Comments (74)

SkippyFlipjack wrote on July 8, 2007 12:13 PM:

How can the White House order former aides -- i.e., private citizens -- to not testify?

Punchy wrote on July 8, 2007 12:25 PM:

Skip-

They can and will do anything they choose. They've now stopped (in my opinion) following any semblance of process, order, and even law. This blanket claim of executive privelege for any and every subpeona for the next 17 months will be used on everyone.

Shorter--I predict that the WH will not comply with a single subpeona from today until Jan. 2009.

TheraP wrote on July 8, 2007 12:28 PM:

Passive aggressive bush behavior. Pure and simple.

The thing about passive aggressive behavior is that it transfers the rage. bush may be mad - but he can make us madder.

Keep your cool - or you've been trapped into anger.

Slowly, ever so slowly the circle is tightening. And we, or history, will triumph.

eyeball wrote on July 8, 2007 12:40 PM:

leahy and spector were on tv this a.m. and spector really shocked leahy by suggesting on the air that the senior dem and rep members of house and senate judiciary ask to meet with bush at the white house this week. i doubt spector would have offered this over the air if he didnt already know that fielding/bush would agree. so something is up of significance. i really think the repubs, senate especially, have no desire to carry admin water on this subpoena mess. plus they are pissed about the bush effort to silence that taylor woman, since she'd been skedded to testify and now they are pulling the old switcheroo, screwing with lawyers as good as leahy and spector is dumb. bush is in full bunker mode. also, spector said the justice dept is in "disarray' with gonzales still helming. not good for bushies that.

more broadly, i think its time for us in the left-progressive-moderate majority of americans to seriously think about our overarching post-bush political message for the nation. i think the mandarins have to start talking about a very high-level reconciliation-unity conference. we need to patch up the gore-clinton breach "for the good of the country," and have obama and some other next-generation leaders there too. its time to rally nationally for a post-bush america. as much as i want these bums investigated and punished, its unwise for the party to be associated most visibly with poking over the past rather than planning for the now-perilous future.

padcrasher wrote on July 8, 2007 12:43 PM:

Nothing else to lose but a few points approval rating. If it makes you sad and angry what they are doing to the rule of Law, take comfort in the fact they are driving the entire GOP over a cliff for the next two decades.

Met00 wrote on July 8, 2007 12:48 PM:

The letter Democrats with Balls and a Spine would send...

Dear George and Dick,

Welcome to the new Congress. We asked nicely for you to tell us the truth. You have refused claiming that everything done by anyone in your branch is a secret covered by executive privilege. You really want to just move this entire thing to the judicial branch where it will linger for a year or so. We don't. So, in order to entice you to move along, please be advised the we, the Congress, fund the government. As of today, while you exert your right to hide the truth from us, we will exert our right to stop funding your running of a government that acts like a criminal enterprise.

When you and Dick decide to be forthcoming with the truth, we will release the purse strings.

Signed,
The Democratic Majority of Congress

##

Too bad it would require a set of big brass balls for the Congress to do this, eh? Wouldn't be nice if we electrealdemocarts.com ?

Roberta wrote on July 8, 2007 12:49 PM:

I am strangely thrilled about this latest defiance.

My hope is that with this very solid evidence of the Executive's overreaching its privilege, each and every member of all of the Senate and House committees affected (or simply aggrieved) will hold separate press conferences with their responses to this situation. Each member can state for the press record why the committee's investigation is necessary and justified, how the Constitution has defined the oversight responsibilities of the Congress, how they have attempted to hold their investigations had been forced to issue subpoenas, and the obstructions they have encountered from an intransigent White House.

One statement by Leahy won't do it. With potentially dozens of statements from each of the members--ideally strategically scheduled all through Monday and maybe into Tuesday--even the MSM could not justifiably give this story short shrift.

Then, in spite of the amount of time and jet fuel this would require, each member of each committee needs to go home this week and hold press conferences once again, but this time showing constituents how the Congress is simply fulfilling its responsibilities to the American people in general and to them in particular, but that the White House is keeping them from doing their jobs as well as obstructing justice.

Part of these statements needs to include turning the silly statements from Bush's Saturday radio address on their heads and explaining clearly that everything Bush complained about is actually evidence that they ARE doing their jobs. It's just that people aren't used to seeing this kind of Congressional activity, after so many years of a rubber-stamp Congress.

For the Republican members of these committees? I'd suggest they get on this bandwagon if they want to be reelected. If they don't, they will very likely get sucked into the Executive's morass and be identified with dodging the Constitutional process instead of embracing it.

Met00 wrote on July 8, 2007 12:49 PM:

The letter Democrats with Balls and a Spine would send...

Dear George and Dick,

Welcome to the new Congress. We asked nicely for you to tell us the truth. You have refused claiming that everything done by anyone in your branch is a secret covered by executive privilege. You really want to just move this entire thing to the judicial branch where it will linger for a year or so. We don't. So, in order to entice you to move along, please be advised the we, the Congress, fund the government. As of today, while you exert your right to hide the truth from us, we will exert our right to stop funding your running of a government that acts like a criminal enterprise.

When you and Dick decide to be forthcoming with the truth, we will release the purse strings.

Signed,
The Democratic Majority of Congress

##

Too bad it would require a set of big brass balls for the Congress to do this, eh? Wouldn't be nice if we electrealdemocrats.com ?

FloridaDemocrat wrote on July 8, 2007 12:52 PM:

If Congress goes to the Supreme Court what chance would there be for Congress to prevail considering the makeup of the current justices? How long will it take to get a decision? If Congress was to prevail with the Court, what chance is there that White House would comply with the order? If they don't comply then the only recourse for Congress is impeachment. How long the process takes will determine if impeachment becomes a moot point.

Rusty Austin wrote on July 8, 2007 12:57 PM:

The thing to do is find Sara Taylor in contempt, and send the sergeant at arms out to arrest her and compel her testimony. That'll get her attention, and remind her that she is, or was, paid by us, not by Cheney.

anon wrote on July 8, 2007 12:57 PM:

...spector really shocked leahy by suggesting on the air that the senior dem and rep members of house and senate judiciary ask to meet with bush at the white house this week...

Is this true? Yes, I would guess that if Spector said it, then Fielding and Cheney said it. And I hope that Leahy can handle it since there's no way that it's a good thing. The WH is not going to put itself in jail.

However, this: "a very high-level reconciliation-unity conference" is crap. No, goddamn it, it's not time for reconcilliation or forgive and forget or bi-partisan whatever, even if it's kinda good for the "mandarians" and the Dem party. No, no, no, it's time to remove bad Dems from office and place corrupt politicians from both parties in court/jail.

