White House refuses to answer subpoenas.
White House refuses to answer subpoenas.
Today was the deadline for the White House “to turn over documents linked to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara M. Taylor, the former White House political director” to Congress. But instead, the White House this morning “asserted executive privilege” and “rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.” White House counsel Fred Fielding’s letter to Congress:
The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president’s interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress’s interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications.
Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas.
UPDATE: Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) responds: “This is a further shift by the Bush Administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances.”
UPDATE II:: House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI): “The executive privilege assertion is unprecedented in its breadth and scope, and even includes documents that the Adminstration previously offered to provide as part of their ‘take it or leave it’ proposal.”
UPDATE III: White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s letter asserting executive privilege is HERE.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
lol, surprised? im not.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:44 am1) Congress subpoenas WH
June 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am2) WH refuses to answer subpoenas
3) The case goes before SCOTUS
4) SCOTUS rules 5-4 for WH
5) The country is safe again
I would HOPE that TODAY the Congress will send the matter right over to the SCOTUS and ask them to place a HIGH priority on the matter so this can be addressed immediately for our country to move forward.
I doubt this will happen though……
The Dems will write another letter and say “pretty please”…..
June 28th, 2007 at 9:45 amnot surprised here either.
But, the thing is - the government is only allowed to do what the constitution specifically authorizes them to do.
I’ve read the constitution. I don’t recall one word about “executive privilege” anywhere in it.
Thus, this is a made up rule by these criminals, once again……
We need to get back to the basics:
June 28th, 2007 at 9:46 am“We Must Return to Our Constitution”
http://www.populistamerica.com/ we_must_return_to_our_constitution
“Comment by Gaydar3000 — June 28, 2007 @ 9:45 am”
5) The country is NOT safe again
I corrected #5 for you….. I’m sure this was simply a typo….
June 28th, 2007 at 9:46 amPut them in jail. To all of them. Lets see if you have the guts.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:48 amLooks like the trolls are at it already.
Aren’t you people supposed to be still asleep so that you stay awake when you troll all night?
June 28th, 2007 at 9:49 am4) SCOTUS rules 5-4 for WH
5) The country is safe again
Comment by Gaydar3000
I think you were being ironic. That was a good one. I agree with you. I think they will reach an agreement behind doors. They are all politicians and they will protect themselves. God forbids a real democracy.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:50 amWH to Leahy: F U
Ha!!
Nice try you buffoon. Try getting a real job — or at least doing the one you are paid to do now instead of playing cheap little political games.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:51 amAll criminals stonewall, obfuscate and try to avoid telling the truth. Why should the Cheney/Bush Whitehouse be any different?
-GSD
June 28th, 2007 at 9:52 amahh, that yummy passive-aggressive tone they learned in law school. it’s just music on the page.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:52 amOkay you “strict constructionists” at the White House; where, exactly, do the words “executive privilege” appear in the Constitution?
Nowhere.
You are creating White House powers and privileges out of thin air.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:53 amHow much more clear is EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE then White House Counsel advice to the President related to executive Power?
June 28th, 2007 at 9:53 am#9 You’re talking about Bush right?
June 28th, 2007 at 9:53 amExcuse me, but Executive Privilege is supposed to cover communications with the President. They are not looking for communications with the President, they are looking for communications amongst themselves and their peers. The Bush Administration’s definition of Executive Privilege is anyone who has ever worked in this Administration is protected and doesn’t have to talk to anyone about anything that happened when they had their job with the government.
I hope that the Congress pushes this into the court system rapidly. I disagree that it should go directly to the Supreme Court because it is a given that they will side with Bush. I would rather see several lower court rulings in favor of the subpoenas before it gets to the Supreme Court. That will show the uninformed people in this country that the Supreme Court is biased and that there are five “activist judges” on the court.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:53 am“Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas.”
because any investigation requires the whole truth, idiots!
anyone affliliated with Cheney should not be allowed to assert executive privilege, since his office is not part of the executive…
June 28th, 2007 at 9:53 amBush/Cheney will not step down after the 2008 election. They’ve ignored every other constitutional reqm’t of their job, they’ll ignore this one too. An emergency will be invented & they’ll continue in their plunder of your country. Just a prediction.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:55 am“How much more clear is EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE then White House Counsel advice to the President related to executive Power?”
