White House refuses to explain privilege claim.
White House refuses to explain privilege claim.
White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) today, reiterating the White House’s refusal to comply with the subpoena for documents related to the U.S. attorneys controversy:
Democrats had set Monday morning as a deadline for Fielding to at least provide a log of what documents the White House is withholding and to provide further justification for why the White House is asserting executive privilege.
Snow said Fielding refused on both counts — he will not turn over a log of documents and will point out that the White House previously explained its justification for executive privilege by releasing letters on June 28 from Fielding and the solicitor general.
“We’ve shown an extraordinary amount of accommodation,” said a White House official. “It’s clear to us what the Democrats want is a confrontation.”
UPDATE: Leahy responds: “I have to wonder if the White House’s refusal to provide a detailed basis for this executive privilege claim has more to do with its inability to craft an effective one.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8601
Guess the baby needs a nap?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pmContempt of Congress time.
Time to fish or cut bait, Congress.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pmWait a minute…
When Bush was illegally wiretapping Americans, the cons said “If you have nothing to hide, then why are you against compliance?”
So, Bush, to quote your own people “If you have nothing to hide, then why are you against compliance?” Hmmm?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pmConfrontation? Yes. We want that. We want the kind of confrontation that happens when a criminal is put on trial. Actually, we want jail time and severe punishment for the criminal cabal occupying our White House and destroying our great country.
Bring. It. On.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pmIt is time…impeach and send in the troops.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pm“Because we don’t have to, and there’s nothing you will do about it that will be settled before we leave in ‘09″
July 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pmThis should signal the “beginning of the end” for this administration. It’s clear that Congress has only one card left in their deck which is IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT.
If they continue to play nice-nice they will find themselves out of a job soon.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pmHi TripMaster! Abso-friggin-lutely!
July 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pmCongress is at a crossroad here and needs to do the right thing now and the ONLY thing they can which is swift impeachment.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pmCould you imagine Cindy Sheehan before Congress?
At least she would be a true representative of most of the people…
July 9th, 2007 at 12:43 pmWow, are the Democrats that dumb?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:43 pmCareful what you wish for, the American people are not marching the streets, they aren’t being drafted, and many people are still volunteering for active duty. Would the Democrats grow up already?!
“It’s good to be the king.”
July 9th, 2007 at 12:43 pmYou can take your “accommodation” and shove it up your signing statement. We don’t want favors, we want compliance.
Get your slithery @$$ back to the WH and pony up some testimony or we start throwing darts at the org chart and impeaching whatever we hit.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:43 pm“We’ve shown an extraordinary amount of accommodation,†said a White House official.
You’ve shown no “accomodation” whatsoever. Just naked contempt for the coequal Legislative Branch of the United States Government.
“It’s clear to us what the Democrats want is a confrontation.â€
That’s exactly what you want. Trying to turn it around is a pathetically predictable ploy, but it will no doubt work, at least upon the congenitally stupid 28% that still flock mindlessly to Chimpy’s banner.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:43 pmThe only reason he agreed to hearings which were not recorded and not under oath is obvious. He plans on couseling his people to lie and he doesn’t want more liars paraded before americans as “perjurers” – like Libby.
It’s clear he’s hiding big stuff now so it’s time to go in and remove him. Just like we did with Nixon….raiding Watergate!
July 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pmthe subpoena’s will rain down this week…fasten your seatbelts folks..
July 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pm#10
July 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pmSpeak for yourself buddy
“We’ve shown an extraordinary amount of accommodation,†said a White House official.
he continued:” I mean, come on! We took all that effort to raise our middle finger and this is the thanks we get? I tell you, those in the DemoCRAT party just want to fight.”
July 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pmPerhaps he’s going on vacation for the month of August so congress can’t find him to impeach his sorry butt? What a worm.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:44 pmTMM-It’s now 26%, not 28%
:)
July 9th, 2007 at 12:45 pmI can’t believe they wasted two pieces of paper on that. They could have abbreviated the letter to this and it would’ve said the same thing:
July 9th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Umm.. Bring it On???
July 9th, 2007 at 12:46 pmGo ahead Congress, Bring it On. Subpoena, Courts, Full Metal Jacket.
whiteyfresh sez:
Sorry, WF…it’s sometimes difficult to be entirely accurate all the time about an approval rating that’s in free-fall.
