Just watched Bush’s presser, and my first thought was that despite Rove’s alleged political genius, this group sure steps in it a lot. The party is in shambles, the administration is a bunch of bungling incompetent boobs and under fire, and they have no one to thank but themselves.
My second thought is that I am siding with Bush on the subpoena nonsense (despite my snarky post last night, which was actually more about the other administration misbehaviors/power grabs and how they were excused), and so will the courts. They will not allow aides to come forward and testify, and the courts will side with him. The Democrats will have to use the document dumps and other means to find out what really happened, and I am not willing to throw aside a necessary precedent that has served previous Presidents well.
That doesn’t mean I think the way this was done and the reasons for firing these attornies were legit- I don’t. Something stinks here, and there is more to ithis issue than we know right now. But I think Bush is on pretty firm ground denying acceso to his aides, and I think the courts will agree, regardless the malfeasance involved.
*** Update ***
I am under the impression that executive privilege would extend to these aides in this situation. I may be wrong. Pointing out that other aides have in the past testified is interesting and everything, but it matters more whether or not they were forced to or not. If they were subpoenaed and testified is one thing, if they were subpoenaed, chose to fight it, and were forced to testify is another. If that makes any sense.
*** Update ***
To read this, I would be wrong. Which just goes to show you how much of what I think I know is just based on bullshit that was spewed in the past decade. Regardless, I just don’t think we are going to see Rove testifying. They will drag this out, etc.
Zifnab
Didn’t this play out with Nixon, though? The President claims executive priviledge, the case goes to court, the courts acknowledge executive priviledge… except in this particular case, and Nixon has to turn over the White House tapes. Two days later he’s boarding the chopper out and Ford becomes our 38th President.
ThymeZone
We’re truly fucked.
Geoff
I don’t disagree that Bush’s assertion of executive privilege is legitimate, but neither would I argue that Congress is wrong to subpoena them in the first place. The fact that you don’t expect the other side to comply with a demand for testimony isn’t necessarily a reason to avoid doing demanding it in the first place – for both practical and political reasons.
And of course, politically, it’s just a disaster – it makes Bush look like he’s got something to hide (which is most likely the case as it is). I don’t get it – has Gonzales really been such a great AG that we can’t let him quietly resign? Personal friendships are all well and good, but at a certain point you just become incapable of performing your job effectively.
RSA
I think Bush is has legal grounds for this (in the sense that Congress may not be able to do anything without the courts to get him to agree), but as usual (e.g., as with signing statements) he’s completely blowing away past precedents. ThinkProgress or some such site has a list of dozens of appearances of Clinton aides before Congress; Rove and Miers aren’t that special. I think that if Bush refuses it raises the stakes considerably, even if Democrats are reluctant to talk about impeachment.
Tulkinghorn
It can be fun to see what the Freeper take on this is:
Those traitorous aides, printing out the emails that were legally demanded by Congress, under the instructions of the AG!
chopper
i’m trying to imagine how the right-wingers would have reacted if clinton stonewalled all subpoenas of his various aides back in the 90’s. i guess 9/11 truly changed everything.
Dreggas
Actually John TPM has a bit on the whole “Aides Testifying” via Thinkprogress as RSA Mentioned:
Here
Regardless what legal precedents are set the white house is trying to keep their dirty laundry from seeing the light of day, they have done so since day one. Of course things are starting to change now and I wouldn’t be suprised if we see Rove under oath. Even if Bush stands his ground it only makes him look like he has even more to hide and his whole spiel about “They weren’t going after enough voter fraud cases” has already been shot through of holes.
But, to use Bush’s own words “Bring it On” it’s time this petulant child and his gang were taken to the woodshed.
sjrx0213
De-lurking to say:
.
Thing is, there’s Clinton-era precedent in the other direction.
numbskull
What precedent is it that you are protecting against setting here, John? Are you saying that no presidential aides have testified before Congress due to their having been subpoenaed? Because if presidential aides have been subpoenaed and have subsequently testified under subpoena, then you have no argument; the precedent has already been set.