EH wrote on July 8, 2007 12:59 PM:

The plan is for them to get a constitutional showdown in the Supreme Court without any political fallout from this being their goal. Once they're in the USSC, the fix is in. What do they have to lose?

padcrasher wrote on July 8, 2007 12:59 PM:

Count me out of the live and let live caucus. This Admin has done grave harm to the USA and should be hounded over it. The last thing we need is President willing to "comprimise" with these GOP thugs. Besides, a confrontational stategy is likely the best way to get Dems elected and bills passed.

p-owed wrote on July 8, 2007 1:06 PM:

Man, this is amazing stuff.

Like, as Skippy, above, said, I still don't understand how Fielding can order private citizens not to testify.

"Spector said the justice dept is in "disarray' with Gonzales still helming. not good for bushies that."...yet Spector couldn't get enough of his Repub cronies to cast a no-confidence vote. How Gonzo can escape a no-con vote is way beyond me...he is the definition of "no confidence".

Unfortunately, I think Punchy is right; we are going to have to ride this sucker out til 09.

p-owed wrote on July 8, 2007 1:07 PM:

Man, this is amazing stuff.

Like, as Skippy, above, said, I still don't understand how Fielding can order private citizens not to testify.

"Spector said the justice dept is in "disarray' with Gonzales still helming. not good for bushies that."...yet Spector couldn't get enough of his Repub cronies to cast a no-confidence vote. How Gonzo can escape a no-con vote is way beyond me...he is the definition of "no confidence".

Unfortunately, I think Punchy is right; we are going to have to ride this sucker out til 09.

Jordan wrote on July 8, 2007 1:15 PM:

This whole thing is madness. Do the Democrats really misunderstand whom they're dealing with this completely? Do they actually believe that a man like Dick Cheney cares about "statements" and "strongly-worded letters" from Congress?

Cheney met with Bush in 1999 behind closed doors and emerged as his running mate; from that moment to the present Cheney has done everything in his considerable power to make the United States topple Iraq and get signatures on oil contracts for his colleagues in the oil industry. (He's done unbelievable collateral damage along the way, but that's incidental to his main goal.)

Nobody has stopped or even slightly impeded Cheney in his mad crusade and nobody will until the Democrats divest themselves of the fantasy that Cheney's White House cares about subpoenas, statements, public opinion?

Remember that he told Leahy to "go fuck himself" (to his face) and then refused to apologize. He shot his friend in his face and then "went to the lodge and fixed himself a drink" while his friend was in the ambulance. He refused to talk to the cops who arrived on the scene, and got away with it.

No piece of paper or speech is going to stop Dick Cheney. National Guardsmen (and women) with uniforms and guns must physically enter his office and make him hand over the material we need.

Jordan wrote on July 8, 2007 1:16 PM:

This whole thing is madness. Do the Democrats really misunderstand whom they're dealing with this completely? Do they actually believe that a man like Dick Cheney cares about "statements" and "strongly-worded letters" from Congress?

Cheney met with Bush in 1999 behind closed doors and emerged as his running mate; from that moment to the present Cheney has done everything in his considerable power to make the United States topple Iraq and get signatures on oil contracts for his colleagues in the oil industry. (He's done unbelievable collateral damage along the way, but that's incidental to his main goal.)

Nobody has stopped or even slightly impeded Cheney in his mad crusade and nobody will until the Democrats divest themselves of the fantasy that Cheney's White House cares about subpoenas, statements, public opinion?

Remember that he told Leahy to "go fuck himself" (to his face) and then refused to apologize. He shot his friend in his face and then "went to the lodge and fixed himself a drink" while his friend was in the ambulance. He refused to talk to the cops who arrived on the scene, and got away with it.

No piece of paper or speech is going to stop Dick Cheney. National Guardsmen (and women) with uniforms and guns must physically enter his office and make him hand over the material we need.

Xman wrote on July 8, 2007 1:18 PM:

Met00,
I like the defunding option, but if I'm suspecting Bushco would use it as an excuse for martial law, so are the Dem's.
You know, we are in a state of war, global war on terror. Bushco has done far more with far thinner justification.
These folks are all walking the edge of a razor blade and trying to get the other guy to lose his footing. Parry, thrust, parry....

Z S wrote on July 8, 2007 1:18 PM:

RE: Supreme Court

If this makes it to the Supreme Court, it'll be the same situation as always: the same 4 vs. the same 4, with Kennedy as the swing vote.

Kennedy's made the right decision a few times this year, so maybe he can do it again. If the Court ends up siding with the Bush administration yet again, 5-4, I suppose there will be a lot of anger on one side, while the majority of Americans who can't name a single member of the Supreme Court will hardly care or notice.

Xman wrote on July 8, 2007 1:19 PM:

Met00,
I like the defunding option, but if I'm suspecting Bushco would use it as an excuse for martial law, so are the Dem's.
You know, we are in a state of war, global war on terror. Bushco has done far more with far thinner justification.
These folks are all walking the edge of a razor blade and trying to get the other guy to lose his footing. Parry, thrust, parry....

Stuart Eugene Thiel wrote on July 8, 2007 1:21 PM:

Don't bother with the courts. Impeach on this narrow issue -- did the White House comply with the subpoenas? Take Bush and Cheney down with the same hearings.

security code: "nail"

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 1:31 PM:

Executive privilege claims are without merit. If POTUS and WH legal counsel believed the documents would enjoy a shield, they cannot explain why the created a separte e-mail system, blocked audits, or destroyed evidence.

The WH Counsel's reckless condcut is at odds with a reasonable expectation they should have had that teh documents were going to be shielded. Rather, the failure to retain documents means adverse inferences may be made: Legal counsel was complicit with illegal warfare, FISA violations, Rendition, and prisoner abuse.

All former and current legal counsel assigned to the WH appear to have recklessly failed to ensure the documents were retained in the legal databases. The creation of the separate databases and the e-mail destruction may be entered into evidence: Basis for war crimes, witness tampering, obstruction of judice, and dubious claims of privilege.

These are issues of international criminal law. The current subpoeans attach to current and former WH, EOP, DOJ, OVP legal cousnel in re RNC e-amikl destruction, and their alleged complicity with war crimes.

The Fielding refusal to provide the legally required justiifcation to withhold evidence may be entered into evidence as reckless conduct in defiance of Conduct; and the DC Bar may review this conduct in light of legal requirements to fully comply. There is no basis for legal counsel in the WH to assert that they "believed" the Exeuctive Privilege would hide any and all documents: Had that "belief" been bonafide, outside counsel and formely assigned counsel would not have commented on the very WH IT systems that were, when they were in the WH Counsel's office, thwarted, not used, blocked, circumvented, and had evidence destroyed.

The claim of privilege is dubious crossing into FISA violatoins, RNC e-mails, US Atty Firings, prisoner abuse, GEneva violations, and other violations of the Supreme Law.

We reject the claim that privilege beliefs were real. If the privilege was expected to survive, tehre would have been no reason to destroy any e-mails. Conduct is at odds with current legal filings and statements to Congress.

p-owed wrote on July 8, 2007 1:34 PM:

It seems to me that only a guy like Jim Webb is along the same lines as Cheney, with the apparent "I don't give a crap" attitude. Maybe he should be working with Leahy instead of Shumer. Shumer doesn't look tough enough

Dennis wrote on July 8, 2007 1:35 PM:

While crying "nothing illegal occured" neo-conservatives are gleeful that Bush has defied Congress.

