for three months. Fiedling has not wavered from his initial offer of interviews with Karl Rove and other aides only in private with no oath or transcript, an offer that also included an offer to turn over external emails -- emails between White House staffers and others outside the White House.
Both chairmen remind Fielding of that earlier offer, but Fielding has said before that the White House won't turn over anything unless it is part of a package deal, which would include Congress agreeing to the closed door, no transcript interviews -- something the chairmen refuse to do.
Update: Here's Laura's post from last month on the murky aftermath when a subpoena is contested.
Later Update: From the AP:
Technically, if the showdown between the White House and Congress is not resolved, the matter could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a session in federal court.Congressional officials knowledgeable about the probe painted a dark picture of what the Democratic-led committees might do if the White House refuses to comply.
One option, these officials said, are votes in committee and on the House and Senate floors on contempt citations against any subjects of the subpoenas who don't comply. Another, according to one aide, is a subpoena for White House Counsel Fred Fielding, compelling him to testify publicly about the Bush administration's reasons if the subpoenas are ignored. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the White House, Miers and Taylor had not yet responded to the subpoenas.
The full text of the letter from Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy:
June 13, 2007Fred Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500Dear Mr. Fielding:
I have sent you a half dozen letters in the past three months seeking voluntary cooperation from the White House with the Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department of Justice. It is now clear from the evidence gathered by the investigating Committees of the Senate and House that White House officials played a significant role in originating, developing, coordinating and implementing the plan and the Justice Department’s response to Congressional inquiries about it. Yet, to date the White House has not produced a single document or allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be interviews.
In the two and half months since Democratic and Republican members of the Committee rejected your “take it or leave it” offer of off-the-record, backroom interviews as unacceptable, you have not made any effort to work with us on a voluntary business. In response to our efforts to narrow our dispute by gaining access to documents you agreed to produce as part of your offer for off-the-record interviews or to information that forms the basis of the President’s conclusion that no wrongdoing has occurred, you have merely restated your initial, unacceptable offer.
The White House cannot have it both ways -- it cannot withhold documents and witnesses and thereby stonewall the investigation and, at the same time, claim that the facts about the White House’s improper influence over federal law enforcement have not been revealed in detail. The White House’s continued stonewalling leads to the obvious conclusion that the White House is hiding the truth because there is something to hide. Because the White House has continued its refusal to provide the requested information to the Senate Judiciary Committee on a voluntary basis, I am issuing subpoenas.
Enclosed please find a subpoena for all documents in the possession, custody or control of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice’s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys. The documents compelled by the subpoena include documents related to the Administration’s evaluation of and decision to dismiss former U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. “Bud” Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. Attorney dismissed or considered for dismissal since President Bush’s re-election, the implementation of the dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys, and the selection, discussion and evaluation of possible replacements. Among these documents are documents related to the involvement of Karl Rove, Harriet E. Miers, William Kelley, J. Scott Jennings, Sara M. Taylor, or any other current or former White House employees or officials in the firings and replacements as well as documents related to the testimony of Justice Department officials to Congress regarding this matter.
The subpoenaed documents include those related to communications between the White House and the Department or any third parties. These are documents that you previously agreed to produce in conjunction with the unacceptable off-the-record interviews in your March 20, 2007, letter to me, Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Specter, Ranking Member Smith, and Congresswoman Sanchez of March 20, 2007. The subpoena also includes documents related to the “reviews by White House staff” that led the President to publicly conclude as of March 20, 2007, that there was no wrongdoing in the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys, including any information that has led the President to discount evidence gathered by the investigating Committees.
I am disappointed that I have to turn to this subpoena in order to obtain information needed by the Committee to learn the truth about these firings and the erosion of independence at the Justice Department. However, the evidence that White House officials were deeply involved leaves me know choice in light of your lack of voluntary cooperation. I look forward to your compliance with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena by the June 28 return date.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
And from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):
June 13, 2007Mr. Fred F. Fielding, Esq.
Office of Counsel to the President
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500Dear Mr. Fielding:
Enclosed is a subpoena, issued pursuant to authority granted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on March 21, 2007, for documents and electronic information to be produced by June 28 in connection with the Committee's investigation into the circumstances surrounding the termination of at least nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and related matters, including possible violations of federal law. This includes the documents concerning communications between the White House and others, which you have already indicated you would be willing to make available, though only as part of an unacceptable "all or nothing" offer.
We issue this subpoena with extreme reluctance, and only after making repeated attempts, as reflected in letters of March 9, March 22, March 28, and May 21, to secure voluntary cooperation from the White House in this matter. In response to a series of attempts to secure such cooperation, however, and a clear warning that we would have no choice but to utilize compulsory process if voluntary cooperation was not forthcoming, you have simply repeated the same unacceptable "take it or leave it" offer you made several months ago. Our Committee has made abundantly clear that we appreciate and respect the institutional prerogatives of the White House and that we remain ready and willing to resolve the issues on a cooperative basis. Unfortunately, we have not seen any indication of such willingness from the White House.
As recited in detail in previous letters, and as demonstrated again by documents produced just yesterday by the Justice Department, there can be no doubt that White House officials played a central role in originating, supervising, approving, and dealing with the aftermath of the plan to replace at least nine U.S. Attorneys since President Bush's re-election, a role that remains largely unexplored and inadequately understood. Many of these facts are recounted in previous letters from Senator Leahy and from me, on May 16 and 21, respectively.
To cite just a few examples, e-mails provided by the Department of Justice show that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers were involved from the very beginning in plans to remove U.S. Attorneys after President Bush's re-election, and that the Department official who compiled the lists of U.S. Attorneys to be fired, Kyle Sampson, was in frequent contact with White House officials on the subject. Yet after extensive review of Department documents and on-the-record interviews with a variety of senior current and former Department officials, no one at the Department seems to know who suggested putting most of the U.S. Attorneys on the list to be fired. One such U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, appears to have been put on the firing list only after Karl Rove relayed complaints about Mr. Iglesias to the White House Counsel's office and the Department, and only after Mr. Rove was specifically enlisted by several prominent New Mexico Republicans in their effort to have Mr. Iglesias fired. E-mails demonstrate that shortly before the implementation of the firing plan, final circulation to "Karl's shop" was considered a "pre-execution necessity."
