Bush invokes executive privilege to deny aides’ testimony.
Bush invokes executive privilege to deny aides’ testimony.
The President has invoked executive privilege to “defy Congress’s latest demand for information regarding the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.” AP reports:
President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers.
It offered once more to make the pair available for private, off-the-record interviews on any role the White House might have played in the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers’ demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.
UPDATE: This is the third time Bush has invoked executive privilege. It marks the second time he has used the power in relation to the U.S. attorney scandal.
UPDATE II: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) responds:
We are extremely disappointed with the White House letter. While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House, they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims. Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the Courts that will decide whether an invocation of Executive Privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally
Read his full letter at The Gavel.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
97 Responses to “Bush invokes executive privilege to deny aides’ testimony.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ho Hum
July 9th, 2007 at 10:17 amBush1 sums it up by saying policy trumps the law. And if FOX agrees with the policy then our democracy is a lie. And the only thing we can do about it is take FOX off the air without hurting free speech. You could say that FOX is in bed with the Republicans, which is illegal. But that is hard to do when the Democratic party as a matter of policy endorses and guests on FOX on a daily basis.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:19 amNext move is up to Congress. They should go directly to the court system - no delays.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:19 amI recently re-read the constitution, and I didn't find the words "executive privilege" in there....anywhere.
The constitution allows the government to do only what is specifically authorized. In short, if a power is not given, the feds - and Bush - don't have the power to do it.
period.
It's time for Bush and the rest of this government to follow the constitution. It's not just a mere suggestion, it's the law.
Some reading:
"We Must Return to Our Constitution"
July 9th, 2007 at 10:20 amhttp://www.populistamerica.com/we_must_return_to_our_constitution
The thing that I don't understand about this is that Sara Taylor wants to testify. She feels that she has done nothing wrong, has nothing to hide, isn't trying to make any deals, and just wants to testify. So, if the White House has done nothing wrong here, why not allow her to testify?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:20 amCowards!
What are you guys scared of? (not sure I even need to ask.)
July 9th, 2007 at 10:20 amcover-up.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:21 amHow can you invoke executive privilege for a decision you claim to know nothing about and to have had no hand in at all? If you weren't involved then there's no privileged information.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:21 amWhat now? Another letter? Or is there going to be something done about this.....actually.....like in reality?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:21 amInteresting note, from wiki
Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.
I doubt that this administration is going to go the negotiated settlement route, I also doubt that they'll comply with a court order.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:22 amClinton didn't do it!
July 9th, 2007 at 10:22 am#5 Chris L. Foot in the door, chink in the armor, one ray of sunlight on these fu(kers and they'll burst into flames.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:23 am2/27/01: Clinton waives his claim to executive privilege, saying three of his former aides are free to testify before the House Government Reform Committee.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:24 amThe Congress must stop the pussyfooting around in DC and impeach Cheney first, then Bush too. If Bush Senior threatens the Congress, then throw his ass in jail as well.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:24 amChimpy's argument for the granting of "executive privilege" to any and all of his "advisors" is pure bunkum. There is no way that possible future disclosure of advice given would make the advisor reticent to provide said advice...unless the advisor's intent was to advise Chimpy to commit illegal acts.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:25 amThe executive privilege claim is absurd, but the Supreme Court's activist bloc of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will invent a new Constitutional right specially tailored to Bush's need to maintain a coverup. Let's hope they don't persuade another justice (Kennedy?) to go along with it.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:25 amFIRE... ready... aim...
July 9th, 2007 at 10:26 amWhy is he still president ?? Time for impeachment has come !!
July 9th, 2007 at 10:27 amBut of course.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:27 amThe argument is and has been for this and other administrations that a president must be able to rely on unfettered advice from aides, hence executive privilege. But aides of aides? I think this is a somewhat new development.
Where does it end, aides of aides of aides of aides...?
Here is what a quick Google search got me. I think the question is how deep the advisory pool can be extended to avoid compliance. Any Constitutional experts out there?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:28 amhttp://www.usdoj.gov/olc/execpric.htm#N_1_
#13 2/27/01: Clinton waives his claim to executive privilege, saying three of his former aides are free to testify before the House Government Reform Committee.
Comment by bobcat_grad
Aww, But the difference is Clinton is and was an American and upheld the Constitution, and he was an eelcted President, not an illegally seated Monach/Dictator.
