Comments (72)

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 11:35 AM:

They've gotta give up something.

-- Hand over Taylor and Miers?
-- Fire Gonzales?
-- Have Rove retire?
-- Pitch Cheney?
-- Withdraw from Iraq?
-- Revoke Scooter's deal?

Some measure of good faith needed, fast!

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 11:36 AM:

Take note: "I have to wonder if the White House’s refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one"

- If you assert a claim of privilege, it needs to be backed up. If you have a problem with this, find a better argument.

"Refual to provide" an effective argument sounds like some cuts and pastes: Unable to articulate an independnet reivew. Rather than daring to assert a comment, spending time using frivolous non-sense to comment on others.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 11:39 AM:

I fully support the Congress sending US Marshalls to the White House to fully support these subpoenas.

Going further, Congress alone has the power to raise and support a militia. I fully support using lawful force -- under the direction of the US Marshals and Capitol Police -- if the President refuses to assent to the rule of law.

If the President wants a showdown, Congress has the full backing of this corner of the blogosphere to use all lawful methods.

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

The dominant meme should be: "What are they hiding?" But the onus on 'em...legalisms don't play with the populace.

JEP wrote on July 9, 2007 11:45 AM:

"marked by a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

That would surely be our most foolish presumption thus far, in light of the obvious contempt this administration has shown towards "goodwill"...

"Goodwill" means "trust" and most of us reading this blog ran out of that back in 2001.

jeffgee wrote on July 9, 2007 11:52 AM:

"Good faith" in this case means that the president has faith that his administration will not cooperate and nothing bad will happen to him for it.
They're gumming this until 1/20/09.
To keep this mean thing in perspective, here's how the GOP did it when they ruled the roost:
"Are we the only ones with political instincts–This whole thing about not kicking someone when they are down is BS – Not only do you kick him – You kick him until he passes out – then beat him over the head with a baseball bat – then roll him up in an old rug – and throw him off a cliff into the pounding surf below!!!!!"
Memo from Mike Scanlon to DeLay assistant Chief of Staff Tony Rudy

Now, THAT'S mean.

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 9, 2007 11:52 AM:

Shorter Fielding: He sez he don't have to do anything y'all want cuz he's the DECIDER!

Even shorter Fielding: Go Cheney yourself!

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 11:53 AM:

Is this what the seeds of revolution look like?

JEP wrote on July 9, 2007 11:54 AM:

PS...If you really want to get mad all over again, watch Bob Greenwald's "Uncovered; The Truth about Iraq" and then IMMEDIATELY read Fielding's letter. That's what happened to me, just by chance. Its a good exercise in weighing Truth. It made me righteously livid all over again, to see Fielding plead for "comity" to our faces, knowing all the time they engineer their deadly, profiteering subterfuge behind our backs, and our lack of passionate indignation, our acquiescence to their convenient "comity", only prolongs the distortion.

Passport in Order wrote on July 9, 2007 11:56 AM:

How long will it be before the headlines read, "Oval Office Stormed"? I hope they don't forget the VP's Control Room, and the Justice Dept. as well.

Alleen wrote on July 9, 2007 11:56 AM:

I had a similar response from my cheatin' ex-husband. "It hurts me that you don't trust me, baby. I can't believe you think I'd cheat. Your jealousy is so unattractive."

He had about 10 girlfriends.

Dennis wrote on July 9, 2007 12:08 PM:

It is for moments like this that the Bush administration has tried to stack the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court with attorney generals and justices who are all "loyal Republicans".

I doubt that it will get to the Supreme Court, but if it does, at best, there will be another split decison along party lines.

gonzone wrote on July 9, 2007 12:10 PM:

Those mean old Dems!
Hooray!
Is that backbone I see sprouting?

Fielding: "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

JEP wrote on July 9, 2007 12:10 PM:

"Are we the only ones with political instincts–This whole thing about not kicking someone when they are down is BS – Not only do you kick him – You kick him until he passes out – then beat him over the head with a baseball bat – then roll him up in an old rug – and throw him off a cliff into the pounding surf below!!!!!"
Memo from Mike Scanlon to DeLay assistant Chief of Staff Tony Rudy"

Sounds like their strategy for Siegelman... curious isn't it, how the day Congress weighed in in the Siegelman case, (which was the first glimmer of hope in a long tale of despair and intrigue,) it started raining in Alabama, which has been suffering through a MYSTERIOUS, LOCALIZED DROUGHT ever since Siegelman was sentenced...