Yet, hypocritically, these are the same persons who, not long ago, were supporting spying on Americans and saying, "If you've done nothing wrong, what are you worried about?"

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

regular lurker wrote on July 8, 2007 1:44 PM:

eyeball,
You forget the Supreme Court that this administration has left for us to deal with. They will be wreaking anti-labor and anti-worker havoc for years to come.

Jordan,
Cheney didn't pick Halliburton. Halliburton picked Cheney. So when it came time to find a VP, it should have come as no surprise that Halliburton once again chose Cheney.

Dennis wrote on July 8, 2007 1:47 PM:

While crying "nothing illegal occured", the Bush administration has gleefully defied Congress. Yet, hypocritically, these are the same persons who, not long ago, were supporting spying on Americans and saying, "If you've done nothing wrong, what are you worried about?"

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

eyeball wrote on July 8, 2007 1:52 PM:

i urge the angry on this thread to look at the bigger picture. i bow to no one in my disgust for the bushies or my desire to see them hauled off to jail. but that process is a political one -- the public has to harden behind it. they did against nixon, but not against clinton. the way the public hardens is to let the bushies slowly hang themselves, which they will do by pushing a stonewall approach. in fact, the best result would be for the supreme court to hear the bogus exec privilege claim. either they rule against bush, which would be his death knell, of they rule for him, which would remind the public that the bushies have packed the court with cronies. this would help propel the dems back into the WH next year. that is ALL that matters now, cos the choice of the next 2 or 3 supreme justices cannot be in the hands of the rightists or we will indeed have lost a whole new generation to this crooks. i'm getting to bloody old to see another generation lost to bushism. i cannot die with these guys still casting their repugnant stain on our land. pls try to think in bigger terms. pls understand that there have to be some ju-jitsu maneuvers along the way. pls understand that the public craves a strong political rallying point right now and the dems have a magical opportunity to offer it up. pls recall if you are young that the dems are legendary for hapless infighting and an inability to coalesce when the moment comes. they need our help not to shoot off their own feet. that is the great hope of netrootism -- to guide the dems toward longterm ascendancy, not short-term fell-good avengerism.

dee illuminati wrote on July 8, 2007 1:53 PM:

This is all politics and the debacle will hang firmly on the heads of the GOP in 2009. I read with amusement the assertions that another attack will change sentiment, that will not happen. the real 'diehards' of the GOP and the 20 so percent that supported the libby commutation, or GOP policy in the face of facts is becoming more and more irrelevant and the real issue is the swing voters who see precisely what this current leadership has done.

No wonder McCain can't find traction, no wonder there is no GOP candidate that has any real support, I mean hell Bush raised over 100 million in 2000.

This is plain and simple now a stage set to see whom salvages what from the debacle of this administration, who the better vultures are of this miserable failure of leadership.

And the key players will not escape their blame in history..

losers are losers if they get a commutation or not.

dexx wrote on July 8, 2007 1:56 PM:

all they need to do is haul rove out of there in handcuffs. the rest would fold shortly thereafter.

Dennis wrote on July 8, 2007 1:57 PM:

Lwet me agree with ZS @1:18 above.

It is not without an eye to possibly being charged with illegal spying on Americans and war crimes in Iraq that the intent to replace certain Attorney Generals and certain Supreme Court members with "loyal Republicans" took place.

This is a chess game of huge porportions being played way out and far ahead of anything average Americans can keep up with.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 2:02 PM:

Rather than "letting" Congress and POTUS battle eachother at the Federal level, let's broaden the engagement: State AGs may lawfully prosecute a sitting President.

It doesn't matter if it will succee: Make DOJ defend the President and explain why it cannot work.

Sitting Presidents may be prosecuted outside Congress and Outside impeachment. By expanding the lawsuits, this will ensure the WH has more problems to deal with. Congress refsues to impeach. Time for the STates to act on Amendment X and assert the power that was not delegated to Congress: Prosecutions of Sitting Presidents outside Congress outside impeachment.

Contact your State AGs this Monday to encourage them to prosecute this sitting President. Share with your friends.

Newt wrote on July 8, 2007 2:07 PM:

Bush keeps playing hardball and Congress keeps playing pattycake, as usual. He pays zero attention to rules, popular opinion, budgets, the law, or anything else he and Dick's head find inconveient

They ought to cut the entire executive branch allowance to a dollar a day until he stops acting like royalty. Shut it down, shut it all down, and let the rich bastards pay for everything via overt corporate sponsorships...maybe put the Nike "Swoosh" logo on the whitehouse.

Will they? HELL NO! Pelosi put impeachment "off the table," and has now gained weight befitting her new status as a Republican apologist. Reid is a pussy. Political opportunism says "Let Bush hang himself, and the cost in lives and treasure be damned." so that's exactly what they'l do.

Serously. My god, the Democrats are SUCH LOSERS!!

Z S wrote on July 8, 2007 2:22 PM:

"either they rule against bush, which would be his death knell, of they rule for him, which would remind the public that the bushies have packed the court with cronies. this would help propel the dems back into the WH next year. that is ALL that matters now, cos the choice of the next 2 or 3 supreme justices cannot be in the hands of the rightists or we will indeed have lost a whole new generation to this crooks." - eyeball @ 1:52

I'm trying not to be too pessimistic about it, but it seems to me that the next generation has **already** been lost to the conservative court. The two oldest members of the Supreme Court are Stevens and Ginsburg, meaning that even if the future Presidents appoint judges with similar views, the Court's current conservative bias will only be maintained.

As far as the public being reminded that "the bushies have packed the court with cronies", if they haven't realized it after a year under the Roberts court, I doubt they ever will.

Steve5117 wrote on July 8, 2007 2:26 PM:

Overwhelming evidence of the fear building in republican circles can be seen with the trolls posting here today.

I just love that their leader is such a loser. Bush is cementing his own legacy as the worst president in this nations history. Just imagine being an asshole for eternity!

breakspear wrote on July 8, 2007 2:26 PM:

How 'bout that Fielding?!? Working for two criminal presidencies. Well, some people do need a career path. His was set with nixon.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 8, 2007 2:32 PM:

Eyeball...
So what you are saying is that if the Dems get back the presidency AND the congress AND the senate, they will begin to pass some laws which will protect us from the bad guys in office. I see the results of the "good guys" taking congress already. Remember the ethics reforms the democrat mob said they'd straighten out? It's not the republican mob stopping them. The democrat mob members themselves are fighting it. Did the democrat mob bother looking at the new republican mob laws concerning attorney appointees before they signed them? No, they were too busy going to the nightly parties and fundraisers to bother with a little thing like taking care of business.