Actually, free-fall doesn’t really cover it. Chimpy’s approval rating is in an absolute power dive. ^_^
July 9th, 2007 at 12:49 pmSpeak for yourself buddy
Comment by Smart Fellar — July 9, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
I did.
And I’m a woman, buddy.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pmComment by toasterhead — July 9, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
LOL…
July 9th, 2007 at 12:51 pm“White House Refuses To Explain Privilege Claim”
It’s the IOKIYAR privilege claim.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:53 pm.
You’d have to be an idiot to think that this wouldn’t happen!!!
HEyOOOOOooooooooOOOOooooOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 12:55 pmContempt of Congress isn’t nearly enough.
We need IMPEACHMENT!
NOW!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:05 pmI hope Leahy is well protected.
His statement was spot on. There is no good reason for Fred’s assertions. Other than he is busy ordering roasted orange duck.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pmOh yeah,
Isreal still sucks too.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:07 pmFor all the latest news, key reports, document releases and other essential materials surrounding the U.S. attorneys scandal, see:
July 9th, 2007 at 1:08 pm“The U.S. Attorneys Scandal Document Center.”
And I’m a woman, buddy.
Comment by unbelievable
And bets are, she’s a hot one too. ;)
July 9th, 2007 at 1:09 pmCan any conservative posting here — reasonable person or troll, doesn’t matter — explain the principle behind the offer to provide “off the record” testimony?
I mean, we all know the practical benefits of the offer: the WH gets to pretend that they are “accomodating” but their exposure is nil, since anything that’s reported that reflects unfavorably on them is immediately disputable, since there is no record.
But what is the public justification for these conditions — testimony in private, off-the-record, with no transcript? Why is that the appropriate way to handle this, in the view of the White House and conservatives who back the administration?
Thanks.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pmI think that there should be an investigation of both Leahy and Conyers.
Everyone knew this would happen, so why did they press foreward?
It doesn’t make sense!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:11 pmExpell Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers from Congress!!!!
Expell Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers from Congress!!!!
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
(Gawd, i can’t believe I’m going to take this semi-seriously but…)
Mr. Pee, on what grounds do you call for Conyers to be expelled from the House and Leahy from the Senate?
Is this just a wee tantrum on your part of the type we’ve seen before? (By the way, isn’t it about time for your regular “Cheney ‘08!!!!!” cry?)
July 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pmWrite Senator Leahy and press for contempt charges to be brought forward. senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
He needs to know that he has public support for more serious actions and, alternatively, that failure to act in this matter will result in him not keeping his job come re-election time.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:15 pmExtraordinary accomodation?
Extraordinarily “generous” offer?
Bullzhit!!
Comply with the LAW for once.
THAT would definitely be EXTRAORDINARY for the Bush CRIMINALs.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pmCareful, Mr Pee is peeing down his leg again, don’t get any on you!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:17 pmMr. Take,
I figured it all out at about two this morning, see:
That was just for Leahy.
Then a little while later, I figured out that Conyers was part of it too.
And here is the reason:
July 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pmLEAHY AND CONYERS HAVE TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fool and his controller need to go NOW!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pmWe have what’s called impeachment procedings….kick these crooks and bums out of the WH NOW. Grow a spine, Congress!
“We’ve shown an extraordinary amount of accommodation,†said a White House official. “It’s clear to us what the Democrats want is a confrontation.â€
you’ve done nothing but stall and refuse… in what Orwellian universe does that equal “accommodation?”
what Dems want is the TRUTH, a foreign word to this White House…
July 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pmOk, that’s it. Find the President in Contempt of Congress. This has gone on long enough.
To all the trolls on this board. Please tell me, if the Bush Crime Family has done nothing illegal, why are they afraid to release documents? Why are they attempting to stop private citizens from voluntarily testifying? If they have nothing to hide, why all the obstruction?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pmI recommend redefining Bush’s use of executive privilege to something more appropriate:
monarchial privilege
imperial privilege
or even
divine privilege
Executive privilege used in the manner in which Bush is using it is no longer executive privilege. Let’s be honest and redefine it.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pmLEAHY AND CONYERS HAVE TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
If MC Rove and Harriet Miers and all the rest of the President’s men are so innocent, they should have no problem testifying under oath before Congress.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:26 pmWAR CRIMINAL Bush is a COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA who needs to be tried, convicted, and put in jail until he DROPS DEAD.
