Excrement meet ventilator

Purge-gate is blowing up. Bush wants to stand by Gonzales. Now, he says he’s going to invoke executive privilege to prevent Rove and Miers from testifying. The offer to let them go up to the Hill, un-sworn, off-the-record, and without transcription is pretty worthless. Maybe he should propose that the Dems start a Purge-gate blog and his advisors can comment on it.

The invocation of executive privilege? The SCOTUS ruled on that in 1974, United States v. Nixon:

Hot Air » Bush will oppose congressional subpoenas of White House staff

[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

Those interested can read Greenwald’s quotes of what conservatives (including Tony Snow) said in 1998 when Clinton similarly tried to invoke executive privilege. It’s not going to fly.

But we all know that it’s not going to get that far. Just like has happened a dozen times before, Bush will huff and puff and pound the table, and drag the confrontation out as long as possible, and then … after having sustained the maximum possible political damage, he will then cave in to reality.

So, yes, we will see Rove and Miers testify. If the Dems are smart, and they are going to be put to all this trouble (not that they mind), they will probably subpoena a few more people.

Update: I may be totally wrong. KagroX at dKos explains why Bush is playing it this way.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Bush will oppose congressional subpoenas of White House staff; Update: Video added on 20 Mar 2007 at 8:38 pm

    […] Probably right: Just like has happened a dozen times before, Bush will huff and puff and pound the table, and drag […]

  2. Hot Air » Blog Archive » House subcommittee authorizes subpoenas for White House staff on 21 Mar 2007 at 12:35 pm

    […] which means either we’re going to court a la Hamdan or Bush is going to cave a la FISA. The Commissar predicts the latter, but there’s much too at stake this time. He can’t afford to set a […]

  3. Techography on 23 Mar 2007 at 11:26 am

    Friday Round Up…

    I’ve burned myself out on politics for a day via Politburo Diktat and a debate I and others have had with several folks there.

    To all’s credit tempers flare, but in the end we part ways at least under standing each other, if not terribly happy wit…

Comments

  1. j.d. wrote:

    To believe what that dKos diarist wrote, you have to believe that Bush is simultaneously an idiot and the most calculating political mind ever.

    I know which I’m betting on.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 8:55 pm

  2. The Unabrewer wrote:

    I honestly haven’t been following this closely, but did anything apparently illegal happen? From what I’ve gleaned, no. Unethical or ill-timed, perhaps, but I don’t see either as cause for a congressional investigation.

    Then again, if they’re investigating this, their hands might be too tied to steal my money, so go for it.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 9:05 pm

  3. John the Marine wrote:

    Then again, if they’re investigating this, their hands might be too tied to steal my money, so go for it.

    Good point.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 9:12 pm

  4. commissar wrote:

    Unabrewer,

    Remember Martha Stewart. This stuff gets outta control, and gets way beyond the root cause. It starts with a suspicion of politically-motivated firings. Then it begins to look bad, people start lying and backtracking and saying mistakes were made, etc.. Then Congress wants to hold hearings, … and bang! We’re off to the races.

    I’m just describing the way this stuff goes. Clinton’s BJ wasn’t illegal, but his lying about it was.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 9:14 pm

  5. The Unabrewer wrote:

    I guess. I just think that our investigational politics has gotten silly, and I’m getting a bit tired of it; although, as I said, distracted politicians are probably a net positive.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 10:21 pm

  6. jfxgillis wrote:

    I’m completely amazed at how people on both sides of the aisle don’t “get” this and why Gonzales is a political dead man walking.

    It doesn’t matter whether Gonzales lied to Congress or not (at least, Congress doesn’t really care about it) and it doesn’t matter whether the President has the “right” to hire and fire who he wants in those positions. What matters is this:

    Statements On Firings of Prosecutors Are Key Issue

    …Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson, who was then Gonzales’s chief of staff, laid out a plan to do just that. In an e-mail, he detailed a strategy for evading Arkansas Democrats in installing Tim Griffin, a former GOP operative and protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

    “We should gum this to death,” Sampson wrote to a White House aide on Dec. 19. “[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in ‘good faith,’ of course.”

