Senate Judiciary Committee authorizes subpoenas.
Senate Judiciary Committee authorizes subpoenas.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, following the House’s lead, has “authorized subpoenas for White House political adviser Karl Rove and other top aides involved in the firing of federal prosecutors. … A House Judiciary subcommittee authorized subpoenas in the matter Wednesday, but none has been issued. Democrats said the move would give them more bargaining power in negotiating with the White House to hear from Bush’s closest advisers.”
UPDATE: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that ex-Gonzales chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson plans to testify voluntarily next Thursday.
UPDATE II: TPMMuckraker has more from today’s committee hearing, plus this video of Leahy ripping into the proposed White House deal: “What they are offering is nothing, nothing, nothing.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Let me know if those ever get issued and what date(s) Karl and Miers are set to testify. This is getting good!
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 pmTo bad their not worth the paper they are written on.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:23 pmIf Bush allows Rove or Miers to testify, I will think much less of him standing up to the real terrorists.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pmWELL, ALLRIGHT! Things are looking pretty good for getting to the root of the WH infestation. ‘Dem cockroaches gotta go!
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm#s 1,2, and 3- You, too, cockroaches!
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm#3 I don’t follow, the two are unrelated.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 pmSee, Kyle Sampson will testify under Oath and his name is on many of the emails that will come into question. He’s a much bigger man than Rove.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 pmIf Bush allows Rove or Miers to testify, I will think much less of him standing up to the real terrorists.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
This must be the most labored talking point of all time, Jake.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pmVerbalKint and DM:
If Bush cannot even stand up for Executive Privilege, then how can he stand up to the terrorists?
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmHere’s what will unfortunately happen:
1. The subpoenas will be issued.
2. The Chimp In Chief will stonewall the subpoenas.
3. Congress will sue the Executive to get the subpoenas to go thru.
4. By some miracle, The Supreme Court will allow the subpoenas.
5. Rove and Miers will testify before Congress, but both will be stricken by sudden i-cannot-recall-the-specifics-itis.
6. Congress will be forced to abandon the investigation.
As much as I would like to see the Chimp In Chief’s cronies (and by proxy, the Chimp himself) get nailed, this is not a stretch, and will likely be the result.
BY THE WAY, but off topic, DON’T WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN THIS?! IRAQ? IRAN? AFGHANISTAN? NORTH KOREA? I actually think the chimp likes the diversion this is causing from all the other SH%^ going down.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmSampson is going to squeal like the pig Gonzo is.
Where’s the popcorn?
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm#3 I don’t follow, the two are unrelated.
Comment by DM — March 22, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Actually, in Jake’s corrupted mind they are closely related. He wants his dictator to be steadfastly above the law in all matters, both domestic and foreign.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm#1,2,3. A Jake and Patrick sandwich. A piece of shite between two pieces of crap.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 pmhellinabucket:
Gonzales will testify too as the President has said all of the A.G. key staff will explain how the decision was made and for what reasons — in addition, they are giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of decision-making information — but testimony under oath stops at WHITE HOUSE door — if Rover and Miers are hauled before Congress and forced to testify, then no future President will be able to get the full range of effective advice. Why so short-sighted here? I hope at least Miers would refuse to testify since her client has invoked the privilege.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 pmIf Bush cannot even stand up for Executive Privilege, then how can he stand up to the terrorists?
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I can’t put my figure on it with words, but I find this line of reasoning very creepy. There is some kind of deep-rooted worship of authoritarianism going on here. My interpretation is that Jake is really saying that following the rule of law is for sissies, and sissies can’t fight terrorists.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 pmVerbalKint:
I don’t think the President is above the law in all matters, both domestic and foreign. Do you think that just because the President cannot be indicted or arrested means he is “above the law”? I don’t.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 pmHopefully they included in the supoenas the gap in the e-mails. Get those and any “I can’t recalls” will be much more difficult to fake.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:46 pmJake, call it whatever you want, in my view you have repeatedly argued that Bush is exempt from the law in many matters, and you have done this despite having it demonstrated to you again and again by other commenters here that you are wrong.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:51 pmWell, VerbalKint, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but nonetheless, you want to think of it as just this one person you hate is “exempt” when I realize that it is not just Bush we are talking about — ANY sitting U.S. President cannot be indicted or arrested. I would call that “within the law” — not above or below or anywhere else metaphysically.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmHiya again, Jake! Wow, you do get around. No sooner do I think I’ve caught up with you and try to get you to answer a simple question that should fall within your sphere of expertise, than you seem to take a powder and vanish from the thread. I’m beginning to feel that I’m like kryptonite to Jake. Or maybe my question is like kryptonite to Jake?