God Bless America, the Democratic Party and SUBPOENASa
July 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pmToday President Bush said he was invoking Executive Privilege because, “Because I can, I’m the Decider.” Then the President pulled down his pants and wagged his pee-pee at the media, again saying “Because I can, I’m the Decider.”
Hey it could happen, and you know what. More than half of all GOPers would still, still, be proud of this guy.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#39 Thanks for your response, Mr. Pee. I see now your reasons for calling for the expulsion of two Congressional leaders from their respective bodies. The fact that they are delusional reasons is no surprise, and they still point to a tantrum as their source, but they are at least reasons.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWhy even indulge the idiot on here known as Mr. President. NOBODY can seriously believe what he is saying….not even himself. He’s here for nothing more than to disrupt debate and by engaging him, or any of his out-fukking-rageous talking points, you are legitimizing them. Treat his ideas like those of someone who has schizophrenia and are claiming to be god, Napolean, etc. Dismiss them as the ramblings of somebody not in their right mind – not worthy of legitimate discussion since they have no grounds in reality.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pmMr. Take,
July 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pmNo problem.
Us inbreed morons like our criminals, they have the same code of ethics that we conservatives signed on to. We are the new mafia, get over it.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:34 pm/sarc off
Comment by Not-So-Smart Feller — July 9, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
That’s “Efficks”
We have a strict Code of “Efficks”
July 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pmComment by toasterhead — July 9, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
We need to investigate Leahy and Conyers first!
(reasons are posted above)
July 9th, 2007 at 1:37 pmDismiss them as the ramblings of somebody not in their right mind – not worthy of legitimate discussion since they have no grounds in reality.
Comment by Lupeyg2 — July 9, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
But he does bring us all together against a common enemy. He’s like the al-Qa’ida in Iraq to our 1920 Martyrs Brigade.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:38 pmReid is on CSPAN2 now, talking about the war.
“We cannot wait until September to act.”
July 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pmWe need to investigate Leahy and Conyers first!
(reasons are posted above)
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
So you’re suggesting that Congress should investigate two Members of Congress for doing their job? Well done ya ra’isi!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pmGotta love the impeachment liberals! So much for the 54% that don’t want to impeach the President…..
July 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pmWe need to investigate Leahy and Conyers first!
(reasons are posted above)
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
A classic Rovian (i.e. Straussian, i.e. Machiavellian) move –when a weakness is exposed — in this case, corruption and lack of fitness for office — respond not by defending one’s actions but by calling into question the character of your accusers.
The thing is, that only works for a little while. Once it becomes a predictable pattern, its fraudulence becomes clear.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pmGotta love the impeachment liberals! So much for the 54% that don’t want to impeach the President…..
Comment by m12 — July 9, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Yow. That loud sucking sound you hear is He’s12 trying to slurp up the last bit of his Kool-Aid with a straw.
“The 54% that don’t want to impeach the President”? That’s a triumph? That’s the best you can do?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pmGotta love the impeachment liberals! So much for the 54% that don’t want to impeach the President…..
Comment by m12
A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:
45% favor “the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;” 46% oppose. 9% undecided.
Pulling numbers out of your butt again.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pmMr. Take,
How do you explain Leahy’s and Conyers’ playing right into the hands of the WH?
Sage William Kristol already told everyone that it was a political move!!!
Why would Leahy and Conyers give BushCo exactly what they wanted?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pmYow. That loud sucking sound you hear is He’s12 trying to slurp up the last bit of his Kool-Aid with a straw.
“The 54% that don’t want to impeach the President� That’s a triumph? That’s the best you can do?
So you don’t believe in the majority when you aren’t part of it, eh?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pmPulling numbers out of your butt again.
Comment by Candyce — July 9, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
He’s using Karl’s meth again. Oops, I meant math.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:48 pmYeah, spit take, m12 and the rest of the 26%-ers are proud of the fact that *only* 46% want to impeach.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pmm12,
I say that Leahy and Conyers should be investigated.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pmThey clearly have alterior motives for the harassment of the Bush administration.
#63
Well, yeah, given that the founders set the barrier for impeachment at 67%, you got a ways to go!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pmHey, m12, since you’re all about majorities all of a sudden, does that mean you will support the the Majority who wants an end to our involvement in Iraq?
July 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pm#64
Nah, I don’t think so, Mr. President.
They are only bothering you because they realized they cannot get any of their agenda accomplished and have to appear to be doing something.
