Leahy: Taylor’s Testimony ‘Undercuts’ White House Claims To Executive Privilege
Leahy: Taylor’s Testimony ‘Undercuts’ White House Claims To Executive Privilege
During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the U.S. attorney scandal today, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the committee, asked former White House political director Sara Taylor, “did you speak with President Bush about replacing U.S. attorneys?” “I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys,” Taylor responded.
Taylor also acknowledged that she “did not attend any meetings with the “President where that matter was discussed” and that she was “not aware of a presidential decision document” in which the president decided to proceed with the firing plan.
In his closing comments, Leahy noted Taylor’s admission that she did not discuss the U.S. attorney firing plan with the President, saying it “seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved.” “And that really shows, again, that the White House counsel’s broad instruction is not only unprecedented, but it’s unsound,” added Leahy. Watch it:
Leahy then mused on the White House’s possible motivations for asserting such a broad interpretation of executive privilege:
So I ask again, what is the White House so intent on hiding? If the president didn’t make these decisions, well then who did and why did they? Was it Mr. Rove or was it, as some of us feel, to corrupt law enforcement for partisan advantage, which would bother me far more than political machinations if it’s corrupting law enforcement?
So we’ll continue our efforts. We’ll keep trying.
(HT: TP commenter Marcus Aurelius)
Transcript:
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT):Now, since the 2004 election, did you speak with President Bush about replacing U.S. attorneys?TAYLOR: I’m trying — again, I’m trying to…
LEAHY: I know what you’re trying to do, but you…
TAYLOR: Well, no, and I appreciate your patience, but I’m trying to make a determination on deliberations versus what is a fact-based question.
And so, I guess you asked me a fact-based question. I did not speak to the president about removing U.S. attorneys.
LEAHY: Did you attend any meeting with the president since the 2004 election in which the removal and replacement of U.S. attorneys was discussed?
TAYLOR: I did not attend any meetings with the president where that matter was discussed.
LEAHY: Are you aware of any presidential decision document since the 2004 election in which President Bush decided to proceed with a replacement plan for U.S. attorneys?
TAYLOR: I am not aware of a presidential decision document.
[…]
LEAHY (D-VT): I do note your answer that you did not discuss these matters with the president and to the best of your knowledge he was not involved is going to make some nervous at the White House because it seriously undercuts his claim of executive privilege if he was not involved.
And, of course, the president has made those statements publicly. He said that these were decisions he did not make. Actually other senior officials at the Justice Department said that under oath. Your testimony today under oath bolsters that impression. And that really shows, again, that the White House counsel’s broad instruction is not only unprecedented, but it’s unsound.
I say that because if it is unsound, if it is unprecedented, as I’ve said, it does not protect you from a contempt citation. This broad invocation of the notion of executive privilege to obstruct Congress from learning the truth leads one to believe it’s part of a cover-up.
So I ask again, what is the White House so intent on hiding? If the president didn’t make these decisions, well then who did and why did they? Was it Mr. Rove or was it, as some of us feel, to corrupt law enforcement for partisan advantage, which would bother me far more than political machinations if it’s corrupting law enforcement?
So we’ll continue our efforts. We’ll keep trying.
Thank you, Mr. Eggleston, for being here. And I guess other attorneys from your office are here, Mr. Eggleston. Am I correct?
EGGLESTON: Yes, sir.
LEAHY: And we stand in recess.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
You go get em Sir. And get em good!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:23 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
July 11th, 2007 at 5:25 pmAnother, rather important question would be; is Sara Taylor lying when she says she didn’t discuss the matter with Bush? Does she think Bush claiming executive privilege and including her in that claim allows her to lie to Congress?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThis is no witch hunt, unless you despise the USA and want to see it destroyed from the inside. This is a serious matter to weed out the crooks and to clean our political system up.
I noticed that the liberal web sites are under troll attack from those who want to see our country destroyed. Ignore these trolls and they will sit in their third world countries and pout that their tactics did no good.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pmHmm, now what was it that the reich-wingers used to say? “If you have nothing to hide then you shouldn’t be afraid to testify.”
July 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pmNew and Improved RoboTroll 3200 Reports:
What a witch-hunt!
No underlying crime!
Pleasure of the Presidentâ„¢!
Clinton Did It Tooâ„¢!
14% approval of Democratâ„¢ congress!
Rwanada!
Look over there! Something shiny!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pmUndercuts? I think the word Eliminates could be used here.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThis is a serious matter to weed out the crooks and to clean our political system up.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHaha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooks”. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
Since when did criminality have a political affiliation? If a person is a crook, then it doesn’t matter to what party they belong to.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pm#2 if the Republicans had complied with their oversight responsibility when they were in power then maybe the administrations evildoers wouldn’t have to appeared in front of congress now.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:33 pmExamples, please.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pmHaha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooksâ€. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
So you admit that they are commiting crimes then? It doesn’t matter who got away with what years ago, if they commited crimes, then they need to face justice.
And the crimes form this administration outdo all of the others put combined.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pmAt lease someone in Washington is a lawyer who is educated in law. It was sweet the way he called out Bush. Now Miers knew she would be destroyed and her reputation of not lying would be over. So rather then lie under oath just take that 5th Amendment aka Executive Privilege way out. Now at lease the Supreme Court will have some work to do when they come back. Alito and Roberts will have to make history by giving the famous 5-4 vote for what ever the White House tells them. To bad Nixon didn’t have these crooks if he did we would have never seen a criminal President impeached. Crimes does pay in the United States if your a Republican even sin works well.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pm“Haha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooksâ€. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:31 pm”
Except that this president makes Nixon and the Mafia look like childs play…..
This is the MOST CORRUPT administration in our 231 year existence…..