Makes all the difference in the world.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:29 amWhat? boring
July 9th, 2007 at 10:29 amWasn't it just last week that he said that he and Cheney "were not in the executive branch?? Or am I dreaming this all up?? What a hypocritical liar!
July 9th, 2007 at 10:29 amIllegally seated.
Bwaaaa
July 9th, 2007 at 10:30 amThe deeper the secrecy, the greater ther crime that is being covered up.
If Dubya and the crime family has done nothing wrong, what are they hiding from the people? Simple question for simple minds.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:31 am#4 I don't see it anywhere either. Perhaps this needs to be "constitutionally challenged" now??
July 9th, 2007 at 10:31 amTime for a 'Constitutional showdown" - the people against the Congress AND the administration.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:31 am#25 and, not unlike Nixon, it's the "coverup" that gets you every time!
Bush & Cheney's time is coming.....the massive amount of shredding and covering up will be outed soon.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:32 amTheir masks are now off and that is the hallmark of the 'beginning of the end'
July 9th, 2007 at 10:32 amBecause Sara Taylor and Harriet Meirs are no longer employees of the Executive Branch, this letter from Fielding has no legal effect. If Bush wants to prevent Taylor from testifying, he must get a court order barring her testimony. If he does not, and Meirs and Taylor refuse to testify on the basis of this letter alone, they are subject to prosecution for contempt of Congress.
See:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/8/205554/6537
and the links therefrom for details.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:34 amWhere does it end, aides of aides of aides of aides…?
Comment by Texas Democrat — July 9, 2007 @ 10:27 am
With RNC interns?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:35 amThis 'executive privilege' thing is not acceptable, at least carte blanch. We are on a scary slope where the president can invoke this 'standard' at will and preclude anyone he has spoken to, and anyone who touches on his administration, from providing information or testimony to congress. This is not the standard for the American democratic form of government. "Executive privilege' and signing statements must be formally declared illegal. We expect an open government accountable to the people.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:36 amComment by Tom Betz — July 9, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Since Sara has already stated that she would testify, I have to wonder if Bush would actually take that next step you mentioned, and get the court order to bar her testimony? If he does (which I wouldn't doubt) what would be the reasoning he would give to the American public? How can he say that nothing improper has been done, but that he cannot allow these people to testify?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:38 amChris L. There is no court on earth that has the cojones to issue an injunction barring Sara from testifying. There is no precedent, no standing, no nuttin.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:39 amActually, Ms. Taylor has no LEGAL choice in the matter. Executive privilege is not hers to assert. If the White House wishes to assert executive privilege, it must seek a court order quashing the Congressional subpoena on such grounds. The President has NO LEGAL POWER over Ms. Taylor. A Congressional subpoena is binding on Ms. Taylor unless quashed. To coin a phrase, Ms. Taylor has no STANDING to claim executive privilege.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/8/205554/6537
Link by Tom Betz
I love the rule of law.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:41 amMike C. And wouldn't the act of quashing or attempted quashing of such a subpoena be at least a misdemeanor, or possibly a high crime?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:43 amWhere are all the repugnacan trolls saying "if they didn't do anything wrong they have nothing to worry about"? The only people still backing monkey boy are the one"s to ignorant to see the crimminal nature of this administration.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:44 amComment by RUCerious — July 9, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Yeah, but when as this administration ever allowed something like the law to get in their way? My point is, Bush can only push this thing so far (stopping their testimony) before it becomes painfully obvious, even tothe 28%, that there has been some serious wrongdoing here.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:44 amDid any of you care when President Bush claimed executive privilege in Dec 2001 to protect Clinton?
"...Bush spurned a congressional subpoena requesting certain documents prepared for Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration."
July 9th, 2007 at 10:46 amhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062800567_pf.html
Comment by ckerst — July 9, 2007 @ 10:44 am
I have said the same thing each time the issue of domestic surveillance or lost RNC emails comes up. The government expects us to throw down our right to privacy, but then shrouds everything they do in "executive privilege" and "national security". That, or sometimes they just say no.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:47 am"Executive Privilage" and "National Security" are involked by this administration to hide criminal activity. As pointed out before, if there is nothing to hide and nothing improper occured, there is no reason to not be forthcoming with the information.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:47 amIt's all about running out the clock for the Busheviks.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:49 amWhat does "executive privilege" have to do with Miers and Taylor, who NO LONGER WORK FOR GWB?