Regardless, I am not sure I buy an argument of executive privilege here. At some point Congress has to have oversight power as to the actions of Executive. Otherwise, don’t we have an elected dictator?
Bas-O-Matic
Also, assuming the executive privilege applies in this situation, it only covers the scope of the testimony an aide can be compelled to give. It doesn’t give anyone the right to ignore a subpoena and refuse to come before congress if one is issued. Congress has every right to bring them forward and compel them to invoke the privilege while under oath.
Pb
Glenn Greenwald, out in front, again. I swear, I should just have a permanent link to him.
The Other Steve
I believe all precedents regarding investigation of the Administration were tossed out the window by the Republicans when Clinton was in office.
Too bad they didn’t think about that before hand, eh?
numbskull
Don’t know if this carries any weight, just saw it at ThinkProgress:
Tsulagi
You knew the executive privilege blast walls were going to go up at some point. I actually saw the presser too. Kind of funny. All that was missing was the brat stomping his feet and saying he’s not gonna do it and no one can make him.
The only purpose for the press conference was to say the reason he’s going to stonewall is because the evildoer Dems are picking on him and it’s not fair. Appeal to the Sisters of Perpetual Victimhood, aka the Party of Bush. Look for some sympathy.
Pretty stinky to start claiming privilege now on the attorney firings. Hearings already underway and the AG had said others would testify. You also have on record AG Gonzo engaging in willful shading/misspeaking/lying and just starting into his Alzheimer’s defense. Now you have dipshit saying “Okay, my people will talk to you about the attorney firings, but not on record. What is that saying other than we reserve the right to lie without ending up like Libby?
Pb
Geoff,
No, but their performance evaluations seem to work a bit differently than the ones I’m familiar with.
If ‘loyalty’ isn’t enough of a reason for you, then there are others. If this goes forward, we might actually find out what their jobs really were, and how they were performing them–we’re seeing some of that alreeady. But as long as the real focus and the heat is on Gonzales, then it’s not on Rove, Miers, and ultimately Bush. Right now, Gonzales is a human firewall, and stonewalling this protects the rest of them as well.
JC
“I am under the impression that executive privilege would extend to these aides in this situation. I may be wrong”.
I don’t know either – but, as has been said, when both Nixon and Clinton attempted to rely on executive privilege, they were shot down.
That must mean something, right?
Dreggas
Yes he has been.
Torture Memos.
Geneva Conventions.
Redirecting the FBI from investigating terrorism to go after legitimate businesses under 2257.
The list goes on Gonzales, with the blessing of the administration, has been working to turn the DoJ and the various federal law enforcement agencies into nothing short of the Federal Gestapo and I think it’s high time he was held accountable.
Bruce Moomaw
Well, John, in any case, even if you were right about executive privilege, you would still have to explain why Bush has now offered to actually let Rove and Miers testify — but ONLY if they’re not under oath, in a closed room, and without any official transcript. It’s rather hard to interpret this offer as Executive Privilege for anything but the right to lie to Congress.
sidereal
“I am not willing to throw aside a necessary precedent that has served previous Presidents well”
I’ve been curious about this. Others can wrangle about the extent to which previous Presidents were granted such immunity, but I’m wondering about the ‘has served.. well’. Why is there a presumption that executive secrecy is a good thing? The President is my employee and the employee of every American citizen, and I ought have the right to know what he’s doing. The entire government is built on an assumption of transparency (all records in the public domain, FOIA, etc). The primary exception is ‘national security’, a supposedly specialized and constrained area of executive action where transparency could be dangerous. And yet it seems in recent years that this ‘exception’ has spread like a cancer until the assumption is that every action and communication of the President ought be secret unless he decides otherwise. That’s bullshit, and is a poisonous trend in American politics. No faithful conservative should carry that water, unless they are so obsessed with questions of national security that they assume all other issues are subsumed by it. Replacing the USAs has nothing to do with national security as any reasonable person would define it, and therefore there is no principled reason to grant Bush any sort of secrecy.