It’s just sad that YOU support criminals…… I don’t know why you don’t love America or the Constitution, but you are a person that does not deserve the freedoms that I and many Vets served and died for to provide to you.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:36 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
Well if you had been watching, Specter was wondering where all his colleagues were. Leahy pointed out that everyone was informed of the date and time and that their seats were waiting for them.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:36 pm#11: Pick up a history book. The usual stuff: bribery, murder, war, backstabbing,… you name it. And yeah, even Clinton admin did it.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pmLeahy is a canny old lawyer - he laid the perfect trap, baited it, and here come Ms. Taylor, thinking she is protected, thinking she’ll show up and snow the Senate and she walked right into it. And it’s so simple - if the president wasn’t there, then there is no privilege - and you can be held in contemp for refusing to talk. The look on her face when she realizes what’s happened is priceless.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pmYou could see a twitch in her brow right when he makes the point that if the pres wasn’t involved, exec priv won’t apply.
Or maybe she’s thinking of that killer all-night coke party she just left a couple hours ago.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:37 pm#15: Yeah. That was a nice show. The truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend. An exemplary piece of dirty politics.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:38 pmI love the way he set her up on that. then sent her off thinking about contempt of Congress charges to come. “and you have a nice day”
July 11th, 2007 at 5:38 pm#17: Nah. I doubt her lawyer missed that trap.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pmNo-one in particular has an opinion:
Haha! You talk like there has been a time when there have been no “crooksâ€. Here’s a newsflash: what’s happened in this administration is exactly the same shit that’s been going on since the invention of politics.
So, jumbo-dumbo, why do you complain about this being a “witchhunt” if this is “business as usual”? I would surmise that this would be a perfectly normal, business-as-usual investigation, then?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:40 pmPLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:40 pm#22: Whatever happens in DC should stay in DC.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThe look on her face when she realizes what’s happened is priceless.
Comment by Powkat
can’t wait to see chimpy’s mug when they slap the cuffs on him.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pmThe truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend.
Oh, man! Those Republicans are out for lunch or at prayer. QUICK, let’s have hearing. That’s wily.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:41 pmLeahey needs to tighten up his game and stop with the fancy conclusions.
He’s right, if Taylor didn’t speak with the President or attend any meetings then she has no claim to executive privilege, but the fact is Executive Privilege CANNOT be invoked in a domestic matter not associated with national security anyway, so the case is moot.
The US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.
It CANNOT, under ANY circumstances be used just to conceal private White House conversations.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:42 pmWilly - Not just cuffs, shackles - and an orange jumpsuit and flip-flops.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:43 pm“What a witch-hunt.”
So what, pray tell, makes this a witch-hunt. If Bush has done nothing wrong, why does he feel it necessary to try to declare Executive Privilege (meaning it covers conversations between a staffer and the President), when the testimony that Congress is seeking is about conversations between Ms. Taylor and Ms. Meiers, or with people in the DOJ.
Remember how all you Rethugs told us about the Patriot Act, “if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? Well, the same thing applies to the President. If he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding it all?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pmBush must have fired them, because, we are repeatedly told, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, not at the pleasure of the President’s aides.
The President is the only one who can remove them, no?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pmLeahy may not move as quickly as some of us wouldlike, but he is deliberate in his actions and words. He nailed it today when he notes that Taylor’s testimony explicitly places Bush out of the discussions — at least, those of which she was a part — ipso facto, no executive privilage applies.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:46 pmThat bolsters my thinking on why Meirs is not being allowed to testify at all - because Leahy will trap her in her own words whatever she may say and they won’t risk that.
Katie: Are you saying that the President should be treated like any other citizen? I think not.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:46 pm#11 Examples, please.
Oh, you know, Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra. The usual crony-conservative criminality.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pmTheres no witch hunt here. Well respected US Prosecutors have testified that they were fired for political cause, and several cited certain cases that they felt were being squashed by their removal.
The government has a duty to investigate such claims.
The tried to, and Bush invoked Executive Privilege, something he cannot do here.
The isn’t a witch hunt. Its a pig roast.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pmThe crook seems to be the president himself. The worst administration in history!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:48 pm“The truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend.” Comment by A No-one without a Brain — July 11, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Nice try, moron. There’s no such thing as “a time that the Repukes couldn’t attend.” They simply chose NOT to attend, because all of them besides Specter decided that whatever else they CHOSE to do at that time was more important than carrying out their Senatorial duties as members of the committee.
You can’t just decide not to show up for a scheduled committee meeting that you knew about well in advance (obviously, Ms. Taylor and Sen. Specter certainly did, as did the obstructionist White House), and then turn around and complain that it’s unfair that there was only one repuke present during the meeting.
I mean, I know you repuke-li-trolls have your ways of spinning facts until they turn into the origami figures you’re trying to make, but this attempted doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:48 pm“Are you saying that the President should be treated like any other citizen? I think not.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:46 pm”
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
He is NOT A KING!!!!!!
He is a CITIZEN!!!!!
Man the trolls are IDIOTS!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:48 pm#37: Ok. Where’s my motorcade, Secret Service detail and a guy who walks a few feet behind me and pays my bills?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:49 pmYou say witch hunt? Fine.
Toss ‘em in the lake with the hands and feet tied.
If they sink, they’re innocent. If they float….they a witch! Burn them!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pmThe truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend. An exemplary piece of dirty politics.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Evidence? Links? Explanation?
Was today a Republican High Holy day or something? Why were 41 Republican senators able to vote against cloture (and the troops) on the Webb bill this morning?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pmWhat sickens me is how they throw around the adjective “constitutional” to executive powers that do not exist in the Constitutional.
Executive privilege has ZERO Constitutional basis. And it’s not like it’s an accident - Legislative privilege is explicitly established in the Constitution.