    The Adminstration treated the United States Senate in bad faith and the Senate knows it. This isn’t a “partisan” thing at all. It’s a Legislative branch/Executive branch thing.

    Bush’s gambit tonight was to transform thisinto a partisan battle.

    Won’t work. You can’t mock and manipulate and defraud the U.S. Senate on a matter of Senatorial prerogative and get caught doing it without paying a political price.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 10:24 pm

  7. commissar wrote:

    Unabrewer,

    I’m going to pontificate a little bit here.

    The American people, i.e. the broad middle, have a pretty good B.S. meter. (I’ll make so bold as to include myself.) The details of the prosecutor firings are a bit murky, (hmmm … I fear that statement may cue rabit and jfx to bring my server to halt under the weight of their links) … but it’s pretty clear that one guy has quit/fired, and that admin members have been caught with their pants down.

    So, while none of us Middle Americans are fit to judge crimes or not, we know when something’s up.

    Now Congress wants to investigate. Okay, that’s the way it works. Whether it’s Ollie North or Bill Clinton or Bert Lance, some guy has to go up to the Hill, raise his right hand and get grilled.

    Oops! Now Bush doesn’t want to play ball. Sorry. Won’t fly. They gotta go testify on the record, or get into the proverbial urination olympiad.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 10:33 pm

  8. jfxgillis wrote:

    Why would I burden you with links, commissar, when your take is perfect?

    The reason why the Senate is pissed off is that Bush screwed around with a Senatorial prerogative.

    The reason why Bush can’t get away with this latest gambit is because “I won’t allow Karl Rove to take the oath” is POLITICALLY unsustainable.

    My favorite item so far, btw, is Duke Cunningham feigning outrage at Carol Lam and signing on to a letter of complaint at a time when he was loudly proclaiming innocence …. a mere thirty days before he tearfully pled guilty in a case brought by Carol Lam.

    Ahem. Kinda looks bad.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 10:45 pm

  9. Redhand wrote:

    but it’s pretty clear that one guy has quit/fired, and that admin members have been caught with their pants down.

    Specifically, Gonzales was exposed blatantly lying to Congress, or being so clueless that he didn’t even know the “real” reasons 8 of his U.S. Attorneys were canned.

    When you add that to his being clueless about the recent FBI abuses of National Security letters (or whatever they’re called), and the despicable position he took in the infamous “torture memo,” what emerges is the undeniable image of a complete political hack who wouldn’t recognize “justice” if her scales hit him in the face.

    I disagree with those who blow this whole mess off as simply “politics” and administration prerogatives. An attorney general is supposed to be a law enforcement officer charged with impartial administration of the law. When you have major deputies like U.S. Attorneys fired for partisan purposes, and the same officials lying about it, the corrosive effect on the body politic is obvious.

    Posted 20 Mar 2007 at 11:47 pm

  10. BloodSpite wrote:

    A minor point here, that no one seems really willing to admit or acknowledge:

    § 541. United States attorneys

    (a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
    (b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
    (c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

    I’m not seeing anything in there about the president needing cause to fire an US Attorney. They serve, as the saying goes, “at the pleasure of the President”. As Andrew McCarthy writes (emphasis mine):

    These officials are appointed for four years, with the understanding that they serve at the pleasure of the president, who can remove them for any reason or no reason. George W. Bush, of course, has been president for six years. That means every presently serving U.S. attorney in this country has been appointed or reappointed by this president.

    So anyone accepting one of these positions understands that they’re in a “I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it” situation. Never mind that my friends couldn’t, or wouldn’t, acknowledge this point of law, and certainly let’s not bring up the fact that, as was his unfettered right, their hero, Bill Clinton, waltzed into office and unceremoniously fired all ninety-three serving US Attorneys so that he could replace then with his own people. No, that was different somehow because it happened at the beginning of his administration. Again, I don’t see that provision in the relevant legal code, but maybe they have better decoding rings than I do.

    Whether or not the firings were handled with political aplomb, is another matter, but there is simply no question that the administration was fully within its rights to replace these people. This is a patronage appointment, end of story.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 10:09 am

  11. jfxgillis wrote:

    Bloodspite:

    How can you say no one is willing to admit or acknowledge your GENUINELY minor point (you thought you were being sarcastic, methinks, but you weren’t) when I’ve mentioned it in probably every single one of my comments on the subject?