JC
With regard to the Salon article – Would be interesting to hear those court cases – the citing of Norma Johnson, and not allowing Clinton to claim executive privilege, applied to why Bush can’t be allowed to claim executive privilege.
How would that double standard be rationalized?
Dreggas
Eh, they’re gonna drag it out but it’s not going to work in their favor. The only real outrage being voiced is over what the admin did, not what Congress is currently doing. The end result is they will cave or people will resign. If they resign I am not so sure they can be protected.
John Cole
Oh, I am pretty firmly convinced they are doing this to provide every assurance that the dirtiest of the dirty laundry will be kept behind closed doors, and if it is then leaked by Democrats, they can run the whole “See they can not be trusted” game.
Additionally, I think the idea of Karl Rove testifying scares the hell out of them for obvious reasons.
Steve
At least John has the stones to acknowledge when he’s been snookered. That’s a rare quality.
I’m thrilled Bush has insisted on picking this particular fight. Keep saying how it’s fine for Rove and Miers to testify, as long as it’s not under oath and there’s no transcript. You don’t have to be a genius to see how that will play in Peoria.
Thing is, I think a lot of people assume Bush is taking this position out of pure stubbornness. But I suspect the other plausible scenario – that, in fact, these guys really do have something to hide. Sometimes when people act completely guilty it’s because they actually are guilty.
Dreggas
Anyone suspect that this is the start of the “breeze” against the house of cards that is this administration and if this card falls the entire aparatus will fall apart? That’s the only reason I can think of that the admin would be choosing this as their battleground.
Dreggas
I didn’t see the presser but a lot can be learned from body language, Gonzales’ spoke volumes during his presser with regard to “oh shit we got caught”. Bush is known to very “vocal” with regards to body language and I am sure he gave a lot of tells in his presser.
RSA
When it comes to Republicans, this can’t be anything more than a rhetorical question. By the way, kudos to JC for a quick, evidence-based reconsideration (though not necessarily a reversal) of his position. That’s why I like this blog.
Leah
I agree in principle that a President has the right to some kind of private space in which his interaction with close aides can take place.
Clinton made similar points when he invoked executive privilege and went to court to seek such protection.
To almost no avail. And to Republican taunts that Clinton was hiding stuff. Turned out he wasn’t, other than Monica.
Have we all forgotten that one of the original counts of the House’s impeachment charges claimed that Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege had been so extreme as to constitute obstruction of justice. And remember, Bush hasn’t had to do that much invoking, due to the negligence of the Republican congress over the last six years. It will be interesting to watch all those straight faces as Republicans rush to support this President’s combative defiance of congressional oversight.
Tsulagi
We could, but they can’t. In addition to his value in writing democracy enhancing executive findings that the moronarchy supercedes all, he knows where the bodies are buried. NSA wiretapping? Gonzales is in the center of that. And a lot of other things.
In one sense they need him to continue to be AG so they can extend executive privilege around him. If he wasn’t part of the admin, that could be a problem. Gonzales is one of the last people they’d want talking.
Zifnab
Yes, because in the trust game, the Bush Administration is batting 1000.
The Democrats are slowly but steadily earning a halo. The Republicans have been so dirty and the Democrats have been so complaciently naive about the whole mess that I just don’t see anybody but the 28%ers buying the “evil liberals!” line anymore.
It’s classic Boy Who Cried Wolf. They’ve been crying wolf for so long that liberal hate-speech just doesn’t carry a punch anymore. It’s always the same guys saying the same things with the same amount of rightous indignation. If the Dems leaked this – and I have a hard time seeing why they wouldn’t – then you wouldn’t hear any more winger hate than usual. But when Karl Rove lied – and I have a hard time seeing why he wouldn’t – they couldn’t bust him up for perjury. That’s the only reason to put these guys under oath.