But consersatives don’t see the President as a Constitutional officer, no matter how much they throw around the adjective “constitutional”. They see the President as a fixed-term semi-elected dictator. Well, as long as he’s one of their own.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
Right. I guess if you’re a staunch Republican with absolutely no concern for silly things like equal justice under the law, then it doesn’t bother you to see the U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the country stocked with like-minded staunch Republicans whose goal is to soft-pedal the investigation of crimes committed by fellow Republicans. And it would tickle you to death to see them investigate the hell out of Democrats, pushing bogus voter fraud charges against “liberal” groups right before an election.
Try the shoe on the other foot now. If you want the Justice Department to operate in full partisan fascist mode, please be consistent and tell us you won’t mind if the Democrats do the same thing when they take over the White House next year. And, no, it hasn’t been done by the Democrats ever before. This anti-American attempt by Rove, Gonzales, Bush, and Cheney to stack the deck has never been tried in this country before. This kind of behavior is typically found only in banana republics.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pmwhy not ASK the logical follow up question? did you discuss this issue with KARL ROVE?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm“Ok. Where’s my motorcade, Secret Service detail and a guy who walks a few feet behind me and pays my bills?
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:49 pm”
Just because he has extra security because he is in a HIGH PROFILE position, does not put him above everyone else……
Show me in the Constitution where this is the case!!!!! Show me where he is ABOVE all other citizense! Show me where he becomes ABSENT of any rules or need to follow any of the laws……
I can show you where he is suppose to UPHOLD the laws, not break them!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pmThat is a complete LIE that the Rethugs “couldn’t attend” they have the exact same constraits as the ones that DID show up. God, you people make up ANY excuse! Those slimy Rethugs didn’t attend out of CHOICE. They have utter contempt for the American people and Rule of Law or Truth or even Freedom. They hold up all the legislation pushing for transparency and accountability every day on the floor. All of them have to be ousted!Any supporter of this corrupt regime is a traitor too.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmIssa is enough to make you nauseous.
Who votes for these idiots??
No-one in particular - you monicer explains it all. You are absolutly that - NO-ONE. Your repukian talking points are crap, you are a criminal and a total knuckle-dragging subhuman puke, go mow your lawn so your trailer trash neighbors can see those fine rusted cars on your front lawn, neanderthal.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmThe President is not exempt from the law. He is not a King. He may get some priviliges due the office, but he is not above the law.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmPlease cite the books you are referring to. Also, please list the American politicians (other than the obvious convicted criminals) who have committed the following crimes:
bribery
murder
war (is this criminal in all cases?)
backstabbing (I’m not sure this is a crime, murder might cover it)
When you’re done, consider Bushco’s actions in relation to these real crimes:
Treason (the Plame affair)
Obstruction of Justice (DoJ situation)
Violations of the Hatch Act
Illegal acts under the color of law (no-bid, crony contracts)
Election fraud
Fraudulent claims based on forged documents that led to a war (an illegal war due to the underlying fraud)
Lying to Congress and while under oath
Subornation of perjury, fraud, and obstruction of justice.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pm#45: Whatever the reasons, the hearing was hardly fair with only Republican present. If they really are going to push for a contempt citation, I’m sure this issue will be brought up.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pmNow the democrats can really put W on the ropes if they have the guts to do it.
Hope so.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:54 pmWas today a Republican High Holy day or something? Why were 41 Republican senators able to vote against cloture (and the troops) on the Webb bill this morning?
Comment by spit take
Apparently they were ‘Bushed’ after that vote……had to go take a nap. lol
July 11th, 2007 at 5:54 pmThe truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend
Yeah, Jeff Gannon was “entertaining”
July 11th, 2007 at 5:55 pmYou know you’re on to something when the faithful start screaming ‘witch hunt’.
It must go deeper than a Cuban cigar, so to speak.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pm“The truth is that the dems picked such a time for this hearing that the Republicans couldn’t attend.”
Ok, I give. What stopped the Republics from attending. Were they all at a party hosted by the DC Madam? Are they all on vacation?
So, inquiring minds need to know why the Republics couldn’t attend and the Democrats could. What urgent government business kept them away?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pmCome on, Buck Fush. Let us know how you REALLY feel.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pmThe President is not exempt from the law. He is not a King. He may get some priviliges due the office, but he is not above the law.
Comment by Law Man — July 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Thats right. In fact, the Constitution clearly states that he can be impeached for something as simple as a misdemeanor.
Misdemeanors can be as simple as a traffic violation, or failure to pay a fine.
If the President is liable to misdemeanors, then he is no more above the law than any US Citizen.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:57 pm#49 No-one in particular
Whatever the reasons, the hearing was hardly fair with only Republican present. If they really are going to push for a contempt citation, I’m sure this issue will be brought up.
Here’s what you missed by not having all of the Republicans members of the committee there: “Clinton did it.”
That’s all they would have had to say. And it’s bullshit, too.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI mean come on Pat!! If she refuses to answer THAT question by invoking ‘executive privilege” then you GOT them cold!!!!! Why aren’t the DEMS more confrontational? Why was IMPEACHMENT off the table in January? All you have to do is focus on ONE crime! The violation of FISA!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pm#32 - the President SHOULD be treated like any other citizen, including being held accountable for crimes he commits during his term of office. The President (as set up in the US Constitution - remember that?) is the Executive; that is, he is responsible for executing the laws of the nation AS DIRECTED BY CONGRESS. And for all you ‘Clinton did it too’ choirboys, yes, he should also be held accountable.
Maybe if presidents felt fear for the consequences of their actions, we might not get caught up in illegal wars and such.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pmThat is a good question. Why were those Repubs so chicken shite to not show up at the hearing?
July 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pmKatie: I’m not privy to the schedule of Republicans, but it’s clear that they would not have missed this session unless they were either stopped from attending or had pressing issues elsewhere and couldn’t reschedule because dems decided the time and date.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:59 pmThe facts are clear here.
