Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Brush up on Executive Privilege because

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:32 PM
Original message
Brush up on Executive Privilege because
that is where this is going. Bush had all the buzz words tonight. If sobpeonas go out, if they go out, this ends up in the DC Circuit Court. One of the problems for the President here, I think, is that he did not prevent his people from going to Congress, he said he would not let them testify in public, under oath. To me, this goes way past any concept of Executive Privilege...in fact, I wonder if he waived EP tonight. This is an issue, not of whether WH people testify, but HOW they testify. I'm not sure that there are any legal precedents for that, but there must be folks on DU who know the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. When you get past all of his chest-thumping BS, does Bush...
...really have a leg to stand on? I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the Constitution but I think this is just one more attempt to alter the public's perception of reality by Team Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. He's praying that his treasonous Court will bail him out again.
Alito. Scalia. Thomas. Roberts. Kennedy?

He can't do anything else. The truth will hang him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Oh it definately is an attempt to alter reality but
I've been reading some of the EP cases today and this is a very complicated legal area, very fact-driven and there are still many areas of it that haven't been decided by the courts. In fact, I read in one of these documents that the US Supreme Court was split on the Nixon tapes but decided to make their decision unanimous because of the impact on the country of a split decision. I've said this before but what is really interesting about Bush's statement today is that he's letting his people testify but trying to control how they testify ie, privately and not under oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. He made a very clear distinction though
Semantics? Yes, but clearly defined all the same. The DOJ employees can testify, under oath and in public. Rove and Miers will be "interviewed" which means no oath, no public, and no transcript ... in other words, no paper trail to come back and haunt them, just he said she said memories to recall what happened.

He's a slick snake and that might be how he skirts the charge that he gave up EP today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Legal precedents Nixon Watergate Iran Contra 911 investigation
Clinton Blue dress ... there is tons of evidence for supoena power of Congress if this is not available then why have Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. This really burns me up
That's the issue exactly.

Is the President, who heads the Executive Branch, above the law?

Not only is he claiming that, but he's also saying that his subordinates are as well.

This is fast turning into a constitutional crisis and I'd be willing to bet that any D.C. Circuit Court ruling will end up in front of Tony Scalia and his Evil Gang of Five.

That's where the rubber meets the road IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Five?
Scalia. Alito. Thomas. Roberts. Kennedy? Can they absolutely count on that?

This is Roberts' moment to become immortal. To stamp his court. He's been practically invisible so far.

I don't know what he'll do about Bush's attempt to place himself above the judiciary and legislative branches.

If Roberts gives Bush the power to ignore Congress, less than two years from now that same power will fall into Democratic hands. Can he think that far ahead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. It's definitely not a given
Though I'd bet Roberts would go with the Scalia bloc. Kennedy is definitely the wild card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terri S Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. check out this thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x458035
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. I can explain the Administration view in one sentence
Unless his aides know they can safely tell lies to Congress in closed sessions, it might impair their ability to give advise.

And he is certainly getting the kind of quality advise that this viewpoint provides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm brushing up on the fall of Nixon
Bushco is desperate. It will only get worse for Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Yes. Yes, it will.
Which reminds me. I have to stop and buy popping corn while I'm out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUgosh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. me too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. John Dean says there's nothing Congress can do
Edited on Tue Mar-20-07 06:02 PM by creeksneakers2
other than to apply political pressure.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070112.html

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet. I can't find a case that ruled on congressional subpoena power versus executive privilege. There is the Nixon case about executive privilege from subpoenas from the courts. The Supreme Court in that case ruled that a general claim of executive privilege (no specific reason other than precedent harming president's ability to get candid advice) didn't trump a subpoena. The court did allow exceptions for national security, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Here is what to read...and it's dense
Onenote gave me this citation and it has been very informative...go to the Congressional Record Service of the Library of Congress. You want the Report for Congress - Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege, History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments. It's dated September 21, 1999 and has a code number of RL.30319. Good reading!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. Clinton and his staff had to testify. Staff numerous times.
This is under thinkprogress.org.

High level Clinton staff members testified before congress 47 times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. Baker, Olson, and Toensing are already on it. And I'll bet have made
Edited on Tue Mar-20-07 06:25 PM by WinkyDink
illicit phone calls to some SCOTUSers.

Bush is holding a losing hand. Nixon had won in a landslide, just 2 years earlier. Bush actually lost, in the public arena, and the Republicans lost in both public and political arenas in 2006.

There IS NO CAPITAL he has left, and he's drawn the Dead Man's Hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. Will the Supreme Court bail out Bush AGAIN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Of Course,
look who sits on the bench, all of his boys
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Harriet doesn't look like such an out-of-left-field choice now, given her involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. Bush is rolling the dice and praying they come up 5-4
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnInLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. Comment from Atrios:
"Any executive privilege claims can only theoretically potentially limit the scope of questioning, not prevent them from testifying at all. Working for the president doesn't give you magic immunity from everything."

Also Reid's statement:

After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush Administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.

www.atrios.blogspot.com (no permalink yet)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
22. Let them go up to Congress thinking they
won't be placed under oath...then on live TV C-Span and for all the MSM...for all to see and hear,; have Senator Leahy begin to swear then in under oath....They freak out and walk away having to address all the people and media on their way out the halls of Congress. :rofl:

A girl can dream can't she?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. I'd like to know, too. I remember reading a "specific" basis for EP,...
,...had to be provided in order for the excutive branch to avoid a subpoena.

I would think that the Dems have had lawyers all over this issue, though. Plus, I imagine the Repugs treatment of the Clinton administration (as a matter of 'practice' and dirty hands) would be relevant, too.

:shrug:

The Dems are soooooo "SAFE" that I have to believe they've got this one in the pocket in spite of the current make-up of the 'supremes'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC