Time to hold a crowning ceremony for Bush.Follow

What in the nine levels of hell is this?



Can he really do this? I mean, it's late and I'm visiting the Asylum, but does this mean in a nutshell Bush can literally do whatever he wants and get away with it now? Come 2009 will he just sit in the White House and thumb his noses at us because of another Executive Order?

...ok, that last one may be pushing it. It's 1:00 AM, I think I'll just go to bed...

But what do you guys think about it?

obviously you failed to read your own quote, or at least you completely misunderstand what "executive privilege" is. Executive privilege is the right of the president, in the interest of receiving advice that need not be subjected to public scrutiny, may order that congress cannot demand such advice barring a legal investigation. Clinton invoked this privilege over 20 times while he was in office. He's not in office now. What does this tell you?

you're a ******

I find it more fascinating that with the implication of guilt being so prevelent in this case, the administration has the balls to double down.

Doesn't surprise me though. Bush has always had huge balls.

Either that or he just doesn't give a shit anymore.

Bush is just running down the clock at this point. With immigration reform dead, he doesn't have a domestic legacy left to threaten. Best he can do is hope that Iraq turns into a wonderland and that the history books glorify him for it.

Of course he can. The question you should really be asking is "Can Congress really do this?". What's actually going on is that Congress is attempting to exert power in gross violation of the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

There are two key Supreme Court cases that apply here. One was during the Nixon administration (Watergate). The other during the Clinton administration (The Mike Epsy case).

The ruling on the Nixon case was that in a case where there was a criminal investigation and the subject of the investigation was not one of national defense or the military, executive priviledge did not apply. Presumably, breaking into a Hotel to steal election plans was considered both criminal and *not* a military or national defense issue.

The ruling on the Clinton case did not change that at all, it simply narrowed it a bit (ie: still had to be criminal and not military or defense related). That ruling stated that in a case where there was a criminal investigation and the subject of the investigation was sufficiently removed from the president and an application of constitituionally granted power, executive priviledge did not apply. In this case basically Espy had broken some laws unrelated in any way to Clinton, but Clinton attempted to protect him from investigation using executive priviledge.


The situation here is virtually a textbook example of why Executive Priviledge exists. In this case, there is no crime. It's not illegal for the president to fire federal prosecutors. Not only that but the appointment and firing of federal prosecutors is an explicit Constitutional power granted to the president. This means that in this case, any attempt to override executive priviledge fails *both* of the Supreme Court tests. It is not a criminal matter, and the issue in question is both "close" to the president and a constititional power of the president. In fact, Congress is attempting to force testimoney specifically about their advice to the president on the excersize of that constitutional power (firing the attorneys).


You literally could not pick a more textbook case. Bush is right. Congress is utterly wrong. However, the Washington Post gets it completely backwards (shocker!). This is not a "new assertion of executive authority". It's a "new attempt by Congress to violate executive authority". See. What Congress is attempting to do now, is to charge those who refuse to testify with contempt. Since that's a criminal charge, they're trying to claim that they meet the Supreme Court test (of course, they still miserably fail the second). Let's ignore that this become circular reasoning though. You can always charge anyone who refuses to testify with contempt, so it effectively means that *anything* can become a criminal matter just because Congress decides to make it one.


That's blatantly bogus. It'll never fly in any court. They should know better, but I can only assume that they know that most of the public doesn't know better, so they'll get some PR out of this and be able to continue presenting the Bush administration as a bunch of meanies. Nice waste of time and our money IMO...

Edited, Jul 20th 2007 11:28am by gbaji

Nice of you to not even bother to mention the topic and go right on to the ad hominum...

No clue what you're talking about. If you think that my post was a cut and paste, I'm not sure where you've been for the last 5 years or so.



Um. Except this isn't what's going on. The DoJ is only involved because Congress is demanding testimoney and demanding that the DoJ file contempt charges because Bush is protecting his advisors via executive priviledge.

The president isn't cutting off DoJ services to Congress. He's refusing to allow congress to subpoena testimony from advisors regarding his constitutional power to appoint and fire federal prosecutors. Congress is free to use the DoJ for legitimate legal pursuits. Heck. They're even free to *attempt* to file contempt charges (as they are doing). But at the end of the day the courts will determine that executive priviledge most definately *does* apply to advice given to the president regarding the exercise of a constitutionally granted power.




Huh?! Do you even know anything about this case?

The executive priviledge being used is to refuse to provide testimony regarding advice given to Bush and his staff during the decision to fire 8 federal prosecutors. Bush has argued that this clearly lies under the protection of executive priviledge and therefore Congress cannot demand that those advisors testify.