When the republican mob decided to attack Iraq, did the democrat mob even bother to look at the info before signing off? No, they were too busy finding lobbiests to cater to them.

I'm tired of having mobs lead our country. I believe I DO look at the bigger picture, and until we begin punishing these clowns with the punishments they DESERVE, and firing ALL the mob members, both republican and democrat who are continuing to relieve us of our democracy, I believe we are just "rooting for our team", neglecting the reality that BOTH parties are destroying our country.

Of course, this is just IMHO... and not personal.

Matt Rose wrote on July 8, 2007 2:42 PM:

I think it is time for the Legislature to pass a law specifically exempting these witnesses from obligation to follow any orders given by this White House.

Given the track record of this administration the law should also protect the witnesses from prosecution, extra-judicial detention, or other punitive actions of this Administration.

eyeball wrote on July 8, 2007 3:16 PM:

i would love to see a 3d party emerge that would fundamentally un-mob washington deep into the future. but that is just unlikely under our current structure, we are at the 'pick your poison' phase and by objective measure the new liberal-progressive-democratic-rockefeller-republican majority that is finally forming a hardened front against this shrinking neocon-fundamentalist-murdochian fringe is all we have. i invite a true thrid-way leader to come forward and even form a centrist party -- but that is a lengthy proceess and the risk to leaving the choices on the iraq war, foreign policy toward the islamic world and new supreme court justices in the hands of a repub admin is too scary to contemplate. just because things are bad doesnt mean we should throw up our hands and decide, well, they can only get worse, so what's the point. hell, start a 3d party. but never forget what we have learned: just how much incredible longterm damage can be done to our nation in just 6 short years when the white house is in the hands of crooks, liars and arrogant incompetents.

OCPatriot wrote on July 8, 2007 3:57 PM:

Will somebody please explain to me why the Congress doesn't just send a passel of armed marshals armed wuith the subpoenas to the White House to retrieve the documents in question? That is, I always thought, the way someone reacts after a legitimate subpoena is served and ignored. No one goes to the Court again and re-pleads the issue. That is the victims' way; the powerless way. Leahy and the rest are in effect saying we in Congress may be wrong; we may have overstepped our bounds; please, Supreme Court, side with us. This shows just how spineless these politicians are. Let the White House go to the Supreme Court, if it wishes, but only after it has forcibly retrained U.S. Marshals from doing their legal duty.

Jordan wrote on July 8, 2007 4:24 PM:

OCPatriot,

I 100% agree.

Mountain Dem wrote on July 8, 2007 4:31 PM:

My question is, is there a difference between subpoenas issued during an impeachment investigation and subpoenas merely issued during "oversight" proceedings?

My understanding is that there is a significant difference, one recognized by the courts. Because impeachment is an enumerated power (rather than the implied power of "oversight" that rests on the power to impeach), claims of executive privilege must yield before it. In other words, if Congress says it has reason to believe that the President should be removed because of the conduct or result of deliberations in the executive branch, then the administration has no choice but to give up information about those deliberations.

I believe the SCOTUS's opinion on just that question is what forced Nixon to hand over the tapes.

So what's the downside of impeaching Gonzales at this point - or even of just beginning hearings on a bill of impeachment on Gonzales (or Cheney, or even Bush)? Congress says: "we have the right to remove Gonzales from office. We need to know if we should exercise that right. And the Supreme Court has already said that we have no practical limitations on the exercise of that right." What does Bush say in reply? "I deserve more privileges than Nixon"? I'd like to see him try that.

This administration has done all it can to limit Congress to its expressed powers and expand its own implied powers beyond recognition. So thanks to Bush, Congress has no other choice.

Slippery Slope wrote on July 8, 2007 4:36 PM:

This meme of “don't look back” regardless the level of outrageous Constitutional violations and disregard for the Rule of Law is a load of crap.
It seems the norm now for public officials to simply resign and think all is well. And the, Oh, he/she is out of office now, there's no harm, look forward is equally ridiculous.

Continued pursuit and prosecution of this administration’s historic malfeasance beyond January, 2009 is not a matter of retribution. That line of argument would turn our system of judicial punishment as a deterrent on its head. And for those that are culpable in the lawlessness of this administration it leaves open the door for future crimes.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 4:52 PM:

We need an attack dog to deal with these criminals and Leahy is not cut out for it. He and Arlen seem more concerned with keeping each other happy. Leahy should have stopped playing along with White House's obvious stall tactics long ago. This administration see themselves as all powerful. Leahy, you've let the American people down at a time when we really needed you to step up. Damn.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 4:58 PM:

At this point it looks like BushCo is just making shit up as they go along- trying to outdo themselves when it comes to new ways of telling Leahy to go fuck himself. I can see them taking about 30 seconds to reject Leahys latest request and having a big laugh as they do it. They control the courts. They are all powerful. Leahy seems incapable of grasping that the rules change when you have a fanatical megalomaniac like Cheney in power.

jackrabbit wrote on July 8, 2007 5:24 PM:

In a nutshell:
The Cheney administration will not do anything Congress asks till they are willing to impeach.

Bush/Cheney are bullies and will not stop pushing until congress pushes back.

The administrations disregard for Law has to be exposed in the clearest of language. These people are royalist and anarchists.

osamabinforgotten wrote on July 8, 2007 6:05 PM:

OCPatriot is correct. If congress is stalled by Bush'es refusal-let the marshalls handle it. Remember the words to support the constitution against all enemies foriegn and DOMESTIC. The government of We the people, for the People and by the people is in the hands of congress, and they have a duty to the people. You can save this mess for the next administration, or get a spine(a little backbone) and proceed. WE need heros to stop these decievers, before the $ implodes and we have to eat our pets to survive.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 6:42 PM:

Did I read this round of subpoenas right: That current and former WH Counsel are the targets of the investigation? Wow, so that means legal counsel who are reading this board, and may be linked with the GOP, DoJ, WH, and EOP, or OVP indirectly could be the targets of this investigation.

How does it feel lawyers to be facing subpoena:

- Do you enjoy spending your time responding?

- Do you like the fact that the EOP Staff counsel are not responding, but you are forced to spend time reacting to Congress?

- How does it feel to know that congress is focused at you, and that you are the target of a Congressional subpoena?

- How does that feel: Knowing you have to spend time, away form your family, thinking about issues which the Congress will not directly confront the President?

- Wouldn't you rather the Congress spend it's time impeaching the President, than going after you; or do you like the idea that the Congress is going to review you?

- Ever wondered how many IP-related data sets the Congress has reviewed before they start asking about your trips, comments on websites about your vehicles, or the IM messages you've been sending?

- Did you think it would come to this: That the IP numbers you were using at your law offices would be linked with the EOP, DoJ Staff counsel, and others involved with FISA Violations?

- How does it feel to think you were promised anonymity, and you cooperated with the illegal activity; but now, the Congress is looking at your e-mail, website surfing activity, the people you are calling, and the content of the e-mails related to your travel, expenses for cars, and the trips you made with your legal peers to the conferences?