    Simply put, your minor point is not where the rubber meets the road in this controversy.

    You are perfectly entitled to peat, repeat and re-repeat your minor point a gazillion times, as the righty blogosphere, righty talk radio and “loyal Bushie” Beltway pundits and officials already have, and it will not change the course of this contremps.

    I’ll admit, I haven’t thought of an effective counter-spin for your side of the aisle yet, but if and when I do, you’ll be the first to know.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 11:10 am

  12. John the Marine wrote:

    Bloodspite,
    don’t bother pointing out the portions of the constitution that govern the matter or relevent history. Why? because when it is Bush some how it doesn’t matter. This is the biggest non-issue to date. The President was well within his rights according to the Law, but for some reason if Congress’ feelings are hurt the Highest law of the land doesn’t matter. jfxgillis, worries about Senators feeling lied to, well now they know how the public feels about them. This whole thing stinks of partisan smear campaign.

    Congress should sit down and get to business. I thought they were going to end the war? What happen to that? Seems since they can’t forfill their “mandate” they have conveniently found a windmill to chase. The only thing sorrier than Bush in action is the 100 morons on the hill in the Senate.

    excuse me I need to puke.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 12:03 pm

  13. jfxgillis wrote:

    JTM:

    Why do you righties seem incapable of reading my plain and unambiguous language?

    I SPECIFICALLY said that the Senate was NOT “worried about being lied to.” They lie and they get lied to all the time. It’s an occupational hazard.

    The Senate’s concern, rather, is that a Senate prerogative was pre-empted in bad faith.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 12:17 pm

  14. John the Marine wrote:

    Ok, jxfgillis, your right.

    If I may correct myself I would like to state:
    I don’t give a rat’s-ass about their perogatives. Their perogatives are not a matter of constitutional law and are not pertinent. Because they would prefer to micro manage the executives actions doesn’t give them the right to do so. And quite frankly this is no reason for them to be placated with hearings or any other exercise of political kabuki theatre. Further more some one should go up on the hill and tell them, under oath, to shove their perogatives. It is all a bunch of Democrat whining. I’m not surprised by that though. What suprises me is that the Bush adminastration has absolutely no sack. One thing is becoming clear to me the more I evaluate contemporary political issues and the war. That is that Bush is not only stupid but he is also weak. For crying out loud he won’t even stick up for himself when he is in the right.

    The reason why the Senate is pissed off is that Bush screwed around with a Senatorial prerogative.

    In short my bad. However, it is still a pile of Bull Poopy.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 1:20 pm

  15. jfxgillis wrote:

    JTM:

    Their perogatives are not a matter of constitutional law and are not pertinent.

    Actually, they are. The Senate over many years has refined and established the protocols for “Advice and Consent” with regards to U.S. Attorneys.

    As it happens, I think I could make an argument that the Patriot Act provision just repealed by the Senate was unconstitutional, but that particular point appears to be moot.

    Now. It’s not all “Democratic whining.” John Ensign of Nevada issued one of the more stinging rebukes in this.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 1:40 pm

  16. BloodSpite wrote:

    Actually I wasn’t gunning for sarcasm. I was going for validation, and I got it, in spades.

    “….I’ll admit, I haven’t thought of an effective counter-spin for your side of the aisle yet, but if and when I do, you’ll be the first to know.”

    There is no spin…as I believe you have mentioned before there is only fact. Fact is, he had the RIGHT to fire this people, and is WITHIN the LAW to do so.

    Everything else is moot, no matter what I, JTM, or you say. Period.

    So essentially I agree with John. THis is a witch hunt, a straw man, a way for the left to try to say SEE! He did it! He was bad! he is EvilMcChimpyBushHitler! Bad man!” and is absolutely nothing more than that.

    If I speed, I get a ticket. If I pay my fine i go free. If I work a job, and my company fires me, it’s because Arkansas is a “At will work state” meaning I can be fired for no reason what so ever beyond they don’t like me.