Bush CANNOT invoke executive privilege, and congress should immedately demand the testimony of Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, or arrest them, and have them thrown into jail under contempt charges until they testify.
Period.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pmThe US Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally that Executive Privilege cannot be used for anything other than national security and international relations with regards to treaties and security.
It’s not quite that simple. The court left wiggle room for other invocations of executive privilege. From the NPR fact sheet:
Didn’t the Nixon case settle the issue of executive privilege once and for all?
No. In fact, in its ruling on the Nixon tapes, the Supreme Court noted “the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” In other words, while rejecting Nixon’s particular claim of executive privilege, the court left the door open for future claims by future presidents. And there’s a key distinction to keep in mind: The Nixon case was part of a criminal investigation; the current case involving the Bush administration is not.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:04 pmWhat a witch-hunt.
At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
—————————————————————————
You’re damn right, I say we the people tell Leahy to go fukc himself!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmit’s clear that they would not have missed this session unless they were either stopped from attending or had pressing issues elsewhere and couldn’t reschedule because dems decided the time and date.
Comment by No-one in particular — July 11, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
You’ve got these guys confused with the 109th Congress. That was the Republicans who scheduled votes and such last-min middle-of-the-night-behind-the-back bs. Remember the Patriot Act vote?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmWake me when Congress actual DOES something about the criminals actions of the administration, by.. I don’t know… actually calling for criminal investigation into the NSA wiretapping and begin impeachment proceedings based on same.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmNo-one in particular:
Lazy troll? Or laziest troll ever?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pmLeahy spends too much time behind a table. He needs to take his pension and spend more time with his wife.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pmOh yeah!
Clinton did it.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm“#45: Whatever the reasons, the hearing was hardly fair with only Republican present. If they really are going to push for a contempt citation, I’m sure this issue will be brought up.” Comment by A No-one Without a Brain — July 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
You keep tossing us softballs, moron, and we’ll keep hitting them out. Here’s a news flash for you — this issue will not matter, since the repukes CHOSE not to attend (as has been explained to you countless times over the last hour). The hearing certainly was fair, since those Senators who have enough respect for their constitutional duties to the American people actually showed up to participate in it.
Those alleged Senators who chose to sit in their offices (or their brothels, or their public bath houses, or their sandboxes) and avoid carrying out their duty cannot now turn around and say the hearing wasn’t “fair” — it certainly WAS fair, since everyone who had an interest in participating had the same opportunity to do so. It’s like being in court — even if a defendant choses not to participate in the hearing, it goes forward anyway and the defendant can’t later come back and say he was unfairly convicted just because he wasn’t there…
Oh but there I go trying to have a battle of the wits with an unarmed person — and I’m a pinhead!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmNo-one in particular:
Lazy troll? Or laziest troll ever?
Comment by Zooey
Yeah, that’s kind of a toss-up.
I especially like the photo of Miers next to Bush.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmCould she have looked more enamored of him?
#68: Yeah. I’m pretty lazy allright.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:08 pm“What a witch-hunt.
“At least Miers had the sense to refuse to appear before this ridiculous committee. One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…”
If you can do it, we can do it.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmLeahy spends too much time behind a table. He needs to take his pension and spend more time with his wife.
Comment by CT_V1 — July 11, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Maybe he should spend more time with hookers, like his morally hypocritical repuke senator colleagues instead!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pm“The Nixon case was part of a criminal investigation; the current case involving the Bush administration is not.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:04 pm”
Which is why the Dems need to make it clear right now that they are in fact investigating criminal acts……
Then there can be no claim to “Executive Privilege”…….
Criminal acts”
1) Warrantless wiretapping
2) Caging
3) Falsifying of information to Congress
4) Mishandling of Secret Information
5) Presidential Records Act
6) Hatch Act
7) Breaking the FISA law
I could go on, but these are just a few that they could anounce and destroy Bush’s “Executive Privilege” claims right here and now!!!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmBush is an evil man!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:09 pmI can’t wait untill Hillary gets elected and improves my life!
God bless her!
Down with Budh!
The Nixon case was part of a criminal investigation; the current case involving the Bush administration is not.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Yes it is.
Several attorney’s cited particular cases involving republicans that they felt were being squashed by their removal.
That constitutes obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.
Nice try.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmNOIP –
“stopped from attending”??? Man, those Democrats throwing body tackles at the door are getting WAY too pushy. Gotta cut back on their vitamins…
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm#72: It doesn’t matter if the GOP Senators chose not to attend. We’re going to spin it as an unfair hearing because only one Republican Senator was present and the public’s going to buy it.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmRemoveBush,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pmI agree Bush is a criminal!
We need to elect and honest clean person like Hillary!
She’s un-corruptable and believes in the rule of law!
Bush is an evil man!
I can’t wait untill Hillary gets elected and improves my life!
God bless her!
Down with Budh!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pm—————————————————————————-
What’s up!?!
“I agree Bush is a criminal!
We need to elect and honest clean person like Hillary!
She’s un-corruptable and believes in the rule of law!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:10 pm”
Sarcasm at it’s best I see……
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmAnd they did not “leave the door open”.
Their decision set whats called “precedent”, and although their debate and commentary discussed the need of a president to speak freely, they CONCLUDED that he cannot use that to avoid subpoenas or just to conceal facts from an ongoing investigation.
They CONCLUDED that unless its national security, or a matter of international diplomacy then he cannot use it, plain and simple.
Once again, nice try.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmPIP,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pmWho are you?
Silly troll: “One Republican and seven dems. Talk about fair…”
Could these conservative trolls get any dumber? Hard to imagine. All but one Repub on the committee refuse to show, the only repub who DOES show complains that he wishes more from his party WOULD HAVE shown up, and the troll takes this as proof that the committee is “unfair.” God, that’s just so stupid.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmEvidence? Links? Explanation?