Anyway, here’s what i wanted to pose for you:
How does “separation of powers” affect whether the President’s aides tesifty UNDER OATH or whether they tesify WITHOUT BEING UNDER OATH?
Thanks.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm#9 I’d hope that the President’s behavior towards terrorists and his methods for dealing with them would be different than his relationship with Congress.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 pmKRank, Jake isn’t here to answer questions like your’s. He is here to dodge them.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pmVerbalkint: “There is some kind of deep-rooted worship of authoritarianism going on here.”
There has actually been some writing and discussion on this phenomenon lately. A significant percentage of the population exhibit what psychologists call “authoritarian personality.” I think it’s about 25 to 30%. People with this condition actually worship authority although they often don’t view themselves this way. There also tends to be a lot of sociopathy among authoritarian personalities which accounts for the strange, almost souless attitudes some of these people have. The most pathological of authoritarian personalities exhibit classic “cultist” behavior.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:12 pmIn completely unrelated news, Karl Rove will be working out of their new Dubai based offices.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pmVerbal, I suspect you’re right, but I figured it was the honorable thing to do to give him every opportunity.
I apologize to everyone who has been annoyed by my persistence.
If nothing else, it seems I may have stumbled on a way to chase Jake from threads.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pmKRank:
The President can WAIVE Executive Privilege any time he wants. He cannot be FORCED to testify by Congress however. If there’s any other question you think I missed, just let me know.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pmVerbalKint:
Sorry that took a whole 15 minutes to answer. No one has bothered to answer MY question on the entire “Bush appointees interfered with prosecutor” thread below.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pmJake: “My cult leader CANNOT be arrested.” and this nugget: “Just because he can’t be indicted or arrested doesn’t mean he’s above the law.”
“If he cooperates with congress, the terrorists win.”
“The consitution is not a suicide pact.”
“If Bush cannot even stand up for Executive Privilege, then how can he stand up to the terrorists?”
This is classic authoritarian cultist behavior. Some statements are “spoon fed” from his authoritarian sources, ie “terrorists win” and “suicide pact” and some just don’t make sense — if they cannot arrest or indict me, I am, by definition, above the law. That Jake doesn’t see simple gradeschool logic such as this is a dead givaway that he has this mental condition.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 pmJake: “The President can WAIVE Executive Privilege any time he wants. He cannot be FORCED to testify by Congress however. If there’s any other question you think I missed, just let me know.”
Jake, I’m thrilled, really, that you finally acknowledged my question, even if you didn’t actually answer it. Or did I miss something?
Here, again, was my simple question:
How does “separation of powers†affect whether the President’s aides tesifty UNDER OATH or whether they tesify WITHOUT BEING UNDER OATH?
Can you explain how what you wrote relates at all to that question? You didn’t address separation of opwers, nor the testimony of the President’s aides, nor the difference between testifying under oath or not under oath. So, basically, you missed the entire question.
I do appreciate the effort, though. Want to take another shot?
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 pmWhere, exactly, is “executive privilege” explained in the constitution? In Madison’s first constitutional congress address, he argued that the British system was the greatest ever and our president should be president for life. He was booed and shouted down by many of the people who would go on to sign our constitution. The idea of executive privilege with respect to the law would have been natual to a conservative like Madison, but history shows most of his contemporaries hated the idea and Madison did come around to their thinking.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pmVerbalKint:
Here’s the thread I mentioned http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/22/prosecutor-bush-appointees-interfered-in-case/
I note your post # 21 on that thread did not answer my question either.
Bluedog49:
When did I say ““If he cooperates with congress, the terrorists win”? Perhaps that was the fake Jake?
In fact, the White House offered unprecedented cooperation on this issue, only to be turned down by both Congressional subcommittees so far. I’m sorry if you think Separation of Powers is wrong-headed, but I’ll trust our Founding Fathers instead. “Executive Privilege” does not need to be IN the Constitution anymore than “right to privacy” does ; )
If you have a question about any of the other comments I did post, please let me know.