It took a war funding bill to get their minimum wage passed. I guess they have 3-4 more war funding bills to tack other things onto!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pmHey, m12, since you’re all about majorities all of a sudden, does that mean you will support the the Majority who wants an end to our involvement in Iraq?
Everyone wants an end to our involvement in Iraq, including the President. It’s only a small number that wants an immediate cut and run.
Those people are idiots, of course. They’ll support Hillary when she sends them back in a year!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pmSo you don’t believe in the majority when you aren’t part of it, eh?
Comment by m12 — July 9, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Explain how you reached this conclusion.
All I stated was that if you are crowing about “54% who don’t want the president impeached” (a statistic which, as Candyce noted, you pulled out of your butt) then you have really low standards for achievement.
I guess if you’re going to put your faith in george W. Bush, low standards for achievement come with the territory.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pmThey clearly have alterior motives for the harassment of the Bush administration.
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
I think you mean ulterior motives. Alterior is not a word.
And Congressional oversight of the executive branch is not “harassment.” It’s the legislative branch’s job.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#67
Yeah, but they are smearing the Bush Adm., wasting time, and money!
I’m not happy about that.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pmOk, that’s it. Find the President in Contempt of Congress. This has gone on long enough.
To all the trolls on this board. Please tell me, if the Bush Crime Family has done nothing illegal, why are they afraid to release documents? Why are they attempting to stop private citizens from voluntarily testifying? If they have nothing to hide, why all the obstruction?
Comment by Katie — July 9, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Katie
I repeat my previous post on another thread.
“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.
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 1:57 pmWe already know what you think about the Constitution, m12, wiping your Cheetohs-stained fingers on it while you bravely pound the keyboard.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pmYeah, but they are smearing the Bush Adm., wasting time, and money!
I’m not happy about that.
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
The Bush Administration does a fantastic job of smearing itself. I don’t think they need any help from Congress to do that.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pmI notice that the troll droppings have thinned out a bit.
m12:
45 favor, 46 oppose, 9% don’t know/don’t care. That’s a pretty close race. I favor the congress doing their job, regardless of what I say. Of course I don’t want them having a old-fashioned witch hunt over trivial things (like, say, Clinton lying about whether or not he got a hummer from a whitehouse intern), but I hope that if the evidence hints against treason (say, by Clinton selling secrets to the Chinese, or *gasp* Bush ordering the outting of Valery Plame in revenge for her husband’s attempts to short circuit his war), the Congress’s JOB is to get answers and if necessary, impeach and/or refer to the judicial branch.
Bush’s misdirections and stonewalling suggests he has something to hide, don’t you agree, m12? After all, if he has nothing to hide, he won’t stand in the way of the investigations, right? *smirk*
The ‘Clinton did it too!’ and ‘we’re innocent, you have to take our word for it’ lines are getting _old_. You’re acting like a spoiled brat who isn’t getting his way. I think it’s time for the Neocons in general, and m12 in particular, to start growing up.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:59 pmAnd Congressional oversight of the executive branch is not “harassment.†It’s the legislative branch’s job.
It’s also their job to confirm judicial nominations, but they aren’t doing much of that.
It’s also their job to read the legislation they pass, but idiot Democrats claim they didn’t read the Patriot Act. Whoops!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:59 pmAnd Congressional oversight of the executive branch is not “harassment.†It’s the legislative branch’s job.
Comment by toasterhead — July 9, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Well, if they had something to show for their efforts I might not be so skeptical about their true motives.
However, since they keep coming up empty handed, I am suspicious, aren’t you?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:00 pmBush’s misdirections and stonewalling suggests he has something to hide, don’t you agree, m12? After all, if he has nothing to hide, he won’t stand in the way of the investigations, right? *smirk*
He is not stonewalling. He is using the same executive privilege that George Washington did to prevent a bunch of useless Congressmen from meddling in his affairs!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#78
m12,
That is why I don’t trust these fools Leahy and Conyers, why do they (especially Leahy) always feel entitled to get in Mr. Bush’s business?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pmHowever, since they keep coming up empty handed, I am suspicious, aren’t you?
Comment by Mr. President
“The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … so far it’s working for us.†– Trent Lott
Who’s got motives, Mr. Pee?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:03 pmIt’s also their job to confirm judicial nominations, but they aren’t doing much of that.
