Comments (28)

gcs wrote on July 9, 2007 11:16 AM:

ADVICE TO THE DEMOCRATS:

"But if the White House has nothing to hide, I don't see what the problem is..."

REPEAT AD NAUSEUM.

Uncle Don wrote on July 9, 2007 11:17 AM:

How can Bush invoke privilege for Ms. Taylor in view of previous White House statements that the president was not involved in the firings of U. S. Attorneys??

How can executive privilege be invoked while the White House offers to make staffers available for off-the-record interviews? Either the privilege exists for good reason or it doesn't.

This stinks and Congress should hit Miers and Taylor with "inherent contempt" charges until they talk.

Rocky Harper wrote on July 9, 2007 11:18 AM:

Now what? It looks like the fix is in. It's a real shame that these low-life crooks might get away.

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 9, 2007 11:18 AM:

Yes, after all, are they not the party of accountability? And how many times did we hear - "if you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to wory about" - from the Republicans?

cds wrote on July 9, 2007 11:21 AM:

Well, since the courts are stacked in their favor now( thanks to the no-show opposition party for the last 3 years), there's no reason not to continue thumbing their noses at congressional subpoenas.
This is turning into a three-ring circus; and the media assists in creating all the noise and confusion. It's discouraging.

jolly ranchero wrote on July 9, 2007 11:21 AM:

Man...I've been a rare Dem that's resisted this for a long, long time....not seeing any benefit, not seeing any cogent need...but this breaks me completely.

Impeach this bastard. Please.

jolie wrote on July 9, 2007 11:27 AM:

the link to the fielding letter sends me to the WSH article, not to the TPM doc archive.

Gandhi wrote on July 9, 2007 11:27 AM:

And, don't forget, Bush is not happy about the Democrats' politicizing his abuse of the legal system.

He should realize that, once it's January of 2009, he can't protect anybody including himself.
There will be investigations in 2009.

jolie wrote on July 9, 2007 11:29 AM:

the link to the fielding letters goes to the WSJ article, not to TPM's document archive ....

C92 wrote on July 9, 2007 11:30 AM:

I believe Bush's quote was "if the person has violated the law, that person will be taken care of."

Can we not all agree that Scooter Libby was "taken care of?"

rabbit wrote on July 9, 2007 11:33 AM:

It doesn't matter whether they have anything to hide: that's why the argument "if you have nothing to hide, why not testify?" doesn't touch them. Though it might touch some voters.

The rule of thumb is that the power of the executive branch (and the vice presidential shadow branch) must be brazenly expanded at all costs. Giving in on anything is showing weakness, which must not be allowed. Brazenness was their source of strength for 5+ years, but eventually it might prove a weakness.

pj in jesusland wrote on July 9, 2007 11:43 AM:

Because of poor management skills, poor judgment and a natural tendency toward secrecy Bush has put himself, his administration, his party and his legacy in a very tenuous position.

Anything he says now that sounds like confidence is just bluff and bluster. The President is flailing in legal quicksand and sinking slowly but steadily.

Frank wrote on July 9, 2007 11:43 AM:

Our dem controlled congress is inept, not realizing the historic implications of not taking action to impeach this Bush/Cheney cabal now.

I have to believe that after this administration releases the reigns of government, world opinion will cry for criminal proceedings against Bush/Cheney. If our congress won't move, the world courts will,with the masses invoking Numremburg precedent.

Through default, our congress is thumbing its noses on that historic event, making it a mockery.

Continued silence is complicity.

P J Evans wrote on July 9, 2007 11:44 AM:

How about issuing a contempt citation to Bush, since he's the one saying they can't testify, no matter what they and their lawyers say or think?

SP wrote on July 9, 2007 11:46 AM:

The reason for the "off the record" part is because even not under oath, it's still illegal to lie to Congress, but no record means no proof means no prosecution.
So you know what? Accept all these off the record offers, and just sneak a damn tape recorder into all of them. What, are they going to complain that it was unfair of the tricksy Democrats?

Steve5117 wrote on July 9, 2007 11:57 AM:

Frank
Date: July 9, 2007 11:43 AM

Take your complaint to congress, especially the Republicans.

DickTater wrote on July 9, 2007 12:02 PM:

Gandhi - that makes a perfectly good excuse for them to gum up or freeze the upcoming elections.

The courts being stacked, the Dems being cowards (job security), and the Repubs who cannot seem to find ANY courage or ANY morals....we are truly screwed. The X factor in all of this is the complicit and corrupt media. That is game, set, match. When basically 9/10 of what the gubberment and cronies DO is illegal and immoral...but nobody reports ANY of it, an already ill-informed public get's rolled.

Face it folks. Corporatists/Capitalists are going to do this everytime. It is an arms race. They have always won, then been slapped back a few steps. Then they figure how to beat the new rules. They keep getting closer to Total Control. And look how they whine when even a modicum of our Governmental time and money get's spent on The People and not grafting into their pockets.