Make’m plead the 5th.
demkat620
Look what I found with the gizoogle:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0604-09.htm
You see, during the Starr investigations, Good ole GOP hammer man Starr did everything he could to destroy both attorney client privilege and executive privilege. Republicans were ecstatic cause Clinton was on the skewer. Now that there is a GOPer in the WH they may regret all they did to weaken that president’s position.
numbskull
And now it’s all explained: Excellent rundown by a premier procedural pro:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/20/192727/375
Kagro X explains why Bush is playing it this way.
Nick Kasoff
In the Nixon case, executive privilege was at once acknowledged as existing, and declared to be less than absolute. Nixon sought to use a general claim of executive privilege to shield his staff from serious criminal charges. In Bush’s case, the decision to terminate some US Attorneys may be bad policy in the eyes of some, but it is certainly not criminal. If executive privilege doesn’t place a shield of privacy over the discussions leading to an executive policy decision, then it is without meaning.
Furthermore, if separation of powers protects William Jefferson from being searched, it certainly ought to protect Karl Rove from being subpoenaed. And if Rove has learned anything from the Scooter Libby case, his answer to every question, should he be forced to testify, will be “I do not remember.”
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
AkaDad
When I think of Karl Rove testifying under oath it makes me feel like Meg Ryan’s diner scene in Sleepless In Seattle.
Punchy
Mr. Cole, if all WH aides were completely immune from testifying about anything the President so chooses, they’d be damn near immune to prosecution for crimes and corruption. To allow a President to just say “no, get lost” once Congress comes alookin’ is antithetical to how the checks and balances are laid out.
The Dems are WELL within their right to both subpoena AND expect testimony from Bush’s aides.
numbskull
Interesting that you bring up Starr. I went to a talk he gave last week in front of some of Bush’s base (you know, the top 1% of the top 1% of the nation’s “earners”). The number one message I got from him is that for Republicans, the most important thing is that you are a trustworthy member of the club. EVERYTHING is forgivable if you are part of the club. All bona fides derive from club membership. All points of law can be warped based on club membership. As jaded as I’ve become about these guys, it was shocking to see it so blatantly put. It really brought home the “Country Club Republican” meme more than anything I’d previously experienced.
Now, that was the central aspect of his outlook on life, the universe, and everything.
The FUNNIEST part of the evening was when someone asked him “In the end, what were the Clintons actually found guilty of?” His response was that years of being asked the question had led him to answer it by directing people to the public record.
Fucking HILARIOUS, given that the public record shows that they were found guilty of NOTHING and that Kenny Boy Starr had essentially blown tens of millions of dollars on utter bullshit.
And I don’t even like Clinton. Either of them.
In the end, I came away thinking the Starr deep down knows that he did something very wrong. He got swept up in an inside-the-beltway feeding frenzy and did things he would never have done if he was firmly ensconced as Dean of a third tier CA law school. He just can’t admit it to himself and he’s now spending the rest of his life trying to justify that wrong.
p.lukasiak
actually, some of this does look criminal, as in, getting rid of USAs in order to keep criminal investigations against republicans to procede (i.e. obstruction of justice).
Dems shouldn’t even screw around with the courts… supoena Rove, and if he doesn’t show up cite him, AND HIS BOSS, for Contempt of Congress…. then start impeachment proceedings on his boss.
Zifnab
Except, in many ways this was more than just firing President Pleasuring USAs. This was obstruction of justice in the middle of a criminal investigation. These were USAs from the Cunningham and Abramoff investigations, directly linked to some of the biggest scandals in the past two years.
And the subpeonaed testimony is designed to determine who was involved in the implimentation of said obstruction of justice.
RSA
How’d you get in?
Jay C
Easy.
IOKIYAR
That simple principle that covers SO much…..
numbskull
“How’d you get in?”