The Republicans never imagined the Dems would have oversight over these cases, or they would never have pursued them so lawlessly.

Hope springs eternal.

OCPatriot wrote on July 9, 2007 12:22 PM:

Someone above in one of the comments called for U.S. Marshals to go to the White House to get the documents. I said that yesterday, I believe, and am puzzled as to why Democrats don't just get on with it, instead of exchanging these letters. Their approval ratings would go up overnight, I'd bet. Congress certainly has the power and authority to do that in pursuit of their legal measures such as oversight. Then, if a conflict is to be avoided, they could at least have the Main Stream Medium recording all of the actual obfuscation.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 12:23 PM:

If Congress does not want to work together in "good faith" that's fine by me. I say "GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN"!! Less that Washington, D.C. can mess up out here in the rest of the nation.

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

Just thinking out loud: The privilege log is really interesting. An extensive privilege log - like that provided in an earlier round related to Kyle Sampson, I believe - would cast doubt on the administration's claim that the White House was "not involved" in the firings.

If the WH stalls at this point, then there are several steps before that log might get created: someone has to be found in contempt, then there has to be some attempt to enforce the contempt, then there has to be a ruling on whether the assertion is valid. If the assertion is valid, then the White House would create a log.

If the privilege is not valid, however, then there is no incentive to create the log, just a demand on the part of Congress to turn over the docs, backed by the threat of enforcement of contempt proceedings.

And, at the end of the day, the President can effectively block any penalty from being enforced through the use of the pardon / commutation power, can't he? So far, Libby has shown that the president can get away with that move.

Yellow Dog wrote on July 9, 2007 12:33 PM:

So, cutting to the chase, the whole mess ends up at the Supreme Court, where the record-breakingly-quick decision is 5-4 declaring bush-cheney dictators for life.

Then what?

I seriously doubt Congressional dems have seriously thought this through.

It's a Constitutional crisis that only the Supreme Court can resolve.

This Supreme Court has proven several times over that it will break any precedent, shred any principle, burn any Constitution to give bush/cheney anything they damn well please. It will NOT rule against the Usurper in this final battle.

That gives us a dictatorship with absolute power, no checks, nothing that can stand in its way.

The Usurper can declare martial law, cancel elections, disband Congress, throw every registered Democrat into Guantanamo, shut down the Internet except for RWA sites, burn all books except the bible, force everyone to convert to RWA fundamentalism on pain of death ...

And there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

So, dems: what's the plan?

Yellow Dog wrote on July 9, 2007 12:36 PM:

So, cutting to the chase, the whole mess ends up at the Supreme Court, where the record-breakingly-quick decision is 5-4 declaring bush-cheney dictators for life.

Then what?

I seriously doubt Congressional dems have seriously thought this through.

It's a Constitutional crisis that only the Supreme Court can resolve.

This Supreme Court has proven several times over that it will break any precedent, shred any principle, burn any Constitution to give bush/cheney anything they damn well please. It will NOT rule against the Usurper in this final battle.

That gives us a dictatorship with absolute power, no checks, nothing that can stand in its way.

The Usurper can declare martial law, cancel elections, disband Congress, throw every registered Democrat into Guantanamo, shut down the Internet except for RWA sites, burn all books except the bible, force everyone to convert to RWA fundamentalism on pain of death ...

And there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

So, dems: what's the plan?

Steve5117 wrote on July 9, 2007 12:37 PM:

Jake, a person who has been described as "too dumb to rake leaves" while he worked cutting grass at Stanford, has admitted to having a hearing problem.

Kenny, a former co-worker of Jake, said Jake used to masturbated on his coffee breaks.

Ignore the ignorant piece of shit.

Brett wrote on July 9, 2007 12:38 PM:

On the US Marshalls: They're under the DOJ and hence executive branch employees, no? Congress would have to send the sergeant-at-arms. I don't think that the mace that he carries is going to get him into the White House.

Tom O wrote on July 9, 2007 12:38 PM:

Remember that it is not Bush we are dealing with here, but Cheney. He simply will not give anything up, and plans to string it out over the next 18 months. I don't think he even cares about how that will hurt the Republican Party anymore- he's in the bunker and is not coming out until it falls down around him.

Bush is just his sock puppet- the Libby thing proves that in case anyone had any remaining doubts.

