Comments (86)

Ruth wrote on July 9, 2007 5:34 PM:

Two questions:

1. Is Sara Taylor a lawyer? If so, was she providing legal advice while at the White House?

2. Was a subpoena actually issued for Sara Taylor? I had heard that one wasn't.

mbbsdphil wrote on July 9, 2007 5:38 PM:

If the president's direction to, eg, Ms. Taylor is not legally adequate to compel her not to testify, that is, if the president has to go to federal court to obtain an injunction, then Ms. Taylor cannot refuse to testify absent that injunction or another valid basis, such as a legitimate fear of criminally incriminating herself through her testimony. Otherwise, she is in contempt of Congress. Congress should not accept that "I don't want to" malarkey from Ms. Taylor any more than it should from Mr. Bush.

sojourner wrote on July 9, 2007 5:39 PM:

Get the contempt citations and don't wait around for the Circuit Court to dilly-dally. Go out and round up Harriet and Sara and thrown them in the brig. Then start negotiating. Let's see how long President Bush lets his "best buddy" Harriet languish in congressional jail.

Sick&Tired wrote on July 9, 2007 5:52 PM:

I agree. Find them in contempt, put them in jail to rot until Georgie Boy the idiot President we now have comes to his senses. I mean my God, executive priviledge is there for a reason and he wants to make a stone wall out of it. In my lifetime, 57 years, WORST PRESIDENT EVER award and it's not close.

Roberta wrote on July 9, 2007 5:59 PM:

This isn't relevant to committee hearings, but it may be relevant to understanding (or being baffled by, in my case) the loyalty of Bush's coterie:

Does anyone else find it really creepy that there are all these unmarried women who seem to have dedicated their lives to George Bush?

Look at them all--Condoleezza Rice, Harriet Miers, Sara Taylor, Karen Hughes. If any of these women is or has been married, I can't find any reference to it.

We must all remember Rice's slip referring to Bush as "my husband" before she corrected herself. And my recollection of Miers's photos with Bush have her gazing, well, adoringly at him. Good God, she let herself face the humiliation of being nominated for Supreme Court Justice when she had to know that she was not qualified for it and could never have survived the interrogatory with the Senate.

Texas amazon Hughes's dedication to Bush goes back a very long time, and while looking for information on her, I found a reference to Tucker Carlson's amazement at how well she could lie on Bush's behalf: "I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness." And this from Tucker Carlson?!

I know very little about Taylor, but I simply can't believe that I could ever have such loyalty towards anyone that I could compromise (what I would call) my ethics to protect someone from the consequences of their actions, unless it were to save their literal life.

I hate to think of all of these women somehow (again creepily) being in thrall to Bush out of some sort of Victorian-style sexual longing, so what is it? These are supposed to be intelligent women.

So if anyone can explain this to me or correct my assumptions about these women, please do. I'd like to sleep tonight without nightmares.

steve talbert wrote on July 9, 2007 6:08 PM:

Bush surrounds himself with cultlike followers. Their whole world view already presupposes obediance, a woman's place, etc, etc. These people have Bible readings in the White House, for Gd's sake... I guess literally and figuratively!!

They do not behave 'rationally' because they really aren't.

If Bush and all of them invoked Zeus to the same extent and in the same context, people would think they were insane. No difference.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 6:13 PM:

Taylor and Miers are within the law to assume the adequacy of the privilege assertion. It's for the courts to decide if the President's assertion of privilege is inadequate, at which time they would be compelled by the court to testify in Congress.

Their is no "Congressional jail". Congress must rely upon the DOJ and the federal courts to enforce its authority. Their only alternative is to re-authorize the independent counsel statute.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 6:20 PM:

Congress will "re-authorize the independent counsel statute" over Bush's dead body.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 6:23 PM:

[ July 9, 2007 6:13 PM ]

No, other alternatives include action outside Congress.

Stephen Johnson wrote on July 9, 2007 6:32 PM:

If you go back to President Clinton and the Republican congress in the late 90s, they ordered his government appointed lawyers to testify to their discussions with the president and turned over all written notes of the meetings. President Clinton attempted to use executive priv. but the courts ruled the lawyers were paid by the People and were not Clintons private lawyers. As such executive priv. did not apply. How are ex-US employees more sacred than lawyers in being forced to testify?

fourlegsgood wrote on July 9, 2007 6:42 PM:

Karen Hughes is married.

Her loyalty to bush is still creepy though.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on July 9, 2007 6:42 PM:

"Taylor and Miers are within the law to assume the adequacy of the privilege assertion."

There is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit of the law. In the case of bushies, the spirit of the law is, increasingly, downright demonic.

code word: garden, as in midnight in the garden of good and evil, eh?

bjobotts wrote on July 9, 2007 6:45 PM:

The WH doing exactly what they said they would do, essentially 'gum it to death'.
They will just bark at each other till Bush is out of office.
Just like the Iraq occupation...gum it till Bush out of office.
Call it all by another name,call it anything you like...But Bush remains untouched and so does the Iraq occupation and the "new" DoJ.

Wake me up if they decide to impeach or after Bush attacks Iran, which ever happens first because without impeachment we are powerless to do anything to stop Bush and he will remain unaccountable.

bernie68 wrote on July 9, 2007 6:48 PM:

Karen Hughes is married, I believe.

Redshift wrote on July 9, 2007 6:55 PM:

I have to object to the characterization "given the intractability of the two sides." The congressional committee chairs have repeatedly expressed their openness to exactly the sort of negotiations that in the past allowed compromises to avoid contempt citations and to limit in some way the material that was turned over. It is the White House alone that has been utterly intractable, making one unreasonable offer and endlessly repeating "take it or leave it."

Billy Shears wrote on July 9, 2007 7:03 PM:

Could he just pardon both of them? Would that stop them from testifying?

daylily wrote on July 9, 2007 7:08 PM:

Roberta --

On Bush and his Valkyries -- Karen Hughes *was* married, if I remember correctly. Didn't she leave Washington because her husband and son wanted to return to Texas?

There is something a little creepy about the Rice-Bush relationship, but I'll also say that I think Bush's willingness to rely on a coterie of single women is commendable on some level. First, it's always struck me as canny -- you can get more loyalty by appreciating subordinates who might be discounted elsewhere. (FWIW -- which is probably rather little -- I've also wondered if a similar calculation might be at work with regard to hiring ... err... less-than-picture-perfect loyal Bushie male henchmen such as Rove, Sampson, Schlozman, Fleischer.) Second, it shows that Bush is willing to step beyond his social milieu in considering women in roles other than those defined for them by traditional family.

But, perhaps more to the point, I'd hesitate to criticize this President's exploitation of female staffers for their brains, given the alternative...

security word, curiously: desire

anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 7:10 PM:

Karen Hughes is married with children.

Numero Uno McLean Stevenson/Hello Larry Fan wrote on July 9, 2007 7:13 PM:

So basically Bush is going to gum it up in his courts until his term ends? Justice will not be served. The crooks walk. Ain't justice grand? All men are equal before the eyes of the law- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This country is completely bankrupt. What a crock. Anyway, thanks for this- I really respect Turley.

MEG wrote on July 9, 2007 7:19 PM:

After much foot dragging I suspect this will end up in front of the Supremes.

With oversight of criminal activity trumping the invoked executive privilege “doctrine” the Supremes can only vote one way.

Impeachment isn’t just for presidents.

mike wrote on July 9, 2007 7:20 PM:

Can't those 2 be found in "inherent contempt" and jailed by the Congress independent of the DOJ?

There is a PR danger of big bad Congress going after 2 ladies... but folks when you are a Bush administration whore, male or female, you are no lady.

"Directed" to disobey? It makes your blood boil, doesn't it?

