As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Bush Administration to Congress: Screw your "contempt" charges
Lanz
...Za?Registered User regular
...Za?Registered User regular
Washington Post wrote:Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.
"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."
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "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."
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."
Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.
Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.
In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."
In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.
The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.
David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."
But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."
Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "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."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html?hpid=topnews
So, at this point, is it really possible to try and hold the administration accountable for any wrongdoings they commit, or do they just get to hide behind "executive privilege" until the end of time? Should they be allowed to do this and is there any possible way to make the administration submit to investigations?
I also wonder what this possibly has done to the systems of checks in the government, when it, in my novice opinion, seems like a further amassing of powers unto the executive.
Lanz on
0
Posts
XBL: Torn Hoodie
@hoodiethirteen
just because you can do something for any reason doesnt mean that we dont care about what the actual reason was.
sure, i can fire my at will employees for any number of reasons, but i did fire my employees because they were lazy. this is a big difference from me firing them because i didnt want the public to know that i made a few of them give me bjs under the white house desk.
Creepy. As. Fuck.
This is basically all Bush has been saying. "There is no case here, therefore you cannot compel us to tell you things which you will then use to handcuff our hands to the bed with our pants down and ankles spread." This is an eminently rational and reasonable position to take based on the law, and the law, ideally, is all that Congress is supposed to be interested in.
Just that it's democratic wankery?
I don't even care about the attorney firings. The claim that executive privilege cannot be challenged full stop because it has to proceed through the Justice Department, an executive cabinet, is simply breathtaking.
Assuming anyone actually follows the law, this will amount to fuck-all. It is an endless thumping of chests, signifying nothing.
indeed, I heavily doubt the president has (or if he has the ability, then should) have the power to do this. It allows too much for the executive to go unchecked.
This is mostly just the end to this bullshit that the Congress is persuing. I'd wish they'd get some actual balls instead of passing non-binding resolutions and going after things not under their jurisdiction.
- They refused to use their positions in a political manner, and
- They needed the slots to reward loyal cronies.
Thats where the question of legality comes in.if I'm mistaken, someone please correct this.
Although judging from the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth in certain quarters, apparently there are people for whom that's not enough to suggest that anyone should actually be held to account, oh no.
The problem is that right now, the GOP is in solidarity mode - don't break ranks and all that. September should be interesting, when some of the "safe" reps start seeing that they could be looking for a job after next year.
Actually, there are some laws the attorney thing violated. I don't recall the exact names as I am just some dude on the internet and therefore reluctant for some reason to employ Google to even give myself the most basic factual credibility, but firing someone to prevent or impede a lawful investigation is illegal, as is firing someone for solely political reasons. In addition, the Hatch Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act and one other minor law have been violated by the Bush administration in the past several months, some of those violations being in connection to the attorney scandal- and if they broke those laws deliberately to cover up another crime, that makes it conspiracy. You can violate the Hatch Act on a small scale by accident and no one cares, but doing it on purpose is serious.
If you look at the administration's track record with "people who publicly disagree", you see a lot of spiteful but counterproductive actions. Outing Valerie Plame to get back at her husband makes no real sense outside of that context, as is firing these guys as opposed to just asking for their resignation.
Bush behaves as if he'd like to be a dictator. He can't throw people in the scorpion pit or have them executed, so he's reduced to the more petty political sniping that most administrations save until they're just about to leave office.
They're just in it to cover their asses at this point plain and simple. They use executive priviledge whenever they want and when that doesn't fly "Oh I'm not a member of the executive as vice-president!" bullshit. They can cram it up their ass. I'm sick of hearing about it and wish them to die a very horrible and prolonged death.
That's about my stance on the subject.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-watergate8jul08,0,133654,full.story?coll=la-home-center
I have nothing to say about this that hasn't been said already though.
Honestly this is always the test of a robust governmental system. Many governments - and not just shitty third world ones - have crumbled into dictatorship, juntas, and fascism because of aggressive executives working to undermine checks and balances, and it bears absolute consideration.
There's no other reasoning for it. Even when they have zilch to gain from it the Bush adminstration goes out of thier way to be bastards.
Let's just get to January 09, please.
And I'm sure you were shouting the same stuff when Kenneth Starr was investigating the Lewinski thing, right? :roll:
The thing was that they weren't even leftovers from the prior administration - they were Bush appointees. But they were also professionals, and would not use their position for gain.
But...But...When we do it, its okay!
EDIT: Also, this is pretty awesome.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism
Basically Bush is saying go ahead and torture people again.
DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS HURR HURR HURR.
I wonder if people are taking notes to close them, or to exploit them.
I want to believe that he will (just barely) comply with Congress' subpoenas. The investigation will move imperceptibly forward, the election will move closer, and we get to keep the checks and balances that the founders (for the most part) envisioned... where the President gets to claim executive privilege without too much hassle and Congress gets to play the oversight role. The country moves on.
However, this whole scandal has the potential to significantly change the nature of our government for generations. There's two possible extremes. (1) The Legislative branch will assert itself and irrevocably weaken the Executive (through the inherent contempt procedure, most likely). The most damaging aspect, I think, of this outcome is that the Congress will have shot down the President's executive privilege claim without the aid of the courts. Or, (2) the Executive branch will come out of the ordeal strengthened with the ability to operate above Congress' oversight. President Bush has gotten away with a lot of things (domestic spying, torture?) but this scandal has the potential to lock in Executive powers in a legal precedent... if, for instance, Congress takes it to court, and the courts rule that the President indeed has the power to extend executive privilege to all his subordinates.
We live in interesting times.
I like the headline of the BBC's article on that – "Bush bans terror suspect torture", compared with the opening lines of that one – "President Bush breathed new life into the CIA's terror interrogation program [...]".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
Oh, and this (following link may be bullshit, but scary if real)
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2720.htm#004
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Well, he seems intent on fucking over the Republicans for the next decade or so. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some more prosecution of parts of the administration once it is gone, since he won't be able to pull the self-pardon trick like Nixon did. That will largely depend on how happy the new guys are with all the executive power he has been claiming lately and how expedient they find retribution to be.
Honestly he really doesn't. He doesn't find loopholes in the law he simply ignores the law altogether. It's like arguing with the stupid kid on the playground who sticks his fingers in his ears everytime you say something and goes "NANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOOOUUUUU!" Everyone knew that kid and NOBODY bothered argueing with him.
Wrong. It is a federal felony to interfer in the workings of an investigation or prosecution.
Such, firing for political reasons is a fucking federal felony
Not questioning what you said, but in what way did they interfere in either of those with these? that is, I'm trying to understand better what was going on in the background with this whole shameful mess