Tom O

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 12:39 PM:

A. ATTY MISCONDUCT: Documents expected to have been shielded by privilege should not have been destroyed.

Google [" intent can be inferred from the circumstances"]

- - - - - - - - - - -

B. WH REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH RULES OF PROCEDURE:

Google: [ Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b)(5) ]
Google: [ 2 USC 192: "Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers" ]

- - - - - - - - - - -

C. CHARGE: Obstruction of Justice

When does a dubious claim of executive privilege, not supported by the RNC e-mail destruction, amount to obstruction of justice?

When do legal counsel move from being "passive advisers" to ones who are _instrumental_ in document destruction, refusals to comply with rules of procedure, and other illegal conduct?

Wretched Refuse wrote on July 9, 2007 12:41 PM:

How is this for a retirement epiphany?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070608/news_lz1e8boston.html

Time for the truth about the Liberty

By Ward Boston Jr.
June 8, 2007

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel’s June 8, 1967, bombing of the Navy intelligence ship Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel’s combined air and naval forces attacked the Liberty for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty-four American sailors died, and 172 were injured. The Liberty remained afloat only by the crew’s heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd – president of the Court of Inquiry – that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

The ensuing cover-up has haunted us for 40 years. What does it imply for our national security, not to mention our ability to honestly broker peace in the Middle East, when we cannot question Israel’s actions – even when they kill Americans?

Today, survivors of Israel’s cruel attack will gather in Washington, D.C., to honor their dead shipmates as well as the mothers, sisters, widows and children they left behind. They will continue to ask for a fair and impartial congressional inquiry that, for the first time, would allow the survivors themselves to testify publicly.

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man, and when orders come in from the secretary of defense and president of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to share the truth.

Adm. Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not only did they attack with napalm, gunfire and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously wounded.

I am outraged at the efforts of Israel’s apologists to claim this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

Adm. Kidd told me that after receiving the president’s cover-up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Department of Defense and rewrite portions of the court’s findings. He said, “Ward, they’re not interested in the facts. It’s a political matter, and we cannot talk about it.” We were to “put a lid on it” and caution everyone involved never to speak of it again.

I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand-correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the deliberate machine-gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and including in the original transcript, is now missing.

I join the survivors in their call for an honest inquiry. Why is there no room to question Israel – even when it kills Americans – in the halls of Congress?

Let the survivors testify. Let me testify. Let former intelligence officers testify that they received real-time Hebrew translations of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink “the American ship.”

Surely uncovering the truth about what happened to American servicemen in a bloody attack is more important than protecting Israel. And surely 40 years is long enough to wait.

Boston served as chief counsel to the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence ship Liberty. He also served as a naval aviator in World War II on the carrier Yorktown and as an FBI agent prior to his assignment to the Navy’s Judge Advocates General Corps. He is a graduate of the the College of William and Mary School of Law and a resident of Coronado.

slb wrote on July 9, 2007 12:45 PM:

Notice Fielding's use of scare quotes around "good faith." Shades of Kyle Sampson.

biggerbox wrote on July 9, 2007 12:49 PM:

Was Fielding laughing out loud when he wrote that letter? It's pretty funny. His widdle feeelings are hurt because they suggested the White House wasn't negotiating in "good faith"? Then he says, essentially, 'come on, you don't really mean that, do you? Us? Not in good faith?' I bet Alberto did a spit take when he heard Fred would use that one. What a joke!

And that final zinger, "I likewise convey the President's request that further interbranch relations in this matter be distinguished by respect for the constitutional principles of both institutions and marked by a presumption of goodwill on all sides." (Like the President understands constitutional principles. Ha.) Brilliant.

The answer I wanted to hear from Leahy: "Good idea. You start, Mr. President."

Rebel wrote on July 9, 2007 12:51 PM:

On July 23, 1973, Nixon made a similar claim to educative privelige. Bush, like his criminal predecessor Nixon, claims all communications from his offices are privileged, and that executive privilege was absolute.

Nixon was wrong. So is Bush.

By Aug. 9th the Senate took action and just two weeks later Jud. John Sirica made their first of many court rulings against Nixon's exucative privelige claims.

slb wrote on July 9, 2007 12:54 PM:

>>So, cutting to the chase, the whole mess ends up at the Supreme Court, where the record-breakingly-quick decision is 5-4 declaring bush-cheney dictators for life.

>>Then what?<<

That's when we storm the Bastille.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 12:54 PM:

I do find it curious, given the duty of the legal profession to maintain confidence in the judicial system, that they berate others for refusing to call a spade a spade. When the WH Counsel starts acting responsibly, confidence in the judicial process might return. Until then, the President does a disservice by ignoring judicial procedure rules, but claiming the US is going to "present" this "form of government" to the Iraqis.