- Did it occur to you that your online electronic data would have been linked affirmatively with the specific DC Metro Area sports facilities where the DOJ Staff were meeting; and that the grand jury knows the IP Numbers you use; and its known which non-official websites you visited?

Here's a hint: When you stop your BS about "privilege" maybe we'll get some straight answers: Why did you Destroy data in a file system that was supposed to have enjoyed privilege? Makes no sense.

Very naughty to use your law firm's computers to Post information about the various legal issues; but pretend that the issues are privileged. No, your error was to use your computer. Your IP numbers are locked. Libby's counsel was worried about what the Grand Jury had access to.

It looks like your claims of privilege are dubious. If you really believed privilege would work as a shield, you would never have approved the document destruction. Very bad timing. Uncompelling. far below what the public should reasonably expect of counsel. Arguably reckless.

The same system NSA uses to intrude into America's lives is after you. How does that feel?

What's it like to argue in an editorial that you are 'for" state secrets; but those documents that were supposed to have enjoyed protection, were not protectable: They were known to other counsel to be related to illegal activity. NO wonder they asked you to write an editorial: They were using you to argue for something they -- by their conduct -- could not justify.

Think of that: While you were asserting a claim of privilege for documents, behind their back, the goods with the EOP-WH-DOJ-OVP were destroying the very documents that they knew could not be protected by the privilege claims you were making. Did it occur to you that you were being used; or did you volunteer to write the editorial and not ask any questions bout the e-mails that were being destroyed?

Kind of funny to ask for a shield for something that was "to be protected," yet you were involved with something that was destroying the very things that were supposed to never see the light of day. Really makes one wonder whether you really "believed" the document would never see the light of day; or whether, despite that 'belief" you knew the document could see the light of day, and that is what prompted you and others to destroy the documents.

Looks that way. That's why the legal profession remains a cess pool: YOu have permittted this non-sense: Destruction of things that you would have us believe should have enjoyed protection. Your arguments make no sense. Your profession appears to be a cess pool. How does it feel to realize that the Grand Jury can review this, and you have no power to prevent them from making adverse inferences about your IP number: Forever hunted, alleged war crimials, complicity with evidence desturtion, linked with war crimes; forever rebuked becuse of your complicity with prisoner abuse, FISA violations, and illegal activity.

What's it like to be in a profession like that, working in that profession, going to work day to day knowing your profession has permitted this stench to spread?

It's on the internet. Everyone's talking about. How does that feel?

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 6:54 PM:

Too bad it would require a set of big brass balls for the Congress to do this, eh? Wouldn't be nice if we electrealdemocarts.com ?

Posted by: Met00
Date: July 8, 2007 12:48 PM

Democratic due process of law is not "big brass balls". Grow up.

Me_again wrote on July 8, 2007 7:03 PM:

If Bush won't play ball - what you gon'a do??

Dems need to stop dragging their feet and file comtempt charges - head to the courts - and I'm sure the press will scream the words “constitutional crisis” in an attempt to play Whitehouse damage control, teaming up with Tony Snow and his snow jobs but its got to be done unless Dems want to pretend that would somehow be akin to destroy the US Constitution too.

We are all aware this is not the Warren court but nonetheless we all know the difference between strict reconstructionist or Grade A partisan pandering. I’m curious what kind of torture bullshit we’ll get from another extremely partisan horrible split court - it should tell volumns what kind of Gonzales type of Attorney Chief Jusitce Roberts really is.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 7:04 PM:

Unfortunately, I think Punchy is right; we are going to have to ride this sucker out til 09.

Posted by: p-owed
Date: July 8, 2007 1:07 PM

54 per cent want Cheney impeached. 45 want Bushit impeached. 21 Republican Senators face re-eelection; and House Republicans are faring no better. By September-October-November, the impeachment numbers for Bushit will be over 50 per cent. And the Republicans are going to be falling all over themselves and each other in favor of being re-elected rather than in favor of going down with Bushit.

Let's see Bushit appeal to the Judiciary to quash Congress' subpoenas. He'll lose. And if that is reversed by the SC -- I don't see that hapenming -- the scandal begins to reach and encompass the Bushit appointees in the Judiciary.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 7:16 PM:

". . . . Do the Democrats really misunderstand whom they're dealing with this completely?"

No, they do not misunderstand. The problem is that you misunderstand the maning of democratic due process of law. You misunderstand the meaning of hypocrisy. You hate the Republicans because they are uncivil. And you bash the Democrats because they refuse to be uncivil.

Grow up. And smarten up: Congress obviously knows a whole lot more about the all of it than do you.

". . . . Do they actually believe that a man like Dick Cheney cares about "statements" and "strongly-worded letters" from Congress?"

Those "statements" and "strongly-worded letters" are legal docuents, and part of a legal process. They are not for the benefit of Dick cheney -- or for you. "A system of laws, and not of men" -- John Adams. The law -- not Cheney, not you -- is to be satisfied.

"Nobody has stopped or even slightly impeded Cheney in his mad crusade and nobody will until the Democrats divest themselves of the fantasy that Cheney's White House cares about subpoenas, statements, public opinion?"

What matters is democratic due process of law. It is stupid to believe that the Democrats are stupid; a fantasy to believe they are encumbered by fantasy.

"No piece of paper or speech is going to stop Dick Cheney. National Guardsmen (and women) with uniforms and guns must physically enter his office and make him hand over the material we need."

Thankfully, we are a nation of laws, not of presumptuous bullies and thugs who falsely believe that they only way to do anything is to be a bully and a thug.

Though eh didn't go as far, Nixon did the same things. There was no need to send in the military then; and it is unlikely to be necessary this time. So why do you urge the destructiveness of that which sets a banana republic precedent of military coups substituting for due process of law and Constitutional requirements?

Posted by: Jordan
Date: July 8, 2007 1:15 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 7:21 PM:

RE: Supreme Court

If this makes it to the Supreme Court, it'll be the same situation as always: the same 4 vs. the same 4, with Kennedy as the swing vote.

Kennedy's made the right decision a few times this year, so maybe he can do it again. If the Court ends up siding with the Bush administration yet again, 5-4, I suppose there will be a lot of anger on one side, while the majority of Americans who can't name a single member of the Supreme Court will hardly care or notice.

Posted by: Z S
Date: July 8, 2007 1:18 PM

You being one of those who will hardly care or notice --

54 per cent want Cheney impeached. 45 per cent want Bushit impeached. Those numbers will go up, not down. Precisely because most US citizens who are adults are watching what is going on.

I wonder who hates our system of law more: Bushit, et al., or those who both bash the Democrats and their following of democratic due process of law, and call the Democrats names because the Republicans are foot-dragging and obstructing.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 7:43 PM:

There you go again, urging wishful thinking as being the law --

"The WH Counsel's reckless condcut is at odds with a reasonable expectation they should have had that teh documents were going to be shielded."