Plow wrote on July 9, 2007 7:22 PM:

Congress may as well shut down shop if these people are allowed to get away with this nonsense. They'll be rendered little better than tits on a boar.

lm945 wrote on July 9, 2007 7:31 PM:

Something all parties should bear in mind. Running out the clock -- as Bush is clearly attempting -- only applies to impeachment proceedings. The statute of limitations on their various crimes do not run out with the administration. They could still end having their sorry asses thrown in jail.

Jake wrote on July 9, 2007 7:51 PM:

lm945:

Not for "various [federal] crimes" if Bush pardons himself and Cheney.

spamonwry wrote on July 9, 2007 7:59 PM:

MEG, et.al:

First of all, this is a totally different court than even 3 years ago. The chief "justice" was, I believe, one of the people who were instrumental in defining the "Unitary Presidency" theory which is the guiding principle in the Bush asylum. With the five ultra-right-wing Roman Catholics holding sway, it appears that George Bush will have any and all SCOTUS cases go his way. With Roberts & Alito there now, Kennedy's "swing-vote" status seems to have disappeared. I believe that any attempt to appeal to the Supremes will result in defeat for Congress, and legal elimination of Congress' Constitutionally-provided Oversight activities.

Bush has complete freedom to break any law, eliminate any right, restrict any freedom, and incarcerate any person, without legal help, without appeal, without trial, etc., at his whim. He can start any war, assassinate any foreign leader, and breach any and all "sovereignty" anywhere in the world. Corporations are now supreme, and a contribution of a few thousand dollars to a candidate can reap $$billions in reward. Halliburton!

Hedley Lamarr wrote on July 9, 2007 8:14 PM:

The Conventional Wisdom regarding executive priviledge is that the president would not receive candid or unvarnished advice if he were forced to make such advice public. But what president or advisor would fear to have honest, resonable advice made public? Most intelligent staff would be happy to have it known that they, for example, advised against an invasion of Mesopotamia.

plschwartz wrote on July 9, 2007 8:19 PM:

An amendment specifically naming individuals who are to be removed from executive privilege in regard to Congressional testimony attached to the Defense Appropriation Bill might be interesting.

Jessica wrote on July 9, 2007 8:49 PM:

Again, the bush administration is trying to obstruct juctice. Typical. Yet, there are many other issues that are not getting the necessary attention they deserve, such as global poverty.

Today, one simply cannot ignore global poverty’s ubiquity, its far reaching consequences, or its possible elimination. According to the Borgen Project, one person dies every 3.6 seconds due to starvation and most of these victims are children under the age of 5. Thus, it is clear that extreme poverty defines the lives of a tragically large number of people around the world. Yet, despite the depth of this problem, its cure is both within reach and, comparably, embarrassingly affordable. Indeed, to eliminate hunger throughout the globe, the world community would have to spend $19 billion dollars annually. Compare that figure with the U.S.’s current defense budget of $522 billion and the elimination of global poverty becomes not only doable but morally compelling. So, let's hold Bush and his cronies responsible for their obstruction of justice but also remember that we have many more battles to fight with the administration as well.

Billy Bob wrote on July 9, 2007 9:06 PM:

Billy Shears:

A pardon would actually remove their Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying on account of self-incrimination.

That's the reason Libby's sentence was commuted instead of his conviction being pardoned. Had he been pardoned, Libby could have been compelled to testify.

sojourner wrote on July 9, 2007 9:09 PM:

I am sure there are many who would say such an amendment cannot be done, blah, blah, blah. I think it has a lot of merit!

I am finding a great irony at work here... BushCo and his women, men, and assorted idiots do not seem to think that the laws apply to them. Those of us who are law-abiding citizens are attempting to use the rule of law to make things work. If the laws do not apply to Bush, then what we are doing is insane. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I keep hoping that Pat Fitzgerald or some other brilliant mind can outsmart these bozoes in a manner totally befitting their arrogance. Either that, or someone is going to have to start thinking outside the law to rid us of the evil these idiots have perpetrated.

LizH wrote on July 9, 2007 9:14 PM:

Roberta,

Great insights on the Bush Women. Also, a known as a book, Bush Women by Laura Flanders. A good read into the personalities that serve this President.

Go figure. The secret code is: woman!

LizH wrote on July 9, 2007 9:15 PM:

Roberta,

Great insights on the Bush Women. Also, a known as a book, Bush Women by Laura Flanders. A good read into the personalities that serve this President.

Go figure. The secret code is: woman!

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 9:31 PM:

"Karen Hughes is married with children. "

Karen Hughes is married with a grown step child.

Ian wrote on July 9, 2007 9:47 PM:

I see the controlling case here as Nixon v. US which strongly influenced the legal reasoning behind the rejection of the subpoenas. Go back and compare the case with Paul Clement's letter to Pres. Bush recommending he exert executive privilege. You will see how the White House sees the endgame playing out.

1. Reject subpoenas
2. Force congress into contempt citations
3. Try and block citations in house/senate
4. If that fails bring the courts in
5. Assert presidential prerogative in all matters relating to hiring firing.
6. Further assert that baring an ongoing criminal case with narrowly tailored requests for documents executive privilege trumps congress. (The standard established in Nixon)
7. Quick appeals directly to the supreme court
8. 5-4 in favor of the White house, possibly even 9-0 given how much deference is expressly written into Nixon toward Presidential privacy.

If the democrats are dumb and try and play the hand they are currently holding they will not only lose but SCOTUS will get to further cement presidential power.

HOWEVER

If instead they drop this pansy attorney stuff and go straight for impeachment, I'd take Cheney over the Plame Treason, they will have a criminal case in which to issue new subpoenas which wouldn't be blocked by either the National Security exemption to disclosure (as suggested in Nixon) or the "this is an internal matter, butt out" argument the WH will make over this attorney thing.

Hoppy wrote on July 9, 2007 9:55 PM:

Congress has absolute control over government spending, so they can cut all spending for the Executive Branch any time they wish and have the guts to do it. That only requires a 60% vote in the Senate and 50%+1 in the House.

Impeachment would be better, but the Congress could just refuse to accept that we have a President and defund the office - an easier hurdle to get over.

eyeball wrote on July 9, 2007 10:02 PM:

i suspect that bush is in his own way rather gallant to women and respectful of their intelligence. i think this breeds their loyalty. but after libby, the effort to silence this taylor woman is a bad maneuver. the whole summer will roll by as one big refusal by this admin to show accountability for anything. the senate will call fitz, will recall taylor, will recall rove, and get nothing but nos. then when bush comes back in the fall and asks for more time in iraq, whatever his minions cook up to make the request look legit will just be razzed off the stage.

the more bush deploys executive branch gimmicks to hide the white house from accountability, the more he kneecaps his own iran policy. d'oh.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 10:20 PM:

___ [Name redacted] ___,

You've been banging around on TPMMmuckraker asking for some "substantiation" behind the FISA violations, RNC e-mails, and other things. A plain reading of this editorial shows the DOJ Staff well knows the issues, and is appalled by the recklessness of this White House. It's called malfeasance; and the DoJ insider also points to the malfeasance in Congress. These are serious charges that warrant State AG review for prosecutions of US government officials outside Congress outside impeachment.

These allegations are from a prosecutor; and he points the finger at reckless conduct of Members of Congress. Looks like the unspoken issue is the war crimes issues; and the destruction of the RNC e-mails related to each of the issues within the editorial.

HEADLINE: DoJ Insider confirms public commentary on Bush illegalities: Abuse of warrants for illegal purposes, FISA violations, war crimes, and other evidence well discussed in e-mails, memoranda, and notes which have been destroyed.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408

John S. Koppel:

A. RNC E-mails to Implement FISA violations

On DoJ-connected e-mails in re FISA violations: "the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse."

- Could he comment on the discussions he is aware; or personnel who were using RNC e-mails to discuss the abusive warrantless activity?