Hey Jake, put on your listening ears. The subpoenas are about conversations Harriet Meiers had with people in the justice department about firing the US attorneys. How is that “advice to the president related to executive powers”?
How old are you? 12? That’s about the level of your critical thinking skills.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:57 amJust wait until the next DEMOCRATIC President is held to these same standards of not receiving confidential and candid advice, not able to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys, etc.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:59 amFor the record, the Congress cannot force either the President or Vice President to testify before it — look up “separation of powers” sometime.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:00 amIt may be infuriating, but take heart. Thousands of Democrats are being created by every move the neocons make. They are geniuses of self-destruction.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:01 amFunny, but the Constitution doesn’t recognize executive privilege. It does recognize legislative privilege. That’s not an accident. The founders intended Congress to oversee the executive.
Time for some inherent contempt charges.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:02 amMore stonewalling. What a surprise. We’re back to Watergate again. The only difference is that SCOTUS ultimately ruled that Nixon had to fork his tapes over, and this court will obediently rule in favor of the Bushies.
I am ROFLMAO at “the doctrine of executive privilege” though. At least Congress should get what they want from Cheney, since he’s not a part of the exec branch, and exec privilege doesn’t apply to him .
June 28th, 2007 at 10:03 amYes! Great! I love it! We had to hear “Executive Privilege” more time from Clinton than any president ever. Shove it right back in thier face and see how they swallow it!
ROTFL
June 28th, 2007 at 10:06 amWH to Leahy: F U
Ha!!
Nice try you buffoon. Try getting a real job — or at least doing the one you are paid to do now instead of playing cheap little political games.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — June 28, 2007 @ 9:51 am
So what job do you expect Bush to play pretend at next?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:06 amFurther, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas.
Heh. That’s a good one.
They’re gonna play stupid as long as the committee will let them get away with it. Leahy might want to get on it NOW.
And DO make it as public a fight as possible, m’kay?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:08 amWow, talk about arrogance. They basically said, we are not going to cooperate at all with your “oversight” and we will obstruct your investigations totally and completely…then follow with “We don’t understand why you can’t do your job of oversight”.
If I was receiving that letter I would be livid. That is like someone spitting in your face then asking why you’re all wet.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:12 amArticle I, section 6
The Senators and Representatives shall […] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
In other words, legislative privilege. You can’t subpoena a Congressman or Senator to compel him to testify to what was done as part of the deliberative legislative process.
What’s the equivalent privilege in Aritcle II for the executive?
…
(crickets chirping)
…
How about this?
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union
Oh, look, it looks like the executive is constitutionally compelled to testify before Congress.
And the bit where it says he can keep his executive deliberations secret?
Nope, ain’t there.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:12 amJust wait until the next DEMOCRATIC President is held to these same standards of not receiving confidential and candid advice, not able to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys, etc.
Comment by Jake — June 28, 2007 @ 9:59 am
You figure? How about waiting until the next Dem Pres/VP decides to skirt the same laws that Bush/Cheney have? It will be hard to argue against them, though I know you will. I guess “GWB did it” will be the mantra then. Every law these dudes ignore sets a precedent for the next guy.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:14 amUNFETTERED REQUESTS?”
Unfettered:
To set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds.
not bound by shackles and chains.
Unfettered my ass!
June 28th, 2007 at 10:15 amThere can be no claim of executive privilege in regards to criminal matters. If the White House broke the law in regards to circumventing the FISA rules, then executive privilege does not cover that.
That being said, this will not get out of court before the President leaves office and grants he and all his cohorts a nice fat all encompassing pardon.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:16 am“Comment by PeterW — June 28, 2007 @ 10:12 am”
Peter, that’s all great and all….. But you do realize that these are just words and mean nothing????
At least this is what the Repubs believe…..