The precise role of White House officials, however, has been kept a mystery. After an initial round of false statements to Congress on that subject - including written misstatements that the Department was forced to correct, and false testimony that remains uncorrected to this day - Justice Department witnesses have been unable or unwilling to shed any meaningful light on the basic facts regarding who at the White House played what role in selecting these U.S. Attorneys for replacement and why. Also troubling in this regard is an incident Monica Goodling described to the House Judiciary Committee, in which the Deputy Attorney General apparently sent her away from a Senate meeting saying that her presence might prompt Senators to ask questions about the role of the White House in the U.S. Attorney firings and replacements. Taken together, these facts raise grave questions about the role of the White House and its political supporters in the U.S. Attorney firings, and about the Administration's extensive efforts to minimize or conceal that role. Only fair access to White House information will allow these crucial questions to be answered.
In view of the compelling need for relevant information, your "all or nothing" proposal remains completely unacceptable, as we have previously stated. Conducting interviews without a transcript in a matter of this complexity and scope is likely to lead to unnecessary confusion and factual disputes down the road. It is even more problematic to try to limit the scope of document production and interviews to communications between the White House and outside parties. Communications among the White House staff involved in the U.S. Attorney replacement plan are obviously of paramount importance to any understanding of how and why these U.S. Attorneys were selected to be fired. If there were an email from Karl Rove to Harriet Miers, for example, discussing a particular U.S. Attorney and suggesting that she call Kyle Sampson and add that U.S. Attorney to the replacement list, that would be a critical piece of evidence in this investigation. Moreover, as testimony by former White House officials and others at a hearing before our Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on March 29 made clear, there is ample precedent for sworn testimony by current and former White House officials and more complete production of documents in response to congressional inquiries like this one.
Our request for information arises in the midst of growing national concern about the politicization of the U.S. Attorney ranks, and the Department of Justice more broadly. The Attorney General's Chief of Staff, and his Senior Counsel and White House Liaison, have both resigned as a result of their roles in this matter. The Department's number-two official has also recently announced his resignation. Across the country, U.S. Attorneys find their investigative and prosecutorial judgments subject to unprecedented scrutiny and second-guessing, and the Department's ability to manage its U.S. Attorney corps has been severely undermined. The need to truly get to the bottom of this controversy, in which Administration officials have previously said they share our interest, is critical to our nation's justice system.
We hope that the White House will cooperate fully with our efforts to achieve this crucial objective, and we look forward to your production of the documents requested by the return date. Also enclosed for your information is a courtesy copy of a subpoena to former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers. Please address any questions to the Judiciary Committee office at 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (tel: 202- 225-3951; fax: 202- 225-7680).
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
ChairmanEnclosure
cc: The Honorable Lamar S. Smith
Ms. Harriet E. Miers, Esq.
Comments (71)
uncle vester wrote on June 13, 2007 2:06 PM:You might want to clean this up:
"The first stage, a three-month long stalemate punctuated by threats of subpoenas, lasted three months."
just sayin'
otherwise, nice post.
tjallen wrote on June 13, 2007 2:15 PM:I am a little concerned because the subpoenas do not mention any possible crimes, just "concerns." The concerns over things like the politicization of the Justice Dept, and the hiring and firing practices might be argued to be the president's perogatives, so long as no crime was committed, and the Supremes might say to congress, butt out.
The subpoenas need to mention that in addition to concerns over politics, that Congress is investigating possible crimes - caging, firing US attorneys to stop ongoing investigations, or firing US attys to punish them for failing to prosecute some crimes. Otherwise I am afraid we will hear the usual bull, that it is the president's perogative, and the Supremes might agree.
"Concerns" is such a wimpy term for Congress to use for what they feel. The phrase "investigating possible crimes" would have so much more heft!
bobh wrote on June 13, 2007 2:25 PM:This:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/specter-agrees-with-issuing-subpoena-2007-06-13.html
Is probably why Specter hasn't been called out fro the patriot Act alterations. He's playing ball at this point. Lets see how long it lasts.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:32 PM:Fielding fatally admits there are e-mails that he hasn't turned over: " Fiedling has not wavered from his initial offer of interviews with Karl Rove and other aides only in private with no oath or transcript, an offer that also included an offer to turn over external emails -- emails between White House staffers and others outside the White House."
Key: "offer that also included an offer to turn over external emails "
1. Why hasn't this e-mail been turned over;
2. Why is the Congress accepting this "offer" in exchange for something else; what is that "soemthing else" that Congress-Fielding are discussing;
3. Once the subpoena was issued, does Fielding understand his fatal disclosure of "other e-mails" is not something he can use as a bargaining chip?
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:38 PM:Why hasn't a privileged log been issued by the White House for those communications which the White House is holding on the basis of [insert whatever claim of privilege here].
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 2:43 PM:LIBBY'S SENTENCING DESTROYS CREDIBILTY OF APPARENTLY DELUSIONAL TPM SOURCE
This comment from an anonymous source is BS, in light of the Libby indictments which show that Senrior WH personnel _can_ be slammed by a prosecutor/grand jury [Emphasis added]: "[T]his will end up in a constitutional showdown and they will _never_ get a chance to talk to any of the White House witnesses."
1. Never say never. Who is this source who claims something will "never" happen, yet the Grand Jury did "talk" to WH witnesses like Libby;
2. Does the source understand that Libby _has_ been indicted; and he was "talked to" by a grand jury; and this was not a "constitutional showdown" but a prosecution;
3. Does the "source" deny that Libby and others who wrote letters to the Scooter sentencing commission are witnesses; and do know something about what is going on inside EOP/OVP;
4. There is no "constituitonal" crisis: The only crisis is the breakdown of this WH in enforcing the law. That is not a crisis but _evidence_ for purposes of litigating/prosecuting 5 USC 3331 and war crimes indictments;
5. Which GOP-related legal counsel or Congressional staffer on the Judiciary Committee is spewing forth this non-sense?
It is absurd for anyone to assert this will "never" amount to aything, especally by an "anonymous" source who apparently pretends that WH officials, like Rove, cannot be prosecuted. Given the absurdity of the statement, the source's background should be better discussed publicly so we can get an idae of whether this apparent "source" is a delusional government worker [redundant], or merely a delusional lawyer [non-oxymoron, redundant].