B. Investigation of Allegations of US Government Malfeasance, Misfeasance: RNC Using E-mails To Hide Evidence of this Malfeasance
"the administration has attempted to minimize the significance of its malfeasance and misfeasance"

C. Investigation: Raising 5 USC 3331 issues in re Members of Congress; RNC E-mails used to coordinate between WH and Congress on efforts to block oversight, and avoid legal investigations.

"They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years. These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco, the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless domestic NSA surveillance, the Valerie Wilson leak, the arrest of Brandon Mayfield, and the Katrina response failure. The last thing they deserve is trust."

D. Members of Congress 5 USC 3331 violations

Investigation of Public Media Reports Subject of DoJ and RNC Internal Discussions: TO What Extent Public Media Reports related to FISA violations, illegal activity were known, not acted upon, and were not incorporated into internal DoJ Audits and Members of Congress oversight 2001-2006
Note closely the DOJ Official does not raise any new issues, but repeats what the public has been long concerned with: "However, the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership."

----------------------------

There's you evidence, ________. You want more? Start doing some reporting, apply your law degree, do some interviews, and let's get something useful out of your writing.

Your "cut and paste" approach to critiquing the TPM board is not impressive: The comments here are not different than what the DOJ STaff are talking about. May I suggest you fly to Denver, get some clear air, and start putting your law degree to work. You're wasting your time on TPM and bringing discredit upon the legal profession.

It shouldn't take an insider to repeat what the public is posting here on the TPM board. All you've done is make a smokescreen. It looks as though you are a troll, and not interested in using the open media to identify issues warranting reporting, investigation, and analysis.

Next time you want someone to "substantiate" their claims, be mindful: You don't know who is reading this board; who you're talking to; or what they know; or how they know it. Quit wasting this TPM board's time with your non-sense. Not impressed with you or your non-sense. It's in the papers, all the evidence. What more do you want to accept there is a problem, and the legal community did not ot timely stand up to this abuse of power?

You have no answers, just more of the White House excuses, smokescreens, and non-sense. DoJ Staff counsel have been complicit with failing to enforce Geneva; have not acted on open media reports related to FISA violations; and have not enforced Geneva against the US government officials in the White House, DoD, or senior civilian leadership. Further, the evidence of reckless conduct isn't something that is hidden or made up, but well known, and the DOJ Staff well understand that the misconduct is accurately being reported in the media: War crimes, FISA violations, and other evidence of illegal activity are in the RNC e-mails; and they were destroyed because the privilege claims were known to have no merit to hide the evidence of the WH-EOP-DOJ-OVP-Congresses reckless malfeasance on these war crimes.

IT remains to what extent you and others have recklessly stifled timely attempts to investigate these issues of war crimes, FISA violations, and 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations by Members of Congress. It's all in the destroyed e-mails. But the big problem: There is data outside your control that backs this up. Read the editorial if you want a clue where it is.

ALLEGATION: GRAND JURY TARGET

You are now an alleged co-conspirator in a public dinsinformation effort to allegedly stifle public commentary, discussion, and review of FISA vioaltions, Geneva violations, prisoner abuse, and other illegal actiivty allegedly contained with the RNC e-mails. It remains to be understood how your commentary has or has not been coordinted with others complicit with war crimes, and other efforts to allegedly obstruct justice.

SUBPOENAS ARE ON THE TABLE

JD21 wrote on July 9, 2007 10:28 PM:

Why is the truth so hard to find these days?

caught it on Raw Story. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Michael_Moore_shames_CNN_Blitzer_on_0709.html

I love the cracks afterwards by perfect Lou "Airbrush Phony Smile" Dobbs and Cafferty. Poor "Wolf Blitzer" (I couldn't make up a better, more bogus name for this wimpy character), he had a tough interview in which a guy called CNN out on its BS not once but twice. Ouch. He shouldn't have to put up with that edgy truthy stuff. No fun. As Cafferty wisecracked, he doesn't get paid enough. Very revealing as to how these guys think. It's about the money. Not the truth. Our news media is dead. Morally dead. Brain dead.

MM is just right and these talking buttheads who say they report the news don't ask the tough questions. They don't think. You know which of the viable Democratic candidates really sat back and thought? Used his/her head before jumping on the bandwagon to rush into Iraq? Not Hillary and she still won't even admit she was wrong - another bad reflection on her character if you ask me. Not Edwards either, though he's trying to spin it into a "Look. I can learn! I'm not brain dead like the rest of them!" moment. Obama. He did. He stopped looked and listened while so many politicians and the media sprinted after Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales and the rest of 'em like lemmings over a giant, totally foreseeable cliff.

Really. I'll tell you what's Sicko. The stupidity of our politicians. The public is getting smarter. They were totally blindsided by a President so evil that he would sacrifice our national interests for partisan and petty personal gain. Unthinkable. But with the media behind these Republican shysters and Murdoch pumping his billions into the mess, the public bought it.

Well they ain't buying it anymore. The polls show it. The Republicans - the ones still sleeping that is - can whine about it's his fault, her fault, not my fault, blah blah blah, but America is waking up. Fox-Republican officials and politicians - mark my words, your political careers as you know them are finito.

Sorry for the rant. Sometimes the truth ain't pertie, as Bush I'm sure would say.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 10:59 PM:

WH COUNSEL NEEDS TO MAKE WRITTEN, SIGNED CERTIFICATION TO CONGRESS: REMEDY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN FIELDING'S WORK PRODUCT

In light of the DoJ Staff Counsel editorial in the Denver Post, I would like for the Congress to receive this week from Fielding a written, signed statement under penalty of perjury in re this rule: "(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal."

See: John S. Koppel:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408

It appears Fielding and the President are jointly filing fraudulent claims of privilege with the Congress; and it does not appear as though Fielding has disclosed this fraud to the Congress as required. I would like Fielding to assert to the Congress through a signed affidavit:

1. Whether he knows why the RNC e-mails were destroyed despite the assertion of privilege;

2. Whether he is or is not aware of any reason why the RNC e-mails were destroyed despite the assertion of privilege;

3. _His reasons_ (not the President's) for not providing a log for all documents the President is claiming privilege;

4. Whether he has or has not read the DC Bar rule compelling resignation when legal services are being used to engage in criminal activity;

5. A statement that he is not aware of, and has reviewed, his legal requirements not to permit his legal services to be used for fraud, illegal activity, or false statements to the course in re issues of fraudulent claims of privilege.

6. A discussion of whether WH counsel has or has not taken any action to correct any false, misleading, or incorrect statement to the Congress;

7. That he has reviewed the DC Bar Rules of Professional Conduct; and has done a thorough review of those legal requirements;

8. Asserts that there has been no violation of any professional standards of conduct or other law in document retention, storage, archiving, or any other legal requirement counsel has a duty to audit, review, and ensure compliance with in EOP-OVP-WH-DoJ Staff;

9. Assets that counsel's representation is not linked with any current, past, or planned violation of standards of conduct or law.

I would appreciate Counsel's cooperation with the Committee. If he refuses, the Grand Jury is encouraged to make adverse inferences; and DoJ OPR and outside counsel are encouraged to enter the refusal into evidence in re the ongoing FISA-Geneva reviews.

Roberta wrote on July 9, 2007 11:13 PM:

Thanks, everyone, for the corrections on Karen Hughes's status. And I, too, appreciate it when men (or anyone) in power put single (or any) women in positions of authority.

It's just the way THESE women are. Still creeps me out.

Alan wrote on July 9, 2007 11:18 PM:

Monica Goodling's not married-Does she count?