Was today a Republican High Holy day or something? Why were 41 Republican senators able to vote against cloture (and the troops) on the Webb bill this morning?
Comment by spit take — July 11, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
You are off a bit, it was 40 Republicans, LIEberman (Likud-Israel) and 2 Republicans who did not have the balls to vote either way who do not support our troops.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmMegatron,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:13 pmJust another Hillary fan!!!
She save the country for us Leftists, so that Islam can spread throughout the world in peace!!!
RemoveBush,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pmNo I’m a Clinton fan!
She’ll have Universal Healthcare, Taxes on the rich, anti-Globalization, and she’ll stop the exposting of jobs!
She’ll run a clean and transparrent government!
No Illegal pardons!
“Comment by BARTLEBEE — July 11, 2007 @ 6:12 pm”
If I’m not mistaken…….
They did claim that the president could claim “Executive Privilege” anytime, but it could not be upheld when the Congress was investigating a criminal act……
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I remember it to be.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pmWe’re going to spin it as an unfair hearing because only one Republican Senator was present and the public’s going to buy it.
Comment by A No-one Without A Brain — July 11, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Ummm…the public’s done buying your BS, knucklehead. Check your latest numbers — nobody believes a word you idiots say anymore, except for the 29% who wear their tinfoil hats as tight as you do and play in the same little sandboxes. And you can thank your hero King George the Brainless and Deadeye Dick for that.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pm“the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.â€
What is an example of this?
What advise could anyone give to the President that would be different knowing that everyone else could scutinize it?
A hypothetical? Anyone?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:16 pmI could see how illegal or unethical advise would change, but you wouldn’t want that sort of advise anyway, right?
I especially like the photo of Miers next to Bush.
Could she have looked more enamored of him?
Comment by SGT Higgins
And they talk about Clinton’s ugly women….wow.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmLeahy was a career prosecutor before he was a politician. He’s building a case here and his reasoning is boxing them into a corner. IF the president wasn’t involved, then executive privilege is irrelevant. If executive privilege IS relevant, then the president WAS involved and Sara Taylor lied under oath and is subject to charges of perjury. Don’t underestimate Leahy. He’s smarter than your average republican.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmPiP,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmHillary is a grea person.
She cares about us!
I remember when Bill was President, I made more money!
Hillary will make companies pay people better!
“No I’m a Clinton fan!
She’ll have Universal Healthcare, Taxes on the rich, anti-Globalization, and she’ll stop the exposting of jobs!
She’ll run a clean and transparrent government!
No Illegal pardons!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:14 pm”
Don’t believe it…… She is certainly 1000 times better than Bush, but she is in the same playing field as Bush…… Why do you think that Clinton and Bush 1 are together a lot these days????
They are just less destructive, but still part of the same bunch….
I want someone who is less bought and paid for for our next president.
I like Dennis K. or Ron Paul…. They actually stand for the American people and most importantly, the CONSTITUTION.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pmWe need to drive Bush out and make Hillary President for Life!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pm“Yes it is.”
No, it’s not. Not yet, at least. Keep in mind that those words weren’t mind; they were the words of one of NPR’s legal affairs correspondents.
“Several attorney’s cited particular cases involving republicans that they felt were being squashed by their removal. That constitutes obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct.”
I agree, but so? That still doesn’t make it a criminal case until and unless someone files formal charges.
“Nice try.”
I’m just pointing out to you that executive privilege is a little muddier than you claim. That’s confirmed elsewhere, as well, including articles in findlaw, wikipedia, and others. I’m not asserting that Bush will win; I’m not asserting that his claim is valid; I’m just pointing out that it’s not as open-and-shut case as you claim and that the court in the past has expressed deference to the concept of confidential communication between a president and his advisors, even as they ruled against specific instances of such matters.
I happen to agree with you that the Supreme Court of a couple of years ago would have ruled against Bush in these cases, just as they ruled against Clinton, who made a similar argument. With Roberts and Alito, though, I’m no longer sure which way the court would rule.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:18 pmAnd they talk about Clinton’s ugly women….wow.
Who cares about the looks as long as they know what they’re doing?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:19 pmRemoveBush,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:20 pmYou liar Hillary never did anything illegal.
She’ll run the least corrupt government in history!
You will vote for her!
I will vote for her!
America will vot for her!
I can’t wait!
She’ll be a great leader who cars about us!
Who cares about the looks as long as they know what they’re doing?
Comment by Terrific Jones
Then you’re certainly not talking about our Harriet, are you?
July 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pmPIP,
“She save the country for us Leftists, so that Islam can spread throughout the world in peace!!!”
Islam is a peaceful religion!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:22 pmIslam has never commited acts of agression againsy any other civilization.
Mohamad was a peaceful man like Gandhi!
#103: Oh, but I certainly am.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pm“You liar Hillary never did anything illegal.
She’ll run the least corrupt government in history!
You will vote for her!
I will vote for her!
America will vot for her!
I can’t wait!
She’ll be a great leader who cars about us!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:20 pm”
If Hillary is my option for the Dems, I will stay home…….
I’m tired of putting the same people into office!!!!!
Do some research…… Her and Bill are tied to the Bush’s, and they run around the same groups of people……
Birds of a feather…….
July 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pmPIP,
“She save the country for us Leftists, so that Islam can spread throughout the world in peace!!!â€
Islam is a peaceful religion!
Islam has never commited acts of agression againsy any other civilization.
Mohamad was a peaceful man like Gandhi!
Comment by Megatron — July 11, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
July 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pm—————————————————————————-
What the hell are you talking about. Shut up.
Gotta wonder if the Jones troll knows that’s a slang term for a heroin addiction??