I was invited.
CaseyL
If Congress folds, we’re fucked. Checks and balances don’t mean anything, and any President can get away with anything.
If Congress fights, it’s going to be a death brawl. It’s going to go to the courts and/or impeachment. There’s no other way to play this out, since Bush will absolutely ignore a contempt order.
RSA
Ah, I was hoping you’d say you were a member of the creme de la creme, or a mole in their midst, or perhaps just an unnoticed fly on the wall.
numbskull
“Ah, I was hoping you’d say you were a member of the creme de la creme, or a mole in their midst, or perhaps just an unnoticed fly on the wall.”
Haven’t checked my stats recently, but I didn’t mean to put on airs. It was more Kevin Bacon six degrees thing. Friends of friends and all that rot. Nobody had any illusions about my politics or my account balances. I did manage, however, to use the correct fork whilst not drooling on myself.
(Which, btw, put me one up on the fossil sitting opposite me at the table…)
AkaDad
I should have said When Harry Met Sally not Sleepless in Seattle.
neil
Bush’s first truly Nixonian speech. This speech was a post on the roadmap. We’re on the way now.
Tulkinghorn
Anyone want to put odds on how readily Scalia will throw out all the precedents in order to rule for whatever Ted Olson asks of him?
I smell another “this case shall hold no precedential value” decision coming down the pike.
Andrew
Sounds like it’s time to raise the Homeland Security Threat Level to ORANGE!!!!
Woooooowowowowowowo!
Andrew
Also, what the fuck does it matter whether or not Rove is under oath? Isn’t it fucking illegal to lie to Congress?
Andrew
Also, if you’re a blond starlet, it would be a really good time to dye your hair and go into hiding before you “die” of a “drug overdose.”
Richard Bottoms
And that’s bad for the Democrats how?
Dickhead president let’s AG resign for doing a heckava job. Public knows something’s up.
or
Dickhead president loses fight over Rove, and also lets AG resign. Public knows something’s up.
SPIIDERWEB™
The intricacies of the law are quite fascinating.
In my vehicle, I got hit by someone who was speeding, passing in a no passing zone before railroad tracks in a school zone and I had my turn signal on. I was found guilty of failure to yield right of way. The judge understood my position in challenging the charge, but stated the law was clear.
Shit happens.
RSA
I don’t think anyone took it that way; I was just bullshitting with the limited nudge-nudge possibilities supported by blog comments. But your general point is a good one: A lot of Bush’s behavior seems to come back to a sense of entitlement. For me, while the principles are important, watching Bush’s descent has an additional element of Schadenfreude that I can appreciate.
AkaDad
President Bush is absolutely correct in defying the Democrats just for holding that quaint and archaic notion of oversight and checks and balances.
Who wants to sign my petition to have Bush added to Mount Rushmore?
Punchy
What is it about “not in public, with no transcripts allowed” don’t you understand?
Pb
Duh. A man died in prison because of that asshole, and that’s just for starters. A guilty conscience is the absolute least that he deserves.
matt
Since you linked to Greenwald in your update, I just wanted to let you know that your Greenwald link is out of date on your blog roll.
Mr Furious
That just about sums it up for me. If you’re asserting privilege. Then do it. Keep your secrets. The whole premise is based on being able to maintain separation from the Legislative Branch, if you are willing to share that info with Congress “on the QT,” then you’ve already surrendered said privilege. The only reason to do it is so lie or keep unsavory details either inadmissable or under wraps.
That, quite frankly, is crap.
Tulkinghorn
That depends. Do you wnat to have his likeness added to Mount Rushmore, or do you want to have him physically added to Mount Rushmore?
AkaDad
LOL I had to squeegee my monitor after that one…
Andrew
So why don’t they accidentally tape it and release it to the public?
mrmobi
Nick Kasoff:
If that shield is being used to keep the public from finding out that those discussions were about firing a USAttorney to stop an investigation, then you have extremely arrogant and un-democratic behavior, and quite possibly a crime.