Where has Pelosi been? Was she cowed into the shadows? Because the ReichWing noise machine said nasty things? I'm sorry....I had big hopes for her. She seemed tongue-tied in the few unscripted events, not able to land effective fighting words.
The House seems to be able to pass Dem initiatives (The Senate is where stuff goes to die)
so perhaps Madame P is effective behind the scenes. But her disappearing act is bothering me.
Our only hope is true Americans....Red or Blue will actually do something...even if the press isn't watching

Dorothy wrote on July 9, 2007 12:09 PM:

I think Congress should order a monitoring of all White House communications. Heck, they could probably even get a warrant for it, just to rub it in.

Or maybe they could ask Miers and Taylor to testify to Robert Novak, on double-super-secret background with a transcript taken by decoder ring.
/snark

But where are all the people who jumped to the defense of the warrantless wiretapping, claiming that only evildoers would be interested in hiding their actions?

No privacy for us? No priviledge for them.

Catherine Lincoln wrote on July 9, 2007 12:17 PM:

Why is this not surprising? Boy does The Congress has an uphill battle too. I just heard on NPR that polls show democratic down with swing voters, the people who don't pay attention to what is going on below headlines and apparently expected us to be out of Iraq by now. As the White House stalls for time until the end of the Bush term, and rebuffs every effort with more and more outlandish behavior - the democrats are looking bad because they can't live up to their promises with such a narrow margin. Keep up the noise about Cheney, there is not enough time to get him impeached, and does anyone really believe that the media and pundit-cy will have the nerve to keep it alive in the press with out making it out to be a bunch of nuts? The defeat of the immigration bills made Congress look even worse, for both sides.

theWalrus wrote on July 9, 2007 12:27 PM:

This is very curious. If given the chance, Ms. Taylor would most likely testify in a similar manner as those before her: plausable deniability, inability to recollect important meetings and discussions, lack of uderstanding of law, and disquietingly vague and misleading statements. She's made clear her devotion to the President and administration policies. Ditto for Miers.

Why is the WH claiming Executive Privilege and pushing for a confontation?

The only answer I can think of: they don't believe Congress has the guts to confront. Their hubris and arrogance has taken on monumental proportions. They truly believe they are so far above the law that there is nothing they cannot do.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 9, 2007 12:52 PM:

Once again...
The basis for invoking the privilege is privileged information.
We will, however, allow Harriet to give you her name... as long as she isn't required to tell the truth.

BunBun vonWhiskers wrote on July 9, 2007 12:55 PM:

Remember the overall Bush strategy everybody. Run down the clock until January, 2009, then use the "he's not president anymore" excuse. This is his strategy for Iraq, illegal wrietapping, Attorney Generals, etc. Run down the clock.

Bush is not really trying to keep her from testifying (although he will be thrilled if he can keep it from happeneing), he just knows that invoking executive privilege here buys him at least a month.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 9, 2007 1:05 PM:

The administration may be waiting for the democrats (who really DO accuse them of everything... even if it is farfetched) to make an accusation which cannot be proven... fight it through the channels... then acquiesce to a public hearing. It'll make the democrats look really foolish to the voters, who might then turn support back to the republicans, and admonish the democrats if they continue to accuse...

JM wrote on July 9, 2007 1:43 PM:

Obstruction of Justice?

RW wrote on July 9, 2007 3:08 PM:

I have been thinking about this and asking old mentors and there is no doubt Bush & Co believe they have the ultimate bluff card unless the Democrats do what they are not of character in doing, scorched earth politics. For the Democrats to gain the chek-mate hand they must begin stating they are saving the Constitutional form of government and start making the case.

NSA unauthorized spying
Habeas corpus
obstruction of justice
perjury
abuse of power
lying to Congress
Hatch Act

Contempt is the criminal pathway to forcing a Congressional hand as to a criminal investigation and interrogatories to evidence, (withhold and you are obstructing) and a move to impeach...

Uncle_Meat wrote on July 9, 2007 4:18 PM:

Can someone point me to the part of the constitution that gives the POTUS the right to invoke "executive privilege"?

I don't think it exists..

Impeach. NOW.

Ron Paul '08

parrot wrote on July 9, 2007 5:56 PM:

Executive privilege is a recognized legal term for executive piracy...

peggy wrote on July 19, 2007 6:52 PM:

You are all missing the point: it is not the defiance to assert executive privilege, but what they DONT want to testify about. Seems there is a relationship between almost all of the DOJ fired attorneys:Tenet Health care and medicare fraud.

Yes, Texas, Mo, Ks and Ca ALL had BILLION DOLLAR PER STATE medicare fraud complaints against Tenet and subsidiaries, like Novation. Jeb Bush in Florida had to be aware of those lawsuits. His Atty General also filed a medicare fraud complaint from the evidence Butterworth's office had before 2002. But ALL the states, after the DOJ attys were fired, settled for PENNIES to the dollar in settlements (%7-$22 million) within 90 days of each other.

It should be known there are DEAD DOJ attys in TExas, not just DOJ women investigating Tenet, also Michael Shelby was fired. He did complaints and investigations against El Paso GAS traders (market manipulation), Enron and Arthur Anderson. One month before the trial, he was SHOT IN THE CHEST with a SHOTGUN. Although some of us think that is a joke.

Stay tuned, I think this is a Nixonian month.