KRank:
No (was that quick enough for you?).
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 pmJake: “No (was that quick enough for you?).”
Excellent response time, Jake. See how quickly you can answer questions when you admit that you have no point to make?
Well done.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmI’ll let wiki do that for you:
Executive Privilege is the absolute power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other encroachments. Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others. The Supreme Court largely upheld this view in the case United States v. Nixon.
The concept of executive privilege is legally murky: the Constitution does not mention it, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine. The history of executive privilege underscores the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over this issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.
Jefferson set the precedent for this in the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807. Burr asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel Jefferson to provide his private letters concerning Burr. Chief Justice John Marshall, a strong proponent of the powers of the federal government but also a political opponent of Jefferson, ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for these sorts of court orders for criminal defendants, did not provide any exception for the president. As for Jefferson’s claim that disclosure of the document would imperil public safety, Marshall held that the court, not the president, would be the judge of that. Jefferson complied with Marshall’s order, but claimed he was doing so voluntarily. President Bill Clinton did the same when agreeing to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear.
The Supreme Court addressed executive privilege in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski that Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.
The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties” and that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an “executive immunity” defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens’ constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties.
The Supreme Court however rejected the notion that the President has an “absolute privilege.” The Supreme Court stated: “To read the Art[icle] II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art[icle] III.” Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmJake, Teddy Roosevelt said something you should consider:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Bush said his aides could testify, but not while under oath and with no transcripts. It is almost pathologically strange that you view this as “unprecedented cooperation.” Presidents have allowed aides and cabinet members to testify under oath before congress many, many times. When you say “unprecidented,” what exactly do you mean by that?
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pmThe way all of this stuff just keeps trickling out…
…it really makes one suspicious of the motive(s)…
…Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have been relegated to the back pages…
…as have Halliburton and the contractor corruption hearings…
…FOCUS…
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pmpapa, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, they’re making a big deal out of this one because they know there are many more dangerous investigations coming down the pike and they’d like to set some standards to possibly protect themselves.
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:50 pmJake, I don’t know if your lengthy cut-and-paste response from wikipedia was intended for me or someone else, but if it was in response to my question:
How does “separation of powers†affect whether the President’s aides tesifty UNDER OATH or whether they tesify WITHOUT BEING UNDER OATH?
then I’m still at a loss to explain how it relates to the actual substance of what I asked. I see how well it serves as your security blanket — lots of words that make the bad things go away. But it really doesn’t make much sense in the real world of thinking adults, now, does it?
I’ll bet you’re thinking seriously now of going back to hiding from me again, aren’t ya?
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:50 pmJake: ““Executive Privilege†does not need to be IN the Constitution anymore than “right to privacy†does ; )”
Sorry Jake, that’s not going to hold water. The Supreme Court has ruled that privacy issues are inherent in the 4th Amendment. I see the issue of privacy in the fourth amendment. In which amendment or article to the constitution do you see “executive privilege?”
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pmNOTHING! exactly, my lad… and don’t take nothing from anyone…
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pmBY THE WAY, but off topic, DON’T WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN THIS?! IRAQ? IRAN? AFGHANISTAN? NORTH KOREA? I actually think the chimp likes the diversion this is causing from all the other SH%^ going down.
Comment by drew_ill — March 22, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
this is a BIG problem; one of many this administration has caused… we need to tackle those you mentioned, but not at the expense of others…
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:05 pmKRank, by all means keep chasing Jake, I enjoy seeing him run laps to get away from you.
Jake, I don’t answer questions from you, because they are always diversionary, misframed, irrelevant, and deeply imbedded with talking points.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pmJake, again, you posted that the offer to have aides testiby NOT under oath with no transcript is “unprecidented cooperation.” I would like to know why you think this is the case when there have been scores of examples, running over many, many presidencies, of administration members testifying publically under oath. Can you name an administration, ANY administration in which members DIDN’T testify under oath. I can’t even think of ONE, and yet you call this “unprecidented.” If you could possibly explain what you mean by “unprecidented,” maybe I could begin to understand where you’re coming from. Now, possibly you’re simply parroting something you heard on FOX. That would be an explanation. Do you have a better explanation?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pmIssue the subpoenas…. The WH will never allow Rove and Company to tes-ta-lie under oath. The WH is not foolish enough to put the noose around their own necks. Might as well get the ball rolling.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pmJake sez:
Jake, explain this canard (if you’re able). How exactly will forcing White House advisors to testify under oath impair the President’s ability to receive effective advice…unless you’re including advice to commit crimes within that range.
