White House Rejects Subpoenas on Prosecutor Firings (Update3)

[thefarmer]

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration asserted executive privilege and rejected subpoenas from two congressional committees probing last year's firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

``The president has decided to assert executive privilege and therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents,'' White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote to Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont and Representative John Conyers of Michigan, chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

The White House resistance is likely to touch off a constitutional showdown over Congress's ability to investigate the prosecutor firings and the president's ability to obtain frank counsel from advisers.

Conyers, a Democrat, said the privilege claim won't end the fight for the documents.

``The president's response to our subpoena shows an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government,'' Conyers said in a statement. ``The executive privilege assertion is unprecedented in its breadth and scope, and even includes documents that the administration previously offered to provide.''

New York Democrat Charles Schumer, who has been leading the Senate Judiciary Committee's probe of the prosecutor dismissals, said the White House is ``stonewalling'' Congress.

`Large' Questions

``The U.S. attorney scandal has put forward large, looming questions,'' Schumer said at a committee meeting today. ``The subpoenas were an attempt to get answers.''

He likened the White House's refusal to turn over the documents to the Watergate scandals during President Richard Nixon's administration.

``Not since the Nixon administration have we seen a stonewalling strategy like this,'' Schumer said. ``I have no doubt it will backfire and it will not stand.''

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters aboard Air Force One, as Bush was flying to Newport, Rhode Island, for a speech, that it was ``premature to talk about courts. It's really up to Congress now.''

The next likely step is for Congress to vote -- probably after its July 4 recess -- to hold White House officials in contempt of Congress, Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said in an interview.

``Then Congress will try to have it enforced in the courts,'' he said. ``There are good arguments on both sides but I believe Congress has the better of it,'' Tobias said, citing its constitution powers to investigate.

`Getting Along'

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters that lawmakers should accept Bush's offer to let White House aides answer questions behind closed doors without a transcript. A court battle over the executive privilege claim would take two years to resolve and by then the president's term will have ended, he said.

``I'd like for the committee to get along with the White House,'' Specter said. ``If we started getting along, we'd find out what the facts are.''

Specter said that as long as the investigation continues to lag, ``Attorney General Gonzales continues to serve'' and the Justice Department remains in ``total disarray.''

A senior administration official, on a conference call with reporters, said the White House is confident its assertion of executive privilege would withstand a court challenge.

`Utmost Importance'

Fielding, in his letter to lawmakers, said ``the principles at stake here are of the utmost importance.

``Presidents must be able to depend upon their advisers and other executive branch officials speaking candidly and without inhibition while deliberating and working to advise the president,'' he wrote.

The congressional committees sought documents that would shed light on the dismissal of the eight U.S. attorneys and whether they were fired for political purposes.

Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, and Sara M. Taylor, former White House director of political affairs, were among those subpoenaed. Bush has ordered Miers and Taylor ``not to produce any documents,'' Fielding said.

Bush has offered to let Congress question his aides privately without a transcript.

Fielding's letter reiterated the president's previous offer, saying, ``in the absence of any subpoenas he continues to be willing to provide you with information as previously offered.''

`Balanced Manner'

This approach, Fielding said, would allow the congressional inquiry to ``proceed in a balanced manner, respectful of important constitutional principles of both institutions, rather than through confrontation.''

Earlier documents released by the Justice Department show that Miers once discussed firing all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal resisted by the Justice Department. She consulted closely with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, about the plans to replace eight prosecutors.

Congressional investigators are trying to determine whether the prosecutors were fired for improper political motives such as to spur investigations of Democrats or squelch those of Republicans.

To contact the reporters on this story: Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.net ; Edwin Chen in Washington at echen32@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: June 28, 2007 16:24 EDT
from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQBAIsxQyPog&refer=home

Somehow I think that even if the Dems are right, and Bush did persuade Gonzales to abuses in power, unless it's very clearly demonstrated that it was very, very wrong, there's a big chance this'll blow up in the Dems face and they'll start to loose the fragile grip they have in the House/Senate.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[Drew]

It's not important enough to really cause either party any grief. Love the dems trying to make this another Watergate. "ZOMG Bush did the same thing as every other President!" That argument just won't fly. Bush has nothing to lose, his approval rating can't drop any lower unless he ate a baby on the front lawn and the Democrats will try to make hay while the sun shines. I'm just surprised they went with this one, generally you throw 100 darts and when you get a bullseye you ramp up the attack but it feels like the Democrats got a triple 3 with this one and are trying to ramp it up. I don't really get it.

[Tsa`ah]

It's not important enough to really cause either party any grief. Love the dems trying to make this another Watergate. "ZOMG Bush did the same thing as every other President!"

Except he didn't.

It's not uncommon at the beginning of the term, nor is it uncommon to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch with a new president commencing the first or second term. It IS unheard of and unprecedented to fire a select few as one's term is winding down.