PBen wrote on June 13, 2007 2:53 PM:The differemce, of course, is that Libby's was a criminal investigation, this is a congressional investigation.
Everyone knows the (Bush) White House doesn't have to give anything to Congress....
Bearpaw wrote on June 13, 2007 2:59 PM:Remember the now-classic joke about reality having a well-known liberal bias?
Now the Repub line is that Congressional oversight has a well-known liberal bias. Unbiased oversight wouldn't ask awkward questions of anybody in the Administration.
Eddy Kilowatt wrote on June 13, 2007 3:06 PM:Concerned that the slow, deliberate pace of the investigation will deepen "scandal fatigue" in the general public. If we could trust media to report developments in proper context, the gravity of the crimes would be apparent... as it was in the long Watergate slog. But with the modern 15-minute attention span and media reflex to frame every effort to redress wrongdoing as "Dem partisan politics"... such public outrage as there is may be frittered away.
Not that I have a clue what to do about it... just concerned that this too will sink into the swamp. Wait, isn't in the right-wingers who are always yammering against "situational ethics"?
Eddy
gcs wrote on June 13, 2007 3:07 PM:The Democrats need to start pounding one line over and over and over again until it's ringing in our ears and people start repeating it: "If they have nothing to hide..."
Eddy Kilowatt wrote on June 13, 2007 3:09 PM:Concerned that the slow, deliberate pace of the investigation will deepen "scandal fatigue" in the general public. If we could trust media to report developments in proper context, the gravity of the crimes would be apparent... as it was in the long Watergate slog. But with the modern 15-minute attention span and media reflex to frame every effort to redress wrongdoing as "Dem partisan politics"... such public outrage as there is may be frittered away.
Not that I have a clue what to do about it... just concerned that this too will sink into the swamp. Wait, isn't in the right-wingers who are always yammering against "situational ethics"?
Eddy
urbino wrote on June 13, 2007 3:09 PM:"However, the evidence that White House officials were deeply involved leaves me know choice..."
Please tell me that "know" is a TPM typo, and not in the original document.
bmaz wrote on June 13, 2007 3:10 PM:Well. Alright then. We ought to have this wrapped up before Bush's Mission to Mars is completed. Good work!
Eddy Kilowatt wrote on June 13, 2007 3:10 PM:Concerned that the slow, deliberate pace of the investigation will deepen "scandal fatigue" in the general public. If we could trust media to report developments in proper context, the gravity of the crimes would be apparent... as it was in the long Watergate slog. But with the modern 15-minute attention span and media reflex to frame every effort to redress wrongdoing as "Dem partisan politics"... such public outrage as there is may be frittered away.
Not that I have a clue what to do about it... just concerned that this too will sink into the swamp. Wait, isn't in the right-wingers who are always yammering against "situational ethics"?
Eddy
kingweasil wrote on June 13, 2007 3:13 PM:these guys are very cocky,i was wondering if maybe the "other e-mails" are a red herring,and only mentioned because they went missing in some way or another.
RW wrote on June 13, 2007 3:15 PM:A Constitutional showdown will emerge if the Supreme Court votes along party lines to enforce the subpoenas to save the WH...
I think those in the Congress need to continue moving forward on a two-pronged attack...seeking to undercut all of the AG's credibility forcing an eventual resignation or impeachment (this then engineers a whole new set of legal issues for the AG in that could he remain involved in justice business if he is defending an impeachment, if he remained active, could disbarment proceedings begin?) Keeping Freddo in the AG offices keeps legal cover for those WH staffers who might be in individual legal peril regarding an investigation.
The other prong is getting those damn emails from the RNC and eventually the WH servers....
As for executive privy rights....they can wear down the President....move to impeach if they want if the Solicitor General refuses to go forward and push and push until Bush is totally surrounded.
Look the immigration bill is showing just how impotent he is politically, eventually GOP is going to fracture under the weight of Bush and pull away leaving him vulnerable to disclose...
HungChad wrote on June 13, 2007 3:15 PM:Are the grammatical mistakes in Senator Leahy's letter actually in the original letter?
"....you have not made any effort to work with us on a voluntary business." voluntary basis, right?
"However, the evidence that White House officials were deeply involved leaves me know choice in light of your lack of voluntary cooperation." no choice, right?
Not to get off topic, but I would think you would want these types of letters proofread pretty carefully??
Anon wrote on June 13, 2007 3:16 PM:I've been wondering about investigations after Bush's reign. Can't Bush himself be subpoenaed to appear before Congress and the Senate to finally get at the truth about some of what's gone on during his presidency? The Congress and the Senate will still be there, and he'll only be an ex-president. I don't see how he'd still have any claim of presidential immunity.
chisholm wrote on June 13, 2007 3:31 PM:I thought that emails sent through outside sources--their RNC accounts, etc.--meant they can't be covered by executive privilige.
If this is the case, what does it mean?
Otto Man wrote on June 13, 2007 3:39 PM:Helen Thomas asked Tony Snow a great question today -- why does everyone at the White House have such a problem with putting their hand on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth? If there's nothing wrong here, why not be open and honest about it?
I know Bush made it a bit of his 2000 campaign schtick to tell crowds how he'd put his hand on the Bible, and promise to restore dignity to the White House -- "so help me God!" -- but someone should remind him that the actual oath he took that day was to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Otto Man wrote on June 13, 2007 3:40 PM:Helen Thomas asked Tony Snow a great question today -- why does everyone at the White House have such a problem with putting their hand on a Bible and swearing to tell the truth? If there's nothing wrong here, why not be open and honest about it?
I know Bush made it a bit of his 2000 campaign schtick to tell crowds how he'd put his hand on the Bible, and promise to restore dignity to the White House -- "so help me God!" -- but someone should remind him that the actual oath he took that day was to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
RC wrote on June 13, 2007 3:46 PM:It is amazing that on one hand the neo-cons hold the Bible above logic and the law of man, but on the other hand... Well they won't place that one on the Bible to testify why they have placed themselves above logic and the law of man.
RC wrote on June 13, 2007 3:46 PM:It is amazing that on one hand the neo-cons hold the Bible above logic and the law of man, but on the other hand... Well they won't place that one on the Bible to testify why they have placed themselves above logic and the law of man.