To paraphrase the anti-privacy crowd, if the administration isn’t doing anything illegal, what exactly does it have to hide?
I look forward to your reply.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmKRank:
I have never been hiding from you (kinda busy on the John Podesta thread right now) nor have I admitted I have no point to make — I always have a point to make — but if you can’t understand that the branches of government are divided up per Articles I, II, and III, and that one branch is not allowed to encroach on the power of another, I really don’t know what else I can help you with. Maybe through long sessions on in-person contact, say past-life hypnosis or something like that, I could break through your inability to differentiate between the numbers 1, 2, and 3. Again, if you have a question I can answer here in this limited on-line forum, please let me know.
Bluedog49:
I was talking about all the e-mails that do reflect an inside window to executive decision making. Have you read any of those? It is fascinating, and as far as I can recall, has never been done before. I really think Bush is upset that these firings were not explaned properly and is going overboard to get that explanation out there now. That being the case, no White House counsel has ever been FORCED to testify as to his / her legal advice given to her client — that would be CRAZY. Same goes with any senior staff. IF they have testified in the past about that, it was at least VOLUNTARILY — like what Bush offered in this instance — see the difference?
mrjj:
You understand that the White House will consider issuance of subpoenas an infringement of Executive Privilege and will withdraw the offer to voluntarily cooperate, right?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmTripMaster Monkey:
Next time there is some action or even inaction ALLOWED OR ARGUABLY ALLOWED under current law (as I think the replacement of U.S. Attorneys were under the Patriot Act), said advisors are going to have to consider first whether they will be forced to testify about there advice. That wouldn’t have been healthy had Johnnie Cochran been forced to do so, or Harriett Miers.
Look, I have never denied that there is appropriate oversight. But this is something to consider as well:
As Congress inquires into this matter, it must be careful not to subvert the intended constitutional structure, and historical traditions in this area, by allowing its own political calculus or motivations to play a role.
From a historical perspective, the supervisory relationship between the President, his Attorney General and the nation’sbranch law offices, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices, is quite well-established. Thus, Congress should examine the relevant history, before making potentially baseless accusations concerning Attorney General Gonzáles’s efforts to oversee his department.
The History of The Relationship Between the Attorney General and Local U.S. Attorney’s Offices
At the founding of the Republic, the contours of the relationship between the Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys were perplexing, and unsatisfactorily-defined. In those times, supervision of U.S. Attorneys was rather oddly given to the State Department, which had little interest in such matters; after all, U.S. Attorneys’ jurisdiction is overwhelmingly domestic, not international. As a result, U.S. Attorneys pretty much did as much (or as little) as they wanted.
Appointed in 1790, Edmund Randolph, America’s first Attorney General, wisely asked for “directive” authority over the independently-minded officers who ran local U.S. Attorneys’ offices. However, Congress adjourned without addressing his request – and as a consequence, Attorneys General regrettably were compelled to operate in a rather haphazard way for close to 80 years. (Randolph even received only a half salary and was expected to supplement his income with the private practice of law. Ruefully, Randolph would describe himself as something of “a mongrel” settling for the scraps from the Cabinet’s table.)
By 1870, however, Congress had recognized both the need to create a formal Department of Justice, and the importance of placing the Department’s components under well-articulated lines of authority. The value of executive supervision of local offices had finally been grasped.
Historically-uninformed voices seeking short-term political advantage jeopardize this value with hasty calls for Gonzales’s removal or resignation. Any claims that the Attorney General ought to take a hands-off approach regarding local U.S. Attorney’s Offices are historically inaccurate. Worse, they ask us to repeat a mistake that Congress reversed as far back as 1870.
Historically, the Executive Has Received the Benefit of the Doubt on Removals of Executive Branch Officials
Not only does the Attorney General historically have authority with respect to local U.S. Attorney’s Offices, but he (or she) has also enjoyed the benefit of the doubt on removals of executive officers such as U.S. Attorneys, including those subject to Senate confirmation.