I expect your next argument will be parroting Cheney's argument that he's not part of the executive branch.

[Drew]

Wow, unprecedented and unheard of. I still have not heard any argument as to why this was outside of his legal powers or how this was illegal.

[Back]

Wow, unprecedented and unheard of. I still have not heard any argument as to why this was outside of his legal powers or how this was illegal.

Because it goes much deeper than just firing attorneys. Some were fired for not prosecuting enough voter fraud charges against democrats before the 2006 elections. The Patriot Act has allowed this administration to appoint attorney generals without congressional confirmation. Some of the top jobs went to people who were high up in the RNC and/or aids to Rove. Acting AG for AK right now is Tim Griffin, ex-RNC strategist, who is alleged to have “caged” black votes in Florida in 2004.

There is much more to the story than just AGs (appointed by this administration) getting fired.

[Gan]

I've got your tin foil hats right here folks! Step right up, just pop this little baby on your head and you can see all the GOP Conspiracies that have been going on under you very little noses for the past 7 years under the mastermind George W Bush!

:banghead:

When someone can demonstrate that it violated an actual law, then they'll go after impeachment hearings legitimately. Until then. Its just press fodder.

[Kefka]

I've got your tin foil hats right here folks! Step right up, just pop this little baby on your head and you can see all the GOP Conspiracies that have been going on under you very little noses for the past 7 years under the mastermind George W Bush!

:banghead:

When someone can demonstrate that it violated an actual law, then they'll go after impeachment hearings legitimately. Until then. Its just press fodder.


If they have nothing to hide, why the delay tactics? The most secretive administration in history that also wants a warrant-less spy program. When all the information is hidden, theories are all you're left with.

[Back]

If they have nothing to hide, why the delay tactics? The most secretive administration in history that also wants a warrant-less spy program. When all the information is hidden, theories are all you're left with.

Didn’t you hear? The White House and the VP’s Office are not part of the Executive branch therefore require no oversight.

[Kefka]

Didn’t you hear? The White House and the VP’s Office are not part of the Executive branch therefore require no oversight.

I think it's only Crash-Cart that's claiming his office is not part of the Executive branch, but he sure wields the 'Executive privilege' sword like a master samurai.

[Gan]

If they have nothing to hide, why the delay tactics? The most secretive administration in history that also wants a warrant-less spy program. When all the information is hidden, theories are all you're left with.

I'd like to search your house and go through everything inside because I think you have illicit drugs inside. Will you willingly let me? Or will you require a warrant? Do I have the authority to perform the search? And lastly is my suspicions of you breaking the law actually enough proof to warrant a search?

Pretty much the same applies here if you ask me.

[Back]

I'd like to search your house and go through everything inside because I think you have illicit drugs inside. Will you willingly let me? Or will you require a warrant? Do I have the authority to perform the search? And lastly is my suspicions of you breaking the law actually enough proof to warrant a search?

Pretty much the same applies here if you ask me.

Except its a public office, not a private residence. Dumbass.

[Kefka]

I'd like to search your house and go through everything inside because I think you have illicit drugs inside. Will you willingly let me? Or will you require a warrant? Do I have the authority to perform the search? And lastly is my suspicions of you breaking the law actually enough proof to warrant a search?

Pretty much the same applies here if you ask me.

Are you referring to the warrant-less wiretaps or a public office like the White House?

[Drew]

The President should have the ability to receive council without it being reviewed by the other party. This is like the Colts demanding to read the Bears playbook.

[Sean]

I'm not convinced that the Colts didn't have the Bears playbook...

[Kefka]

The President should have the ability to receive council without it being reviewed by the other party. This is like the Colts demanding to read the Bears playbook.

I'm sure he does receive good private council already. Gonzales is not his council. Gonzales works for the people. Well... at least he's suppose to. That's why they're calling for his resignation.

[Drew]

Yet they subpoenaed Harriet Myers who was most certainly his council.

[Drew]

I'm not convinced that the Colts didn't have the Bears playbook...


Fair point.

My friend still hasn't collected the hundred bucks I bet him on that game.

[Tsa`ah]

I'd like to search your house and go through everything inside because I think you have illicit drugs inside. Will you willingly let me? Or will you require a warrant? Do I have the authority to perform the search? And lastly is my suspicions of you breaking the law actually enough proof to warrant a search?

Pretty much the same applies here if you ask me.

I'll tell you what, when you can make an accurate analogy .. we'll run with it. Until then, let's try this.

Your employer, or business partner, or fellow board member suspects you're using drugs and storing them on company property and using company assets to purchase and transport them ... bend over and take it. If they find nothing, you can tell them to go fuck themselves to the highest elevation possible and then take them to court for whatever reason you choose. However, if they find even a shred of truth to the accusation ... kiss your fucking job, position, partnership goodbye.