RC wrote on June 13, 2007 3:47 PM:It is amazing that on one hand the neo-cons hold the Bible above logic and the law of man, but on the other hand... Well they won't place that one on the Bible to testify why they have placed themselves above logic and the law of man.
Ralph Kramden wrote on June 13, 2007 3:51 PM:Please, somebody, anybody, walk me through the process here, and a likely timeline.
1. Subpoenas issued - already happened
Let's say: 2. Subpoenas ignored
What now? Let's say:
3. Contempt citations issued
4. Contempt citations upheld by SC
Then what happens if the SC is ignored as well?
DallasNE wrote on June 13, 2007 3:53 PM:How is this administration ever held accountable?
Separation of powers has become the Whitehouse answer to the Constitutional provision granting oversight to Congress. Much of the Executive branch work is now handled by Whitehouse staff rather the the Constitutionally defined Cabinet officers.
This is all part of the attitude "if the President does it, it is legal". Caging list are a prime example of that. The Courts prevented the Republican National Committee from assembling such lists but no problem, assemble them inside the Whitehouse as Tim Griffin of Rove's office did. Rove's office, I've heard, has a staff of 400. What possible justification is there for such a huge staff of political operatives operating within the Whitehouse and using RNC Blackberry devices for their e-mail work? How can that be protected since the RNC does not work for the public. How, in fact, can this even be legal?
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 4:06 PM:Kilowatt put his finger on it:
If the MSM won't try to parse this all for the general public, then scandal fatigue will set in if it hasn't already.
They won't, of course, but will continue to talk about Edwards' haircut and speculate on Hillary's sexual orientation, etc.
We're doomed. Sound the alarums.
Open the gates to the barbarians to the north and south.
Plato
Bill wrote on June 13, 2007 4:08 PM:I am embarrassed by the cowardice on everyone's part in this example of inept democracy, particularly my own.
I am glad I do not have any children to hand my part of this sorry state of affairs to.
Hank wrote on June 13, 2007 4:08 PM:Besides the "know choice" in the Leahy letter, there's also
"Yet, to date the White House has not produced a single document or allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be interviews."
Should be "interviewed".
You'd think they'd proofread the letters a little more carefully, rather than just run them through a spell-checker.
vox clamantis in red state wrote on June 13, 2007 4:19 PM:How strange, how odd, how in the world this maladministration can opt not to coooperate with the legally elected Congress.
harry wrote on June 13, 2007 4:24 PM:Those vicious bushies, who love to lambast Clinton, even today, almost 9 years after they for called and got their misbegotten impeachment, can certainly make no excuse that the Clinton administrations shrugged off their false and malacious claims, after months of front page, highhanded and expensive prosecution of a nothing.
And it was a no-thing, even if there were thongs.
It seems like the White House is trying to slow down this investigation. But soon enough Bush will be replaced by a Dem and their chance for pardons will be over. They must think the underlings will be able to protect the White House as Libby did in the Plame affair.
MaxGowan wrote on June 13, 2007 4:35 PM:That's why they will conduct a pardon-fest in early January, 2009.
foxklub wrote on June 13, 2007 4:37 PM:They will dick around with these subpoenas for months, then compromise - Leahy will get to read a description of what Cheney had for breakfast the day he shot his buddy.
Hard not to feel the game is over in this country. Nixon, for all his flaws, seems decent relative to this crowd.
VL wrote on June 13, 2007 4:42 PM:"Two Democratic congressional sources say they decided not to subpoena Rove because they are building their case by talking to and gathering information from lower level witnesses and officials, before they get to the more senior, more important witnesses."
Wasn't that the strategy to get Keyzer Soze?
Legalize wrote on June 13, 2007 4:46 PM:I'm positive the Democrats will get right to the bottom of this. If this is what they call "oversight," I want my votes in 2006 back.
richard lasater wrote on June 13, 2007 5:09 PM:In the June 13, 2007 letter Leahy writes ". . . the evidence that White House officials were deeply involved leaves me know choice. . .".
Scary times gentlemen, scary times.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 5:16 PM:LAW FIRM PRACTICE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: WHEN WILL THEY AWAKEN TO 5 USC 3331 DUTIES?
The checklists used to ensure compliance, avoid malpractice suits, and verify attorneys are fully doing what they should appear to be wanting. Law firms are audited to avoid litigation risk in re malpractice. Audits are conducted to ensure law firms are adequately managed, that they are effective in serving the client, and that the goals of the partners are translating into action/result.
Against this backdrop, we have outside counsel and the WH counsel apparently "confused" what the laws mean; and their 5 USC 3331 obligations. The duty of counsel is to to protect the Constitution. There are two ways to do that: Impeach, or prosecute. Then Senator Ashcroft argued that because impeachment could be used, prosecution of Clinton was not needed. Today, we have the opposite: No impeachment plan; and not leadership by the law firms to organize evidence to defend the Constitution/prosecute/support indictments in re 5 USC 3331, _despite_ law firms showing they can organize for Libby's defense.
Time for the legal profession to be called on the carper in the US Atty e-mails, Fieldings's waste of time approach, the non-responses, and no apparent leadership in re 5 USC 3331 prosecutions/not working with other counsel to assert the "we need to prosecute because Congress won't impeach"-option.
1. Where are the checklists law firms have in re 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations; and duties of counsel to report peer misconduct as required under DC Bar rules; and the requirement to withdraw when clients are using counsel's advise to advance illegal activity [unlawful warfare, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, illegal interrogations, denial of Habeas, illegal MCA, ignoring Geneva]
2. Is there no evidence of _any_ law firm having done _any_ internal review per _any_ malpractice claim, or charge over 5 USC 3331?
3. In light of the President blocking DoJ OPR from reviewing various legal matters, where's the discussion of outside counsel to assert the "other option besides impeachment"?
4. If there is no record of any meeting, discussion, or anything to enforce 5 USC 3331 -- as required when impeachment is removed, not used, not timely asserted -- why should anyone have confidence in the leadership of the leading law firms?
5. Waging illegal warfare on a promise of illegal contracts requires lawyers to ignore the evidence of illegal warfare; continue to write contracts despite no legal foundation; and assent to illegal promises of immunity. AT&T Court Judge Vaughn concluded "no reasonable" attorney could conclude the program as alleged was lawful. Once these illegal things were disclosed, what record does outside counsel -- anyone in the legal profession -- have of any records that _any_ considered 5 USC 3331 enforcement outside impeachment through prosecutions?