Comment by m12 — July 9, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
It’s their job to confirm ACCEPTABLE judicial nominations, not whatever radical “loyal Bushie” the President puts forward.
Want to take a stab at how many of Clinton’s nominations never made it out of committee?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pmWhere the words “executive privilige” are located at in the constitution?
I thought Bush and the Republicans only believe in “strict” interpertation of the constituton?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:07 pmWhere the words “executive privilige†are located at in the constitution?
Separation of powers doctrine.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pmComment by Candyce — July 9, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Lott was not talking about hearings, he was talking about sessions of congress.
That quote is out of context and meaningless.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pmThat is why I don’t trust these fools Leahy and Conyers, why do they (especially Leahy) always feel entitled to get in Mr. Bush’s business?
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
…maybe because, “Mr. Bush’s business” is also “the American people’s business”… ya think???
Oh, that’s right, whatever Bush does is fine with you, as long as you can still get satellite TV and go off-roading in the national park system on the weekends.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pmIt’s their job to confirm ACCEPTABLE judicial nominations, not whatever radical “loyal Bushie†the President puts forward.
Want to take a stab at how many of Clinton’s nominations never made it out of committee?
Clinton got more nominees confirmed than Bush is on pace to, despite all of Bush’s current nominees having the support of their homestate Senators…hmmm…….
July 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pmLeaky Leahy will lose this battle. As well he should!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pmComment by spit take — July 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
and shoot guns!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pmVentriloquist = Cheney. Dummy = Bush.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:10 pmInability to craft an effective reason? Since when has this administration ever done anything more than put out the most unbelievable and half-assed excuses for anything they’ve done? If this is what the Democratic party thinks, then they’re idiots.
The Bush admin has figured out byt his point that the Democratic party won’t do one damn thing to punish them or hold them accountable so why even bother making excuses. INstead this lack of reasoning is just spit in the democrats faces…and like always, the democrats will take it and wonder why Bush continuously disrespects them. Why should Bush respect them when they have proven for 7 months straight they won’t do anything anyway.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:13 pmYou mean the one where Washington told the house that they didn’t need the documents relating to a treaty with England as they have no ability to deal with treaties? m12, you’re digging deep there. And the Executive Privilege he exercised? It was his attempt to preserve the separation of powers as he perceived it. It was his attempt to ensure the rule of law was followed (and he himself had no issues of wrongdoing there).
Bush’s call for executive privilege? Well, lesse. He’s claiming executive privilege in the investigation of packing the justice department with DAs that only pulled the Republican party line. Consequences of this? Well, so far, we have allegations of punishment for investigating republican cases of voter fraud and pressure to investigate democratic voter fraud, even to the case of inventing democratic fraud. This has great issues in the sanctity of our way of government. Assume the worst case scenario here: Republicans take advantage of their protection from DAs and cage votes, intimidate voters, fraudulently register republican voters, and so on, while the Democrats are held to an extreme level of adherence to the law, even to the point that legitimate votes are thrown out. You might not think this is a bad thing, but frankly, I live in the United States of America, not the Republican Theocracy of Jesusland. If you can’t win on the battlefield of ideas and policies, you deserve a timeout, not a stacked game in your odds. You want a game that’s stacked in your favor? Go out, buy you a PS2 and a cheat, and cheat to your heart’s content.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pmClinton got more nominees confirmed than Bush is on pace to, despite all of Bush’s current nominees having the support of their homestate Senators…hmmm…….
Comment by m12 — July 9, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Link?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pmWell, if they had something to show for their efforts I might not be so skeptical about their true motives.
However, since they keep coming up empty handed, I am suspicious, aren’t you?
Comment by Mr. President — July 9, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Ahhh, I get it. Let me see if I’m following your logic here.
Congress is coming up empty-handed in their investigation because the White House is refusing to give them any documents or let anyone testify.
Therefore, because the White House is not cooperating, it’s obviously the fault of Congress because they have “alterior motives” for investigating unethical and possibly illegal activity in the Department of Justice.
It has nothing to do with the innocent White House. Their obstruction of justice only proves their innocence!
Brilliant logic! I’m going to try and use it next time I get pulled over for speeding.
“Officer, you have no right to accuse me of this alleged speeding violation. If you hadn’t been using that radar gun, you wouldn’t have clocked me doing 70. What were your motives in pointing that radar gun at my car, hmm?”