I for one hope that the courts slam the doors on this Admins DICK like they did with the other recent rulings regarding prisoners…..
June 28th, 2007 at 10:17 amNo surprise but what happens next? What is the procedure for holding them all in contempt? And what does the “contempt charge” mean? Does it have any teeth or is it just some nonsensical meaningless charge?
We’ve been telling those drips in Congress that impeachment is THE only answer and they dragged their feet and did nothing. Now the handwriting is on the wall that not only IS impeachment THE only solution to bring these creeps to justice but now the Dems will look like “do nothing-ers” since they waited so long. Oh well….we warned them, didn’t we?
It will become the case of “shoot the messenger” for the Dems I’m afraid. They were the “messengers of change” and did nothing to change the status quo….now they will suffer the consequences.
As you all know, I’ve been a Dem all of my life and my views and feelings are still in alignment with the Democratic Party; however, I’ve gotten so totally disgusted with the entire Congress that I’ve switched to Independent. I’m finding that this switch has alleviated my sense of disgust and frustration with the Dem Party and has permitted me to maintain a healthy distance from any sense of party bias or partisanship in my thinking. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is finding themselves being increasingly frustrated these days!
June 28th, 2007 at 10:18 amThe WH is now citing a demand for paper shredders in light of the increasing load of these “subpoenas.”
I’m thinking about helping them out by majoring in shredding, along with a minor in cross-cutting.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:18 am“That being said, this will not get out of court before the President leaves office and grants he and all his cohorts a nice fat all encompassing pardon.
Comment by Crump’s Brother — June 28, 2007 @ 10:16 am”
That’s why they should be Impeached no matter what…..
By the way….. Impeachment is NOT just for a Sitting President…..
So if they don’t impeach them now, I will continue to push for impeachment and the rest of the country should as well.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:20 amTime to stop with the Amnesty Bill and any other piece of garbage legislation the Bushies want until they cough up the goods.
A completely separate bill for border and port security would be in order way before we start talking about a guest worker program of any kind.
Terrorists and all, ya know.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:20 amWhy can’t the White House attach “signing statements” to these subpoenas like any other official document from Congress they come to disagree with?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:21 am#30 DaveC: I concur and the destructive Bush Cabal has broken all ethical boundaries and moral codes so it will become precedent-setting and will probably continue to happen ad infinitum now that they’ve burst through those moraes and barriers which we’ve had in this government for decades.
Accordingly, the destructive Bush Cabal has set into motion a new global “preemptive strike” policy which is another moral, ethical barrier which they have personally broken. Unfortunately, this barrier will not be mended easily and may result in the destruction of this country.
These thugs need to be impeached; in fact, as I see it, they are “ASKING FOR IMPEACHMENT” and making utter fools out of our representatives who continue to drag their feet despite the mounting evidence of high crimes & misdemeanors which are accruing daily.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:21 amnot able to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys, etc.
Comment by Jake
But Jake, your beloved Great Deciderer said he had nothing to do w/ the firing of those DAs.
Presidents have the right to fire ALL the DAs and hire new ones. In this cae, it appears tha Monica Goodling was doin’ the firin’ and KKKarl was doin’ the hirin’, not Brusch, and strictly along political lines, Period, FOR THE RECORD.
If there was nothing wrong w/ any of that, then why did Goodling resign and take the 5th?
We’re all resigned to dealing w/ more ruined Depends than one could imagine coming from Repubs when a Dem Pres takes over. Better start practicing your sqauwking Jake, ’cause it’s a-comin’!
And you know what we’re going to say, when not laughing?
BUSH DID IT TOO!!!
June 28th, 2007 at 10:22 amQuite frankly, this is an asinine statement.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:23 am2 Dumb Questions:
Didn’t the WH say that the president and vice prez were NOT part of the executive branch ?
