Bush Ignoring Subpoena

[sjbouza]

Our beloved Prez is not going to hand over documents to Congress concerning the US Attorney firings. He is claiming "Executive Privilege" in the matter. Basically, he is saying he has tried to work with congress but now that they are "forcing" him to hand things over that "he feels" have no relevance he is refusing.

Here is the story off of Yahoo News...

Bush Won't Supply Subpoenaed Documents

I am going to love to see where this one goes. Is he in for it or is he gonna slide out without a scratch? Personally, I hope he is in it deep and gets his ass burned!!!! But that is just my hopes.

[antonyh]

Maybe they should just start impeachment proceedings?

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Maybe they should just start impeachment proceedings?

No Good. As far as we know... no one has given him the requisite blow job. which I can sort of understand.

[simpleman]

He doesn't have to turn over any of the documents, regardless of executive privilege. Congress really does not have the authority to issue the subpoena, because the appointing/firing of U.S. attorneys is within the scope of the Office of the President. Regardless of how cronyist it is to fire people without a legitimate reason, it's not illegal, thus he can't be subpoened into giving up any information about it.

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by simpleman

He doesn't have to turn over any of the documents, regardless of executive privilege. Congress really does not have the authority to issue the subpoena, because the appointing/firing of U.S. attorneys is within the scope of the Office of the President. Regardless of how cronyist it is to fire people without a legitimate reason, it's not illegal, thus he can't be subpoened into giving up any information about it.

From my impression of this government's design, isn't the executive branch supposed to answer to, not necessarily be subservient to, but at least work with the legislative branch. They were designed so that the legislature makes the laws, and the president executes them. To refuse any information that would help with a criminal trial is kinda fishy. If the subpoenaed information really has no relevance to the case then that is a matter for the legislature to decide, not the executive branch.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by simpleman

He doesn't have to turn over any of the documents, regardless of executive privilege. Congress really does not have the authority to issue the subpoena, because the appointing/firing of U.S. attorneys is within the scope of the Office of the President. Regardless of how cronyist it is to fire people without a legitimate reason, it's not illegal, thus he can't be subpoened into giving up any information about it.

If there was nothing illegal in the operations of the Justice Department with regard to U.S. Attorney firings, then what was Monica Goodling doing invoking the Fifth Amendment--what are they hiding? What is it they are trying to forget? It seems that U.S. attorneys were fired for reasons that might have involved attempts to obstruct justice and maybe even deliberatly and improperly influence elections. Monica Goodling admitted to breaking the law after she was granted immunity. She broke the law when she used party affiliation to hire/fire carreer employees of the Justice Department.

If there was no law-breaking, there would be no cover-up.

Steven Webster

[Gwynedd]

Blowing a Bush? That's just WRONG!

Originally Posted by u-dog

No Good. As far as we know... no one has given him the requisite blow job. which I can sort of understand.

But do we really want President Dick, if Bush closes up? I'd rather see that Nancy girl in charge.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by Gwynedd

Blowing a Bush? That's just WRONG!



But do we really want President Dick, if Bush closes up? I'd rather see that Nancy girl in charge.

What if it was Cheney that gave Bush the..... If someone got pictures Nancy would be president.

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by simpleman

He doesn't have to turn over any of the documents, regardless of executive privilege. Congress really does not have the authority to issue the subpoena, because the appointing/firing of U.S. attorneys is within the scope of the Office of the President. Regardless of how cronyist it is to fire people without a legitimate reason, it's not illegal, thus he can't be subpoened into giving up any information about it.

Its worse than Cronyism and is illegal if there is influence peddling involved or if the president and his administration was knuckling under to influential donors or supporters. The way we find out if there was illegality is if the President gives up his papers to the Senate as requested.

[nmwolfboy]

Let's not forget that using Subpoena power was certainly not Congress' first choice. In trying to exercise their oversight responsibilities, Congress has repeatedly been stonewalled by the Bush Administration. Even when some of the requested documents were reluctantly turned over, they were so redacted as to be useless.