July 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pmSo I see no conservative (or troll, for that matter) has taken up the challenge of explaining why it is appropriate for the White House to offer testimony only in private, closed-door sessions, with no transcript and off-the record.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:18 pm#92
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/05/AR2007070501777.html
As we head into the administration’s final 18 months, it appears that, with the Democrats running the Senate, Bush, who has put 278 district and appeals court judges on the bench, has virtually no chance of besting Bill Clinton’s 370 appointments to those courts — about 43 percent of the total 853 judges.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:19 pmMr. Take,
Because they want to.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:19 pmSo I see no conservative (or troll, for that matter) has taken up the challenge of explaining why it is appropriate for the White House to offer testimony only in private, closed-door sessions, with no transcript and off-the record.
Comment by spit take — July 9, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
It’s so MC Rove can lie with impunity. Duh!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pmYou mean the one where Washington told the house that they didn’t need the documents relating to a treaty with England as they have no ability to deal with treaties? m12, you’re digging deep there. And the Executive Privilege he exercised? It was his attempt to preserve the separation of powers as he perceived it. It was his attempt to ensure the rule of law was followed (and he himself had no issues of wrongdoing there).
Precisely. Given that neither the House nor Senate has any ability to deal with Presidential pardons, or with internim attorney appointments that Congress itself authorized, the same argument applies.
If you can’t win on the battlefield of ideas and policies, you deserve a timeout, not a stacked game in your odds.
That’s what the President did in 2004.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:23 pmHe is not stonewalling. He is using the same executive privilege that George Washington did to prevent a bunch of useless Congressmen from meddling in his affairs!
Actually, REAL AMERICANS (not Bush azzhole-lickers) know that it is the PEOPLES’ AFFAIRS, not Bush’s PERSONAL AFFAIRS.
He can go suck Jeff Gannon off for as long as he wants…
But his work as “president” are the BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE USA, and as such are subject to OVERSIGHT and SUBPOENAS.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:24 pmThe trolls are out in force today.
They must need to try to cover for the TREASON that Bush and his WAR CRIMINALS have committed and CONTINUE TO COMMIT.
Bush needs to go to jail until he DROPS DEAD.
And goes to hell from there with his new master, Satan.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pmThanks for actually doing some real research, You’re12, but that statistic, while meaingful, is far less important than the percentage of candidates confirmed.
Clinton had by far more judicial openings to fill.
“Today, 851 men and women serve as judges in our Article III federal courts, which is more than at any time in our history. With only 28 vacant seats, 97 percent of the authorized judgeships are filled and we are at the lowest number of vacancies since the Reagan Administration.1 There are now fewer vacancies on both the Circuit and District Courts than at any time in President Clinton’s two terms.”
When Clinton left office, 40 judicial positions were left unfilled because his nominees were not confirmed. Bush has had 88% of his nominees confirmed.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:32 pm*
July 9th, 2007 at 2:32 pmhttp://impeachcheney.org/
.
need contempt of congress charges…
tell your reps you approve…
CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD
8 0 0 . 8 2 8 . 0 4 9 8
8 0 0 . 4 5 9 . 1 8 8 7
8 0 0 . 6 1 4 . 2 8 0 3
8 6 6 . 3 4 0 . 2 9 8 1
8 6 6 . 2 2 0 . 0 0 4 4
8 6 6 . 3 3 8 . 1 0 1 5
8 7 7 . 8 5 1 . 6 4 3 7
July 9th, 2007 at 2:38 pm.
call your peoples, please!
.
So I see no conservative (or troll, for that matter) has taken up the challenge of explaining why it is appropriate for the White House to offer testimony only in private, closed-door sessions, with no transcript and off-the record.
Comment by spit take — July 9, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Because they can refuse to answer a question without being charged with obstruction. He may truly be trying to defend the executive branch, as is his constitutional duty, and cooperate at the same time. I don’t like Bush but I find this plausible.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThanks for actually doing some real research, You’re12, but that statistic, while meaingful, is far less important than the percentage of candidates confirmed.
Why is that? You do realize that many of the Clinton vacancies were new seats established in 1990 during Bush I’s term?
Besides, your statistics are from 2004. They are way out of date and do not include the absurd stonewalling in his 2nd term.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:40 pmM12 and MP, this is not a dictatorship, asswipes. Get some education.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:40 pmWho said this nation was a dictatorship? Almost every action by this Presidency has been supported by one of the other two branches of government.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:51 pmWho said this nation was a dictatorship? Almost every action by this Presidency has been supported by one of the other two branches of government.