In light of a constitutional lack of statement on executive priveledge - and as the conservatives just hate constructionism - doesn’t that mean that the SCOTUS will have to rule against the WH ?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:23 amI think the people need to begin having “IMPEACHMENT PARTIES” all over the nation….and then Impeachment Walks….Impeachment Strikes in the workplace, etc., etc. Maybe then this idiotic congress will sit up and take notice?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:23 amNow Dennis Kucinich is beginning to look like a modern-day prophet as well. He’s been attempting to bring impeachment proceedings against The Dick for weeks now.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:24 amIt’s time to hire a special prosecutor for a criminal investigation.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:27 amDon’t they know enough already to impeach?
On the President’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program
by Russ Feingold
“The President was blunt. He said that he had authorized the NSA’s domestic spying program, and he made a number of misleading arguments to defend himself. His words got rousing applause from Republicans, and even some Democrats.
The President was blunt, so I will be blunt: This program is breaking the law, and this President is breaking the law. Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program. ”
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0208-34.htm
June 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am#9
How old are you? This is from the same playbook as one Richard M. Nixon. I remember it well. Some of the thugs in the White House were involved in that one. Look it up on google…you obviously learned nothing in history class. It is very doubtful the crime family will win this one, even though idiots like you are rooting for the thugs of the crime family. People like you are what is wrong with America, you are ignorant, spoiled, and know nothing about what this country is about. Nixon stepped down.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:33 amWhy can’t the White House attach “signing statements†to these subpoenas like any other official document from Congress they come to disagree with?
Comment by CT V_1
Signing statements are only attached to laws being signed by the president, and serves no purpose here. If the WH doesn’t want to comply with the subpoena, they must explain to a judge why not.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am#48 People like you are what is wrong with America, you are ignorant, spoiled, and know nothing about what this country is about. Nixon stepped down.
Comment by kasinca
Exactly!! But the difference is, Nixon actually had some remorse at the end and did care about this country, unlike the current regime, who would throw their own families under the bus and not even blink.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am#42 Didn’t the WH say that the president and vice prez were NOT part of the executive branch ?
Technically, they claimed they were not “agencies” in the executive. Well, that’s the most recent excuse.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:38 amveritas (#45)-
Yes, Kucinich, on a number of issues, is far ahead of the rest. Has been since the beginning. It’s sad (and somewhat pathetic) that he isn’t perceived as a credible candidate. Can a candidate have too much integrity, intelligence, and common sense for the masses? Why do we always get stuck with the baggage-toting, predictable, lackluster, mediocre candidates?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:39 amKucinich is like the nerdy kid in school who put his hand up and got all of the right answers. He’s no prize winner in the looks dept, he probably doesn’t smell as good as Thompson, doesn’t have broad shoulders like Romney and no one would want to have a beer in the bar with him like GWB. All he has is credible plans & ideas. This is a popularity contest, not something important. American voters don’t deal well with substance. It’s harder to spin then good looks & a good voice. Check your tv listings for content… hard to find it. Look at your fast food restaurants for healthy eating… nope. Your politics are dumbed down to the equivalent of the Big Gulp & a Hungry Man tv dinner. Don’t expect integrity, no one will vote for it.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:50 amGiven the present administration and the newly conservative Supreme Court, I wonder, in the end, if Congress can actually get any real traction on this? It appears that they still have a bark (albeit, one that wouldn’t scare a toddler), but no real bite. Moreover, how hard have they really pushed?
June 28th, 2007 at 10:50 amCongress must start the impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales. This would be the first trifecta impeachment in United States history, but it must be done ASAP.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:53 amIn regards to the illegal wiretapping, all of wingnuttia screeches “Why complain if you don’t have anything to hide?” So, my question for wingnuttia is, “Why are the President, VP, Harriet Miers, et al complaining so much if they’ve got nothing to hide?
Don’t worry. I don’t really expect a response because you haven’t got one.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:58 amKucinich is like the nerdy kid in school who put his hand up and got all of the right answers. He’s no prize winner in the looks dept, he probably doesn’t smell as good as Thompson, doesn’t have broad shoulders like Romney and no one would want to have a beer in the bar with him like GWB. All he has is credible plans & ideas. This is a popularity contest, not something important. American voters don’t deal well with substance. It’s harder to spin then good looks & a good voice. Check your tv listings for content… hard to find it. Look at your fast food restaurants for healthy eating… nope. Your politics are dumbed down to the equivalent of the Big Gulp & a Hungry Man tv dinner. Don’t expect integrity, no one will vote for it.