JD21 wrote on July 9, 2007 11:20 PM:

First DeLay and Newt secretly cheating on their wives while going after Clinton for cheating no less. Then Foley going after little boys. Then gay bashing secretly gay Haggerty. Then that gay prostitute servicing the White House all those hundreds of times with a security clearance someone in the White House got for his house calls no less. Then Rove secretly calling the religious right nuts behind their backs in the White House while trashing America's interests to pander them by killing embryonic stem cell research. Then all the corruption, oh the corruption. These Republicans in Congress like "Duke" Cunningham, Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, Bob "the Horse" Ney, Jackie Abramoff, and that sleeze US Senator who squandered hundreds of millions on a bridge to nowhere, and all the rest of them. And now the Madam list is coming out. Get ready boys and girls. This really shouldn't be taught in schools though.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/09/sen-vitter-on-dc-madam-list/

waync wrote on July 9, 2007 11:36 PM:

would be good to hear some feed back on sojourner's question, which is what i've been thinking about as well.

isn't it just the strangest thing that this "world power" when challenged from the inside by a bunch of 3rd rate crooks. lead by one who can't even speak well, ... just falls apart.

it was that easy. ...amazing.

it would seem necessary for this country and the world that this government show that it can "fix" it's self.

code: school.. as in having our lunch eaten.

slb wrote on July 9, 2007 11:39 PM:

>>With Roberts & Alito there now, Kennedy's "swing-vote" status seems to have disappeared. <<

Not hardly! In fact, Nina Totenberg had a "Morning Edition" feature on the Supreme Court just last week (click my name for the link) which pointed out that Kennedy had been with the majority in all 24 of this term's 5-4 rulings; one scholar quoted in the report said that no justice had had so strong an influence on the Court in 40 years. "[I]t was unquestionably Justice Kennedy's term, and it looks like it's Justice Kennedy's court," he said.

Unfortunately, Kennedy quite often swings in the direction of the court conservatives.

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

-- DRAFT --

WH COUNSEL CERTIFICATION ON OVP 32 CFR 2800 Compliance
In light of this editorial:
See: John S. Koppel:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408
- "unmistakable pattern of abuse"
- "misuse of warrantless investigative powers"
- "Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues "

These are alarming, damaging charges by a respected, senior official and prosecutor within the Department of Justice. Of particular concern are the charges that information has been classified, protected, or hidden to retaliate against others and hide evidence of that inappropriate conduct: ["sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn".] This is not acceptable.

However, most damaging are the accusations that your staff and the President have been involved with illegal activity and malfeasance: ["the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership."]

Indeed, the Geneva issues are stunning. The prosecutor attaches to the President, civilians, and senior legal counsel a charge of war crimes which require a fully accounting by Congress. Failing to act could result in Members of congress and legal counsel -- who block this review of these allegations -- subject to prosecution for failing to enforce Geneva: ["Officials who have brought into disrepute both the Department of Justice and the administration of justice as a whole should finally have to answer for it - and the misdeeds at issue involve not merely garden-variety misconduct, but multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," including war crimes and crimes against humanity."] The President has no legal standing to invoke privilege on war crimes evidence, and we hope you can comply with our request that this week you certify your status relative to your attorney standards of conduct in re illegal activity including Geneva violations.

The Committee would like for WH COUNSEL Fielding this week to forward to Congress a statement of the ongoing Code of Federal regulations audit of OVP.
The legal requirements are here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/32cfr2800_06.html

1. What review has Fielding done of the "Ad Hoc Committees" which OVP legal counsel is a member; have all meeting minutes been forward to Congress; how did the Ad Hoc Committee handle classification procedures related to war crimes, FISA violations, rendition, prisoner abuses, or other violations of the Laws of war as alleged in the Denver Prosecutor's editorial?

2. What review has Fielding done of the "Staff Security Officer/Top Secret Control Officer" assigned to the White House; and what review did the TSCO make of the RNC e-mail system prior to email destruction? How did the TSCO review RNC e-mails related to the allegations in the Denver prosecutor's editorial related to war crimes, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, or other grave breaches of the laws of war?

3. It's been reported that OVP does classify "close hold" items which are not classified as "treat as classified." However these cannot be shielded: ["(2) Unclassified information bearing either of the foregoing administrative designations cannot be protected from release under the national security exemption of the Freedom of Information Act (although other exemptions may be available)."] How is the FOIA requirement-compliance coordinated between OVP-OLC-WH-EOP between his office when FOIA requests are rejected; was there any plan of EOP-OVP-WH-OLC-DOJ staff to ensure that the FOIA-related requests for war crimes evidence in the RNC e-mails were supplied, rejected, hidden, or destroyed?

4. When did Fielding last have an interview with Defense Investigative Service for purposes of reviewing any background investigation material within OVP-EOP-DoJ-WH; what findings did DIS have in re war crimes evidence; how were these concerns sent through the RNC e-mail systems?

5. Please outline the reasons for providing "Interim Security Clearance" to personnel who have not completed their reviews. Which personnel documented their concerns in re war crimes allegations discussed in the Denver Prosecutors editorial?

6. Discuss how working appears sent through the RNC e-mails were appropriately secured; and how EOP-OVP-WH-DOJ transmittal's were safeguard between offices. [" (3) Working papers. Working papers are documents, including drafts, photographs, etc., created to assist in the formulation and preparation of finished papers. Working papers containing classified information will be marked with the appropriate classification and provided the same degree of protection as that given to other documents of an equal category of classification.] Which logs exist of the transmittable of any war crimes related evidence as documented in the Denver prosecutor's editorial; and how was this evidence logged to ensure timely investigation by your staff, EOP-OVP-WH-DOJ?

7. What are the reasons for the ISOO directives being ignored in the EO in re OVP; who ensured within OVP and EOP that these legal requirements in 32 CFR 2800 were fully met; when was this review last done? ["The Staff Security Office is responsible for transmitting or transferring all classified material outside the Office of the Vice President and the White House Complex in accordance with the provisions of _ISOO Directive No. 1, paragraphs I, G and H_.] What assurances can your office give us that the ISOO was fully applied in re war crimes evidence in the RNC e-mails which have been destroyed?

8. Please discuss what method was used to ensure the Destroyed RNC e-mails met this requirement: [" (ii) Within the Office of the Vice President and the White House Complex. Transfer or movement of classified material will be accomplished only by properly cleared persons hand carrying the material to the recipient."] How was the RNC e-mail system used to document that classified information had been sent, received; how were these documents reviewed; why is the President asserting these known transmittal letters are privileged, but not include in any log to Congress; how were WH Concerns with Geneva violations 2001-2007 factored into the classification and destruction plans of this RNC e-mail evidence in re war crimes?

9. What method was used to ensure the OVP-EOP staff were aware of, and fully informed of the legal consequences for failing to fully comply with 32 CFR 2800? [" (j) Penalties. Any individual breach of security may warrant penalties up to and including the separation of the individual from his employment or criminal prosecution."] How could this requirement enforced once the RNC e-mails were destroyed; what review did WH-EOP-OVP-DOJ counsel or staff do of the RNC e-mails or WH e0-mails prior to destruction as they related to war crimes evidence?

WH Counsel has until COB 12 July to make this certification. WE remind counsel that the issues related to allegations of war crimes, evidence destruction, and the improper use of non-official e-mail systems to hide evidence in re Geneva violations, FISA violations, prisoner abuse, rendition, and Grave Breaches of the laws of war. Your responses or non-response shall be entered into evidence by the Congress; and forwarded to the US Atty for Grand Jury review in re alleged war crimes by staff counsel assigned to your office and other US government officials. You have until COB 12 July 2007 to respond. These are issues of international criminal law and demand your immediate attention. Any delays may be entered into evidence, adverse inferences.

Cordially,

We the People

Slippery Slope wrote on July 9, 2007 11:45 PM:

Posted by:
Date: July 9, 2007 10:59 PM
********************************
Thanks for keeping this thread on track.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 11:58 PM:

Posted by: Slippery Slope
Date: July 9, 2007 11:45 PM

You're welcome. The President is on the defensive. He has no hope. The legal community must choose between [a] We the People and Constitution; and [b] the President's illegal conduct which the Denver prosecutor outlined.