    If you can show me where an actual crime was committed, I’ll work with you on this, but until that time, there was no crime, no smoking gun, and everything else is 100% bovine feces of the first degree as a smear campaign.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 2:19 pm

  17. commissar wrote:

    I dunno, guys. I’m not sure how we know there was no crime committed. Isn’t that pre-judging the investigation?

    I know this won’t go over big, but the document dump looks to have been incomplete, … misleadingly incomplete. There’s nothing worse than the “modified, limited, hang-out route” that turns out to really be a cover-up.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 2:46 pm

  18. jfxgillis wrote:

    Bloodspite:

    Duh. If I say “no crime was committed,” and if I argue, as I have repeatedly, that even if Gonzales committed perjury before Congress (which I doubt, but only because Cabinet Secretaries are rarely sworn), that that would not be the key issue, will you finally get it through your head that criminality isn’t the issue?

    Let me try this again: The Senate is outraged because the Bush Adminstration violated a traditional Senate prerogative. The Adminstration announced that they were treating the Senate in bad faith.

    Although I will in fact begin examining the document dump tomorrow when I can get to my T-3 line, I need no more than the e-mail I quoted further up this thread to see why and how this is going to turn into and excrement/ventilator deal.

    To repeat: No crime. To repeat: Doesn’t matter.

    You know Bush did that was so stupid and short-sighted? He screwed over two moderate/conservative Democratic Senators, Blanche-Lincoln and Pryor of Arkansas, AFTER he knew that the Democrats would be in control of the Senate. And Bush’s guy put it in writing.

    NOT SMART. Did they think nothing would change after November except that Bush would have to be a little more charming?

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 3:23 pm

  19. BloodSpite wrote:

    Living here in Arkansas I would hardly call Blanche or Pryor Moderate’s.

    However I’m glad to see we agree that this isn’t a criminality based accusation. Which in my opinion would say that a investigation is just smoke screening. Trying to draw fire away from their soft line they have taken on the Iraq war by over compensating elsewhere.

    For the record JF, I’m not a Bush worshiper. The guy has screwed the war. No question. I don’t like about 45% of his planks, but I still feel he was a better option

    You take what you can get. That being said I think this whole Attorney firing thing is foolishness. Let’s get back to dealing with real issue’s….like…I don’t know…a plan for the illegal immigrants in the country (people who actually have broken a law?)…or maybe a real solution to the Iraq war.

    Save the political grandstanding for 2008.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 3:39 pm

  20. jfxgillis wrote:

    Blood:

    Compared to the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus? Pryor is right around the most conservative Dem in the Senate (don’t feel like hunting up the ratings but he’s got to be top 5) and Blanche-Lincoln is probably center-right.

    As for the “real” issues, if you’re a United States Senator and protocol for generations has allowed your “advice” to determine the U.S. Attorney for your state, it’s “real” issue when Bush:

    1. Slips a provision into the PATRIOT Act that affects that protocol, then

    2. The Bush Adminstration treats that protocol in bad faith.

    Posted 21 Mar 2007 at 3:56 pm

  21. BloodSpite wrote:

    Maybe I’m merely a right leaning centerist simpleton, but to me protocol takes a back seat in priority of importance versus town, cities and countries well being, lives, and people’s welfare.

    As I said they should save the political grandstanding and actually do something.

    Thus far I have yet to see anything actually useful completed by this newly elected Congress.

    Just words, grand speeches, and soap box rhetoric with absolutely zero substance.

    I don’t care about protocol. I do care about laws being broken right here in my home state and the Federal gub’mint is doing absolutely zilch about it.

    Instead they are wasting precious time on something as silly, pointless and in my opinion meaningless as Protocol.

    On another tact as a Veteran of Foreign War and American Legion Member, I’m disgusted by your portrayal of all veterans as raging drunks with no basis for their position.

    It’s Sort of like saying all Left Leaning democrats are foaming at the mouth raging Marxist, a stance you and I have argued in the past, but the broad stroked brush used to paint each other with is exactly the same.

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 9:29 am

  22. jfxgillis wrote:

    I got no quarrel with the VFW.

    I don’t think you’d like what Congress did if they did something anyway, so why worry?

    And as Oscar Wilde famously said, manners before morals. Without protocol, the system collapses.

    Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 2:42 pm

« Petraeus says it’s working
An 18 day gap? »