It is this arrogance this WH Counsel and President show which inspires opposition not just to the GOP and President, but toward the United States. This buffoonery does more to inspire foreign opposition to the United States, not just as a country, but as a bastion of hypocrisy. This conduct does not raise confidence in the President's commitment to enforce the law, or assent to the rule of law; but the opposite: That he alone will decide when he is above the law. Hardly something he and Saddam Hussein can credibly separate. Animal Farm: Where the animals and the farmer were indistinguishable. Americans and Nazis.

Let Congress bungle this, let the President stonewall, and Americans can be assured this will do more to undermine the US national security than a single act abroad. This arrogance is fuelling the very problem which this President says he is fighting. This is analogous to pouring water on chemicals which use water to fuel a fire. This President isn't putting anything out, but fuelling the very thing he's using as a pretext to destroy our rights, abuse his power, and ignore this Constitution. The problem abroad is a symptom of the disease in the White House. This President needs to be impeached and held to account for his reckless defiance of his oath and the Supreme Law. Even Kings were forced to assent to the Magna Charta. Congress has my full support in using all lawful options -- even using force -- to compel this President to assent to the rule of law.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 12:57 PM:

LOL, Brett -- good one -- carrying a "mace" into the White House!!! I guess if Congress is going to start arresting Executive branch officials, though, they'd better stop going to the Hill and trying to be cooperative.

PeeJ wrote on July 9, 2007 12:57 PM:

Is it possible we common citizens can get some of whatever these guys are on? I could just imagine me trying to get away with this off the wall ideas these jokers are coming up with. Are they all crazy? It reminds me when I was fired just after having lung cancer surgery and the company sought and a judge ordered a temporary restraining order so I couldn't contact anyone at the world's largest private corporation, or any "contractor", which would be anyone else in the world. People are STRANGE!

Peace,
PJ

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 1:00 PM:

P.S. to slb: I believe that Fred is QUOTING DIRECTLY the charge by Congress that the President is not acting in "good faith" -- if you want to get rid of the presumption of good faith for both sides, I'm fine with that.

BS wrote on July 9, 2007 1:00 PM:

"And I likewise convey the President's request that further interbranch relations in this matter be distinguished by respect for the constitutional principles of both institutions and marked by a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

Yeah, like the signing statements. Respect for constitutional principles? Presumption of goodwill?

Yeah right.

Englischlehrer wrote on July 9, 2007 1:01 PM:

I think Bush/Cheney have ruined the way the American government operates and we are screwed with the next administration no matter what.

Where are the balls that Congress has? Put someone in jail, let them know you mean business.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 1:03 PM:

"I likewise convey the President's request that further interbranch relations in this matter be distinguished by respect for the constitutional principles of both institutions and marked by a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

That's definitely from Bush. Cheney is already on the record against this one.

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

I love it. The WH must have been reading the more prominent of the wingnut blogs lately, as they've effectively resorted to whining and accusing the Congress of being uncivil when they get called on their bullshit and inability to craft a supportable argument.

pt bridgeport wrote on July 9, 2007 1:09 PM:

"marked by a presumption of goodwill on all sides."

Must be compared with Fred's own words:

"only one conclusion is evident: the Committees have already prejudged the question"

Shorter Fielding: "We will presume ill will on your side, until you agree to swear that no matter what evidence of our criminality surfaces, you will always rely blindly on our innocence."

ThomasG wrote on July 9, 2007 1:10 PM:

Reason we can't all get along:

U.S. Government IS a Ponzi Scheme

The following quote from "TheGreat U-Turn" Corporate Restructuring and the Polarizing of America by Bennett Harrison and Barry Bluestone defines a Ponzi scheme as:

Ponzi Scheme: An ingenious fraud almost perfected in 1919 by Charles Ponzi, who set up business in the heart of Boston's financial district. His offer to an eager war-weary public was simple: Invest any sum with him for 45 days and he would return the money plus 50% interest. Invest for 90 days and realize a profit of 100%. He claimed that he was speculating in a sure market -- the market for International Reply Coupons. These were vouchers for postage stamps that could be redeemed in any country belonging to the International Postal Union. Ponzi told his customers that, with the money they invested with him, he intended to buy the coupons in European countries where the exchange rate was low and then redeem them for stamps where the exchange rate was high. By selling the stamps he had purchased in this way, he promised his investors a fortune.