See: John S. Koppel:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408

The deadline is 12 July 2007. Contact your State AG and let them know you support state level prosecutions of US government officials: Failing to enforce laws of war; denying states their right to an enforcement mechanism; and for the other alleged malfeasance by Members of Congress in refusing to investigate or enforce FISA, Geneva, and other Constitutional Requirements. State AGs have the power to proseucte sitting presidents, VP, and Members of Congress [ 5 USC 3331 oath of office vioaltions].

The legal community has been reckless in not ensuring the Rule of Law prevails. Their inaction, where they had a duty to act, makes them complicit. These are issues of international criminal law. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes.

Regards and best wishes.

Otis wrote on July 10, 2007 12:00 AM:

I agree with Roberta!! It's completely creepy that the President of United States and the Attorney General of the United States are totally OKAY with letting their entire careers/legacy and everything about their character and integrity go down the tubes for the sake of the incredibly arrogant agendas of these little political assholes. Who are they protecting?? And why?? There is a bigger issue within! And I have thought so from the beginning of this saga! It does not add up. What are the motives? Most DOJ senior officials have already resigned...so why not just come clean?? This whole thing could have been cleared up so long ago without destroying US attorney reputations along the way. The Pres and AG are such disgraces!!! And I voted for Bush...I am so ashamed of myself!!!!!!!!! My Apologies to the USA for my part in making the wrong choice.

Slippery Slope wrote on July 10, 2007 12:27 AM:

And did you see their shoes?

COME ON! Give it a rest.

We have a thread that starts with two highly regarded legal scholars addressing relevant issues. But some here would rather comment about who was gazing at who.

Is this a blog equivalent to a filibuster? Just keep yammering on as a means of stifling progress on an issue. Is there a relevant term-of-art that works for what I see here? Maybe blogibuster?

Duckman GR wrote on July 10, 2007 12:28 AM:

Paul, I must disagree with this comment:

"But that seems increasingly unlikely to happen here, given the intractability of the two sides."

The intractability lies entirely on the side of the White House, so unless you mean Cheney as one and Bush as the other side, there aren't two intractable sides, just one great big steaming pile of one.

This might seem like quibbling, but I do not think so at all. Blame needs to go where it belongs. Congress insisting on oversight is simply following the laws of the land. The power mad lunatics of Bush/Cheney is anything but.

anon wrote on July 10, 2007 12:33 AM:

...If instead they drop this pansy attorney stuff and go straight for impeachment, I'd take Cheney over the Plame Treason, they will have a criminal case in which to issue new subpoenas which wouldn't be blocked by either the National Security exemption to disclosure (as suggested in Nixon) or the "this is an internal matter, butt out" argument the WH will make over this attorney thing...

Interesting. I'm still not sure that impeachment is plausible but, at a glance, it looks like you are right, subpoenas related to a criminal case--theoretically--will be significantly harder for the administration to ignore. If I was in Leahy or Conyers shoes, I'd figure out a way to put a zillion investigators/lawyers on the payroll and keep them digging. Enough dirt should--again, theoretically--make impeachment more politically acceptable. It's probably not the most, um, democratic way to govern but given the gumming of the works by the administration, it's worth a try.

John Wilson wrote on July 10, 2007 12:40 AM:

From The Grand Old Party to

Guardians Of Privilege...

xargaw wrote on July 10, 2007 1:11 AM:

Frankly, at this point, I think Congress should use every device possible, and throw the book at these women if necessary to get testimony. They had to know how corrupt this Administration is and chose to work in that environment. They should not be coddled. Throw them in jail, if necessary, and let Bush explain why they are sitting there. Let the American people see just how callous Bush can be and what a crook he is.

Mark F. wrote on July 10, 2007 2:30 AM:

Bush, the consummate coward has now ordered two more human shields into the fray. This time it's Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers, both of whom he has ordered to refuse to testify. Like good soldiers, they will pay the price for his corruption and dishonesty. At what point does someone finally tell the president, to paraphrase Dick Cheney, to go fuck himself?

Jerry wrote on July 10, 2007 2:45 AM:

I think the big question is the one Josh got right: if the President was not in the loop for this, why is he claiming executive priviledge? Someone in Congress or in the White House press room should be asking that.

EH wrote on July 10, 2007 3:35 AM:

Jake: The President can't pardon himself.

melior wrote on July 10, 2007 5:03 AM:

"i suspect that bush is in his own way rather gallant to women and respectful of their intelligence."

Plus, those wonderful surprise backrubs he gives!

Jon wrote on July 10, 2007 5:28 AM:

The USA is a failed democracy. It is now so currupt the justice system doesn't work, in that it can't bring the 'wealthy' crooks to justice.

The USA is no model to the world - it's a joke.

If Americans really cared about accountability under the law and democracy there would be rioting in the streets, like the Orange revolution in the Ukraine. The truth is the limit to outrage only goes as far as a few blogs, after all who wants to camp out in an uncomfortable street for a few days, too much effort ??

Al in Austex wrote on July 10, 2007 5:34 AM:

Jake,
Please refer upthread to "the Name Redacted " post/ It appears that you and the Other Trolls have been called out in your complicity with the BushCo criminal enterprise- particularly regarding war cimes- for instance Abu Gharib. Be advised Jake -and I have shared this with you before- that Conyers & Leahy already have the goods on you all. Both retrieved electronic data , and written testimony has & will implicate Rummy , Darth Cheney & Others regarding among other High Crimes - the willful violations of Geneva Convention protocols. Retired Gen Tagube has been giving grand jury testimony I betcha- Tagube really wishes the minions over at the VEEP's operation -ie Addington & Cambone hadn't made sure he was fired .So you & all the other brownshirt memmes better make sure that Ed Gillispie has got your Legal Defense well funded. Jake - grand juries have been convened -subpoeneas have been issued.
Jake this is not the Weimar Republic-this is the United States of America.

bp wrote on July 10, 2007 5:44 AM:

Leahy and Conyers are doing this by the book: ask, be denied, ask again and step by step make it look like they are forced to enforce their subpoenas. Even if the clock runs out I think these issues should be litigated and the President's assertions of privilege (meaning I am above the law) challenged. It will provide the Democratic candidate with lots of campaign material on the Republicans and their contempt for the rule of law.

Xenos wrote on July 10, 2007 7:20 AM:

bp has it right here. Impeachment is a political tool, and a risky one to use when the natural course of events will have the GOP out and a Democrat in power in 18 months in any case.

It is better to go slowly and systematically here. get every damn high-level executive staffer on record, as far as defining what is privileged, what the rationale is, and assuring nothing shredded or lost. Then investigate the holy hell out of them all with a special prosecutor starting in 2/09.

Once an entire generation of GOP hacks are on record for shredding, obstruction of justice, filing false statements with Congress, then prosecute them all. The substantive crimes do not matter, get them ALL on the coverup. Put a conviction on their names, keep them out of public service for the rest of their lifetimes. Wherever possible, put a conviction for security breaches on their names.