As the Canon's make clear, a lawyer is to represent his client zealously, in accordance with legal theories which have a chance of prevailing. Executive privilege is a legitimate claim, and has been held by the courts as being so. The issue in this case, as in most prior, is the scope of the privilege. If Fielding can distinguish this case's fact pattern from those of prior holdings on the question, then he is obliged to do so as a matter of ethics.

". . . . Rather, the failure to retain documents means adverse inferences may be made: . . . ."

Those "adverse inferences" must be supported by more than wishful thinking an unevidenced assertion. Moreover, the documents in question are not at this time known to have been destroyed (nor is there yet proof that the emails that were "destroyed" were actually destroyed. Rather, as no assertion has been made that the documents Congress seeks don't exist -- thus there is nothing to provide in those regards in response to the subpoenas -- the clear inference is that they do exist. Thus the claim that they are protected from disclosure by the Privilege.

". . . . Legal counsel was complicit with illegal warfare, FISA violations, Rendition, and prisoner abuse."

Beyond a stretch to ludicrous. When a person is held in contempt of court, his lawyer is not, because his lawyer is not a principle or defendant. And because the lawyer advises the client, but does not determine how the client will use the advise in making his decision.

"All former and current legal counsel assigned to the WH appear to have recklessly failed to ensure the documents were retained in the legal databases."

None of that is true. The Committees leter with the subpoenas clearly and finely describe the specific documents they demand; there is nothing vague about it. The response is not, "Those douments don't exist"; it is, "They are protected by the Privilege," and includes the express refusal to supply a log -- a listing of each document, with summaries of their contents, and why each is exempt from disclosure. The refusal to supply the log does not mean the log doesn't exist, for whatever "reason" your bias prefers to conclude; it does exist; it is simply that the claim is made that the Privilege allows withholding even that.

"The creation of the separate databases and the e-mail destruction may be entered into evidence: Basis for war crimes, witness tampering, obstruction of judice, and dubious claims of privilege."

That is simply shit stupidity masquerading as "law". There is no hard evidence that anything has been destroyed; there is verbal assertion concerning emails -- some of which have been subsequently found to exist. And none of any of that has anything to do with lawyer "recklessness" or other misconduct.

"These are issues of international criminal law."

If we accept your premise -- which is an imagined up, unevidenced speculation.

"The current subpoeans attach to current and former WH, EOP, DOJ, OVP legal cousnel in re RNC e-amikl destruction, and their alleged complicity with war crimes."

The current subpoenas "attach" to nothing of the kind. They seek specific, expressly identified documents concerning highly specific questions and sets of facts. They are essentially discovery effort to determine specifically what documents exist which are on point, beginning with the log -- an "Index" with brief decriptive annotations for each entry.

"The Fielding refusal to provide the legally required justiifcation to withhold evidence may be entered into evidence as reckless conduct in defiance of Conduct; and the DC Bar may review this conduct in light of legal requirements to fully comply."

It is nothing of the kind. The Canons are dlear: they are about representing the client zealously, and the affirmations and exceptions which apply to do that. If the lawyer's theory of the case is arguably legitimate -- that the documents within the scope of the Privilege -- then there is no ethical violation by the lawyer. You'd understand that if you were a defendant in a case and had a lawyer handling your defense.

"There is no basis for legal counsel in the WH to assert that they "believed" the Exeuctive Privilege would hide any and all documents: Had that "belief" been bonafide, outside counsel and formely assigned counsel would not have commented on the very WH IT systems that were, when they were in the WH Counsel's office, thwarted, not used, blocked, circumvented, and had evidence destroyed."

Hogwash.

"The claim of privilege is dubious crossing into FISA violatoins, RNC e-mails, US Atty Firings, prisoner abuse, GEneva violations, and other violations of the Supreme Law."

Hogwash.

"We reject the claim that privilege beliefs were real. If the privilege was expected to survive, tehre would have been no reason to destroy any e-mails. Conduct is at odds with current legal filings and statements to Congress."

So you imagine yourself a lawyer making a stunning closing argument to the jury, and winning the case on absolutely every point at issue. You're an ego-tripping ass not qualified to act out such a fantasy. As noted above.

Posted by:
Date: July 8, 2007 1:31 PM

Pro Bushit Troll wrote on July 8, 2007 7:48 PM:

Leahy is made to look impotent yet again.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 7:52 PM:

". . . . i bow to no one in my disgust for the bushies or my desire to see them hauled off to jail. but that process is a political one -- the public has to harden behind it."

Putting someone in jail may be a political process for Bushitters; but for the majority it is a legal procedure. Law and politics are not the same thing -- except for Bushitters.

". . . . this would help propel the dems back into the WH next year. that is ALL that matters now, . . . ."

Restoring the rule of law -- which is not the same as politics -- is paramount.

"pls understand that the public craves a strong political rallying point . . . ."

Who elected you to tell everyone what "the public craves"?

"pls recall if you are young that the dems are legendary for hapless infighting and an inability to coalesce when the moment comes."

The exact opposite happened during Watergate. In other words, your assertion is the same old tired horseshit used to bash Democrats because they refuse to be assholes.

"avengerism."

Enforcing the rule of law is "avengerism"? Let us guess: your name is Bushit-Cheney.

Posted by: eyeball
Date: July 8, 2007 1:52 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 7:57 PM:

"This is all politics . . . ."

Subpoenas are legal instruments -- not politics. The rule of law is not politics. Enforcing the rule of law is not politics.

Posted by: dee illuminati
Date: July 8, 2007 1:53 PM

TheraP wrote on July 8, 2007 7:58 PM:

eyeball - glad someone has their eye on the ball! I enjoyed your posts.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 8:00 PM:

Rather than "letting" Congress and POTUS battle eachother at the Federal level, let's broaden the engagement: State AGs may lawfully prosecute a sitting President.

It doesn't matter if it will succee: Make DOJ defend the President and explain why it cannot work.

Sitting Presidents may be prosecuted outside Congress and Outside impeachment. By expanding the lawsuits, this will ensure the WH has more problems to deal with. Congress refsues to impeach. Time for the STates to act on Amendment X and assert the power that was not delegated to Congress: Prosecutions of Sitting Presidents outside Congress outside impeachment.

Contact your State AGs this Monday to encourage them to prosecute this sitting President. Share with your friends.

Posted by:
Date: July 8, 2007 2:02 PM

BS.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 8:08 PM:

"Bush keeps playing hardball and Congress keeps playing pattycake, as usual."

Democratic due process of law is not "pattycake".

". . . . Pelosi put impeachment "off the table," . . . ."

Quite properly, for several reasons, even though you view ethics and rule of law as being "pattycake" --

1. Third in line for the presidency is the Speaker of the House. Pelosi is Speaker of the House. She is the _LAST_ person who should be initiating impeachment.