For a guy trying to suggest we need tinfoil hats, you're overlooking a lot of pretty damn suspicious activity and maneuvering.

[Ilvane]

I love that they say that Cheney isn't part of the Executive Branch. The White House webpage says enough.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/exec.html

Seems like the administration needs a civics lesson.

Since when is he not part of the President's cabinet?

Anyway, on this issue, there's an order that seems pretty clear to me..

("(i) 'Agency' means any 'Executive agency,' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.")

Here's the link for the executive order see what you guys think. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1995_register&docid=fr20ap95-135.pdf)

Angela

[Latrinsorm]

If you'll notice, the Vice President is listed as Cabinet-level, rather than Cabinet member. Similarly, many people would suggest that the best NL team is on the level of a scrappy AL team; in no way does this suggest that said team is in fact in the AL. Do you see?

[TheEschaton]

Uh, the Cabinet is part of the Executive Branch.

[Back]

You are pissing in the wind, Latrin. As usual.

[Latrinsorm]

The question I was addressing (which, incidentally, was the only question in the post preceding mine) was: "Since when is he not part of the President's cabinet?" I'm glad we cleared this up. :)

[thefarmer]

I'd like to search your house and go through everything inside because I think you have illicit drugs inside. Will you willingly let me? Or will you require a warrant? Do I have the authority to perform the search? And lastly is my suspicions of you breaking the law actually enough proof to warrant a search?

Pretty much the same applies here if you ask me.

Cars are stopped and searched all the time without a warrant merely on 'suspicion'. Driving too fast, too slow, in the wrong neighborhood, ugly-looking or hot, whatever the case may be, and whether real or imagined suspicions, plenty of cases are brought to trial because of it.

Sure you have the right to refuse, but why would you if you've got nothing to hide? It only makes you look guilty, so instead of the casual search you would have gotten, it becomes a larger matter.

Bush and co. have clearly resisted the initial search. The Dems have now insisted on a much more thorough search. Again, Bush has resisted. Is he within his rights? Probably. But his continued resistance just makes it look like he has something to hide.

[Back]

Bush and co. have clearly resisted the initial search. The Dems have now insisted on a much more thorough search. Again, Bush has resisted. Is he within his rights? Probably. But his continued resistance just makes it look like he has something to hide.

Not to mention that oversight since 2000, Congress’ job, has been non-existant.

Go Supernerd Waxman!

[Tsa`ah]

If you'll notice, the Vice President is listed as Cabinet-level, rather than Cabinet member. Similarly, many people would suggest that the best NL team is on the level of a scrappy AL team; in no way does this suggest that said team is in fact in the AL. Do you see?

It's really a moot point, article II of the constitution clearly defines "executive".

[Gan]

Still waiting for the impeachment proceedings if all that Bush & Co. is doing is illegal in this matter. Until then... well, you get the picture.

[thefarmer]

With this line of thinking.. Do you think OJ's really innocent?

[Drew]

Sure you have the right to refuse, but why would you if you've got nothing to hide?




Because if you surrender your rights, you have none. I've refused searches many times, and I've had a number of cops huff, puff and threaten me if I didn't let them search. The truth is any time I've turned down a search the worst I've gotten is a warning. I love when cops ask to search, it means I'm not getting a ticket.

[Drew]

Also, here's another great reason to not allow a search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal

Can't plant drugs in my car if I don't let you in.

[thefarmer]

Because if you surrender your rights, you have none. I've refused searches many times, and I've had a number of cops huff, puff and threaten me if I didn't let them search. The truth is any time I've turned down a search the worst I've gotten is a warning. I love when cops ask to search, it means I'm not getting a ticket.

You have a point. Even criminals are entitled to rights.

However, a refusal to comply, even if it's within your rights, can indicate guilt of some sort. My feelings are that cooperation isn't necessarily a surrender of your rights, as long as you're aware of your rights, and able to assert them.

[Back]

You have a point. Even criminals are entitled to rights.

However, a refusal to comply, even if it's within your rights, can indicate guilt of some sort. My feelings are that cooperation isn't necessarily a surrender of your rights, as long as you're aware of your rights, and able to assert them.

Our forefathers wrote the VIth amendment for a reason...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Take a wild guess why they included it in our Constitution. Because they were fed up with an authoritarian/dictatorship.

Some people in this day and age seem to forget that little tid-bit and seem more than willing to go back to dictatorship.

[TheEschaton]

But in this case - the probable cause is there, the officers have the warrant, and the guy is still refusing to let people search. The only reason it's not escalated to a forcible search is because this particular guy happens to be the President.

[Gan]

With this line of thinking.. Do you think OJ's really innocent?

Do you?

[Parkbandit]

Bush and co. have clearly resisted the initial search. The Dems have now insisted on a much more thorough search. Again, Bush has resisted. Is he within his rights? Probably. But his continued resistance just makes it look like he has something to hide.

