I predict that the Federal Courts will strike some sort of compromise...by requiring Rove, Miers, Bolten (and others) to actually respond to the subpoenas and appear before Congress to answer most of the questions they will be asked... but may allow the witnesses not to speak about certain "sensitive" matters via the 5th amendment.
I am interested in seeing just how far Congress will be able to go.
Leahy issues subpoena for Rove
By Klaus Marre
July 26, 2007
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday issued a subpoena for top White House adviser Karl Rove to compel him to testify about the firing of several U.S. attorneys.
“The evidence shows that senior White House political operatives were focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases,” Leahy said. “It is obvious that the reasons given for the firings of these prosecutors were contrived as part of a cover-up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.”
Leahy issued the subpoenas, one to Rove and one to White House aide Scott Jennings, after consulting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee’s ranking member.
“The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances,” Leahy added. “Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.”
The move is a further escalation of the constitutional battle between Congress and the White House over whether Bush administration officials must provide testimony and documents to legislative branch investigators.
Leahy said he is not taking this step lightly and only decided to proceed after “[exhausting] every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings.”
The Judiciary Committee chairman concluded that the investigation has “reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year.”
In a letter to Rove, Leahy gives the White House official a week to appear before the panel and testify under oath.
“I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys,” Leahy said in his letter. “I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged.”
(Source)
===============================
Related
FBI Director Contradicts sworn testimony from Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales has been caught lying yet again (this would be at least the third time where Gonzales' testimony did not add up). Director Mueller spilled the beans about the unusual (and possibly inappropriate) visit to former AG Ashcroft....while Ashcroft was sick in the Hospital. Gonzales was the White House Counsel at the time.
Posts
7 comments:
Angry:
Could you help me out with your understanding of the way our system of "checks and balances" AND separation of powers works? Specifically the Executive is not able to run roughshod over the Legislative. Thus when Congress man William Jefferson's offices were raided and papers seized the argument was made that pending legislation, in the hands of the FBI (executive Branch) could compromise this separation of power. These papers were put in escrow until a judge decided. Clearly this is a valid point and otherwise the Executive could greatly intimidate the Legislative or Judicial branches by sending its agents out in such an unchecked manner.
With respect to the Executive Branch which enjoys "executive privilege" from certain Legislative and Judicial demands for the same separation of powers....Angry.....could you tell me how far this should extend? Where as a President (this one human being in the seat) is not allowed to be forced to testify before congress - unless there are some type of impeachment process going on....what about his private advisers Angry? In your view does this privilege extend to "one guy" and thus the Legislative branch can erode the floor around him, carefully avoiding the "one guy" or should this extend to the logical extensions of him, NON OF WHICH NEED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL to serve?
To be clear - Cabinet Secretaries? Send them before Congress as needed. Karl Rove, regardless of what you think of him is not holding a Constitutional Office as is A.G. Gonzoles, Gates, Rice or the others.
What are the Constitutional grounds, in your view, to subpoena Karl Rove and Harriett Myers?
"With respect to the Executive Branch which enjoys "executive privilege" from certain Legislative and Judicial demands for the same separation of powers....Angry.....could you tell me how far this should extend?"
Could you tell me where in the Constitution is Executive Privilege mentioned?
Where in the U.S. Statute is Executive Prividege mentioned? I challenge you to find it in either case.
The truth is, Bush & Co. is not on solid legal ground. They are just hoping for the Federal Courts to save them...that they can get their judges to back them up. But then again, they also may not even want this to go to court if they can avoid it...because they know they are on weak legal ground.
Nixon tried to invoke it...and lost.
Congress....as the premier oversight entity in the Federal government has to be able to investigate a situation where an AG may be interfering with Federal investigations for political purposes, encouraging or discouraging U.S. attorneys to act against opponents for political purposes or for political advantage, punishing U.S. attorneys who don't tow the political line....etc, lying about the reasons for firing U.S. attorneys, and then lying about many of these events under oath in Congressional testimony.
This probe should go as far as it needs to in order to get the answers necessary to come to a conclusion either way. If there is no wrong doing... then why all the stonewalling?
If your attorney General and Administration would stop lying so much....there would be no need to continue to dig. But by lying, they ironically provide Congress with more reasons to continue investigating the situation. The more Congress digs, the more Bush & co. looks like they have something to hide.
So.....you are saying that ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE has been produced to prove your allegation? (That these were POLITICAL firings? Or are you just listening to Amy Goodwin still?)
It is interesting that with Michael Vick and others (who you all favor) the bar for JUSTICE TO BE DONE is so high. There needs to be video, transcripts, and a gun who's smoke was actually captured in a jar for further analysis before you will believe it.
When it comes to your ideological enemies it seems that the blind lady of justice picks up her sword and starts cutting off heads.
