Showing posts with label executive privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label executive privilege. Show all posts

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Another ridiculous claim of the imperial idiot shot down by the courts

Miers must testify, and Bolton must turn over the requested documents. That was the decision of U.S. District Judge John Bates (appointed by this president) earlier today. An appeal by the administration is expected.
Congressional Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law. They swiftly announced that the Bush officials who have defied their subpoenas, including Bush's former top adviser Karl Rove, must appear as part of a probe of whether the White House directed the firings of nine federal prosecutors. Democrats announced plans to open hearings at the height of election season.
In his ruling Judge Bates found that there is no legal basis for Bush's argument.

"Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena," Bates wrote. He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all nonprivileged documents related to the firings.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration's efforts to bolster the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. Disputes over congressional subpoenas are normally resolved through political compromise, not through the court system. Had Bush prevailed, it would have dramatically weakened congressional authority in oversight investigations.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called it "very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances" and said the ruling applies as well to Rove, who like Miers and Bolten has been cited by the Judiciary Committee for contempt.

"This decision should send a clear signal to the Bush administration that it must cooperate fully with Congress and that former administration officials Harriet Miers and Karl Rove must testify before Congress," Pelosi said.
Tony Fratto, White House spokeshole, said that the decision was being reviewed and declined further comment.

The 93 page ruling was scathing in it's rejection of the arguments offered by the bu$h administration, and pointed out that the administration could not point to a single instance in case law to support their ridiculous assertions.

Friday, July 20, 2007

A “bold new assertion of executive authority” my ass. Call it what it is…a declaration of dictatorship.

There is no rule of law. We are no longer a nation of laws. Not so long as this president is allowed to occupy the Peoples House. Not when he proclaims that he is above all law.

Yesterday, the administration asserted that under the false flag of executive privilege that the Justice Department will be prohibited from pursuing contempt charges against presidential aides and White House officials in the matter of the wrongful firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

This unprecedented and stunning assertion on the part of the White House sets up a Constitutional showdown between the president who fancies himself a king and a Congress attempting to reassert their standing as a co-equal branch of government with oversight authority, after six years of a rubber-stamp, feckless Republican body taht abdicated all responsibility in favor of blind political fealty.

The way the system is set up, the House or Senate citation of Contempt must be submitted to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the Grand Jury for it’s action.”


Yesterday, the administration made the breathtaking argument that the Congress has no power to compel a U.S. Attorney to pursue the charges in such a case as the U.S. Attorney firings. "A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."


Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, said the administration's stance is simply "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all…"is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

From the Washington Post:

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Now, the Congress does have the power to hold their own trials, and even condemn people found in contempt to serve jail time. Known as Inherent Contempt, the procedure was invoked frequently in the 19th century, but has not been used since 1934 (Jurney v McCracken).

When Inherent Contempt is invoked, it involves only the house issuing the citation for contempt. Following the issuance of the citation, Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate is empowered to arrest the person named in the citation and deliver them to the floor of the chamber, where they can be held to answer the charges and then be subjected to punishment that the chamber dictates as appropriate. This usually involves imprisonment for either punishment or coercive effect, or the charge of contempt might be dismissed.

The way it stands right now, it seems entirely possible that Harriet Meiers will be the first person cited for Inherent Contempt in 73 years.

What a proud legacy this administration offers for posterity.

Future generations will not be kind to us when they write the history of this shameful era. At our gravesides, it will be invective that issues forth, not eulogies. And if we do not impeach these imperial pricks, we will deserve the scorn and derision that will certainly be our due.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Does this mean we can forget about that “Unitary Executive” nonsense they’ve been peddling?


From the “you can’t have it both ways” chronicles, we have this dandy little paradox – the president claims the right to do as he damn well pleases because he is a "Unitary Executive" in a time of war…and then yesterday, he turns around and claims he is not a member of the Executive Branch?

Good thing surrealism is my cup of fur. Otherwise I might set my locks alight.

I just can’t square how an executive order, signed by the executive, covering all the executive agencies somehow doesn’t apply to the executive and vice-executive. WTF???

We are talking about vital National Security information, and frankly, these weasels have a lousy record of protecting and safeguarding that information (Scooter “Treason” Libby, anyone?) In fact, they have a track record of cherry-picking intelligence and they used their phony intel to start an illegal war that has displaced 4 million Iraqi’s, hastened or directly caused the death of up to a million more, indebted the American treasury to the Chines to the tune of 4 trillion dollars, killed over 3500 American GI’s and wounded ~30,000 more.