Ponzi never did buy any reply coupons or attempt to arbitrage them. But he guessed that people who were offered a chance at a geometrically increasing return would probably leave their money with him indefinitely. He was almost right. He seduced 20,000 Bostonians into giving him $14 million in the first few months of his operation. By paying off early investors with money given to him by new ones, he built up a pyramid whose early success earned him cheers on the streets of Beantown.

The fatal flaw of pyramids, however, is that they have to be perpetual motion machines in order to work. Ponzi's, of course, was not. It was stopped by his arrest and conviction for fraud in 1920. It took auditors until 1931 to untangle his finances, the end result being that his hapless investors received only .30 cents on the dollar. Ponzi eventually went to jail in Massachusetts, later jumped bail, and started a venture in Florida swamp land. In 1934, the U.S. Government deported him to Italy.

In Charles Ponzi's Scheme, Ponzi was at the top of the pyramid, had a cadre of those who benefited beneath him to sing praises for Ponzi's scheme, and together Ponzi and those singing Ponzi's praises harvested the resources from everyone else in the pyramid with no one else in the pyramid except Ponzi and those singing praises for Ponzi's scheme receiving benefit from Ponzi's scheme.

What is government in the United States today other than an exceeding large Ponzi Scheme? The Elite Capitalist Class are representative of Charles Ponzi at the top of the pyramid, the class in the middle, as a cadre of helpers to Ponzi that sing the praises of Ponzi's scheme, is the Professional Middle Class; and everyone else beneath them, the Common Population, the Working and Poor Class and Culture, are the victims that get harvested for the benefit of the Ponzi Scheme of Government that at present can only be made reference to laughingly as [Representative Democracy?].

The 70% Majority Common Population of the United States can do better than to be the victims of a large and enduring governmental Ponzi Scheme controlled by the Elite Capitalist Class and the class in the middle, the Professional Class.

The Common Population of the United States can rule the government of the United States and in so doing rule themselves democratically together with the Ponzi Class of Elites and the Ponzi familiars singing Ponzi's praises, the Professional Middle Class, together with their own 70% Majority Common Population if they will rouse themselves from their slumbering intellects and vote for their own best interest of their own Common Population, rather than Ponzi Democracy
controlled by Ponzi Republicans and Ponzi Democrat familiars that commodify and harvest the 70% Majority Common Population for obscene benefit from their communal resources.

It is time for the Common Population to take over control of the Democratic Party and the government of the United States. It is time for the Democracy For America Movement to begin in earnest. It is time for an end to Ponzi Government of the United States.

It is time for ACTUAL Democracy For America.

JEP wrote on July 9, 2007 1:10 PM:

"I don't think he even cares about how that will hurt the Republican Party anymore..."

Never has and never will, the Republicans are just another disposable vehicle for Cheney's pernicious plans.

Cheney used them like a cheap who*e, and now he's raked in all that no-bid cash for his Dubai Billionaires Club, he will cast the Republican moralists off like dirty underwear.

Rove put it all into pertspective when he told David Kuo, "...just give me a f#&*ing faith-based thing" ...that callous, superficial approach to the meaningful issues that Republicans like to define themselves by, was consumate proof that Cheney and Rove have never cared what affect they might eventually have on their own political party.

As long as the no-bid contracts keep falling into place, they will continue to stall for more time, both in office and in Iraq.

Do you folks really want to end this war, and this administration? Then cut off funding for those no-bid contracts, and this war will be over in a week.

Django wrote on July 9, 2007 1:12 PM:

A typical lawyer letter from Fielding, trying to portray his client as reasonable and the other side as unreasonable. Make no mistake about it, this is all about papering the file for the inevitable lawsuit to follow.

Cowboy wrote on July 9, 2007 1:18 PM:

Impeach Bush and Cheney. Not much more to it.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 1:20 PM:

BS:

You do know that President Clinton used signing statements to not enforce portions of laws he disagreed with as well, right?

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 1:26 PM:

From a previous thread:

Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriations Act

September 30th, 1994

. . . I am concerned, however, with the inflexibility of the provisions concerning the U.S. mission and military participation in Rwanda. I will interpret this legislation consistent with my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and my responsibility as Commander in Chief and as Chief Executive.

I am also concerned about section 8118 of this Act, which limits the Administration's flexibility to make reductions in certain personnel categories. This provision runs counter to the recommendations of the National Performance Review and this Administration's efforts to streamline Federal activities. It will hamper DOD's ability to manage its civilian personnel efforts efficiently.