July 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pmIt would explain a lot.
If I’m not mistaken…….
They did claim that the president could claim “Executive Privilege†anytime, but it could not be upheld when the Congress was investigating a criminal act……
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I remember it to be.
Comment by RemoveBush — July 11, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
You are mistaken. They concluded the President does not have an “ABSOLUTE right to executive privilege” unless there is specific and credible national security or international diplomacy at stake.
Here. Read their ruling again.
To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of ‘a workable government’ and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III
Nixon’s claim was rejected because it was a generalized claim that he needed to protect his conversations.
Which is the EXACT same claim Bush is making.
Neither Bush nor his attorney has made any specific claims regarding national security or international diplomatic efforts, but instead have based their entire argument (their words not mine) on the notion that a president needs to speak in private without fear of recrimination, which is the exact same claim that the Supreme Court already ruled a president cannot make.
So wrong again.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pmMegatron,
I know!
I want to throw bush out of office so that muslims can take over the USA!!!
We will all have to submit to Allah, but that is so much better than being free!!!
Let’s tell more muslims to come to the US!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pmFirst we will have to kick out all the dogs!
“And they did not ‘leave the door open’.”
Yes, actually, they did, which is why you have landmarkcases.org noting:
Nixon lost, but he lost on fairly narrow grounds since the Court simply did not want to absolutely rule up or down on such an issue. They ruled against Nixon’s claim of “absolute” executive privilege but left the door open for other invocations of privilege including, as you note, privilege to protect security and state secrets.
“They CONCLUDED that unless its national security, or a matter of international diplomacy then he cannot use it, plain and simple.”
No. They ruled that he can use it in those matters. In other matters, it’s a case by case basis.
“Once again, nice try.”
A random Google search shows source after source, CNN, findlaw, wikipedia, NPR, CBS, landmarkcases. org, agreeing that executive privilege is still a muddy issue. It simply is not the settled law that you think it is.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pmComment by PiP — July 11, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
We could sure use Muslims around here to spruce things up a bit!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI agree, but so? That still doesn’t make it a criminal case until and unless someone files formal charges.
Comment by PaulBWrongAgain — July 11, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Once again you just don’t seem to understand what you’re reading.
The ruling, which I’ve posted for you twice now, says that it cannot be used to impede an investigation.
against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes
A subpoena is issued by Congress during investigations, not just after criminal charges have been filed. Congress has the power to subpoena to DETERMINE IF criminal charges can be filed, NOT only AFTER they’ve been filed.
Therefore, the ruling does apply.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pmCt,
and that’s just what we’ll get if we vote for Hillary!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:31 pmAlso from the NPR primer [emphasis added]:
Do presidents invoke executive privilege mainly in matters of national security?
No, not at all. Presidents have cited the privilege for all sorts of issues. For instance, the Bush administration invoked the spirit, if the not letter, of executive privilege when it argued that Vice President Dick Cheney need not disclose what was discussed during his Taskforce on Energy meetings. The Supreme Court upheld the administration’s claim in 2004. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, issued this warning: “Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the government are set on a collision course.”
July 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pmTerrific Jones,
July 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pmWhy do you hate Muslims?
They’re a peace loving bunch!
No. They ruled that he can use it in those matters. In other matters, it’s a case by case basis.
Comment by PaulBWrong — July 11, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Wrong again.
They ruled unequivocally that it CANNOT be used for generalized immunity.
I will post it one more time for the learning impaired.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:34 pm“Once again you just don’t seem to understand what you’re reading.”
Sigh… I do, actually. Suffice to say that I disagree with you, both as to how far the current investigation has gotten and whether the courts have definitively settled this matter. And given the current makeup of the court, with Roberts and Alito added, I think it’s pretty clear that this is not nearly as settled as you would like it to be.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pm“They ruled unequivocally that it CANNOT be used for generalized immunity.”
No. Flatly no. They ruled that that “generalized immunity” had to be balanced against other considerations.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:38 pmBartlebee, I already agree with you that, on the merits, Bush should lose. I’m simply stating that it just isn’t as much of a slam dunk as you are claiming, particularly with Roberts and Alito joining an already conservative court.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:42 pmTaylor claimed she had taken an OATH TO THE “PRESIDENT”.
Mein Fuhrer!
Leahy reminded her that her OATH was to the US Constitution, NOT “YOUR Fuhrer”!!!
July 11th, 2007 at 6:43 pmWe could sure use Muslims around here to spruce things up a bit!
Comment by CT_V1
And all we get are these p*ss-ant trolls…
July 11th, 2007 at 6:45 pmNo “underlying” crime? Hmm, actually the Bush crime family preferred style is OVERlying…
July 11th, 2007 at 6:48 pm#122 ~ I’m going to E-Trade to buy a shitload of stock in laundry detergent companies.
What with the piss-soaking these trolls are doing, sheets, underwear, etc. Stock prices are bound to go up.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pmSigh… I do, actually
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Sigh, no you don’t.
You don’t even have your facts straight.
Earlier you said.
The Supreme Court upheld the administration’s claim in 2004.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
You are wrong.
The supreme court did not “uphold” anything, and refused to rule, throwing the case back to the lower courts.
Inventing history to support your claims only works with other republicans, but not me.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pmBartlebee, just to be clear, this is the comment of yours I have trouble with:
You’re misreading the ruling. They didn’t say that those were the only things you could invoke executive privilege for; they said that those were the things you definitely could invoke executive privilege for. For other invocations of executive privilege, it’s a balancing act, e.g., between the need for private consultations vs. the need for information on criminal investigations.
And again, that just isn’t what the ruling said. It absolutely can be used for such concealment unless there are other compelling reasons why those conversations should be made public, as was true in Nixon’s case and in Clinton’s case, but was not true in Cheney’s case. Nixon and Clinton lost; Cheney won.