Most of the damage this crew could have done has been done. The important thing now is to make sure they never come to power again.

via wrote on July 10, 2007 8:59 AM:

In a discussion with looseheadprop at FDL yesterday, from reading the post and comments it would appear that by initiating an Impeachment Investigation, the House could compel the WH to comply with subpoenas of documents and witnesses. If I understand it properly, a court battle could be averted because the president cannot claim Executive Privilege when he himself is being investigated. The Inquiry is not Impeachment itself, just the discovery phase, as I understand it. It seems to me that this would be the quickest, most effective way of obtaining the information that the House wants and the people need to see. It would avert a possible court intervention, as Bush has pretty effectively stacked the courts, and insure that witnesses and documents were obtained in a timely manner. If this is how the process indeed works, why in the world has the House not taken this tack?

via wrote on July 10, 2007 9:04 AM:

In a discussion with looseheadprop at FDL yesterday, from reading the post and comments it would appear that by initiating an Impeachment Investigation, the House could compel the WH to comply with subpoenas of documents and witnesses. If I understand it properly, a court battle could be averted because the president cannot claim Executive Privilege when he himself is being investigated. The Inquiry is not Impeachment itself, just the discovery phase, as I understand it. It seems to me that this would be the quickest, most effective way of obtaining the information that the House wants and the people need to see. It would avert a possible court intervention, as Bush has pretty effectively stacked the courts, and insure that witnesses and documents were obtained in a timely manner. If this is how the process indeed works, why in the world has the House not taken this tack?

Code word, Porter. As in, Porter, show Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney the Door.

anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 9:23 AM:

Has Conyers offered a justification for his no-contempt stance?

Code word = glove, as in take the glove(s) off, Conyers.

Taking contempt off the table before she even appears is moronic and just encourages her to defy Congress.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:34 AM:

Posted by: Slippery Slope
Date: July 9, 2007 11:45 PM

You're welcome. The President is on the defensive. He has no hope. The legal community must choose between [a] We the People and Constitution; and [b] the President's illegal conduct which the Denver prosecutor outlined.

See: John S. Koppel:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408

The deadline is 12 July 2007. Contact your State AG and let them know you support state level prosecutions of US government officials: Failing to enforce laws of war; denying states their right to an enforcement mechanism; and for the other alleged malfeasance by Members of Congress in refusing to investigate or enforce FISA, Geneva, and other Constitutional Requirements. State AGs have the power to proseucte sitting presidents, VP, and Members of Congress [ 5 USC 3331 oath of office vioaltions].

The legal community has been reckless in not ensuring the Rule of Law prevails. Their inaction, where they had a duty to act, makes them complicit. These are issues of international criminal law. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes.

Regards and best wishes.

Posted by:
Date: July 9, 2007 11:58 PM

Ass: you don't know what you're talking about. There is, as example, the issue of standing.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:43 AM:

Has Conyers offered a justification for his no-contempt stance?

Code word = glove, as in take the glove(s) off, Conyers.

Taking contempt off the table before she even appears is moronic and just encourages her to defy Congress.

Posted by: anonymous
Date: July 10, 2007 9:23 AM

Wake up: there are two courts before which these matters are unfolding: court of public opinion, and the judiciary. In both instances one must be persuasive; that includes appearance.

Another way to put it: just because the malefactor is an asshole does not legitimize everyone else being an asshole.

Conyers/Congress is building a case, and there are correct ways to do that. Until Taylor is in contempt, there are no grounds to cite her for contempt.

Contempt is not "off the table"; Conyers is demonstrating his willingness to cooperate and negotiate a compromise, if the latter is necessary. If the other side refuses to cooperate, or negotiate a compromise, then the other side has no grounds down the road to claim unfair treatment.

This isn't a "cop show" or a football game.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:46 AM:

In a discussion with looseheadprop at FDL yesterday, from reading the post and comments it would appear that by initiating an Impeachment Investigation, the House could compel the WH to comply with subpoenas of documents and witnesses. If I understand it properly, a court battle could be averted because the president cannot claim Executive Privilege when he himself is being investigated. The Inquiry is not Impeachment itself, just the discovery phase, as I understand it. It seems to me that this would be the quickest, most effective way of obtaining the information that the House wants and the people need to see. It would avert a possible court intervention, as Bush has pretty effectively stacked the courts, and insure that witnesses and documents were obtained in a timely manner. If this is how the process indeed works, why in the world has the House not taken this tack?

Code word, Porter. As in, Porter, show Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney the Door.

Posted by: via
Date: July 10, 2007 9:04 AM

Because the Democrats don't (yet) have the votes, because of REPUBLICAN foot-dragging, and declared intent to obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct.

Those facts will begin to change after the recess, as is beginning to happen with Bushit on Iraq.

Uncle Don wrote on July 10, 2007 10:47 AM:

Congress also has the power of "inherent contempt" which does not involve the Department of Justice or the courts.

According to Wikipedia:

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House or Senate may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857.

While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against the Postmaster-General. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945). [1]

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 10:53 AM:

_US v. Nixon_, the case over the tapes, did not take years because the case was expedited. The same would happen in these circumstances; the rulings on these issues would not take years; they would be expedited.

What Bushit, et al., is endeavoring to do is make matters as complicated as possible: the more complicated they are, the longer they would take (down the road) to adjudicate. By comparison, the direct and proper approach is not the invocation of the Privilege but instead to go to court to quash the subpoenas. That that isn't being done suggests that Bushit, et al., are not confident they would get the ruling they want, even though they have managed to get some of their lunatic fringe judges onto the bench.

Conyers, in the Taylor instance, is being non-confrontational; if the public is half awake, it will see the difference: Conyers is being a nice guy; Bushit/Taylor are being assholes.

The pro-Bushit trolls, of course, will bash Democrats regardless facts and reality.

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 11:00 AM:

Something all parties should bear in mind. Running out the clock -- as Bush is clearly attempting -- only applies to impeachment proceedings."

Not necessarily. Impeachment includes the penalty of not being able to hold offices of public trust in the future. I believe it was Marty Lederman who detailed the Pickering impeachment case in which that point was made (Balkinization).

"The statute of limitations on their various crimes do not run out with the administration. They could still end having their sorry asses thrown in jail."

Yes.

Posted by: lm945
Date: July 9, 2007 7:31 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 11:13 AM:

"First of all, this is a totally different court than even 3 years ago. The chief "justice" was, I believe, one of the people who were instrumental in defining the "Unitary Presidency" theory which is the guiding principle in the Bush asylum. With the five ultra-right-wing Roman Catholics holding sway, it appears that George Bush will have any and all SCOTUS cases go his way. With Roberts & Alito there now, Kennedy's "swing-vote" status seems to have disappeared. I believe that any attempt to appeal to the Supremes will result in defeat for Congress, and legal elimination of Congress' Constitutionally-provided Oversight activities."

First, an unconstitutionality cannot be made legal -- as example, torture -- despite efforts to make it appear otherwise -- as example, Bushit's "signing statement" re. torture.

Second, the three branches are co-equal; and each is a check against each other branch. Congress, being co-equal with the SC, can overturn the SC, and it isn't all that rare that Congress does so.

Crackpot Robert Bork, who claims to have been a constitutional law professor, when bumming one of his books during the 1980s, asserted that the Constitution needs to be amended so that Congress can overturn the SC. It already could, and has done so sufficiently often for it not to be particularly rare. See "Civil Rights Restoration Act" of 1985 which overturned a Rehnquist line of cases in which Sec. 504 of the "Rehabilitation Act" of 1976 was improperly narrowed as to scope. See _Grove College_ and its progeny.

"Bush has complete freedom to break any law, eliminate any right, restrict any freedom, and incarcerate any person, without legal help, without appeal, without trial, etc., at his whim. He can start any war, assassinate any foreign leader, and breach any and all "sovereignty" anywhere in the world. Corporations are now supreme, and a contribution of a few thousand dollars to a candidate can reap $$billions in reward. Halliburton!"

No, he does not; even if our Constitution allowed it -- and it doesn't -- international law does not.

Posted by: spamonwry
Date: July 9, 2007 7:59 PM
-------------------------------------

"The Conventional Wisdom regarding executive priviledge is that the president would not receive candid or unvarnished advice if he were forced to make such advice public."