Comment by m12 — July 9, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Two out of three ain’t bad, eh?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:53 pmComment by m12 — July 9, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Proper cudos in going back to someone who isn’t mired in the details of today’s political climate. I give you that much.
But let’s look at this closer. In Washington’s case, he had a non-legal disagreement on his hands. It was a diagreement between two political parties on how to approach a treaty with Great Britain. The hard part there was that there was no one answer, and the answer given didn’t really settle well with Jefferson’s faction. The use of Executive Privilege here, though possibly distasteful (I won’t comment on politics that happened 200 years before I was born), was necessary, as it did truly deal with the function of a young government.
Now, about the presidential pardons and attorney appointments. Yes, you’re right. A pardon or appointment by itself is not subject to approval. However, unfortunately for your position, it’s not that simple. The problem is that there is a question about the underlying reason why these attorneys were appointed the way they were. Specifically, there’s a question about illegally packing the DoJ with loyalists to push a political cause. Now, I’m no legal expert (I’m a computer tech, computers are much simpler to deal with than politicians), but I do think that investigations are healthy. Keeps you on your toes, and keeps you up and up. (Contrary to what you’re possibly thinking, no, I did support the investigations into Clinton. I wish they’d been more directed to keeping him on the straight and narrow, and there were lots more useful things to harp on than the fact that he lied about getting a hummer, but regardless, I do support investigating a D or R President. Keeps ‘em honest. Incidently, that’s why I prefer different parties controlling the Congress and the Presidency). President Bush is pushing for an Executive Privilege claim on his attorney issue. Why? You advocate because the congress has no role in handling interrum appointments. I agree with you. However, it has a role in figuring out why those attorneys were appointed on a recess appointment instead of through normal channels, and if those appointments were in support of a crime in progress, in order to cover it up, then the Congress is supposed to unearth the underlying crime and punish that. After all, if there was no underlying crime, then even though interrum appointments are distasteful, Bush is well within his rights to do so, and when the Congress comes acalling, all the person they’re asking has to tell is the truth, and then the congressional oversight committee can move on.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:55 pmM12, the numbers are widely available for anyone to check…it is an indisputable fact that every single level and section of the judicial branch, with the exception of one, is majority Republican.
Whether or not CLinton appointed more attorneys than Bush is completely irrelevant. The judicial branch is heavily republican and BUsh appointments have made extremely partisan opinions the actualy go against precedent.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:56 pmM12, the numbers are widely available for anyone to check…it is an indisputable fact that every single level and section of the judicial branch, with the exception of one, is majority Republican.
Shouldn’t it be? We’ve had mostly Republican Presidents in the last 25 years.
Whether or not CLinton appointed more attorneys than Bush is completely irrelevant. The judicial branch is heavily republican and BUsh appointments have made extremely partisan opinions the actualy go against precedent.
Liberal judges have done the same thing…yet the left never whined about those opinions.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#109
I suppose not, no.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pmHowever, it has a role in figuring out why those attorneys were appointed on a recess appointment instead of through normal channels, and if those appointments were in support of a crime in progress, in order to cover it up, then the Congress is supposed to unearth the underlying crime and punish that. After all, if there was no underlying crime, then even though interrum appointments are distasteful, Bush is well within his rights to do so, and when the Congress comes acalling, all the person they’re asking has to tell is the truth, and then the congressional oversight committee can move on.
Are they really looking to figure that out, or to make a media spectacle? If its the former, and they want to reconsider policy on attorney appointments, they should accept the President’s offer of private interviews.
And if they really want to gut 1866 Supreme Court Precedent, ex parte garland (concerning pardons), they had the opportunity during the 2001 discussion of the subject..
July 9th, 2007 at 3:12 pmm12, to what question do you suppose not? Only question I could find was a rhetorical question of ‘why’ I posed in the bottom third of paragraph 2.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:13 pmWow. once in a great while He’s12 can sound like a nearly rational adult, but it never lasts long. The familiar right-wing tactics of distract and spin are never very deep in his tool drawer.
The whole judicial appointements issue came up when He’s12 made a snide remark about Congress not approval Bush’s judges like they’re “supposed to”. When confronted with the fact that the Republic Congress was even less responsive to Clinton’s nominees (leaving 40 vacancies at the end of his term in office) , He’s12 went off on a comparison game, completely forgetting that his original point had been obliterated.