Seems to me that the Bush Admin. has left the Congress no choice but to use their Subpoena power. It's either that or neglect their role and turn back into the no-oversight Congress we've had for the past six years.

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Its worse than Cronyism and is illegal if there is influence peddling involved or if the president and his administration was knuckling under to influential donors or supporters. The way we find out if there was illegality is if the President gives up his papers to the Senate as requested.

The problem is that there is a very fine line between "influence peddling" (I assume you mean firing people only for political reasons, and installing only "loyal bushies") and the legal doctrine of "the president can stack the courts and attorneys however he pleases". The only way to prove conclusively which it was is to take the issue to the courts. Once it becomes a criminal case, the subpoena power is viable. As of now, the subpoena power and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee. Furthermore, the president should be able to have confidential communication with his staff and advisers. This is part of executive privilege, which would be a defense in a subpoena brought in a criminal case. As is, however, the subpoena is not viable, because there is no charge to be brought.

The next problem, at least for Congress, is that taking this issue to the courts will result in a rewriting of executive privilege, including the way that the legislative branch can challenge executive privilege. Even the most adamant of Bush-haters in Congress know that taking the issue to the courts is a bad idea. They know that they would lose in a court battle, Bush would not get in any trouble, and executive privilege would most likely be expanded. The subpoena right now was a hope that Bush would just hand it over, so they might be able to find a little shred of evidence to try and stick it to him with. I don't know what might be on the documents, or whether it would be close to enough to convict Bush of any legal wrongdoing, but Bush and Co. knows that if there is any shred of paper that might could be construed as indicating an illegal action, a bloodthirsty partisan Congress would move on it, take it to courts leaving him with a weaker case of executive privilege than if they try to take him to court on the issue of executive privilege itself. They saw what happened with the Scooter Libby lynch mob, and aren't going to wrangled like that again.

[progressive4christ]

Originally Posted by u-dog

No Good. As far as we know... no one has given him the requisite blow job. which I can sort of understand.

http://goleft.tv/view.asp?v=132

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by simpleman

They saw what happened with the Scooter Libby lynch mob, and aren't going to wrangled like that again.

Seems to me that Scooter Libby got justice, not a lynch mob. Not only that, he got Republican justice from a Republican Special Prosecutor and a Republican-appointed judge. Seems to me, Simpleman, that you may think law and order is fine for your political and social opponents, but you don't care for it when it's somebody on the "Bushie Team."

Steven E. Webster

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Seems to me that Scooter Libby got justice, not a lynch mob. Not only that, he got Republican justice from a Republican Special Prosecutor and a Republican-appointed judge. Seems to me, Simpleman, that you may think law and order is fine for your political and social opponents, but you don't care for it when it's somebody on the "Bushie Team."

Steven E. Webster

Now hold on a minute. I'm not on the "Bushie Team". I think the man has squandered his potential as a leader. He has surrounded himself with "yes-men" rather than the smartest, most well-educated minds he could find. His appointment of his own attorney, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court was one of the most boneheaded moves I've ever seen. This latest immigration bill baloney was another pitiful political move. Furthermore, the man's use of financial resources has been far below my standards. I despise the lack of fiscal conservatism in both the White House and Congress. Bush is spending millions and millions of dollars on various things (War in Iraq, to name the most expensive) and I don't like it.