Why? Quite simply because it is the executive who is in the best position to evaluate U.S. Attorneys’ performance, and who is responsible for it. In 1923, Chief Justice Taft, the only member of the Supreme Court to have also served as president of the United States, affirmed that removal authority vis-Ã -vis executive officers, even those subject to Senate confirmation, was an incident of the president’s power to nominate, not the Senate’s power to confirm. Taft put it this way in the landmark case of Myers v. United States: “The power to prevent the removal of an officer who has served under the President is different from the authority to consent to or reject his appointment. When a nomination is made, it may be presumed that the Senate is, or may become, as well advised as to the fitness of the nominee as the President, but in the nature of things the defects in ability or intelligence or loyalty in the administration of the laws of one who has served as an officer under the President are facts as to which the President, or his trusted subordinates, must be better informed than the Senate, and the power to remove him may therefor be regarded as confined for very sound and practical reasons, to the governmental authority which has administrative control. The power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, not to the power of advising and consenting to appointment, . . .” (Emphasis added.)
Today, the powers of the office of the Attorney General fully reflect Taft’s insight. It is described as the “chief law enforcement officer of the United States, . . .guid[ing] the world’s largest law office in the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.” The United States Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators, but as the DOJ website clearly specifies, they do so “under the direction of the Attorney General.”
True, a wise Attorney General will give sufficient professional latitude to each U.S. Attorney in order to best accomplish the prosecutorial and civil defense needs of each district. But latitude is not unaccountability – just as the refusal to micromanage is not an abdication of authority.
The Bush Administration Hardly Invented What Is Long-Established Removal Authority
History reveals that a defense of executive removal authority is far from merely the product of some wild-eyed theory of “unitary executive” invented by the Bush administration. Rather, it is — as every president since Ulysses S. Grant has insisted — a vital principle, consistent with “a faithful and efficient administration of the government.” After all, said Grant, “What faith can an executive put in officials forced upon him, [or] those, too, whom he has suspended for reason?” Put another way, a boss without power to hire and fire will typically be crippled in his or her effectiveness.
The eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys may all be fine men and women; that is not inconsistent with their having been dismissed. The Constitutional system, as it has taken form over our history, puts the choice of dismissal solely in the President’s hands (as he is chooses to be informed by his Attorney General). Accordingly, the President is within his rights to dismiss a U.S. Attorney even for the simple reason that he preferred someone else for the job.
Some have suggested at least some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed in order to shield criminal wrongdoing – that is, dismissed so that criminal prosecutions that they had overseen would fade away or be resolved with lenient plea agreements. Before making such serious accusations, however, the Congress ought to come forward with hard proof, not the whine of innuendo.
Moreover, and significantly, none of the dismissed prosecutors has come anywhere close to making that accusation. Surely, it should not be inferred.
In making its inquiry, then, Congress should be careful not to subvert what history has so well provided: the executive’s ability to dismiss its officers is the structural mechanism by which the President “takes care” that the law is faithfully executed.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20070319_kmiec.html
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:34 pmAs alway’s I find it very strange that the reich winged backer’s will scream for year’s at us about “What do you have to hide”, when we pointed out that court orders needed to be adhered to and our constitutional right were being violated..The patriot act gave terrible powers to a mad man and most people never even read it….
Many president’s including Clinton allowed (47) I believe, of under oath hearing’s and no fire storm and posturing of dictator in charge like action’s.I have read several president’s allowed under oath, transcripts, open hearing’s and exucetive privlage with white house bed fellows were not distroyed….I will repeat as I have many time’s by their own word’s.” What do you have to hide” and by protesting and demanding total alegance to your way or the highway imposed president bush should not make it so..Every one in our country should be held accountable…Once again tho does protest to much…I will hope and call often to my representatives that the people involved need to testefy like every one in the past and bush should be made to go and piss up a rope..Blessings all..Ignore black hearted troll’s..Work for Peace
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmI don’t think Bush should be forced to testify OR piss up a rope.
Shalom.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 pmYou understand that the White House will consider issuance of subpoenas an infringement of Executive Privilege and will withdraw the offer to voluntarily cooperate, right?
Comment by Jake
And you’re still avoiding the question. If it’s OK for these people to testify at all, why isn’t it OK for them to do so under oath?