We see nothing. Yet, the public was told -- not asked -- to "put up with" the Congressional assent to this non-sense; and pretend the _fiction_ that if Congress "refuses" to impeach, that nothing can be done. Utterly reckless legal advice. Prosecutions remain on the table. Time for the American public to open an additional line of inquiry and go after reckless legal counsel who knew of the illegal activity and refused to lead prosecutions; knew of the option to discuss issues but refused; took an oath but blocked 5 USC 3331 enforcement; had leadership positions but refuse to point to any checklist in re practice management group to ensure their peers' misconduct in re DC Bar rules/5 USC 3331 is timely reported.
I'm all for Congress conducting cursory oversight and rubber stamping, so long as that _cursory_ oversight and _rubber stamping_ is subsequently admitted into evidence in re 5 USC 3331 violations against Members of Congress. Yet, where is the legal profession when it comes to making a visible showing that this reckless conduct by _this_ Congress -- in not timely asserting the impeachment option, despite well researched evidence in the form of long books -- in refusing to assert all lawful options.
It's reckless for the American legal community, Congress, Members of Congress, or the Administration, and GOP-DNC leadership to believe that the public is going to "put up with" this non-sense. This has been going on since 2001; and the current delays have not been impressive. Glacial enforcement of the rule of law is not enforcement, but an illusion. Timely action means swift movement in re 5 USC 3331; not the current monkey-like-pointing approach of, "Not my job." And which lazy legal profession took how many oaths to the 5 USC 3331 requirement, but can't figure out its obligations or "what to do" when their peers in the legal profession remain silent?
The public can eat their popcorn listening to Congress, the WH, counsel, and others go back and forth about subpoenas. A second front needs to be ope4opened up: To get legal counsel to explain their plan to prosecute this President _outside_ impeachment. Not going to "wait around" for Congress to "prove" that it's reckless and moving slowly: The evidence is self-evident. Time for the law firm practice management committees to give a fair showing of what's been going on with the checklists; review what hasn't been done in re DC Bar rule reporting; and get the senior partners off their rear end to give a scintilla of evidence that the firms are marginally interested in conducting internal reviews. without this showing, we can hardly have confidence that the insurance premiums are adequately priced, but for the fantasy-assertion that something "Might" be happening.
A. If there is no showing that law firms have a plan in place within each firm to ensure timely reporting in re 5 USC 3331, what others legal requirements are getting ignored; and how long has this been going on?
B. Given the lack of interest in defending the Constitution through prosecutions, what else are the law firms ignoring because it's "not convenient" and "too difficult"?
Ask the law firms to do something difficult, and they make excuses; but when it comes to ensuring they do their job, the "trust us" approach collapses when _fundamental_ requirements of civil society -- that of ensuring the Constitution is protected; and the rule of law is preserved -- cannot be assured. The law and duties of legal counsel are not some nebulous list of "things to do when convenient," but are legal obligations to ensure malpractice claims are not an issue. If there is no action on 5 USC 3331, it's reasonable to conclude there are other client-related-interests that are similarly not getting addressed, but for client superior knowledge of issues counsel supposedly is an expert. It is ridiculous that clients have to know the laws better than counsel, especially when it comes to ensuring the Constitution is defended through prosecutions against domestic enemies in the legal community.
bjobotts wrote on June 13, 2007 5:36 PM:The WH's refusal to cooperate is really an admission of complicity in politicizing the DoJ to suppress the Democratic vote and to influence investigations of Republicans. Why else wouldn't they want to be cooperative and get this whole affair settled? Why go through all the expense time and trouble to be uncooperative?
Keeping the pressure up maybe is keeping Bush from more destructive activities. Justice may come home to roost soon ending the fable that...
noshrub wrote on June 13, 2007 6:06 PM:The DoJ serves at the pleasure of the president.
Whoa! Paulose on emails from Goodling? WTF?
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 6:34 PM:bjobotts said:
"Keeping the pressure up maybe is keeping Bush from more destructive activities."
I take some small comfort here in believing this may be true. It's plausible anyway when one considers that we now have at least some measure of oversight that should give pause to anyone knowing that what he/she puts into writing may be read out loud in court. With the Repugs in control of both houses these thugs had zero fear of ever getting caught.
Sisyphus
xxx
rlogan wrote on June 13, 2007 6:50 PM:Working at the speed of glacial accretion, the democratic juggernaut ossifies into a frozen toad for future generations of archaeologists to study.
I'm not impatient or anything...
mo2 wrote on June 13, 2007 6:54 PM:Cheney is not moving his focus away from destablizing the Middle East and placing his pals in positions to make money from more chaos and wars. I don't see the USA Illegal firings distracting him from trying to invade Iran or persuade Iran to attack some random "US interest" before he leaves office. He is moving his war machine out of country - to UAE and Saudi Arabia it seems - and he will make his move to provide his war machine with plenty of business before he leaves office. Nothing else is on his mind.
Powkat wrote on June 13, 2007 7:29 PM:Isn't there a hacker who would break into the Republican computers and get the dirt. He or she could then plant stories in the press, the loyal opposition (us) could push for answers, and Congress could ask WH folks to talk about it. If the WH refuses, the dirt will already be out there, and people might start to ask why they won't testify.
I know - this is a fantasy world in which the press is not a tool of corporate Republicans and the public gives a damn about anything more than Paris.
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 8:14 PM:Is a Supreme Court battle so bad?
You know I just don't buy the whole idea that Democrats should make deals with a stonewalling Whitehouse knee deep in scandals just because if they don't it goes to the Supreme Court.
How long did it take for the Supreme Court to decide the 2000 election? A few weeks, not months, not years. Why would this be any different?
Besides anyone who thinks the media/pubic would be less interested in the USA scandal in the course of a huge constitutional showdown is kidding themselves. In fact, it would be big news, everyday reports on what is going on, who's gonna win, and finally the Whitehouse loses it's case.
After that, does anyone think the media/public would suddenly lose interest in fruits of that case? I don't think so, I think there would be greater interest in finding out why the Whitehouse fought so hard against Congress and what they were hiding.