Surely GWB was not happy when The Price of Loyalty was published in '04, nor was Bill Clinton pleased to see All Too Human in bookstores back in '99. However, at those times no one questioned the LEGAL right of Paul O'Neill or George Stephanopoulos to say or write whatever they pleased about their experiences in their respective administrations. Neither president was entitled to stifle their speech.
Yet somehow, in the present situation Taylor and Miers have no such right -- or in the case of a Congressional subpeona, obligation. Or so says GWB.
How can this possibly be true?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:49 amComment by Troll — July 9, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Honestly, I wasn't aware of that case. However, if those aides wanted to testify, they should not have been stopped. So, to answer your question, that was wrong then too. And it is wrong now.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:50 amThe Democratic Congress will do nothing but "squawk" some more, just as they have with every other move Bush makes. No matter.
They will do nothing for this precise reason: The Democrats don't want to tamper with "executive priviledge" so it is available for the next time a Democrat is President. Constitutional or not. Democrat or Republican. The Government will protect it's own power.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Now, on to the "squawkin'"!!!! LOL
July 9th, 2007 at 10:50 amChris L #28 ~ I totally agree. Good point!
July 9th, 2007 at 10:51 amEr, #38??
July 9th, 2007 at 10:52 amSo what do expect from a corrupt congress? Lieberal Democrats are drunk with power, thinking that 28% or less believe in the President. I have a feeling a lot of these shills will be looking for a new job in '08, GO CINDY SHEEHAN!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 10:52 amYes they will, and even more Republicans will be looking for work.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:54 am#48 - 'Smart' Fellar wouldn't recognize an original thought if it smacked him in the face.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:54 amNew thread above this one now.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:58 amThe Democrats don’t want to tamper with “executive priviledge†so it is available for the next time a Democrat is President. Constitutional or not. Democrat or Republican. The Government will protect it’s own power.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — July 9, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Not just 'exec priv' but think how much Dems are salivating over a powerful, secret VP with no oversight.
Watch how fast Reps would chage their tune with VP Bill Clinton. Not there is a funny thought.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:00 amBabyBush's have made Rule of Law a joke.
As the DoJ pushes for Judges to follow sentencing guidelines they do exactly the opposite with Libby's 'pardon'.
Bizzaro Bush World, in the news daily, & coming to a Country near you!
July 9th, 2007 at 11:01 amCan we impeach him now and get this over with?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:02 amDid any of you care when President Bush claimed executive privilege in Dec 2001 to protect Clinton?
Comment by Troll
"The first came in 2001, when Bush spurned a congressional subpoena requesting certain documents prepared for Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration."
Nowhere in this article does it say anything about these documents being related to Clinton, so how was this protecting Bill Clinton. Oh, you just made that up.
More likely they were papers regarding illegal election practices used by the Republicans. Bush protecting Clinton, that's a good one though.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:04 amshane, are we like NEVER amazed at the shit these assh@s pull out of their magical top hats?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:07 amHere we go.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:09 amShowdown.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:09 amTruman did it!
July 9th, 2007 at 11:11 amshane, are we like NEVER amazed at the shit these assh@s pull out of their magical top hats?
Comment by RUCerious
Unf*ckingbelievable is what they are.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:12 amPlease Rep. Conyers, put your money where your mouth is (said with all due respect) and ACT! PLEASE don't let these criminals get away with all of this any longer. They are making a mockery of every facet of our government and our system of checks and balances. This has just got to stop.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:18 amFine, Conyers. We already knew that. Stop playing games and giving them more time. It's now time to act. Your letter should have had one sentence:
"SEE YOU IN COURT."
July 9th, 2007 at 11:20 ambush-invoked-executive-privilige-to stop former aides from testifying concerning Gonzo
ARG poll
July 9th, 2007 at 11:29 amGOP logic is criminal's logic.
There's no point in volunteering any information to or cooperating with the other side. You will fight to the bitter end.
You have trouble understand them because to you see politics as a means to running and improving the society; to them politics is just a way to grab more wealth and power. Look. They even ridicule their own religious fringe and throw them a small favor here and there to keep them voting for GOP.