That these feckless fools would even try to peddle this bullshit reasoning makes me livid. Who the fuck do they even think they are?

This is not a monarchy. We as a nation eschewed that notion in 1776. And our founding fathers lie spinning in their graves.

From the LA Times:

"We don't dispute that the ISOO has a different opinion. But let's be very clear: This executive order was issued by the president, and he knows what his intentions were," Fratto said. "He is in compliance with his executive order." (Bloggers aside: Where is the signing statement that clarifies the resident’s intent?)

Fratto conceded that the lengthy directive, technically an amendment to an existing executive order, did not specifically exempt the president's or vice president's offices. Instead, it refers to "agencies" as being subject to the requirements, which Fratto said did not include the two executive offices. "It does take a little bit of inference," Fratto said.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, disputed the White House explanation of the executive order.

He noted that the order defines "agency" as any executive agency, military department and "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information" — which, he said, includes Bush's and Cheney's offices.

Frankly, I don’t trust these ideologues, morons and warmongers with information even with oversight. And the experts on national security are as non-plussed as I am about the White House assertion that the executive branch is exempt from executive oversight that has to be inferred from an executive order.

[These claims of exemption] fit what they saw as a pattern in the administration of avoiding accountability, even on matters of national security.

"If the president and the vice president don't take their own rules seriously, who else should?" said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute at George Washington University in Washington that lobbies for open government.

"If they get a blank check, it's a recipe for disaster. I can't think of a quicker way to break down the credibility of the entire security-classification system."

Blanton noted that the White House had acknowledged that a substantial number of in-house e-mails had disappeared in recent years, at a time when investigators wanted to review them for possible evidence of inappropriate leaks of classified information.

"If there are all these great safeguards in place, then where are the e-mails?" Blanton asked.

These offenses are deadly serious folks. They undermine the Social Contract, practically to the point of nullification.

Bush and Cheney are two men with a handful of craven minions doing their bidding. We are a nation of 300 million, and we are represented by 535 Senators and Representatives, whose job it is to protect our interests and the Social Contract.

If they take this latest exhibit of mendacity lying down – we need 535 new Representatives and Senators.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Betting the Farm on Executive Privilege

.
Talk about stones! On Tuesday, while the nation absorbed the shock of what happened in Virginia, the White House used the political cover the tragedy provided to assert (as they had indicated they would) that Executive Privilege extends to the Republican National Committee computer system.

Yep. You read that right . (Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had tried to assert such a thing? There would have been great wailing and howling and gnashing of teeth. A racket would have set up from the Republicans that would have drowned out a Spinal Tap show - and their amps go to 11.)

From the Washington Post:

The RNC deferred yesterday to White House requests that all documents from administration officials who used RNC e-mail accounts first be reviewed by Bush's lawyers. Congress has requested several years' worth of e-mails from top White House advisers, including Karl Rove, as part of its investigation of the prosecutor firings. In letters to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, an RNC lawyer said those documents belong to the White House.

"Recognizing the unique and significant nature of the potential privilege issue raised by the committee's requests, the RNC has agreed to the White House's reasonable request," Robert K. Kelner, an RNC lawyer, wrote to Conyers. Conyers responded that the action was "a clear attempt on the administration's part to delay this process."

House and Senate investigators have focused on e-mails by J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director, who used RNC e-mail accounts to discuss Rove's interest in appointing a former deputy as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

A leading House Democrat said last week that he had been told that as many as four years' worth of Rove's RNC e-mails may be missing. The e-mails are also sought in a congressional investigation of the alleged politicization of the General Services Administration.

The overreaching of the imperial presidency is stunning in scope. It's as if it truly knows no bounds. This stubborn digging in, in the face of overwhelming public disapproval, seems to me like a hail-Mary pass into heavy coverage. There is no precedent and no reason to believe that any court would uphold this imaginary divine right of the worst president ever.

It is a desperate ploy, and it is certain to fail. I honestly believe that they know they have cashed in all their chits and probably bounced a few checks too boot - the political capital account is overdrawn. All they have left is monkeywrenching...An activity that both Conyers and Leahy long since grow tired of.