How exactly are those two situations similar? Karl Rove isn’t being searched, he’s going to be supoenaed. Separation of powers doesn’t make members of the administration completely immune from congressional inquiries. This isn’t Stalin’s Russia. Not yet, at least.
mrmobi
Nick Kasoff:
If that shield is being used to keep the public from finding out that those discussions were about firing a USAttorney to stop an investigation, then you have extremely arrogant and un-democratic behavior, and quite possibly a crime.
How exactly are those two situations similar? Karl Rove isn’t being searched, he’s going to be supoenaed. Separation of powers doesn’t make members of the administration completely immune from congressional inquiries. This isn’t Stalin’s Russia. Not yet, at least.
Richard 23
This so-called scandal is not going to develop into anything whatsoever. It’s amazing how easily the moonbats are distracted by the shiny keys. Hiring and firing people is a routine occurence that goes on every day in the United States and the world.
Who cares? At least it keeps you off the streets.
Geoduck
Or just quit all the pussyfooting around and attack Iran.
sglover
That is very much my sense, too. This thing seems to reach right into the heart of the White House. What’s more, these guys have got too accustomed to a one-party Congress and a worthless cadre of “journalists”. They’re sloppy and clueless. But Rove was never the genius that a lot of Beltway whores portrayed. Far from it. He may have trumped Herbert Hoover’s record. He might have discredited his party for a generation.
It’s extremely interesting that, only a couple of months after the new Congress has convened, and with almost nothing in the way of a really serious investigation started, revelations of this magnitude have already jumped out. So I’m hopeful that we’re seeing the opening act of the impeachment.
sglover
That is very much my sense, too. This thing seems to reach right into the heart of the White House. What’s more, these guys have got too accustomed to a one-party Congress and a worthless cadre of “journalists”. They’re sloppy and clueless. But Rove was never the genius that a lot of Beltway whores portrayed. Far from it. He may have trumped Herbert Hoover’s record. He might have discredited his party for a generation.
It’s extremely interesting that, only a couple of months after the new Congress has convened, and with almost nothing in the way of a really serious investigation started, revelations of this magnitude have already jumped out. So I’m hopeful that we’re seeing the opening act of the impeachment.
Da Bombz Diggity
“>Do AGs really serve at the pleasure of the president? Can somebody clear this up? Where is this found? Bush, Rove, Gonzales, Sampson all have said this. Is this really in the US attorney job description?
Da Bombz Diggity
Do AGs really serve at the pleasure of the president? Can somebody clear this up? Where is this found? Bush, Rove, Gonzales, Sampson all have said this. Is this really in the US attorney job description?
Jill
Rove will testify. He will lie under oath just like Condi, Roberto, and Scooter did.
Autoversicherung
Anyone suspect that this is the start of the “breeze” against the house of cards that is this administration and if this card falls the entire aparatus will fall apart? That’s the only reason I can think of that the admin would be choosing this as their battleground.
Tulkinghorn
Do AG serve at pleasure of Pres?
I think your link answers that question. In any case, the issue is not relevant to the main charge against the White House and DOJ, which has to do with obstructing justice by firing ‘disloyal’ prosecutors.
Game out an analogy and it becomes clear: I call someone on the phone and threaten to kill them, and when arrested I declare “I was just making a phone call, since when is that illegal?” My telephone serves at my pleasure, right?
Nick Kasoff
mrmobi says:
You can’t determine the motive for the action without denying the privilege in question. Investigating crime is what US Attornies do, so any firing is going to disrupt investigations. Will we now have hearings, with White House staff subpoenas, every time someone serving at the will of the President is fired? Doesn’t sound like a productive outcome to me.
numbskull says:
If it makes you feel any better … maybe he was “invited” by the caterer, when one of his servers called in sick. :-)
The Other Steve
Some statements are just so dumb, they give up the fact that you are a spoof.