2. In order to impeach there must be sufficient votes to do so. Thus far, the Democrats don't have sufficient votes because of REPUBLICAN foot-dragging and obstruction.

3. In order to remove there must be sufficient votes in the Senate. The Democratic "majority" in the Senate is essentially an illusion.

I won't apologize for bothering you with the facts and realities. Politics is the art of the possible -- not of the tantrum.

". . . . Reid is a pussy."

Reid is a lawyer and a successful former prosecutor. I'll bet he knows more about law, and what is possible legally, and politically, than do you.

"Serously. My god, the Democrats are SUCH LOSERS!!"

You hate the Republicans because they are uncivil. And you hate the Democrats because they refuse to be uncivil. Grow up.

Posted by: Newt
Date: July 8, 2007 2:07 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 8:14 PM:

I think it is time for the Legislature to pass a law specifically exempting these witnesses from obligation to follow any orders given by this White House.

Given the track record of this administration the law should also protect the witnesses from prosecution, extra-judicial detention, or other punitive actions of this Administration.

Posted by: Matt Rose
Date: July 8, 2007 2:42 PM

Yeah, that's the ticket. Bushit would sign that law in a heartbeat.

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 8:20 PM:

Will somebody please explain to me why the Congress doesn't just send a passel of armed marshals armed wuith the subpoenas to the White House to retrieve the documents in question? . . . .

Posted by: OCPatriot
Date: July 8, 2007 3:57 PM

Gee, ya think it might have something to do with voting and all that "patriotic" sorta stuff? You know, the Republican foot-draggers who have vowed to obstruct, and obstruct, and obstruct?

What we need is more, not fewer, bullies and short-circuitings of the rule of law; now _that_ would be "patriotic"!

JNagarya wrote on July 8, 2007 8:24 PM:

We need an attack dog to deal with these criminals and Leahy is not cut out for it. He and Arlen seem more concerned with keeping each other happy. Leahy should have stopped playing along with White House's obvious stall tactics long ago. This administration see themselves as all powerful. Leahy, you've let the American people down at a time when we really needed you to step up. Damn.

Posted by:
Date: July 8, 2007 4:52 PM

Why do you hate the rule of law?

trigger wrote on July 8, 2007 9:31 PM:

"Let's see Bushit appeal to the Judiciary to quash Congress' subpoenas. He'll lose. And if that is reversed by the SC -- I don't see that hapenming -- the scandal begins to reach and encompass the Bushit appointees in the Judiciary."
Posted by: JNagarya

How do you see Bush losing the subpoena battle in the Courts? And who do you see investigating a hypothetical judicial appointment scandal? The Dept of Justice? Maybe the SJC could hold hearings, and subpoena the WH about its judicial appointees? See where this goes?

Even if Bush doesn't win in the courts, the Admin wants to drag this out until the '08 campaign is in full swing. Once that starts, the GOP/Media Machine will portray any investigation as a politically motivated witch-hunt; the typically cautious and timid Democratic strategists will be fearful of this negative spin, and will push to abandon the hearings.

House impeachment hearings need to start soon, or they won't happen at all. It doesn't matter that the votes in the Senate to convict aren't there. House impeachment is an investigation into the need for an indictment. House impeachment powers obviate the exec. priv. stonewalling. House impeachment is the sure to get to the bottom of any of the various scandals (which, ultimately, are one), and will expose these crimes in a way which the media and public could no longer ignore.

You're right about the % favoring impeachment increasing, and once the hearings start, the % favoring impeachment will swell, just like during Watergate.

Start with Gonzo and the USAGs, or with Cheney and Plame. Either way, we wind up with a legal unraveling of the largest criminal operation in American history. Once the threads start coming apart, all the rest will come undone: voter intimidation, election fraud, politicization of justice, fabricated intel to start a war, treasonous outing of a spy during wartime, illegal domestic wiretaps (for political purposes?!?) - not to mention the usual banal graft and corruption.

If ever impeachment has been called for in our nation's history, now is that time.

Morally, legally, tactically, strategically.....impeachment now.

Anonymous wrote on July 8, 2007 9:42 PM:

Curious legal counsel would destroy something that was supposed to have been covered by privilege. Makes one wonder: What information, and from whom, did WH legal counsel get to justify [in their mind] destroying the very thing that was supposed to have been shielded.

It doesn't add up: Claiming privilege for something that was destroyed. The reason for the destruction appears linked with a concern the shield would fail; and the evidence would be [wait for it] . . . fatal to the President's legal defense.
What is it like to work in a legal profession that has people who [a] assert privilege for things that are [b] supposed to be protected; but then contradicted yourselves by [c] destroying the very thing that was supposed to have been [d] protected.

Share with us: What is it like to work in a profession that thinks that that is "OK" or "normal": I'd really like to hear the "thinking" that goes on inside the minds of the current and former white house counsel.

- Do you think that it is "OK" to pretend that you "believe" something, even though your actions -- the destruction of that information -- belies your assertion that the information deserves protection?

- Is it "OK" to claim a shield for evidence you want to destroy because of its illegal nature; but when it comes to the public, you reverse yourself and say you have a superior right to review other people's information?

- What was your "big plan" in the legal community and profession when it was clear that the WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff counsel were recklessly destroying evidence that was supposed to be protected and enjoy an eternal shield?

- Who kept a log of all the information -- while it was being destroyed -- as required under 32 CFR 2800?

- What is it like to work in a legal community and profession that explains away the above; refuses to take action; and pretends that you -- being in the "legal profession" -- are worth taking seriously; yet, your conduct and lack of professionalism belie any reasonable public respect for you, your peers, or those who are wandering the EOP-OVP-DoJ-WH Staff counsel's office?

- What is it like to work in the White House-EOP-OVP-DOJ staff counsel's office, knowing that your peers have used computers for non-official purposes; but someone under oath at a depositing before Waxman claims they "didn't know" of any improper use of computers?

- How does the DOJ-OVP-EOP-WH counsel's office explain their computers being used to access non-official information; and the specific IP numbers of the legal counsel connected to those non-official sites; yet the US government policies across the agencies prohibit the use of official government computers for non-official business?

- How's the online gambling going in the OSD area?

- What as SECDEF's response when he learned that OSD Computers were connected with sites that were being used in conjunction with online gambling; did the DoD IG make a "really fast" or "somewhat fast" report of that improper OSD Staff use of the OSD Computers for gambling related objectives?

sc: "regret": We the Peole regret to inform you your profession is losing more credibility. Why do you hate your legal profession, WH-EOP-OSD-DoJ-OVP legal counsel?

The vultures are circling.

molly wrote on July 8, 2007 10:38 PM:

the world is not safe with bush and cheney out of jail.

Bob wrote on July 8, 2007 10:51 PM:

Statutory proceedings for Contempt of Congress

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalties are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiated the contempt citation has expired.