I would point out that section 8136, which relates to changes in obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty), cannot restrict the constitutional options for congressional approval of substantive modifications of treaties, and I sign this bill with that understanding.

William J. Clinton

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49211

An important legal statement in support of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law. The entire 1993 memo may be found here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

(of course, JNagarya is going to just claim I am "shitting on the livingroom rug" by pointing out Clinton used "signing statements" too ; )

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 1:40 PM:

Google: [ (2) (A) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim. ]

Once POTUS asserts the claim, why is he not following procedure? Duty of legal counsel is to comply with the rules, not make excuses to not follow procedure. Once Executive Privilege is invoked, that attaches with it legal obligations to explain to details.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 1:48 PM:

Please cite the "legal obligations" that require the President of the United States -- as a co-equal branch of government -- to produce a "privilege log" to Congress. I'll wait.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 1:51 PM:

Kurt Vonnegut in *Mother Night* describes the Nazi psyche as "the cockoo clock from hell" which runs flawlessly for a period, then skips random lengths of time to then run flawlessly again, with the cycle repeating endlessly. This is also an apt description of the troll mentality. This malfunction is caused by a deliberate grinding away of certain teeth in the mechanism, teeth in this sense representing fundamental pieces of reality.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 1:52 PM:

The President has not objected uniformly to the disclosure of the information, only opposes release _if_ there is a transcript with an oath. This does not suggest he has a concern with the information being disclosed outside the Executive Branch to Congress, but with the accountability with the _record_.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 2:00 PM:

1. President does not have support of the law

Google: [ "The denial of the motion to quash must be upheld in all events because the intervenors failed to generate a descriptive list of the documents alleged to be privileged." ]

Mandatory requirement: "The operative language is mandatory and, although the rule does not spell out the sufficiency requirement in detail, courts consentiently have held that the rule requires a party resisting disclosure to produce a document index or privilege log"

Without a log, privilege claim fails: "A party that fails to submit a privilege log is deemed to waive the underlying privilege claim."

2. Factors against President:

A. Permitted Contingent Disclosure

If the information was absoltely shieled, there would be no provision to release the information _on condition of_ no oath/transcript.

B. Evidence Destruction Contrary To Claim

Once evidence in the RNC e-mails was destroyed, the claim of privilege fails: Documents that are created and retained on the expectation of a shielded are not then, contrary to that claim or expectation, destroyed.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 2:03 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 1:48 PM

Look at [ Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2) ]

See:
A. [ July 9, 2007 1:40 PM ], and
B. [ July 9, 2007 2:00 PM ]

theswan wrote on July 9, 2007 2:08 PM:

We have heard some talk. Now we need some action. Whatever is necessary to move this foward. America needs some justice from wherever we can get it. Hopefully our represenatives will fill these needs. If they can not the people will have to consider alternatives. America will not collapse from the tyranny of a few. The people must come together and put pressure on their representation to press ahead with these subpoenas with haste.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 2:09 PM:

LOL -- that assumes the President of the United States -- as a co-equal branch of government -- has any "legal obligations" to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure OUTSIDE of court.

theswan wrote on July 9, 2007 2:09 PM:

We have heard some talk. Now we need some action. Whatever is necessary to move this foward. America needs some justice from wherever we can get it. Hopefully our represenatives will fill these needs. If they can not the people will have to consider alternatives. America will not collapse from the tyranny of a few. The people must come together and put pressure on their representation to press ahead with these subpoenas with haste.

whingingnut wrote on July 9, 2007 2:20 PM:

"That's when we storm the Bastille."

I wish. My suspicion is that Chalmers Johnson is closer to predicting the future; when the coup comes, we'll be begging for it.

The fact that all of this is buried or unreported in most newspapers and TV news is incredibly depressing.

BS wrote on July 9, 2007 2:30 PM:

Jake, Jake, Jake.

Have you noticed that Clinton has been out of office for 6 1/2 years?

You are like one of my kids. "She did it and you didn't do anything!!!" Wahhhh!

moi wrote on July 9, 2007 2:37 PM:

As anyone who enjoys debate knows, attacking the person (ad hominum attacks) and going meta (discussing the tone of the discussion -- not the content) are two common ways of admitting (read: not admitting) that one has lost the argument. Notice how often this is what certain people do? Nuff said.

phil james wrote on July 9, 2007 3:00 PM:

Hey Jake. I've got a question for you. You obviously trust this president and want all of us to back off and trust him too. OK. What is the basis of your trust in Bush? What is it that he has done in the course of the last 6 years that demonstrably calls for Americans to trust him? Name one thing.