Probably nothing, he is well within his rights.

This is merely an attempt by a party in power, yet unable to get anything done, to try and paint a negative picture of the leader of the other party. Nothing more.

[Parkbandit]

You have a point. Even criminals are entitled to rights.

However, a refusal to comply, even if it's within your rights, can indicate guilt of some sort. My feelings are that cooperation isn't necessarily a surrender of your rights, as long as you're aware of your rights, and able to assert them.

Huh? Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? Because I don't let Joe Cop into my house without a warrent, it can somehow be infered by your limited brain capacity that I am somehow guilty of whatever Joe Cop thinks?

You might want to find another tree to climb.. I just chopped this one to shit.

[Parkbandit]

Take a wild guess why they included it in our Constitution. Because they were fed up with an authoritarian/dictatorship.

Some people in this day and age seem to forget that little tid-bit and seem more than willing to go back to dictatorship.


Is this where you once again try and state that Bush is a Dictator?

We're laughing at you, not with you.

:LOL:

[Latrinsorm]

It's really a moot point, article II of the constitution clearly defines "executive".It's not a moot point if someone's asking about it. (all) Knowledge is power! :)

It's certainly irrelevant as to whether the Vice President is a member of the executive branch, if that's what you meant.

[thefarmer]

Huh? Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about? Because I don't let Joe Cop into my house without a warrent, it can somehow be infered by your limited brain capacity that I am somehow guilty of whatever Joe Cop thinks?

You might want to find another tree to climb.. I just chopped this one to shit.

I don't need to infer anything. It's Joe Cop's responsibility to infer something from your refusal to cooporate. He's the one that's either thinks you're guilty of something, or wishes you a nice day.

[thefarmer]

Do you?

A civil court convicted him, and while that's clearly a different court with a different set of rules, it's good enough for me to think he played a part.

So do you?

[Gan]

A civil court convicted him, and while that's clearly a different court with a different set of rules, it's good enough for me to think he played a part.

So do you?

At the time of the trial I did not think there was enough solid evidence to demonstrate his guilt.

Looking at his behavior since then, yes I think he's guilty. Yet neither seems to fit your analagy of using an example of OJ's guilt or innocense as an example of the white house emails and Bush.

Try another approach.

[thefarmer]

At the time of the trial I did not think there was enough solid evidence to demonstrate his guilt.

Looking at his behavior since then, yes I think he's guilty. Yet neither seems to fit your analagy of using an example of OJ's guilt or innocense as an example of the white house emails and Bush.

Try another approach.

I'm don't really need another approach. I'm not trying to prove anything. You're of the opinion that Bush hadn't done anything illegal. And if he had done something illegal, that impeachment would have been called for.(At least that's the impression I get.)

My point was that because he's refusing to cooporate it looks like he's hiding something either illegal or politically damaging.

I brought up OJ to illustrate the fact that just because it can't be legally proved in court (Or in impeachment), doesn't necessarily mean the accused party isn't guilty of breaking the law. You don't see it, which is alright with me.

As an aside, I doubt the Dems have enough political clout to even get to the point of even threatening to impeach Bush even if they eventually find he did something wrong.

[Drew]

A civil court convicted him, and while that's clearly a different court with a different set of rules, it's good enough for me to think he played a part.

So do you?


He was found liable by a civil court, not guilty.


Civil courts don't find verdicts of guild or innocence.

[Valthissa]

But in this case - the probable cause is there, the officers have the warrant, and the guy is still refusing to let people search. The only reason it's not escalated to a forcible search is because this particular guy happens to be the President.

The reason it is not escalated is that it is pure political theatre. The last thing either congress or the president want is a supreme court ruling (either for or against) on executive privilege (I think the Watergate era ruling applied to criminal investigations by federal prosecutors).

Executive Privilege is proxy battle for whether the president can ignore congress, and a loss at the supreme court for either congress or the president would diminish the authority of one branch of government and increase the power of the other.

but everyone here knows that.

also, not to be pedantic, but isn't the penalty for failing to appear at a congressional committee a citation of contempt, not a forcible search?

C/Valth

[Tsa`ah]

And what good does it do congress to find someone in contempt of congress?

We have an entire era of congress running amuck and and essentially cutting it's own throat. Just look at the communism and Hughes hearings.

[Gan]

also, not to be pedantic, but isn't the penalty for failing to appear at a congressional committee a citation of contempt, not a forcible search?

C/Valth


They can also send the master of arms to arrest the person in contempt... only in this case, you cant arrest the President. That and I dont think the house master of arms has arrested anyone in over 100 years, if ever.

[TheEschaton]

Patrick Leahy apparently said he would recommend contempt when he was on Meet the Press yesterday. Crazy old Vermont Democrat.

-TheE-