The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. While the law pronounces the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, dispute exists over whether the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)

chuck wrote on July 8, 2007 11:02 PM:

I realize there’s significant anger out there and impatience to be done with it and hurl perceived miscreants into jail or at least out of office. As with any application of law, it’s necessary to build a case. Witnesses are required. In this matter, witnesses are hard to come by, especially since there’s a claim of privilege over the information being sought and critical witnesses appear willing to obstruct.

One of the more difficult things here is to state what precise crimes were committed and by whom. There are reasonable inferences which can be drawn by certain facts and behaviors. The evidence we have is largely circumstantial. We have several facts; one is the fact of the release of information in violation of statutes, such release being a crime. This is the so-called “Plame leak.” That the information was protected by law is indisputable since the government has authoritatively stated that this is so. We also have indirect evidence that Bush also believed that the leak may have been criminal in nature in his statements, depending on your interpretation of the words he spoke with regard to anybody in his administration involved in the leak, “they’ll be taken care of [sic]”.

No one was tried for that leak. The government made its case that the crime could not be prosecuted for that leak due to the obstruction of Scooter Libby and he was duly convicted for that crime. That he was not the only person who leaked the information is beside the point. It has been inferred by the prosecutor and others that further prosecutions might have been possible had it not been for the obstruction by Libby. Any theory of the involved crimes would presuppose that Libby wasn’t lying for the fun of it, or merely to avoid embarrassment. Any theory would have to assume that his crime was obtained at the direction of others superior to him, particularly in light of the evidence that those others expressed significant interest in, if not outrage at, the appearance of the Wilson Op-Ed article. Necessarily, this would be either or both of the two individuals to which Libby reported, who happen to be the Vice President and President of the United States. Libby’s obstruction frustrated the investigation of whether a crime was committed and by whom. I leave it to you to drawn reasonable inferences as to what you think went on and why, and especially in light of the commutation of the sentence of Libby and the expectation that, at some point, a pardon will indeed be proffered.

What we know now is that the White House is asserting Executive Privilege over a whole range of activities that are being investigated under Congressional power to exercise oversight of the Executive. To the extent that those investigations lead to behaviors which might be considered actionable under the Constitution’s provision for impeachment, Executive Privilege cannot withstand, since there is no privilege for misbehavior by any executive officer. Or so we might expect the respective judiciary committees to argue.

Does this present a constitutional crisis? Potentially, it does, but certainly none for which the Constitution was not adequately framed. There is, as has been well-stated here, a process that needs to be followed. In everything going on, we see the methodical gathering of information and the search for more, based on what has already been gathered and reasonable theories of what additional information should be sought. Some prosecutions take years; let us hope that this will not take as long.

Some are worried that the “fix is already in” with respect to how the courts might rule. Reasonable interpretations of prior decisions would lead to a belief that absolute and unqualified assertions of executive privilege fail. Were it otherwise, the constitutional provision for impeachment would always beyond reach when the target is the President. The Congress needs to present a case and the assertion should fall. In this case, all the executive has provided is an assertion. Something more substantial will be required. The indication that Fielding will decline to provide further substantiation of the claim of executive privilege only adds to the supposition that there is indeed an improper basis for the assertion. As we know from the Nixon case, delay is part of the strategy and ground is always yielded grudgingly and not one second before one is required to step backward. As an example of consequences, one only has to look at the case of Libby where the crime of the improper revelation, which could always have been explained away as a mistake or misunderstanding, is replaced with the rather serious crime of obstruction of justice. With Nixon, the third-rate burglary was replaced by the cover-up.

This is a serious business. As with good cooking, it takes time.

trigger wrote on July 8, 2007 11:33 PM:

Chuck, the case HAS been built, and witnesses HAVE been called. Subpoena Fitz and begin the House impeachment inquiry. We don't have much time; by the time the primaries start, it will be too late to start new hearings.

I have confidence in Leahy, Waxman, and Conyers; Reid and Pelosi I'm so sure about....

If House impeachment hearings into Gonzo and Dick haven't begun by the end of this fall, they won't happen at all, and the perps -- all of them -- will walk.

steambomb wrote on July 9, 2007 12:04 AM:

correct me if I am wrong here. Isn't directing "former" aides rather than "current" aides not to testify supposedly due to EP, is that not obstruction of justice?

Deborah wrote on July 9, 2007 12:22 AM:

Cheney: Arrghh...I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means no.

How long are we going to let these pirates stay in office? When do we start the next American Revolution? I'm about tired of this shiat. I want my Democratic Republic back. Now.

Cheney, Bush, and Rove: Don't Tread on Us.

Al in Austex wrote on July 9, 2007 5:55 AM:

To those lurking trolls - Leahy & Schumer are plenty tough enough for this fight. Pelosi is actively working behind the scene to push Impeachment. Chuck is right this is like cooking -it takes time . We just finished browning up the roux, the fresh shrimp have just been added, and we are just now fixing to put in the unthawed venison cutlet chunks from this winter's deer camp cookout . Now we just let that ol cast iron dutch oven simmer on these fine glowing coals- Hmmm its starting to smell good ! Hey Jake you want your Impeachment Gumbo with or without Okra ?
( I live in Texas, but I still know my way back to Zwolle ).

4RP08 wrote on July 9, 2007 8:23 AM:

Well, another reason to vote for honesty, truth and giving America back to it's people by voting Ron Paul in '08.

irina wrote on July 9, 2007 10:22 AM:

Senator Shuemer is a super hawk on Israel and an arch liberal on everything else.

I keep wondering if Shuemer was part and parcel to taking Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty out. (McNulty involved in the investiation and prosecution of the A*P*C Rosen espionage trial that has been delayed 7 times)

Why is it that so many the so called liberals take a sharp turn to the far “right”(wrong) on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

eyeball wrote on July 9, 2007 2:01 PM:

angry guy:

when it comes to dealing with inestigations btw the congress and white house, law and politics are indeed virtually the same thing. you cannot press ahead with a sweeping probe of the white house by a congress of the other party UNLESS politics comes into play. why? because every congress can throw subpoenas at every white house. the public has the final say on whether its proper. in the clinton impeachment, there was no political groundswell, and thus if flopped. in the bush mess, a groundswell could grow but it has to be handled with care -- the minute the congress overreaches the enemy will pounce. the dems cannot risk losing public opinion on this one. try to tame your borderline insane rhetoric and think strategically. bloodlust is unhealthy. i suggest you read madison and hamilton in the federalist papers -- they understood full well that the process of bringing an out of control white house and executive to heel is a POLITICAL one. it's all there if you care to study up. i'm a little at a loss to understand how anything i say makes me a bush fan, since it's pretty clear i loathe him and his administration on levels you can't begin to understand. i just want them eradicated root, branch and all. yes it requires aggressiveness but also time and patience. now i realize this will just prompt another shrieking, incoherent rejoinder from you so go ahead. but you are doing nothing to aid the cause of bush eradication by being a rabid douchebag. leave rabid douchebaggery to the kristols, hannitys, cheneys and so forth. try to think like a growup.