Finally, taking the case to the Supreme Court is exactly what Congress should do when another branch of government is obstructing the other branch from conducting it's constitional duty. Without a doubt if this newest assertion of executive privelge needs to be decided now rather than later.
In addition, the court is conservative but this issue is one that effects all democrats and repubicans for years to come. Even if they want to hack it up, they'll be sure to consider if they help expand executive power it will one day fall into democratic hands and will no less lead to the usurpation of the power of the judicial branch.
Steven Edwards wrote on June 13, 2007 9:51 PM:In Sen. Leahy's letter, almost at the end, it says "leaves me KNOW choice" [ALLCAPS added]. I am curious as to how such an egregious error could make its way into an official document. There are several other typos and syntactial lapses, too, but wouldn't you think that the cover letter for subpoenas that have been under consideration for months, would be written in English?
Understand, I am not some republican nit-picking the letter - I'm a progressive, left-leaning democrat (well, independant, but that's how I usually vote and commit my time and money).
Anonymous wrote on June 13, 2007 10:46 PM:Just what control does the White House have over Miers and Taylor? They have resigned and are now private citizens. What legal basis does the White House have for saying they cannot testify before Congress?
d
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 4:30 AM:I am a little concerned because the subpoenas do not mention any possible crimes, just "concerns." The concerns over things like the politicization of the Justice Dept, and the hiring and firing practices might be argued to be the president's perogatives, so long as no crime was committed, and the Supremes might say to congress, butt out.
The subpoenas need to mention that in addition to concerns over politics, that Congress is investigating possible crimes - caging, firing US attorneys to stop ongoing investigations, or firing US attys to punish them for failing to prosecute some crimes. Otherwise I am afraid we will hear the usual bull, that it is the president's perogative, and the Supremes might agree.
"Concerns" is such a wimpy term for Congress to use for what they feel. The phrase "investigating possible crimes" would have so much more heft!
Posted by: tjallen
Date: June 13, 2007 02:15 PM
Yo, pro-Bushit troll: in investigations such as this, one does not overstate the evidence. Or overplay one's hand. Or reveal all one knows.
Congress knows what it is doing. The Judiciary committees have abundant legal talent as members of their ivestigative staffs. They know the evidence they have, and what it imples. And where it appears to lead. The subpoenas are part of the process of _discovery_ -- simply seeking potential evidence. Not being conspirabunkers, the committees are not presuming to know that evidence exists, or the contents of the evidence they don't have.
Enough of these facts have been stated here before now, and repeatedly, for such not to be unknown to participants here. The gall which ignores those facts, and bashes Congress, and tells Congress "how to do it," is beyond tiresome and arrogant.
Sufficient clue was given in the statement of the fact that this is about building a case -- on the available evidence. The latest document dump confirmed, and established with hard evidence, to the degree of undeniable, that Rove's people -- Taylor and Meirs in particular -- were directly involved in the firings. That is a significant step forward for the investigation.
Legal actions are based upon _evidence_ -- not "I know they committed crimes." And there are numerous appraoches to investigating, both direct and indirect. Conyers is well aware of the "caging" issue. As is Leahey. If they aren't mentioning it specifically then there is good reason they don't; it _does not_ mean they don't know about it, or don't care about it. I suspect they are well aware that the whole goal of the politicization of the gov't -- not only the DOJ -- is about stealing elections. "Caging" is only one of various means used toward that end.
The subpoenas for testimony and documents is part of _discovery_. Except for noting obstructions to discovery, when there have been such, one does not make charges as part of discovery.
And ignore all the specculations and "anonymous source" comments; all those are beside the point. And could as easily have been made by Republican instead of Democrat.
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 4:38 AM:Fielding fatally admits there are e-mails that he hasn't turned over: " Fiedling has not wavered from his initial offer of interviews with Karl Rove and other aides only in private with no oath or transcript, an offer that also included an offer to turn over external emails -- emails between White House staffers and others outside the White House."
There is nothing either "fatal" -- pretentious twit -- or new about any of that.
"1. Why hasn't this e-mail been turned over;"
Because it hasn't in part as bargaining chip, and in part because of potential claim that they are covered by Executive Privilege.
It isn't a "conspiracy"; it's your ignorance of what's actually going on, publicly, in broad daylight.
"2. Why is the Congress accepting this "offer" in exchange for something else;"
ASS: READ the letters: they ARE NOT accepting the offer.
"3. Once the subpoena was issued, does Fielding understand his fatal disclosure of "other e-mails" is not something he can use as a bargaining chip?"
He not only has been using the "other emails" as a bargaining chip, and is using them as such, but he can continue to do so.
Why do you assume he would offer potential evidence -- "other emails" -- which would contain information against his client's interests? Get a clue: unlike you, Congress knows what it is doing.
"Posted by:
Date: June 13, 2007 02:32 PM"
Have you challenged _TURLEY_ yet on why he isn't doing that which you claim he claims can be done?
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 4:45 AM:This:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/specter-agrees-with-issuing-subpoena-2007-06-13.html
Is probably why Specter hasn't been called out fro the patriot Act alterations. He's playing ball at this point. Lets see how long it lasts.
Posted by: bobh
Date: June 13, 2007 02:25 PM
In it: "However, Specter also said that he does not believe that “a confrontation is not in the public interest,” noting that such a fight between the branches would possibly drag out until after President Bush has left office."
Huh!? "not . . . not"?
It would be near impossible to determine why he is hanging in the middle. Wanting to appear on the side of the angels re. upcoming election? Sincerely concerned, based upon undisclosed evidence? Offended at being used re. the "Patriot Act" insertion by an office staffer without his knowledge?
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 5:01 AM:The Democrats need to start pounding one line over and over and over again until it's ringing in our ears and people start repeating it: "If they have nothing to hide..."
Posted by: gcs
Date: June 13, 2007 03:07 PM
The letters from the committees to the WH are also public statements of fact -- and "political" message. They clearly show that Congress has bent over backwards in giving Bushit, et al., the benefit of the doubt. They have been, and continue to show, that they are not acting precipitously, but rather having been acting patiently and courteously. Because both sides realize there is also a PR dimension to the confrontation. So far, in real terms, Congress is winning that battle hands down.