Personally, I happen to agree with you that Bush’s claim for executive privilege doesn’t meet the test. What I’m arguing with you about is two things: a) your absolutist reading of that ruling, which I believe to be incorrect, and b) I’m not at all certain that the current Supreme Court will rule the way we both hope they will.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:51 pmBut if you would like to refute me, I invite you to show us the favorable ruling from the courts that you actually just invented.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:51 pmProcter & Gamble today
61.56 +0.53 +0.87%
Keep it up trolls, you just made me $3,000.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:52 pmOnce again Paul, since you just “invented” a Supreme Court decision that NEVER OCCURED, I will rest my case.
I can’t argue with fairytales.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:53 pmHowever, my invitation to actually POST your imaginary SCOTUS decision, then I’m all ears.
But since you invented it, and cannot post it, I will assume you’re done.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:54 pmI believe the republicans knew exactly what they were doing by not showing up, Nay one.
Because they knew exactly what was going to happen to her. She was going to get blown out of the water and they didn’t want to be there looking like idiots when they could stay away and play the DEMS ARE BULLIES card.
Spectre didn’t just get off the boat. He and leahy know how to play this game. If they could have saved her they would have.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:55 pmSpectre knew she was toast.
Thats why they weren’t their,,,Nay One.
Sigh… Bartlebee, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican, as a quick search for my name on this site and on Kevin Drum’s washingtonmonthly.com site would show.
Regarding the Cheney 2004 ruling, I used a faulty source (the perils of too-quick Googling) and so did not have complete information. A better source, findlaw.com, had this to say:
Cheney refused to respond. He also refused to invoke executive privilege. Thus, were it not for his decision to seek Supreme Court review, he would have had to either invoke executive privilege, or produce documents and respond to the interrogatories. On this issue, the Court sided with Cheney.
It held that: “Given the breadth of the discovery requests in this case …, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch “shall bear the burden” of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections.”
So you’re right that this was not a precedent for executive privilege. I apologize for the error.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:57 pmAnd like the earlier case that they refused to rule on that you cited, but instead tossed back to the federal courts, I predict that they will again do likewise, concluding that the precedent had already been set in the 1974 ruling, and toss it once more back to the lower court.
The lower court may not rule correctly, and it may drag on, but I don’t think it will get that far.
I think Congress will either strike a deal, or if they do it right, will toss Miers and Taylor into jail compelling them to tesitfy.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:58 pmSo you’re right that this was not a precedent for executive privilege. I apologize for the error.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Ok, I’m glad you looked that up.
And I am not calling you a republican and I likewise apologize for my persnickety style of debate, its just the New Yorker in me.
And I am leaning to one side of the decision, because I honestly believe that the ruling has already been made.
As apparently the Supreme Court also felt in 2004.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:59 pmI honestly cannot see the Supreme Court, even a right leaning one, making any further ruling in this matter beyond what the 1974 court ruled.
Why?
Because to do so would be to effectively neuter themselves with regards to any future oversight of the Executive Branch, which would effectively dismantle our three tiered government, and render themselves impotent.
Not even the zany Alito wants that.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm“Once again Paul, since you just “invented†a Supreme Court decision that NEVER OCCURED, I will rest my case.”
Garbage. In this instance, I’m using the very case you cited and the very words you quoted. You simply got it wrong, as any careful reading would show. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that all non-security and non-diplomatic related claims of executive privilege could not be used. They simply ruled that those two could always be used. See the difference?
In other areas, a balancing act must apply, as the very quote you cited states:
“…providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest…”
Note the part in bold. The court was balancing the claims of executive privilege against other needs, not asserting that those claims would never apply. Every single source I’ve found confirms this reading of that lawsuit, Bartlebee.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pmGarbage. In this instance, I’m using the very case you cited and the very words you quoted. You simply got it wrong, as any careful reading would show. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that all non-security and non-diplomatic related claims of executive privilege could not be used. They simply ruled that those two could always be used. See the difference?
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Ok, first you admit you misquoted the 2004 case, and now you claim I was talking about the 74 case?
Now you’re just not making sense. That post you just quoted was clearly regarding your false claim that in 2004 the SCOTUS ruled to uphold an Executive Privilege claim, which it did NOT.
So what you’re talking about here, I haven’t a clue.
And I’m not sure you do either.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pmAnd as I said, Bartlebee, I agree with you that in this case those other needs overrule executive privilege. All I’m doing is making the very persnickety and precise claim that the court didn’t explicitly rule out all other claims of executive privilege in 1974.
I sincerely hope that the current Court agrees with you and me on this, and I happen to agree that it should be a slam dunk, but it’s worth noting that one of the things that Alito and Roberts have in common is that they both have an expansive view of presidential authority as do, I believe, Thomas and Scalia. All they need is one more justice.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pmThe Supreme Court is in Bushco’s back pocket.
The question is how do you impeach sitting Supreme Court Justice’s Thanks to three Psycho Judges Thing 1 Wack nut ALITO and Thing 2 Wack nut Roberts and Hall of Fame Thing 3 Wack nut SCALLIA.
No matter what happens these three are gonna back Bushco even if he torches the Constitution
July 11th, 2007 at 7:10 pmTaylor sounded like a bumbling snot-nosed kid out there today.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:11 pm“Ok, first you admit you misquoted the 2004 case, and now you claim I was talking about the 74 case?”
Bartlebee, you quoted from that case above!
“Now you’re just not making sense.”
Yes, I am, actually, other than my mistake about Cheney, for which I’ve already apologized. This is the claim of yours that I have a problem with:
That assertion just isn’t true, as can be seen from the words from the 1974 ruling that you quoted above. If you have a later ruling that explicitly supports this assertion, then I’d love to see it, because I don’t think such a ruling exists.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:12 pmAll I’m doing is making the very persnickety and precise claim that the court didn’t explicitly rule out all other claims of executive privilege in 1974.