As for Scooter Libby, he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. All of this stemmed from a set of testimonies from a bunch of high-level Republicans. Libby's was the testimony that was most different from the others, because he couldn't recall the first person who told him who Joe Wilson's wife was. When that whole mess started, Patrick Fitzgerald wanted to find a Republican in power to convict of outing a CIA agent, treason, etc. He ended up with a ridiculous conviction on a misstatement by Scooter Libby. He couldn't actually convict anybody of any serious malfeasance, like leaking a covert operative's name, because releasing Valerie Plame's name wasn't even illegal. Libby is in prison right now for no reason other than that he forgot who first told him about Joe Wilson's wife recommending him for an unpaid trip to Niger to schmooze with Nigerian dignitaries. If there was an illegal leak, they would have convicted Richard Armitage, as he was the one who actually "leaked" Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak, and Patrick Fitzgerald knew it before he started cross-referencing the set of testimonies for incongruency. Libby went down because he couldn't remember who first told him the information that Armitage told Robert Novak (which specifically was that Joe Wilson had been sent to Niger by his wife, CIA Agent Valerie Plame). Since Libby misidentified the person who actually gave him this information, he had technically "perjured", but said perjury had no consequence to anyone or anything.

[simpleman]

Another note on this US Attorney situation. I spoke with a couple of lawyers I know earlier this evening about this issue. It was explained to me that it is fairly common for a president to ask of the Attorney General for the resignation of certain US Attorneys in order to install new ones. It is, as I said, part of the Office of the President. There is nothing illegal about it whatsoever, but for some reason it is a big deal this time around. But, nonetheless, there is no case against the President, or Alberto Gonzalez, or anyone else, because nobody actually did anything illegal. Just because he called for the resignation of a few liberal attorneys in favor a few more conservative ones, does not mean that he has broken the law. A subpoena implies that laws were broken, and there is no probable cause that this situation is any different than in any other administration.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Since Libby misidentified the person who actually gave him this information, he had technically "perjured", but said perjury had no consequence to anyone or anything.

Talk to your lawyer friends again. Simply mis-remembering or mis-speaking is not perjury. Perjury is deliberate lying and that is what Libby was convicted of. You say this lying had no consequence, but Fitzgerald's case was that Libby's lying made it impossible for him to pursue the prosecution of the real crime and there was a real crime--the "outing" of a CIA agent. Had the court bought your argument that "said perjury had no consequence to anyone or anything" they would have freed Mr. Libby under the law which requires that perjury be deliberate lying about a material matter. Apparently Fitzgerald proved his case to the satisfaction of a court of law, or Libby's lawyers were such bozos that they didn't know how to defend him.

If Libby didn't get justice, it's because Republicans have done a lousy job appointing prosecutors like Fitzgerald and judges like the man who sentenced Libby--both these men are Republicans.

The real shame is that Libby's perjury probably prevented Fitzgerald from getting to the real criminal--Vice President Cheney.

Steven Webster

[revtj]

I believe simpleman is correct, it is within his powers to do this. He'll get away with it, no problem.

As for Scooter Libby: justice? It's like 'To Kill A Mockingbird', blaming the yard man when you know you are the one who raped your daughter. What kind of person would let the office photocopy guy go to jail for his own treasonous act? If they don't pardon him, I hope he sings like a bird! But they probably will pardon him and Cheney will move to Dubai and live happily ever after.

Why am I so pessimistic you may ask?

The Dems got elected to bring about accountability. Pelosi appeared to be a firm and no-nonsense leader. Leahy had a score to settle after being told by the VP on the floor, "Go F*ck yourself!" But they have produced no results, not because they haven't tried, but because they CAN'T.

Instead of ending the war, as the Dems promised 85% of Amurricans who want it ended, our troops are now dying at 2x the rate thanks to the lunatic strategy of a "surge." Ask the women and children of Iraq what Bush is, they can tell us better than anybody here.


This adminstration has amassed enough money & power to ruin anybody who opposes them. That's why people appear firm on Thursday and make a wimpy compromise on Friday. Bush & Cheney are running a ruthless, Machiavellian war machine and they are prepared to tear apart anyone who tries to stop them. And they're batting 1000.


Well, that's what I think. Did anybody ever watch Dallas back in the 80s?

[sjbouza]

Here is the latest on the "Bush Cover Up". Leahy said on Sunday that "he is ready to go to court if the White House resisted subpoenas for information on the firing of federal prosecutors."

Here is the story...