Congress only appears to be losing to assholes who haven't a clue -- pro-Bushit trolls -- bashing Congress for not getting immediate results. That is why the polls are so low for Congress: those polled haven't a clue; they expect immediate action in keeping with their childish demand for instant gratification.
And then there's the 'fatally" unidentified twit who does everything he can to raise specters of nefarious and mysterious conspirabunk simply because he hasn't a clue about how aboveboard investigations are conducted, and ignores facts which are in the public domain -- especially when they refute his speculative nonsense.
As example, Fielding long ago offered the "other emails" -- it is not a new fact. But not knowing the contents of those emails, and knowing that Fielding isn't going to voluntarily provide evidence against his lient's interests, it can be tentatively assumed that those emails wouldn't provide the committees anything of relevance.
Ultimately, Congress is showing, in every letter, and repeatedly, that it is following all the proper steps, and being patient and accomodating and cooperative. Those would be mightily positive facts in the view of a court should the matter end up going there.
Yet we still get pro-Bushit trolls bashing the Democrats for not providing instant solutions and instant gratification. For not doing the presently impossible.
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 5:08 AM:Well. Alright then. We ought to have this wrapped up before Bush's Mission to Mars is completed. Good work!
Posted by: bmaz
Date: June 13, 2007 03:10 PM
Yo, pro-Bushit troll: INVESTIGATIONS TAKE TIME.
Note that the committees' language states: "Based upon the _EVIDENCE_" (emphasis mine)? Note it doesn't say, "Based upon speculatiion" or 'Based upon hunch"?
INVESTIGATIONS TAKE TIME.
Shut up and pay attention to what _is_ happening, not what _isn't_ happening, and you might learn something.
And keep in mind that even when _YOU_ see don't see anything happening, _INVESTIGATION CONTINUES BEHIND THE SCENES_.
Congress has the issue and knows it. But it won't -- and shouldn't -- move beyond the _evidence_ just to please the demands for instant gratification.
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 5:31 AM:"A Constitutional showdown will emerge if the Supreme Court votes along party lines to enforce the subpoenas to save the WH..."
Thus far, the subpoenas aren't seeking anything within the scope of Executive Privilege; so it isn't likely the SC would hold in favor of the WH. The only potential invocation of Executive Privilege might be from Talyor and Miers during testimony. But that would be weak, and they aren't at the WH anymore, so that can't claim it in order to now testify.
And a month or so ago it was reported that Taylor spoke in closed session toone of the committees, and expressed willingness to tesify in full, but wants immunity before then. She won't get immunity; but she will testify. The investigation has not only legs, but also momentum.
"The other prong is getting those damn emails from the RNC and eventually the WH servers...."
Consider: those are the emails that were "lost" -- meaning, they had them but needed time to read them, thus the claim they were "lost" was simply delay in order to do that. Great: get those emails -- they're outside the Privilege. But don't expect anything in them to be of much use. So one doesn't take the deal offered in order to get those emails sight-unseen.
Proving violations of the Hatch Act, which those emails might do, isn't the goal. Besides, there are more important documents than potentially "washed" emails.
Meanwhile, Specter is actually making all the right noises. This last document dump -- from the DOJ -- not from the WH -- which may be hoping it can somewhat assist the investigation and take the heat off itself by helping point at the WH -- is substantive as it definitely shows Rove aide Taylor up to her eyeballs in the firings, and the falsifications about them. It is especially telling that she blew up becaue the DOJ testimonies to Congress revealed the fact that the WH/Rove was involved.
And, as I understand it, some of the latest dump were sent via accounts outside the WH. If that means Hatch Act violations, then Congress has leverage it can use against such as Taylor.
All in all, things are going very well. Invetigations take time; and in their latest letters, Leahey and Conyers make expressly clear that they've not rushed to judgment. They've been courteous and cooperative and aboveboard -- all of which would be relevant down the road should there be court action/s.
"Posted by: RW
Date: June 13, 2007 03:15 PM"
Conducting investigations includes planning for all future possibilities, including that of going to court to enforce subpoenas. The possibilities require establishing the groundwork toward those at the same time one is conducting the investigation.
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 5:39 AM:I thought that emails sent through outside sources--their RNC accounts, etc.--meant they can't be covered by executive privilige.
If this is the case, what does it mean?
Posted by: chisholm
Date: June 13, 2007 03:31 PM
That's a relatively complex question:
Would an email originating within the scope of Executive Privilege sent to a destination outside that scope still be covered by it?
How about an email from outside the scope to within it?
I think the answer to both questions would be "no" but other factors might apply: who owns the email? The sender or the recipient?
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 5:49 AM:I'm positive the Democrats will get right to the bottom of this. If this is what they call "oversight," I want my votes in 2006 back.
Posted by: Legalize
Date: June 13, 2007 04:46 PM
Yo, pro-Bushit troll: the foot-draggers are the REPUBLICANS, not the Democrats.
On one hand, you bitch because you hate the way Republcians act. On the other, you bitch because the Democrats don't act like Republicans.
Learn to make sense -- or take it to Free Republic.
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 5:55 AM:Working at the speed of glacial accretion, the democratic juggernaut ossifies into a frozen toad for future generations of archaeologists to study.
I'm not impatient or anything...
Posted by: rlogan
Date: June 13, 2007 06:50 PM
It's easier to whine, smart-ass pro-Bushit troll, than to inform oneself --
LEAHY TO SUBPOENA WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING DOCS
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a business meeting on Thursday to authorize subpoenas for any legal opinions and advice the Bush administration has received regarding the NSA’s domestic spying program.
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 6:00 AM:(Think Progress)
Isn't there a hacker who would break into the Republican computers and get the dirt. He or she could then plant stories in the press, the loyal opposition (us) could push for answers, and Congress could ask WH folks to talk about it. If the WH refuses, the dirt will already be out there, and people might start to ask why they won't testify.
I know - this is a fantasy world in which the press is not a tool of corporate Republicans and the public gives a damn about anything more than Paris.
Posted by: Powkat
Date: June 13, 2007 07:29 PM
Great: the peanut gallery is so opposed to law-breaking it suggests the solution is additional law-breaking.
You vote "law 'n order" Republican, correct?