I recently read a book about interrogation tactics for law-enforcement people and it often cautioned about the different way personalities-more-inclined-to-become-cops and antisocial personalities think. It's the same thing here.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:32 amIt's executive "privelege", not executive "right". It can be set aside for cause. There is certainly plenty of cause for finding out what illegal activities are possibly being covered up.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:49 amCongress serves Ms. Taylor with a legally binding subpoena. Mr. Bush tells her to keep her big mouth shut. The subpoena by congress trumphs the instructions by the man she used to work for, end of story.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:57 amWhat next, someone who knows the address of the white house can't testify before congress? Its scary that Mr. Nixon is starting look so much better now. At least Mr. Nixon understood, and acted upon, the concept of what was better for the nation. So much for integrety and decency.
For all the latest news, key reports, document releases and other essential materials surrounding the U.S. attorneys scandal, see:
July 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm"The U.S. Attorneys Scandal Document Center."
lepo ~
July 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pmkeith O on his program last week suggested that Cheney and Bush should have the common decency to follow Nixon's example and resign. One of his better pieces.~
the more Bush usurps the law, the more guilty he proves himself to be.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:06 pmRUC -
I had the great good fortune to see it. I was never a Keith Oblerman fan before. To say that's completely changes is a huge understatement. There's still hope for this country when it produces people like him and his writers and a network that had the courage and conviction to put on a piece like that.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:12 pmHopefully Mr. Bush will follow Mr. Nixon's example and do the right thing for the nation. Although the Bush administration's track record for doing the right thing isn't giving me a lot of hope in that direction.
The Explainer Guy sez:
Was it Black Box, by Mario Giordano, inspired by the Stanford Prison Experiment?
If you haven't seen it, Das Experiment is a fantastic German movie based on Giordano's novel. Well worth the rental.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pmlepo ~
July 9th, 2007 at 12:38 pmIf Bush resigns, I'll become a monk and hermit in Death Valley.
shane, are we like NEVER amazed at the shit these assh@s pull out of their magical top hats?
Comment by RUCerious
Unf*ckingbelievable is what they are.
Comment by shane — July 9, 2007 @ 11:12 am
You guys cant read.
“…Bush spurned a congressional subpoena requesting certain documents prepared for Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration.â€
Or maybe you are too stupid to know that Janet Reno served under Clinton.
Another link
July 9th, 2007 at 12:38 pmhttp://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2553214_ITM
What did the brain dead trolls say about illegal wiretapping? If you have nothing to hide, then why can't you comply?
If the administration has nothing to hide, why don't they comply with the law?
Answer: These thugs have a lot to hide, they are a crime family.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:45 pmYou are so partisian you can not seem to even consider that Bush may be standing on principle and defending the executive branch as is his constitutional duty.
I am fed up with Bush also. But am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt particularly in light of the fact that he claimed executive privilege in this first instance regarding documents associated not with his administration but with Clintons.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pmOR maybe the executive privilege claimed for Clinton had to do with the fact that Clinton's people did NOT trash the White House as fox "news" claimed,
and that the information would show that Bush's people and fox were LIARS.
Bush would do NOTHING that was good for Clinton.
Bush is a COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA.
As the events will verify once that "executive privilege" bs is gone..
July 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThe investigation in question had nothing to do with the trashing of the white house or fox news. But your comment demonstrates your lack of comprehension skills, A.D.H.D., severe blind partisianship or all of the above.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:20 pmLibby is a CONVICTED CRIMINAL who has been PARDONED ("commuted") by TRAITOR Bush.
And he was MARC RICH'S lawyer.
Poppy Bush pardoned INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST Orlando Bosch, as well as the Iran/Contra criminals, thus covering HIS azz as well as TRAITOR Reagan's.
The Bush CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY against America continues.
For a LITTLE LONGER until IMPEACHMENT...
July 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe investigation in question had nothing to do with the trashing of the white house or fox news. But your comment demonstrates your lack of comprehension skills, A.D.H.D., severe blind partisianship or all of the above.
Comment by Troll
The linked article never mentions what the investigation was about. Why would Reno be investigating Clinton. She hired a special prosecutor when she wanted him investigated. It probably was more about Bush or his Daddy, do you want to go there, back to Iran Contra?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:26 pmArn
They are all corrupt. Including Reid and Pelosi who should be thrown out of office for being accomplices in war crimes by continuing to fund the war.