It’s a simple question. If they’re going to tell the truth, why not do it under oath, and why not have a public hearing? They’re not testifying on matters of national security.
And Jake, really, this is disgusting: I have never been hiding from you (kinda busy on the John Podesta thread right now)
It’s not the “John Podesta” thread, it’s the thread relating to prayers and best wishes for Elizabeth Edwards, into which you callously and rudely intruded your political crap.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 pmThanks for that detailed (yet obtuse) response in #45, Jake. I appreciate your help in figuring out what you’re trying to say, especially since you’re so busy with the John Podesta thread. I admit, it’s probably that I’m a bit thick, and not because you’re applying right wing talking points where they don’t belong.
But the question I asked was a simple one:
How does “separation of powers†affect whether the President’s aides tesifty UNDER OATH or whether they tesify WITHOUT BEING UNDER OATH?
Your response this time was :
if you can’t understand that the branches of government are divided up per Articles I, II, and III, and that one branch is not allowed to encroach on the power of another, I really don’t know what else I can help you with.
Now, I understand about the three branches of government, and their separation of powers.
I just don’t understand how that relates to whether a Presidential aide testifies UNDER OATH or testifies FREE OF THAT OATH.
You see, that is the crucial difference I’m trying to nail down: “Oath” or “No Oath”. Why does the “Separation of Powers” allow for one but not the other? What are the implications of testifying under oath that disappear when no oath is administered?
Thanks for your patience.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 pmJake: “I was talking about all the e-mails that do reflect an inside window to executive decision making.”
Jake, you really are a weasel. If you’re going to try to distinguish emails from previous forms of “notes” or letters, that’s just pathetic. You can’t really expect people to take you seriously when you try to argue that a new form of communication enjoys more inherent secrecy than earlier forms. It’s just unbelievable. You’ve already demonstrated what kind of person you are on the “Prayers for Elizabeth” thread. If anyone here doubts that you are a sociopathic cultist with no sense of decency, I suggest they go over to that thread and see how you cluelessly attempted to stink it up with irrelevant political points. Jake, as far as I’m concerned, you have nothing but parrotted NRC bullshit. You have no grasp of history or precident. All you seem to have is a cultlike devotion to protecting your dear leader and that’s just unamerican.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 pmNothing was said about bull shit bush being made to testify, only his aids and advisors…Call it executive privlage is the usual bull shit…By the way it is time these rat basterd’s learned they work for us..The last 6 year’s has shown where this administration’s allegence is and it is definetly not with our country, her people or any one in the world except their own bloated greed and power…Do you even know what Shalom mean’s troll jake.? Your realy funny backing the war monger’s and dictatorship..Never mind I already know the answer to my own question….Be gone
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:57 pmWhat is equally significant in the White House “offer” is their unwillingness to have Rover testify in public or with any sort of transcript. Clearly, the only possible reason for this is so that the American people have no way of knowing what really goes on in the room, whether it’s Rove giving non-answers or simply refusing to answer a given question because he doesn’t feel like it. After the doors open, Republican tools like FauxNews can spin the story as they choose, because there will be no refutation from anyone but those dirty Democrats.
We’ve already seen a preview of this with Jake’s posts and his b.s about their willingness to “voluntarily cooperate”.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmKRank and gummitch:
Let me try it this way: have either of you ever been represented by an attorney? If you haven’t, just imagine a divorce case where you had to tell your attorney every dirty little detail of your life just so that he could be prepared for the other side’s case — how would you feel if your attorney was forced to testify?
(If you want to discuss JOHN PODESTA posting about Mrs. Edwards more, let me know ; )
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 pmIt’s been over an hour since I asked you a simple question at post #44, Jake.
C’mon…you seemed so sure of yourself…it can’t take this long for you to come up with an answer…
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:25 pmLet me try it this way: have either of you ever been represented by an attorney? If you haven’t, just imagine a divorce case where you had to tell your attorney every dirty little detail of your life just so that he could be prepared for the other side’s case — how would you feel if your attorney was forced to testify?
Comment by Jake
Hint #1: Karl Rove is not GWB’s attorney. Neither is Harriet Miers. Nor is Gonzo (he’s the attorney for the US of A, not the President’s personal attorney)
hint #2: No one is evoking attorney/client privilege, which should give you some idea of how useful that argument is.