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
And all I’m doing is telling you you’re wrong.
When the Supreme Court rules on a matter, thats it unless THEY overturn it.
The 74 court said clearly that unless there is some national security or diplomatic issue at hand, that the privilege cannot simply be invoked for “generalized” immunity from subpoeanas.
Thats it. I can find no wording in the decision that states that there are any other circumstances that can be used to invoke the privilege. If you can find some I’ll be happy to look at it however. But the ruling was pretty clear. It said NO GENERALIZED immunity.
Which is exactly the argument Bush is using.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pmLook! I am getting sick of this.
I KNOW I quoted the 74 case. GEESH I’ve quoted it half a dozen times!!!!
What are you dense?
YOU took a post of mine where you said, Garbage. In this instance, I’m using the very case you cited and the very words you quoted. .
Here you are claiming that I said you invented the 74 case, when I was talking about your invention of the 2004 ruling, WHICH YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT.
I NEVER claimed the 74 ruling didn’t exist, and you’re now just making some kind of ridiculous (and convoluted) strawman argument.
I was not talking about the 74 case.
Don’t make me explain it again.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThere is, in the history of humanity, a struggle between good and evil. Some see the advance of civilization in terms of conquering the worst elements of individual greed and power benefit all of those of society. Some people, like No One in Particular, seem to justify a march backwards. They constantly say that people have always done criminal, selfish or inappropriate things. They imply that this makes it natural and we should not be upset, hold hearings or demand accountability.
I do not care which party is in power. It is both necessary and appropriate to demand accountability. Clinton embarrassed the country with his lies about Lewinski. Some of his pardons were inappropriate and for that he should be condemned.
However, the Bush administration has set forth a record that exceeds any modern presidential administration in modern time. Nixon screwed up in attempting to forge ahead with Viet Nam, quell dissent and evade embarrassment for Watergate. However, Bush has far exceeded the scope of Nixon. His torture program and GTMO clearly violated the Geneva Conventions branding his administration as war criminals. (I do not joke, Germans were convicted as war criminals for the use of water boarding.) His failure to adhere to warrant requirements under FISA was a clear violation of the 4th amendment and FISA. But his blatant attempt to politicize every department of government and to become a tool of moneyed interests exceeds anything Nixon did. The number of officials leaving this administration (DoJ, Libby and others) exceeds the record of any other administration.
However, the most objective measurement of the depravity of the Bush administration comes from all of those who have left and told their tales of how these Mayberry Machievelis have replaced government and policy with nothing but politics. It comes from the Republican luminaries of the Regan and Bush I administration who constantly criticize incompetence and lack of ethics of this administration.
I want to see good triumph over evil. I know that it will be a never ending struggle. However, the hope of humanity is not in the final triumph but rather in the progress we make over time. Evil triumphs when those like “no one in particular” convince others that evil is to be accepted and tolerated as a natural part of life. It is not. It is like cancer and must treated with aggressive measures where ever and when ever found.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pmAnd the 74 ruling leaves NO ROOM for doubt. It clearly said “NO GENERALIZED NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY”
It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
By the way, if you are really on our side, could I convince you to go over to Bush’s side?
They could use a guy like you.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm“And all I’m doing is telling you you’re wrong.”
Then so is every other source I’ve been able to find. Not a single one of them claims that the 1974 decision explicitly and unequivocally ruled:
You’re simply misreading the decision, as I’ve already noted above.
“When the Supreme Court rules on a matter, thats it unless THEY overturn it.”
I agree, but the court didn’t say what you claim they did. Their ruling was far more nuanced.
“The 74 court said clearly that unless there is some national security or diplomatic issue at hand, that the privilege cannot simply be invoked for “generalized†immunity from subpoeanas.”
Ah, now we’re getting a little closer to the real issue and you’re already qualifying your formerly unqualified statement. The court qualified it further: “as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes.” Note the words that they used in that ruling that are not in your unqualified statement above.
“Thats it. I can find no wording in the decision that states that there are any other circumstances that can be used to invoke the privilege.”
Really? What about a subpoena that is not “essential to enforcement of criminal statutes?”
July 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm“Here you are claiming that I said you invented the 74 case, when I was talking about your invention of the 2004 ruling”
No. You misread me.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pmNo, YOU’RE misreading the decision.
In fact, of the two of us here, you’re so far the ONLY ONE who INVENTED a Supreme Court ruling to support your position.
You INVENTED a decision that did not exist.
Now you claim “I’M” misreading the decision?
You clearly didn’t even know about the decision until by you googled it.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:23 pmReally? What about a subpoena that is not “essential to enforcement of criminal statutes?â€
Comment by PaulB — July 11, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
So? Its a valid point except Congress has stated its investigating the possible criminal firings of US Attorneys.
Everything I have stated has been in that context, so inventing a scenario that I am not purporting is just another strawman for your army.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:25 pmAnyway you’ve wasted enough of my Wednesday night.
Like I said, if you’re not a member of the right wing, could I possibly convince you to become one?
You’ll do us more good there then you ever will here.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pm“And the 74 ruling leaves NO ROOM for doubt.”
Actually, it does, as I’ve already noted and as every source I’ve been able to find notes.
“It clearly said “NO GENERALIZED NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY—
As far as I can tell, that phrase does not exist in the ruling, so we’ll have to disagree on what’s clear.
The ruling said that there was no absolute executive privilege “as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest.” Nixon lost on narrow grounds: the need for information to enforce criminal statutes overruled his claim of executive privilege. The court did not explicitly rule that he had no expectation of executive privilege on non-security and non-diplomatic matters; just that that claim was overruled in this instance.