Zifnab
GO HORNS!
Punchy
Honest question–does anyone really think, even IF handed a subpeona, and even IF courts demand that Rove testify, that he’ll THEN tell the truth?
What happens when he lies under oath? Is that a crime? How many minutes would elapse from the time he’d be convicted and Bush’s pardon?
Shorter–under oath, forced or not, Rove is going to lie. There’s absolutely no downside to lying.
demimondian
Executive privilege is not limitless — just as Congressional privilege is not. Jefferson’s office was searched, after all, even if you’d like to ignore that fact in order to spread your “welfare mom” mythology. And, you know, you don’t have to believe me…there’s precedent.
Kirk Spencer
Punchy,
Assuming they put him under oath, Rove’s in a hard place. Yes, he could lie, and then hope that nothing comes out to prove him to have been lying. That puts him in danger of perjury charges. Perjury places him in the hands of those who he bullied – and bullies don’t like being in the hands of their victims. If Bush pardons him, Bush faces the risk of finally crossing the line sufficient to bring calls of impeachment from the GOP members of congress – he’s close already.
On the other hand, congress might blink.
Steve
He’s not a spoof, he’s a racist asshole. Check his link.
Andrew
What with all of the pleasure-serving going on at the Whitehouse, you’d think the porno-warriors would want an investigation too.
The Kid
You side with the president over the subpoena issue on this matter? Are you on drugs? The words, “executive privelege” appear nowhere in the constitution. Presidents haven’t the right to make up rules and terms that protect them from the rule of law. That’s banana republic, tin pot dictator bullshit. Here in America (at least pre Bush and the Rethuglican power grabs) that is unacceptable.
Secondly, where was all this concern for executive privelege when a certain Democratic president was being hounded about blowjobs recieved from a certain intern in the White House? It certainly didn’t matter to the Rethuglicans then, did it? As much as I loathe the Rethuglicans and as much as I thought the entire Lewinsky mess was truly a partisan fishing expedition, I still thought Clinton had no right to use that crap rubric to keep his aids from testifying. And I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember but Nixon didn’t get away with this crap either when in 1972 (I believe) the supreme court voted, unanimously, against his invoking executive privelege to shield his corrupt, lying ass. The Dem leadership has to fight this one out. The fact that we have an ideologically tainted supreme court these days that probably will side with the boy king can not stop them. They have to fight. Make no mistake, our very democracy is at stake here.
mrmobi
Hey Steve, are you ever right about Nick.
I went to his website which appears to be devoted exclusively to promoting the proposition that only black and brown people commit crimes. Then, because I was feeling masochistic, I went to some of his linked “friends.”
You’ve got the whole tinfoil hat brigade in that group, specifically including holocaust deniers. I’m sure Nick believes that the twin towers were rigged with explosives by the Jews.
gex
How does executive privilege square with the fact that they claim the pres was not involved?
skip
It is really pretty simple: the boundaries of executive privilege have yet to be drawn with any precision. Indeed, they may never be drawn beyond some legalese rendering of “the greater good,” defined on a case-by-case basis. All the way up to the Supreme Court.
Its not unlike Green’s shot last night in the NCAAs. Was he fouled (yes)? But did he travel at the same time (yes)? Could there be a wide enough interpretation of executive privilege so as to cripple congressional oversight (yes)? But could not congressional oversight emasculate the executive (yes)?
Putting on the striped shirt works no better than a black robe when nobody wants to make the definitive call.
Newport 9
Listen up, you braindead dittohead dipshit, it’s a CRIME to cover up other peoples’ crimes. I don’t know how to make it plainer. President Dumbfuck and Attorney General Torture Boy fired those US attorneys because they were investigating corrupt Republicans. By firing those attorneys, Dumbfuck and Torture Boy were OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, which is a fucking CRIME.
Jesus fucking Christ!