And he's right. This latest bit with the DoJ and the contempt charges is just Congress trying to endrun around the surpreme courts past rulings on the issue. The biggest obstacle is the requirement that there be a criminal investigation. So, in typical idiot fashion they've decided that if they charge the advisors with contempt for refusing to testify then *that* becomes a criminal investigation and they can proceed.

It's pretty absurdly circular. If that method were allowed to stand then it would render meaningless the courts test requiring a criminal investigation since any Congress could make it a criminal investigation by charging contempt. It's a ludicrous tactic that is doomed to fail.




No. Just denying subpoena power to Congress in cases where executive priviledge clearly applies. As it does in this case. As I pointed out earlier, there is literally no way to get a more textbook example of why executive priviledge exists then this one. It exists specifically to protect the executive branch from an overreaching Congress. You do realize that if congress can subpoena any executive branch member and question them at end about their decisions and advice, that this effectively makes all decisions of said executive branch subject to Congressional approval, right? They can simply choose to investigate any decision they don't like, whether it's in violation of any law or not.

That's the abuse of power. That's the constitutional threat here. It's not Bush reaching for more power, it's Congress.

No. That's not it at all. I'm saying that ultimately the decision will be that the underlying criminal charge required to meet the Supreme Court's test *cannot* be a contempt charge steming from the use of executive priviledge itself.

That's circular. If that were allowed to stand, it would effectively remove the test because *any* use of executive priviledge could be transformed into a criminal charge by simply filing contempt charges against those refusing to testify.

It's non-sensical. Step back for a moment and even you should be able to see it.


Maybe I should approach this in a different direction. Under what circumstances exactly do you think the president *can* invoke executive priviledge if not to prevent his advisors from having to testify regarding an issue like this?


Because maybe you simply don't think that the executive priviledge power should exist at all? That would explain your bizarre position on this at least and we could just agree to disagree and move on. But if you believe that there are circumstances in which it is valid, I'm curious what you think they are, and why this case doesn't fit? Clearly the Surpreme Court has ruled (by implication) that executive power does exist and specifically exists in cases just like the one at hand. So if not this case, which one would you accept?

Lol. You had to reach back to 1821 for that? Seriously Smash...


Sure. They *can* hold contempt proceedings on their own. But they wont, because they have no power to enforce them and they know that this will force a constitutional crisis that they will ultimately lose. The point of all this isn't to actually force that conflict, but to generate the appearance of brutishness on the part of the Bush administration with regard to this issue.

It's not so much a proceedural ploy as a PR ploy.


How about we refer to an actual relenvant case? In United States vs Nixon, we find the following bits:




This is a more general set of rules for "what you need to have before you can file a subpoena". Here's where the crux of the issue lies. There is no underlying crime. There has been no charge of a crime. Thus, the subpoena's for testimony are *not* valid as far as the Court is concerned. Congress can issue them, and members of the executive branch can *choose* to comply with them, but they are not ultimately legally binding.

There's no trial involved here because there's no underlying charge of a crime. Thus, the whole thing falls squarely under the heading of "fishing expedition". Now, if they can figure out a way in which a decision to fire federal prosecutors can possibly represent a crime, *then* their subpoenas might have some legal weight. But without an underlying charge, not only do the subpoenas have no weight, but as mentioned in the quote before this one, any charge of contempt has no weight either.

In this particular case the Court found for the plaintiff that they did have an underlying criminal charge to file and thus their subpoenas were correct. It is important to note the *reasons* they were allowed. Those reasons do not exist in the case at hand here.


The section about executive privilege is long and wordy (hah!). Read it at your leisure. Suffice to say that the Court did find merit in the principle of executive privilege as a whole, but not in this particular case. I'll just quote the final conclusion:




Note that this requires a "criminal trial". Once again, there is no criminal trial in play here, nor is there even the suggestion that a crime was commited with regards to the firing of the 8 federal prosecutors. Furthermore, the exception against executive privilege exists when it's a "general assertion of privilege" and must yeild to a "demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial".


Not to belabor the point *again*, but there is no crime. No criminal charges, no defendants, and certainly no criminal trial in play here. Thus, these exceptions don't exist. Executive privilege stands.


How much more spanking do you want on this issue Smash. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

Your debate is fascinating.

I just think the point boils down to "What is there to hide THIS time?".

Not interested in their political posturing... lol!

raise your hand if this supprised you more than the libby pardon........

they are just stalling for the next 17 months, just like they are doing with the Iraq mess, so they can give the executive pardon to all their cohorts on their way out the door and walk out the door singing "i did it my way....."

just a legal manuver to stall for more time. they dont need much. 17 months and the threat of impeachment is gone.