Jane wrote on July 9, 2007 3:04 PM:

The Executive is not a co-equal branch. The Congress has the ability to impeach and remove any civil officer of the United States from the President on down. The President has no similar power with respect to Congress which is the judge of the qualifications of its' own members.

When Congress gets tired of stonewalling from this administration they impeach them all with the support already of close to half of the voters.

That Clinton used signing statements does not make them right. A signing statement does matter to some extent if the signing statement is simply intended to clarify what was being signed rather than being used to avoid a provision of the Constitution or gut the law Congress just passed.

Let Bush look to his defense against a charge of high crimes and misdeameanors. Stealing an election and lying us into war more than suffice to justify a vote for impeachment in good faith by member of either party whether or not they agree with Bush's actions as President.

Cowboy wrote on July 9, 2007 3:34 PM:

Morning conversation at Jake's breakfast table: "Mmmm. Kool-aid tastes goooood."

Adios degrees of difference!

RK wrote on July 9, 2007 3:47 PM:

Hm... interesting. Still not one mention of the fact that Janet Reno fired all the federal attorneys, while at least two of them were investigating Clinton/associates and Rostenkowski.

Jake was just pointing out that everyone in the office plays the same corrupt games. If it weren't for a couple events, the Bush administration would have passed by as quietly as any in history.

I said it in '99, I stand by it now: George W. has more in common with Al Gore (AND that other limo-lib, Herman Munster look-alike from '04) than ANYONE I know personally.

Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on July 9, 2007 4:05 PM:

Congress should press the subpoenas as fast as they can and take it to the courts. If indeed the Conservative Supreme Court rules for Bush, then Hillary will have a precedent for using the government to attack all GOP interests and shut down any objections. I bet that she could outlaw Right Wing Talk radio in the name of Presidential Priviledge and National Security.

Leahy can also take a GOP tactic and declare that he already had a private meeting with Karl Rove where Rove admitted to numerous voter crimes, engaging homosexual prostitutes in the White House, and claimed to be "more powerful than Jesus". Let them explain that without a transcript.

Do It True wrote on July 9, 2007 4:32 PM:

I recently discovered that the famous Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. While the dates of history do not accurately predict the future, I would like to hazard a guess that You Know Who and #2 - I think Bush is #2 - may be much much closer to resigning than anyone really believes.

Refusing even to provide a log of the papers the Decider wants protected can only mean one thing: They exist! Yes, Gloria, AttorneyGate WAS orchestrated from the White House. No one at the Justice Dept. knows how the names got on Kyle's list, but Kyle wasn't Schindler. Someone else made up that list and his name starts with a K, too.

Libby won't talk, but we just need one John Dean to get us closer to the Resignation Blues. Will Sara Taylor fink? Karl can't offer her a job at the World Bank anymore.... I don't know.

Everyone, humans really aren't that good at seeing the future, and I don't have a crystal ball, but how long can obstruction of justice and totally useless death in Iraq go on? It's one month till August 9th, and I think things may be unraveling for Meester Boosh faster than he can say "whoosh." What day will it be that the Elders of the Republican Party walk down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and tell the fellow with his head in the sand the same thing they told King Richard just 33 years before?

Do It True
July 9th, 2007

Do It True wrote on July 9, 2007 4:33 PM:

I recently discovered that the famous Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. While the dates of history do not accurately predict the future, I would like to hazard a guess that You Know Who and #2 - I think Bush is #2 - may be much much closer to resigning than anyone really believes.

Refusing even to provide a log of the papers the Decider wants protected can only mean one thing: They exist! Yes, Gloria, AttorneyGate WAS orchestrated from the White House. No one at the Justice Dept. knows how the names got on Kyle's list, but Kyle wasn't Schindler. Someone else made up that list and his name starts with a K, too.

Libby won't talk, but we just need one John Dean to get us closer to the Resignation Blues. Will Sara Taylor fink? Karl can't offer her a job at the World Bank anymore.... I don't know.

Everyone, humans really aren't that good at seeing the future, and I don't have a crystal ball, but how long can obstruction of justice and totally useless death in Iraq go on? It's one month till August 9th, and I think things may be unraveling for Meester Boosh faster than he can say "whoosh." What day will it be that the Elders of the Republican Party walk down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and tell the fellow with his head in the sand the same thing they told King Richard just 33 years before?