JNagarya wrote on June 14, 2007 6:11 AM:Just what control does the White House have over Miers and Taylor? They have resigned and are now private citizens. What legal basis does the White House have for saying they cannot testify before Congress?
d
Posted by:
Date: June 13, 2007 10:46 PM
None. The WH only has a claim on their "loyalty". And perhaps some little say where Taylor and Miers might speak of matters which fall within the scope of the Privilege. But they can tetify to those in closed session. And the Privilege -- as Nixon learned -- cannot be invoked to cover up crimes.
Moreover, the process of appointing AGs is a public matter, not "privileged"; all the more so when the apppearnace is sufficiently strong that it involved wrongdoing -- violations of the Hatch Act, if the latest dump shows that -- is sufficent to raise additional questions about the possibility of acts which might rise to criminal.
You can be certain Congress isn't ignoring the "caging" issue, and the involvements in that illegal act by such as Schlozman and Griffin, and the fact that Griffin is directly tied to Rove.
This whole thing, so far, is about undermining laws in order to "win" elections; and the means used were often expressly illegal -- felonies. And those lead back to Bushit's elections guru Rove.
Steve5117 wrote on June 14, 2007 7:05 AM:JNagarya It has been enjoyable waking up and reading your late night posts.
Perhaps TPMMuckraker can add a document that would explain the way Congressional investigations work. Then those who keep calling for immediate action can be referred there.
Political Science majors should have a plethora of dissertation topics for years to come from this administrations.
JEP wrote on June 14, 2007 11:23 AM:We've been in a constitutional crisis since Gore V. Bush.
JEP wrote on June 14, 2007 12:16 PM:Marcy had this over at The Next Hurrah, I think we can now expect a Supreme Court battle is where this is heading...
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/team_libby_hire.html
"Team Libby has added a lawyer. A lawyer who specializes in championing cases before SCOTUS.
Robbins, Russell spins courtroom losses into U.S. Supreme Court wins."
And considering what has happened to the SCOTUS since Gore V. Bush, we can't imagine the situation is really any better now, can we?
JEP wrote on June 14, 2007 12:17 PM:Marcy had this over at The Next Hurrah, I think we can now expect a Supreme Court battle is where this is heading...
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/team_libby_hire.html
"Team Libby has added a lawyer. A lawyer who specializes in championing cases before SCOTUS.
Robbins, Russell spins courtroom losses into U.S. Supreme Court wins."
And considering what has happened to the SCOTUS since Gore V. Bush, we can't imagine the situation is really any better now, can we?
JEP wrote on June 14, 2007 12:21 PM:I know, it's Bush V. Gore, but I have a hard time giving Boy W top billing against my pal Al.
molly wrote on June 14, 2007 12:25 PM:The dems. job is to make their hearings "look" like we still have a democracy. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid after funding Bush's war supplemental had a very "reamed" look.(sp) Pelosi still looks like she aged 5 years. Why are we expecting a dictator to act like a president. These people don't do democracy. They should all go to Hague along with their enablers at nbc, cbs, abc, cnn , fox , NYTimes , WaPo and fox news. We bloggers should read bradblog every day because our democracy isn't majically coming back without fair elections.
steambomb wrote on June 14, 2007 12:58 PM:This "presidents?" approval ratings dropped even lower to 29% in last day or two. If he wants to claim executive priviledge let him. His approval will be going even lower. If he wants to give Libby a pardon let him. His approval will go even lower then too. Eventually he will run out of any good will that he might have with anyone and the impeachment can begin. If the repubes dont want to find out the facts and if they want to obstruct justice just as they have been doing for the last six years then let them. Truly if the repubes dont want to seek the truth then they will further marginalize their party and may even be looking at a Dem prez and a super majority house and senate for the Demz. Code word join. As in if the Repubes dont join up then they will be out in a short amount of time.
Anonymous wrote on June 14, 2007 1:24 PM:Let's have a grand jury empanneled to prosecute members of Congress for failing to assert their 5 USC 3331 violations.
Congress is slow. Grand juries have a big stick. The Grand Jury could go after the legal community that is lazy, reckless, stupid, and unwilling to defend the Constitution from domestic enmies.
Why are lawyers so stupid in America; and why do they get paid so much money to not assert their oath? Prosecute them as well.
Mark F. wrote on June 14, 2007 1:26 PM:The subpoenas are a start. They should have been served months ago. The Democrats are making the mistake of thinking that Bush is basically a decent guy. He's not. He's a total prick who needs to get his ass kicked, but probably won't.
Anonymous wrote on June 14, 2007 1:33 PM:Posted by: JNagarya
Date: June 14, 2007 04:38 AM
Fatal admission that someone knows about Turley, but hasn't used all their legal powers, options, and resources to fully assert their oath.
"Have you challenged _TURLEY_ yet on why he isn't doing that which you claim he claims can be done?"
1. Can read: "Turley" well understood;
2. Incorporates name into commentary;
3. Shows no evidence of having sent email from Boston to DC/Georgetown
4. Indicates knowledg ein legal profession
QUESTIONS
A. Are you in fully complicance with 5 USC 3331?
B. Which legal standars are you ignoring, not fully asserting?
C. Is there something preventing the legal prfession from discussing this issue?
It's not convincing when someone claims to have a legal background, but _they_ are not using all required, permitted, known legal options to communicate. the oath of office is a requirement on the legal community; not one for the legal community to pawn off back onto We the People.
Do your job, or do the time, 5 USC 3331.
Mark F. wrote on June 14, 2007 1:55 PM:An important point made by Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore Law School: the White House does not have standing to preemptively quash these subpoenas.
Mark F. wrote on June 14, 2007 1:57 PM:An important point made by Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore Law School: the White House does not have standing to preemptively quash these subpoenas. If either Miers or Taylor choose to cooperate, there's really little the White House can do to stop them.
Mark F. wrote on June 14, 2007 2:01 PM:An important point made by Charles Tiefer of the University of Baltimore Law School: the White House does not have standing to preemptively quash these subpoenas. If either Miers or Taylor choose to cooperate, there's not a lot the White House can do to stop them.
Mark F. wrote on June 14, 2007 2:06 PM:Sorry for the multiple posts. Everytime I clicked post, I got an internal server error after about two minutes of waiting for the post to appear.
I'd say stinson.com.au fairly sucks.