Hint #3: GWB has already said he doesn’t know anything about this, so he doesn’t have anything to worry about, does he?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm#53 Jake: how does that differenitate between tesifying under oath or testifying FREE of an oath?
I can see you making that argument if we were talking about the difference between testifying and NOT testifying, but that’s not the issue here.
One is UNDER OATH. The other is NOT UNDER OATH. Difference?
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pmTMM:
I did post a reply — it was deleted. Sorry.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pmKRank:
For whatever reason, Bush is trying to bend over backwards to compromise and grant a LIMITED waiver of the privilege — what he won’t do (and I agree) is grant an unlimited waiver — too bad that long post that explained how past Presidents have claimed Executive Privilege but Congress graciously accepted the limited waiver. Not this time, it seems. So, maybe we will find out once and for all (from the ROBERTS Supreme Court) who was right.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:51 pmAlso, I think they learned their lesson with Libby. Innocently misremembering something is now a federal crime (just like firing U.S. Attorneys even though EVERY President — maybe no William Henry Harrison — has done so ; )
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pmTo hell with this rouge administration. Bush and company are no better than OLB and his crew. Out a CIA agent and the republicans come to the defense of Bush. The claim Clinton sold war secerts to China and they wanted him thrown out of office. Republicans are scumbags, lairs and idiots.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm#59-Jake, you need to re-think what you’re typing. It’s not that simple although the right is full of simple minded people.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pmJake, please tell me what the hell all of your awkard linguistic gym nastics have to do with the difference between being sworn in to give testimony and NOT being swornm in to give testimony???
Simple question. Doesn’t require a lot of double-talk. Doesn’t require a lot of cut-and-paste or mis-used legal terms like “waiver of priviledge”.
Why is testifying UNDER OATH a violation of “Executive Priviledge” (as you imply) but testifying NOT under oath is not?
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 pmWell, first of all, how is it “testifying” if it is not under oath? I think my point about being FORCED to testify rather than VOLUNTARILY providing the info is still valid. Did that get deleted above?
Here’s UPDATE II: TPMMuckraker has more from today’s committee hearing, plus this video of Leahy ripping into the proposed White House deal: “What they are offering is nothing, nothing, nothing.â€
Actually, Pat, in addition to everything that has already been provided, Fielding offered:
a) Private interviews with Miers, Rove and (unnamed) Deputy Counsel / Special Assistant in the Office of Political Affairs, limited to the subject matter of course and as a last resort after the Committees hear testimony from everyone else (see letter);
b) All communications between White House and DoJ on the subject; and
c) All communications between White House staff and third parties on the subject.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/whcounselltrmarch202007.html
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:22 pmWell, first of all, how is it “testifying†if it is not under oath? I think my point about being FORCED to testify rather than VOLUNTARILY providing the info is still valid.
Comment by Jake — March 22, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Did I miss something? Did you even address my question?
You’re now trying to distract by parsing words like “testifying”? Are you trying to say that testfying under oath would be the same thing as forcing the testimony, but VOLUNTARILY “providing the info” is not? If so, do you have some rationalization for that distinction? Because I sure as hell don’t see it.
If the information is the same either way (since they will obviously be telling the truth, right?) why need there be a difference? And what, in fact is the practical difference? Not the semantic difference, not the constitutional difference (as you see it) but the PRACTICAL difference between the two situations?
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pmI thought I said above that they finally learned their lesson from Libby’s trial — that’s ONE “practical” difference right there.
March 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 pmJake sez:
Assuming that’s true (which, given your track record, is seriously doubtful), you couldn’t post it again?
Seems you managed to post quite a few comments from your lame excuse to the present time…funny how the answer to my question wasn’t among them…
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pmArlen Specter has fleas…
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 pmA SUBPOENA A DAY
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pmKEEPS CHIMPya AT BAY
SO LET US ALL SAY
THAT THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY
FOR Bushland Uber Allies’ CRIMES
AREN’T YA GLAD THAT THIS ALL RHYMES?
[...] it has offered closed door “interviews” with no oath and no transcript. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have rejected that offer and authorized subpoenas of White House [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 amConsolidation Loan
Student debt including consolidation loans which grants primary consolidation.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:11 amhearing aides
I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:20 am