"Conventional wisdom" is a contradiction in terms, as wisdom is by nature and definition unconventional.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr
Date: July 9, 2007 8:14 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 11:22 AM:

lm945:

Not for "various [federal] crimes" if Bush pardons himself and Cheney.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 9, 2007 7:51 PM

A view offered by those who reject the ethical prohibition against conflicts-of-interest, and the ethical framework "ends and means".

Not surprising, "Jake," that truth hater "Jake" would reject ethics and its foundation: reason, and the fact that imperfect human societies require rules, and compliance with the rules, else it degenerate into lawless anarchy. Anti-American "Jake" cheers on the lawlessness.

It is centrally noteworthy that "Jake"'s view, no matter who expresses it, requires that known facts be selevtively ignored, distorted, and lied against in order to "prove" its premises. "Jake" is a truth-hating nihilist who defends and expresses the worldview of the criminal.

the fly-man wrote on July 10, 2007 11:45 AM:

I'd just skip all the in between two stepping and go straight to impeachment hearings for the Attorney General. Convict him, no pardon and the whole thing becomes an exercise in self preservation for all the parties. How's that for testing one's loyalty?

djp wrote on July 10, 2007 12:05 PM:

The privilege applies to communications and does not allow for a refusal to attend. The witness can be asked questions calling for answers that do not call for divulging communications: did you see this email, what did you do with it, was there a response from the person you sent it to, what did you do then, did you attend certain meetings, who was there, etc. There is plenty the Committee(s) can learn without asking for or getting "privileged communications".

djp wrote on July 10, 2007 12:06 PM:

The privilege applies to communications and does not allow for a refusal to attend. The witness can be asked questions calling for answers that do not call for divulging communications: did you see this email, what did you do with it, was there a response from the person you sent it to, what did you do then, did you attend certain meetings, who was there, etc. There is plenty the Committee(s) can learn without asking for or getting "privileged communications".

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:06 PM:

"You've been banging around on TPMMmuckraker asking for some "substantiation" behind the FISA violations, RNC e-mails, and other things. A plain reading of this editorial shows the DOJ Staff well knows the issues, and is appalled by the recklessness of this White House. It's called malfeasance; and the DoJ insider also points to the malfeasance in Congress."

Still at your pretentious bullshit, eh? Why hasn't your hero "turley not done you claim he can do?

And, no: Koppel does not point to anything in Congress, "malfeasance" or otherwise. Go back and read it for what he says instead of distorting it into support for your projected balderdash.

And note when you do that he doesn't accuse Bushit, et al., only of malfeasance; in the same sentence he includes _misfeasance_. Now go scurry to your non-law dictioanry, of your favorite conspirabunkerer's pseudo-law haven and find the definition for that.

"These allegations are from a prosecutor; and he points the finger at reckless conduct of Members of Congress."

No, he edoes not.

"Looks like the unspoken issue is the war crimes issues;"

He specifically states "war crimes" -- which means it isn't "unspoken" -- it's one thing to read in what isn't there; it's quite another to not read what is there in pursuit of your hamfisted poppycock.

". . . and the destruction of the RNC e-mails related to each of the issues within the editorial."

There is no evidence that the RNC emails were destroyed; rather, there is the unevidenced, and unsworn, assertion that they were; and the contrary disclosure that some of those originally said to be destroyed have been found.

But let's not pollute your nonsense with known facts.

". . . which have been destroyed."

You have no facts about what has and hasn't been destroyed, ass.

"On DoJ-connected e-mails in re FISA violations: "the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.""

That is so stupid the language can't articulate the degree. Bushit _publicly admitted_ the warrantless wiretapping and _public said_ he will continue to do it.

No emails are necessary to substantiate the fact, ass.

""They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years."

He is not talking about the current Congress, ass; he's is talking about the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress, which obtained until the 2006 elections.

"These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco,"

It wasn't a "fiasco"; it was a deliberate lie.

". . . the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war,"

You missed the opportunity to call yet another intrigue illegal. The invasion and occupation of Iraq were and are illegal.

"Note closely the DOJ Official . . . ."

You mean John S. Koppel, right? Then why not simply say that, pretentious nonsense-spewing twit?

". . . does not raise any new issues, but repeats what the public has been long concerned with:"

He simply summarizes everythnig Congress and we the people so far know, based upon available evidence, and his unique special insight from his position at the DOJ, and as a career lawyer. He does not draw any conclusions not supported by that available evidnce. Then again, he is a lawyer, and has a name; you have no education in law (your ego is out of control -- and without legitimate foundation), and don't have a name.

There's you evidence, ________. You want more?

I go with the evidence that is available, not with the unevidenced spooky presumptions and mistatement of facts by an unnamed poppycocker.

". . . apply your law degree, . . . ."

Tell it to your hero Turley.

Whatsamattuh? He dismissed your nonsnese as the confabulations of the usual law-illiterate conspirabunker?

"The comments here are not different than what the DOJ STaff are talking about."

Actually they are different; Balkinization is a blog by law professors, including Marty Lederman, formerly of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. The legal issues are much more complex, and far less certain, that know-it-all twits such as you comprehend.

"May I suggest you fly to Denver, get some clear air, and start putting your law degree to work. You're wasting your time on TPM and bringing discredit upon the legal profession."

To whom do you speak, ass? First, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're wrong. Second, who in hell knows "who" you are lecturing with your nonsense?

Third, since you lift your "theory" from a Turley article (which has no relevance to your "theory"), then bring it to Turley. Put it in his face; insist that he cease being a "hypocrite" or whatever term you use, and cease "bringing discredit on the legal profession."

"It shouldn't take an insider to repeat what the public is posting here on the TPM board."

What in hell does that mean?

"All you've done is make a smokescreen. It looks as though you are a troll, and not interested in using the open media to identify issues warranting reporting, investigation, and analysis."

Why not run for Congress, know-it-all, so you can tell Congress how it doesn't know what it's doing because it isn't listening to you?

You are the profoundest of hypocrite and don't even recognize the fact: you hate the Busit criminal enterprise because it takes the law into its own hands; and you insist the way to "cure" that is to tkae the law into one's own hands.

Get an actual education in actual law, or stop the bullshit pretense that you know what you're talking about, when in fact you are wholly full of shit.

Take it to Balkinization and see how it flies amid a significant number of law professors and lawyers.

"Next time you want someone to "substantiate" their claims, be mindful: You don't know who is reading this board; who you're talking to; or what they know; or how they know it."

Which is irrelevant to whether one substantiates. You don't substantiate; you drone on and on in monolouge, loving to hear yourself talk, spewing gibberish beased upon onvenient errors you don't recognize as being errors.

"Quit wasting this TPM board's time with your non-sense."

You mean I should cease exposing your crap for the poppypock it is, child?

"Not impressed with you or your non-sense."

Correct: you're so convinced of your horseshit that you needn't listen, let alone learn. Take it to Turley.

"It's in the papers, all the evidence."

No, it is not. Evidence is reported -- the reporting is not the evidence.

"What more do you want to accept there is a problem, . . . ."

I have no doubt there's a problem. In fact, I've been on it since at latest 12/12/2000.

". . . and the legal community did not ot timely stand up to this abuse of power?"

The legal community does not have the responsibility -- or authority -- you insist it has, ass. The Constitution gives the police power -- the power and authority to enforce the laws -- to gov't, _NOT TO THE PRIVATE BAR, OR TO ANY OTHER PRIVATE ORGANIZATION, GROUP, OR INDIVIDUAL_.

The legal profession has no legal authority to enforce the law.

There is also the issue of STANDING, ass.

". . . . DoJ Staff counsel have been complicit with failing to enforce Geneva; have not acted on open media reports related to FISA violations; and have not enforced Geneva against the US government officials in the White House, DoD, or senior civilian leadership."

ASS: DOJ staff does not have the authority, on its own, to act on any legal issue.