Do It True
July 9th, 2007

Do It True wrote on July 9, 2007 4:34 PM:

I recently discovered that the famous Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. While the dates of history do not accurately predict the future, I would like to hazard a guess that You Know Who and #2 - I think Bush is #2 - may be much much closer to resigning than anyone really believes.

Refusing even to provide a log of the papers the Decider wants protected can only mean one thing: They exist! Yes, Gloria, AttorneyGate WAS orchestrated from the White House. No one at the Justice Dept. knows how the names got on Kyle's list, but Kyle wasn't Schindler. Someone else made up that list and his name starts with a K, too.

Libby won't talk, but we just need one John Dean to get us closer to the Resignation Blues. Will Sara Taylor fink? Karl can't offer her a job at the World Bank anymore.... I don't know.

Everyone, humans really aren't that good at seeing the future, and I don't have a crystal ball, but how long can obstruction of justice and totally useless death in Iraq go on? It's one month till August 9th, and I think things may be unraveling for Meester Boosh faster than he can say "whoosh." What day will it be that the Elders of the Republican Party walk down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and tell the fellow with his head in the sand the same thing they told King Richard just 33 years before?

Do It True
July 9th, 2007

phil james wrote on July 9, 2007 5:07 PM:

RK, I will ask you the same question I asked Jake and he still has not answered. On what basis do we trust Bush? Name one thing he has done that has demonstrated he has earned our trust.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 6:41 PM:

Sorry, phil james, but I must have missed your question(s). The basis of your trust in Bush is that I believe he is a good man doing what he thinks is best for America. We probably would disagree about America being safer since 9/11. Since you probably don't think unborn children are worthy of protection, we won't agree about that either. But there are TWO specific things I trust him about.

Jane:

Wow! That's the first time I've ever seen anyone argue that The Executive is not a co-equal branch -- I'll have to save that for next time a Democrat is in office -- of course each branch has different powers (did you know that the President can "convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper"? See Art. II, Sec. 3). Perhaps Bush should adjourn Congress for a while.

Now, I will agree with you, hypothetically, that stealing an election and/or lying us into war would be legitimate grounds to justify a vote for impeachment -- good luck proving either of those in the U.S. Senate.

Wretched Refuse wrote on July 9, 2007 11:14 PM:

Jake,
WHere does it say that a signing statement can erect a Presidential office who's sole purpose is to obsficate, negate by "reviewing" the legislation passed by Congress that covers industry regulations.?
No where. This is his attempt at creating a legislative oversight office, and THAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So, put that along with the other koolaid you and RK drink and go off a deep end. I am measuring the Whitehouse portico as we speak for how much rope we will need to hang these fucks. ANd if you wish to "stand by your man," then we can make nooses for you assholes too.
There is but one question to ask king dumbshit:
Hemp or nylon?

Wretched Refuse wrote on July 9, 2007 11:20 PM:

Of course you would look at sect 3 and see it through the REPUBLISCUM prism of total domination.
Let us not leave out how Bush has abused section Section 2.

Section 2. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

See you traitors are always leaving out important parts of the law.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Wretched Refuse wrote on July 9, 2007 11:23 PM:

So in effect, you think the prez can turn congress off and on, and in between appoint anyone to any office that had been vacated before the ending of the session which he proclaimed the end of.

Yeah right, THAT is what the founding fathers had in mind. geesh

Go back to high school asshole.

What are you like a 14.5 in neck? Give me hint, I am buying more rope tonight.

Jake wrote on July 10, 2007 12:35 PM:

I simply quoted the Constitution, Wretched. As for the use of signing statements, don't blame me -- as I already pointed out above -- Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton, greatly expanded their use in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). The entire 1993 memo may be found here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Jake wrote on July 10, 2007 12:40 PM:

Also, you think Bush was the first President to ever use the recess appointment power? I seem to remember a homosexual Clinton campaign contributor to got a recess appointment as ambassador.

rat bastahd wrote on July 10, 2007 1:41 PM:

"Then what?"

"We storm the Bastille."

Seriously folks, we need to organize and prepare for this eventuality if we have any concern for saving our democracy. If I was told a half-million people were going to DC and would give the President 2 days to get out or we were are coming in, I would so be there.

Jake D. wrote on July 10, 2007 7:48 PM:

Seriously folks, it is a federal crime to threaten bodily injury against the President of the United States.