Leahy Confronts White House on Subpeonas

This is becoming interesting. Executive Privilege didnt help Nixon one bit. I think Bush is in for a very rough road. As far as Simplemans statements that Congress doesnt have the power, I am sorry but yes they do. They can call the Executive Branch on its blunders and make them answer for their wrong doings, they are not above the law. They, Bush/White House, still must follow the law. He cant hide behind "Executive Privilege" just to save his butt. If there are serious questions about how he, his office, or his underlings have handled things then he can be made to fork over documents. If there were nothing to hide why is he not willing to cooperate. He wants un-transcripted un-oathed "talks". This tells me there is something very wrong with the firings of the US Attorneys and the illegal wiretaps that they have been doing. Yes, the Pres does have the right to fire US Attorneys at will. However, if there are political reasons that are illegal in doing so, then it is up to Congress to call him on it. This is one of the very few, if not only, time in history that US Attorneys have been fired mid-term.

Like I said, he has got something to hide. He knows he has broken the law and he is just trying to hide behind the "Executive Privilege" loophole to save his butt. Didnt work for Nixon and I dont think it will work for Bushie.

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

You say this lying had no consequence, but Fitzgerald's case was that Libby's lying made it impossible for him to pursue the prosecution of the real crime and there was a real crime--the "outing" of a CIA agent.

There was not a real crime. "Outing" Valerie Plame was not a crime. Otherwise, they would have taken Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald knew on day one that Armitage was the one who told journalist Robert Novak who she was, and why she was important to Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Bob Woodward confirmed that it was, in fact, Armitage. He didn't need Libby's testimony to get Armitage, he knew it was Armitage who "leaked" the name before he even questioned Libby. How did Libby obstruct Fitzgerald if Fitzgerald already knew who the real perpetrator was? He remembered wrong, and now he's in jail. You know the Duke Lacrosse Case? That prosecutor had no case, he knew it, so he tried to go after three innocent people for over a year. Who's to think that Fitzgerald wouldn't do the same thing just to try to nail a Republican to the wall? Just like Mike Nifong tried to nail those three innocent Duke kids to the wall.

The real shame is that Libby's perjury probably prevented Fitzgerald from getting to the real criminal--Vice President Cheney.
Steven Webster

There was no real criminal. Even if leaking Plame's name was illegal, the only person who could go down for it would be: Richard Armitage. And again, Libby's perjury did not prevent anybody from getting to anything. For the last time, Fitzgerald knew, prior to Libby's testimony, that it was Armitage who leaked the name to journalist Robert Novak.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by simpleman

There was not a real crime. "Outing" Valerie Plame was not a crime. Otherwise, they would have taken Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald knew on day one that Armitage was the one who told journalist Robert Novak who she was, and why she was important to Joe Wilson's trip to Niger. Bob Woodward confirmed that it was, in fact, Armitage. He didn't need Libby's testimony to get Armitage, he knew it was Armitage who "leaked" the name before he even questioned Libby. How did Libby obstruct Fitzgerald if Fitzgerald already knew who the real perpetrator was? He remembered wrong, and now he's in jail. You know the Duke Lacrosse Case? That prosecutor had no case, he knew it, so he tried to go after three innocent people for over a year. Who's to think that Fitzgerald wouldn't do the same thing just to try to nail a Republican to the wall? Just like Mike Nifong tried to nail those three innocent Duke kids to the wall.



There was no real criminal. Even if leaking Plame's name was illegal, the only person who could go down for it would be: Richard Armitage. And again, Libby's perjury did not prevent anybody from getting to anything. For the last time, Fitzgerald knew, prior to Libby's testimony, that it was Armitage who leaked the name to journalist Robert Novak.

Simpleman,
Explain to me why a Republican prosecutor, Patrick Fitgerald, wanted to "nail a Republican." According to you, we should expect to see Patrick Fitgerald disgraced and his career ended for a false and unethical prosecution the way the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case was ultimately exposed. It ain't happened to Fitzgerald yet, and I don't expect it to happen.

Steven Webster