Want to know how the DOJ operates IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW -- rather than as freelance honchos of arrogant full-of-shit twists such as you? Go to Balkinization and ask Marty Lederman.

You don't know what you're talking about; and you're being an ass because your poppycock is shredded. Take your whining to Turley and curse him out for not doing that you demand the legal profession do, based upon the fundamental ignorance that there is no private right to take the law into one's hands and prosecute alleged criminal acts. Criminal acts are prosecuted by the gov't -- not private parties.

". . . DOJ Staff well understand that the misconduct is accurately being reported in the media: War crimes, FISA violations, and other evidence of illegal activity are in the RNC e-mails; and they were destroyed because the privilege claims were known to have no merit to hide the evidence of the WH-EOP-DOJ-OVP-Congresses reckless malfeasance on these war crimes."

Tell it to Marty Lederman. Tell it to John S. Koppel. And accept their shreddings of your poppycock as definitive.

"ALLEGATION: GRAND JURY TARGET

You are now an alleged co-conspirator in a public dinsinformation effort to allegedly stifle public commentary, discussion, and review of FISA vioaltions, Geneva violations, prisoner abuse, and other illegal actiivty allegedly contained with the RNC e-mails. It remains to be understood how your commentary has or has not been coordinted with others complicit with war crimes, and other efforts to allegedly obstruct justice."

Now that would be hilarious if it were not an insult -- from a bullying crackpot -- to intelligence and the rule of law.

Posted by:
Date: July 9, 2007 10:20 PM

JNagarya wrote on July 10, 2007 12:10 PM:

To the know-it-all who can't remember his own name, or hasn't the ethical courage to identify "him"self --

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Float your poppycock there and accept the results as definitive.

mutt wrote on July 10, 2007 12:28 PM:

Thank all of you for a most educational commentary.
Truly the apologists for murder & treason are coming completely unglued, defending the indefensible.
Well, when so called "conservatives" started airbrushing the Viet Nam War, the die was cast for lies & thuggery to become the norm. And it has.

Anonymous wrote on July 10, 2007 12:52 PM:

IMPEACHMENT OF CIVILIAN LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

Congress may impeach anyone: Even reckless civilian legal counsel complicit with war crimes. The President claims there is no power to review commutation. There is also no requirement that there be any "precedent" for "how" Congress impeaches; or "who" Congress impeachable. Impeachment is designed as a legal tool and unreviewable power delegated to Congress to thwart the President's decision to refuse to enforce the law. When the law is not enforced, the Congress may assert its power and use impeachment any way it chooses. Just as the President cannot let anyone compel him by precedent on commutation, so too is Congress not required to follow any rules on impeachment. Legal counsel complicit with war crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal activity may be lawfully impeached. Legal professionals have no basis to say that the President can assert power without review; but that Congress may not similarly assert impeachment power without review. Such an imbalance of power is reckless.

On the table are impeachments of current and formerly assigned White House counsel; legal counsel and legal professional blocking investigations into any crime may be impeached. Civilian legal counsel can be impeached; formerly assigned US government officials may be impeached. Once impeached, the President has no power to issue any pardon. Congress trumps the President. The legal community has no power to dissuade

Congress from impeaching _anyone_:
- Destruction of E-mail evidence;
- FISA violations
- War Crimes
- Geneva violations
- Illegal memoranda
- Complicity with war crimes
- Using legal services to support, implement, and carry out illegal activity

Congress has the absolute power to decide on its own who, how, and when it shall impeach; and how and when it shall trump the President's pardon. The legal professionals have no hope. They have thwarted investigation; they have not permitted full reviews; they have destroyed evidence; and they have not preserved evidence. The legal community has been reckless. On the table are their impeachments. they have no defense; there is no mitigation; and the Congress alone has the power to define who, by name, is or is not impeached for war crimes, evidence destruction, FISA violations, and other illegal activity by any civilian legal professional.

Formerly assigned White House counsel can be impeached; there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress may not impeach legal professionals. There is no requirement or rule that dictates when legal professionals may be targeted. Any US citizen, resident, or person may forward any evidence of legal professional inaction on war crimes to Congress for their review for impeachment purposes. Any effort by any legal professional to assert that impeachment "Must" be "only" used in _certain_ is reckless: Their statements are without merit; case law cannot constrain the Congress in its broad assertion of power; and no legal professional has any credibility when they assert that Congress cannot do what the President has done: Asserted power without review.

Legal professionals in America have been reckless. They have defied their oath. They have no enforced Geneva; and they have recklessly permitted evidence in the RNC e-mails to be destroyed. On the table is the impeachment of any and all legal professionals who have been complicit with, refused to enforce, and have dissuaded Congress and WE the People from enforcing the laws of war, FISA, Geneva, and the Supreme Law against legal professionals.

There is not legal basis for any legal professionals to dissuade anyone from providing evidence of legal professional misconduct, illegal activity, or other complicity with war crimes to the Congress for purposes of impeachment. Legal counsel who say that there "must" be a rule "permitting" this Communication are arguably reckless and without any legal standing. No one is required to 'follow a rule': We the People have the inherent power, right, and authority through the 10th Amendment and 1st Amendment to provide evidence of legal professional efforts to dissuade, mislead, tamper, or interfere with witness reports in re war crimes to Congress.

Congress may broadly choose how it will impeach. Legal professionals are on fair notice and warning: You are now lawful targets for war crimes impeachments by We the People through the House. Your online interactions, communications, and efforts to dissuade public discussion of your alleged war crimes may be entered into evidence. Adverse inferences. Fatal. No mitigations.

Thomas Bourgeois wrote on July 10, 2007 2:52 PM:

In answer to Roberta's post, Karen Hughes is in fact married, and she cited her desire to "spend more time with my family in Texas" as her reason for leaving the administration after her stint as communications director.

-Thomas Bourgeois

Mooser wrote on July 10, 2007 3:21 PM:

Most of the damage this crew could have done has been done.

You ain't seen nothin' yet!

There's a whole Imelda of sabots still waiting to clatter to the floor.

VJB wrote on July 10, 2007 3:38 PM:

You think Sarah Taylor actually would have a future career at a think tank? At the risk of being thought sexist in my devil's advocate role, I think not. She would be ahead of the game spilling (most of) all, then doing a memoir (please God, ghostwritten by Trex of FDL).

VJB wrote on July 10, 2007 3:40 PM:

You think Sarah Taylor actually would have a future career at a think tank? At the risk of being thought sexist in my devil's advocate role, I think not. She would be ahead of the game spilling (most of) all, then doing a memoir (please God, ghostwritten by Trex of FDL).

Jake wrote on July 10, 2007 3:45 PM:

LOL -- since they don't have the balls to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, I guess there's going to be some huge groundswell for Democrats to impeach civilian lawyers even though that won't impact their licenses to practice law -- although, Mark Geragos did get tossed off a case by a federal judge today, so maybe you're on to something . . .

JD wrote on July 10, 2007 4:31 PM:

Congress HAS to learn to play chicken with the chickenhawks of the Bush cabal. Trust the American people to pick up the pieces. The Democratic Party WILL NOT lose. REMEMBER 06!

Al in Austex wrote on July 10, 2007 9:06 PM:

Jake,
This fish is rotting from the head/ The Dems have plenty enough balls to impeach the VEEP.
The civilan lawyers at the OVP - ie Addington & Yoo will be collateral damage (Geragos has nothing to do with this Post -his name is so nineties -pay attention please.) Remember its not just the illegal wiretaps, outting the Brewster Jennings NOC network - what will really light up the public passion for Impeachment of the VEEP will be the Tagube testimony regarding torture of Iraqi detainees .Of course anybody at the Rummy OSD - including Rumsfelds himself are also going to be Impeached & probably convicted.
But Jake keep repeating those Gillispie / Mehlman misinformed half truths - its keeps you busy and out of more mischief ...