Government is the enemy.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pm#4
You might want to google 'separation of powers'. Executive priviledge dates back to George Washington.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pmShane
July 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pmReno was not investigating Clinton. I provided two links. Did you bother to read them? The investigation regarded mob informents in New England involved in murder back in the 60s. I am not sure what part Reno played in it.
When the government has PUBLIC SERVANTS, it runs fine.
Bush and his CRIMINALS are NOT public servants, but bloodsuckers who have BETRAYED THE CONSTITUTION of the USA.
Bush needs to be in JAIL until he DROPS DEAD.
And goes to hell from there...
July 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pmI really don't understand how he can stop Sara Taylor from testifying if she wants to. She is a private citizen and not under his control. What is he going to do if she goes to testify, have her arrested? Actually, if I was Ms. Taylor and really wanted to testify, I would be asking the Democrats to put her in protective custody until she can testify. But, Ms. Taylor may really not want to testify but she wants to seem cooperative. If that is the case, Bush is giving her a "get out of jail free" card.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pmTake your meds Arn.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pm"You are so partisian you can not seem to even consider that Bush may be standing on principle and defending the executive branch as is his constitutional duty."
It has nothing to do with being partisan. I could actually see his declaring Executive Privilege if it regarded conversations HE had with his staffers. Ms. Taylor is going to testify about conversations she had with Harriet Meiers and others. So, it has nothing to do with protecting the sanctity of communications with the President and that's what Executive Privilege is all about.
Do you think that the President should be the one who determines what civil servants can testify about even if it has nothing to do with direct communications with him?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pmLooks like karl roves fingerprints everywhere to me. Can't we bring back the public stocks for these people?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pmAnd, unfortunately, I think #45's comment about the dems preserving power for themselves is accurate. We can't forget this is a big salary for life, healthcare for life club up there.
Conyers - the time for cooperating with the White House is long past. How many times do they need to give you the finger before you will act? You are just furthering the publics perception of the Democrats as a bunch of wimps.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWAR CRIMINAL Bush is a TRAITOR to the USA and its Constitution, the one he called a "goddamned piece of paper".
May he be JAILED in this lifetime, then sent by God to hell for his GENOCIDE of innocent Iraqis and US soldiers for his lies.
BURN IN HELL, TRAITOR Bush the MURDERER coxucker PUNK.
God Bless America, the Democratic Party and SUBPOENAS of Bush!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pmYou really need to take your meds Arn.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:21 pmGod Bless the Democrats and SUBPOENAS.
Try, convict, and JAIL Bush the COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR to the USA!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:28 pmThis morning I heard Mr. Bush, addressing the White House conference on the Americas. He was stressing the importance of transparency and open government.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pmIt is now clear he was not talking about HIS government.
Sara Taylor wants immunity. Interesting how many Justice officials won't testify about their "legal" activities without immunity.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:39 pmIt is hard to see why the administration would want to control what former officials who no longer work for it are not permitted to testify. If they have nothing to hide then there should be no need to hide behind executive privilege. If the US attorneys were fired for performance related reasons then why the insistence that Taylor and Miers not be placed under oath. They must testify and they must do it under oath.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:57 pmHowdy Pardners,
Nobody here can be surprised that George W sited executive privilege and stopped Taylor from testifying. That's his MO.
What I'm waiting to see is if Conyers has the gonads to take this to the next level. I personally doubt it.
You remember Conyers held impeachment hearings, of George Dubya, when he was in the Minority. He talked the talk back then.
Then what happened when he was in the Majority? His gonads shriveled up. There will be no impeachment.
I don't have a problem with how the Republican Administration is handling this situation. We all know what douche bags they are. The problem I have is with Conyers and Pelosi.
When are they going to get off their asses and actually do something about this Administration?
Only time will tell. HA!
Troubled Texan
July 9th, 2007 at 7:02 pmI teach Quantitative Logic. I have an advanced degree in Logic. From the postings I have read, they will be used as examples of illogic in my fall course and they are examples of the old saying "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". Why don't you "experts" in history actually do research first? And why are your minds so weak that you must argue emotionally and not logically?
July 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pmTo all you Bush bashers, your memories of Bill Clinton is short.
Go to: http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm
Stop your whining and read some facts.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:34 am