Are you saying that the Justice Department doesn't have the right to dismiss Assistant AGs? Do they need congressional approval to do so? (The US Patriot Act that the same congress passed had a provision to allow for expedited dismissal)
At the end of the day, sadly, the great hero John Conyers was advanced to the head of the Judiciary committee after Black folks around the nation being sold on the notion that "With Democrats in control the Black community will benefit". I guess with most of you "Attacking Bush is an important benefit". At the same time the NON-JUSTICE of a 50% rate of unsovled Black homicides thoroughout the nation is not worthy of an investigation initiated by Mr. Conyers?
At the end of the day our community, being so willing to live vicariously though the national Democrats while the local Democrats who preside over EVERY SINGLE MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT IN AMERICA TODAY ultimately RECEIVE what has been invested in.
Mr Angry - is there a criminal proceeding going on regarding this Assistant AG firing?
[quote]Presidents have claimed the power to withhold information from the courts and Congress, but no clause of the Constitution speaks of such a power, and questions regarding this are contentious and undetermined. The Supreme Court has ruled that presidential communications are protected by a privilege that is "fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution." Executive privilege, however, is not absolute. In criminal cases, for example, the defendant can demand the revelation of exculpatory information in the possession of the government, but the government may choose to dismiss the charges instead of revealing the information.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2:_Presidential_Powers
The sad part about all of this is that one day the evil, racist Republicans will be in power and their same against a Democratic president is going to be called "meanspirited, against the will of the people" and then a new 'MoveOn.com' movement will be created to ask the evil Republicans to focus on MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
Be careful how much you open the door because one day you will be the occupant of the room, seeking to defend against marauders
Also you mentioned Michael Vick and stated "who you all favor".
What are you talking about here? And who is "you all"?
Again... you are rambling.
Michael Vick has never even been mentioned on this blog... and that was on purpose. I am tired of hearing about the story... never liked the man...and I don't even want the guys name mentioned here.
I don't support Michael Vick. Can't stand him. Terrible story....especially for the animals... but besides that, I don't have much interest in the story.
This guy is a thug who happens to have a lot of money. He had a history of problems with the law... so therefore, I don't know why anyone would be shocked by the report. I am not shocked when most of these guys have a run in with the law. Apparently, several "Black blogs" have covered the story to death... but I have not here. Again... very little interest in it.
Correct... The Court precedent supports privilege regarding some communications. However, the precedent does not support the idea of the President telling witnesses not to attend hearings and to simply ignore subpoenas. The court did not say that subpoenas could be ignored outright. There is a difference between not going to a hearing and not talking about sensitive issues during a hearing. In this situation the President has to make a logical and compelling case for preventing his staff from even attending hearings. The power of the president is not absolute in this situation.
Secondly, the precedent covers sensitive communications between Presidents & their advisors. However, it is not clear how much the precedent covers regarding communications between White House aides & other administration officials, or with outsiders.
Third, you mentioned that no criminal proceedings were in process, and therefore the matter should be dropped. However, it appears as though Congress may be working its way towards a perjury investigation. It appears that a witness may have lied under oath.
It is also possible that someone may have attempted to influence & interfere with Federal investigations and that some of the U.S. attorneys were removed for political motives.
Both the perjury and the interference with investigations could be crimes. But how can it be determined for sure what occurred when the Bush administration has been stonewalling, refusing to hand over documents, and interferring in the process?
Several legal scholars (and even the U.S. Governments own Congressional Research Service) believe that the Bush administration is overreaching with its attempt to use Executive Privilege.
[quote]However, the precedent does not support the idea of the President telling witnesses not to attend hearings and to simply ignore subpoenas.[/quote]
Ahhhhh - The President, in invoking his "Executive Privilege" told his advisers to not attend the Congressional inquiry. Using your logic - If the Congress subpoenas the President - WHICH THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO - then in not showing up the President is in violation.
The bottom line of it all is that in plotting POLICY any President should have his communications with his advisers protected from this type of Congressional scrutiny.
[quote]However, it appears as though Congress may be working its way towards a perjury investigation. It appears that a witness may have lied under oath.[/quote]
Let's keep your facts straight.
The claim is that the ATTORNEY GENERAL - a CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER has committed perjury. This has NOTHING to do with the battle over PERSONAL PRESIDENTIAL ADVISERS. As a Constitutional officer the AG is compelled to testify before Congress.
Karl Rove and Janet Myers are NOT Constitutional officers.
By the way - I love seeing you express your personal ideology by your choice of people who are placed in your honors section.
Without fail a leftist gets the top honor. A conservative is the bad guy. Funny how with so few Black conservatives in power over the Black community - you evade scrutinizing the Black Progressives who ARE in power in the context of our continued high state of aggrievement as a people.
Post a Comment