Comment by Dave C — June 28, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Astute commentary on Kucinich and the true depth of our political culture (you think a wading pool is shallow?). It really IS stunning to experience (each and every day) the cultural divide that exists between those who seem transfixed (hypnotized?) by the cheap glitter of dime store baubles and those who thirst (are dying) for integrity and true wisdom (not it’s counterfeit facsimile). What chance does his country have of evolving to a higher place?
June 28th, 2007 at 11:03 amDuring the twentieth and twenty-first centuries the vice president’s role has evolved into more of an executive branch position, and is usually seen as an integral part of a president’s administration.
From Senate.gov——– The Senate itself has set up the VP to be able to opt out with ‘privilege’. The statement above allows the ‘option’ of picking and choosing which Branch he is in. Duddint seem like such a good idea now, does it?
June 28th, 2007 at 11:09 amThe administration is if you will, in its last throes.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:42 amThe other Jake is a moron. Bush and his cronies keep thinking their above the law. Impeach them already.
He’s abused the law and broke the law enough!
June 28th, 2007 at 11:49 amGee, not only Congress getting the finger, but each and every one of us–all Americans have be told once again YOU ARE IRREVELANT.
Just like Nixon. Just like Nixon. Just like Nixon.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:06 pmI can’t vote for Kucinich as long as he keeps talking New Age nonsense.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:21 pmUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
R.I.P.
Born: July 4, 1776
Died: December 12, 2000*
* Bush v. Gore, United States Supreme Court case decision December 12, 2000
‘Th-th-th-that’s all folks!’
June 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pmThese crooks in the WH are gonna stall for as long as they can. They are gonna wait it out till there next inside job terrorist attack can happen (sometime from July till Oct 08) and claim Martial Law, cancel the elections, use the military to control the riots.
Then everyone (that has been paying attention) will say, “Why couldn’t we have Impeached them when we had a chance?”
It’s too late…good luck, stock up on ammo and food.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:23 pmTo kaye2:
I agree that the parallels between the administrations of Nixon and Bush43 are eerie. but the Bushies have learned from their history — they made sure they packed the SCOTUS with sycophants (not just conservative justices, as Nixon appointed) so they will be allowed to reign unchecked as long as they want to.
How a quarter of Americans continue to support this imperialist White House is beyond me.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pmWith undying appreciation to the late, great Dr. Seuss:
But, as Yertle, the Turtle King, lifted his hand
And started to order and give the command,
That plain little turtle below in the stack,
That plain little turtle whose name was just Mack,
Decided he’d taken enough. And he had.
And that plain little lad got a bit mad.
And that plain little Mack did a plain little thing.
He burped!
And his burp shook the throne of the king!
And Yertle the Turtle, the king of the trees,
The king of the air and the birds and the bees,
The king of a house and a cow and a mule…
Well, that was the end of the Turtle King’s rule!
For Yertle, the King of all Sala-ma-Sond,
Fell off his high throne and fell Plunk! in the pond!
And to say the great Yertle, that Marvelous he,
Is King of the Mud. That is all he can see.
And the turtles, of course… all the turtles are free
As turtles and, maybe, all creatures should be.
OH MACK —- WE NEED YOU!
June 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pmComment by missmolly — June 28, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Good golly! That was a fine tale.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:06 pmI can’t vote for Kucinich as long as he keeps talking New Age nonsense.
-Comment by StinkyBritches
What “New Age nonsense”?
June 28th, 2007 at 5:28 pm1) Congress subpoenas WH
2) WH refuses to answer subpoenas
3) The case goes before SCOTUS
4) SCOTUS rules 5-4 for WH
5) The country is safe again
Comment by Gaydar3000
correction to #5: The country will never know the difference as the media they trust does not report it.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:59 pm