Ah, well, it’s what we expect of He’s12.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pmPrivate interviews won’t work, because there is no transcript. What the transcript is for is to make sure that the interviewed can’t say “But that’s not what I said” after the interview. I understand why Leahy isn’t interested in that particular deal. Private interview? Fine. With a full transcript, available to anyone in congress (dare I say, anyone in the country), on oath. Anything less is pointless, and if they were to accept that, they might as well take your advice and just give up the investigation.
Now, about those pardons. Actually, they’re not attempting to gut your 1866 case. I’d argue that the USA vs. Nixon case holds more relavence here than your case…there is suspicion of a committed crime, which the congress is trying to investigate. Again, I’m no legal scholar, but I do think there has to be a law against selective enforcement of laws. Perhaps you might argue that they should actively investigate that, but that’s the only quibble I can see.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pmThe whole judicial appointements issue came up when He’s12 made a snide remark about Congress not approval Bush’s judges like they’re “supposed toâ€. When confronted with the fact that the Republic Congress was even less responsive to Clinton’s nominees (leaving 40 vacancies at the end of his term in office) , He’s12 went off on a comparison game, completely forgetting that his original point had been obliterated.
Except your argument is bunk. This is not 2004. The Democrats now are being far less responsive than the GOP Congress of 99-00.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:24 pmYou trolls are a desperate lot. What bulls*it product are you hanging onto as you cling for life? I am a former Republican, as are all my friends. How braindead do you have to be to still support or work in the current administration’s behalf? They are criminals, and some of them admit it. If you think flapping your tongue will act as a propeller, think again. You are going to lose. False news and being louder and meaner than the rest won’t get you where you want to go. Attacking Democrats, Liberals or bloggers won’t either. The more you struggle the faster you’ll sink. It’s once again, time for that slogan “ABB” except you may now use the lyrics, Anybody but enablers of this administration, or this congress if they dont get it on track and impeach the criminals in the administration. Are you listening?
July 9th, 2007 at 5:03 pmExcept your argument is bunk. This is not 2004. The Democrats now are being far less responsive than the GOP Congress of 99-00.
Comment by m12 — July 9, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
How does the fact that this is not 2004 render this argument “bunk”:
You said the Senate wasn’t doing what it’s “supposed to” bbecause they weren’t confirming Bush judicial nominees. I pointed out that it is not the Senate’s job to “approve” nominees. It’s the Senate’s job to evaluate nominees and approve acceptable ones. The Republics in the Senate left forty vacancies at the end of Clinton’s term. Most of those positions didn’t even get out of Republic-chaired committees.
How has that statistic changed in the two-and-a-half years since the report was issued? I don’t think any more of Clinton’s nominees got approved in the last two and a half years, do you?
Getting back to your original “point”, you said the Senate “wasn’t doing its job”. Did you complain about the Senate not doing its job in 1995-2000? I’d guess not.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHow has that statistic changed in the two-and-a-half years since the report was issued? I don’t think any more of Clinton’s nominees got approved in the last two and a half years, do you?
More judicial vacancies have occured, and Democrats have blocked them from being filled.
The Senate did its job in 97-00 by confirming (according to your own link) 172 nominees.
You can pick any of the last 5 presidential terms (clinton’s 2, bush 41, or Reagan’s 2), and the 05-08 Senate is not even close to that pace.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:47 pmOh, and spittake, there are 52 vacancies, plus 11 more upcoming before Bush leaves office.
http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CF_FB_301/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reports.ViewVacancies
http://www.uscourts.gov/cfapps/webnovada/CF_FB_301/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reports.ViewFuture
Since you’re making a big fuss about 40, seems like the Democrats are 23 behind schedule.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWhat is the problem with testifying before Congress? Noone is being accused, indicted, or punished. Members of Congress ask questions, the respondent answers. It happens all the time. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to conduct hearings and ask questions. It’s an essential part of the whole checks-and-balances system.
If there are specific questions that people don’t want to answer, well, then they can say that they don’t want to answer the question when it’s asked. A blanket refusal to answer any questions at all or to even show up is not valid.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pmI think Bush is using the same privilege that Bill Clinton used oodles of times , or can’t you people remember that far back ?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:40 pmMorally bankrupt Republicans.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:27 am