This is nonsense. Once again the administration is brought down, not by guilt in the ACTUAL charge (see Libby), but their conduct during the accusation of the charge. Its gone from "We're pissed off because these firings were politically motivated" to "We're pissed off because the AG misrepresented his role in these lawful dismissals!" -
BushCo needs to man the hell up and tell the Dem's to shove their bullshit.
Or they could stop fucking lying.
Then they wouldn't have any problems at all.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
"We're pissed off because the AG misrepresented his role in these lawful dismissals!"
They were fired for cause, even though it was strictly political reasons. Meaning that Bush and Co. ruined 8 legal careers (or gave them a hell of a black mark) for shits and giggles rather than 'manning up' and admitting to the political nature. Also, firing a political appointee for political reasons isn't shocking or an inherently bad thing. However, there are different kinds of political reasons, some of which (like obstruction of justice) are actually illegal, though.
And are you seriously dismissing perjury over issues of national security with a wave of your hand?
"We're pissed off because the AG misrepresented his role in these lawful dismissals!"
They were fired for cause, even though it was strictly political reasons. Meaning that Bush and Co. ruined 8 legal careers (or gave them a hell of a black mark) for shits and giggles rather than 'manning up' and admitting to the political nature. Also, firing a political appointee for political reasons isn't shocking or an inherently bad thing. However, there are different kinds of political reasons, some of which (like obstruction of justice) are actually illegal, though.
And are you seriously dismissing perjury over issues of national security with a wave of your hand?
Yes.
Apparently we can only put members of the White House staff on trial if it involves blowjobs.
When did Gonzales make any of these statements under oath? Because if he didnt, labeling it as perjury is just sensationalizing it.
Apparently we can only put members of the White House staff on trial if it involves blowjobs.
Speaking of perjury. . .
How can the firings NOT be political? They are servants of the President, and as such of course they are expected to persue an agenda that agree's with the PoTUS. However this guys testimony blows out of the water the INSISTENCE that these were REVENGE firings for not pursuing PUNITIVE action against various "enemies".
When did Gonzales make any of these statements under oath? Because if he didnt, labeling it as perjury is just sensationalizing it.
I was talking about your reference to Libby. The person who was convicted of Perjury, so labelling it perjury isn't that sensationalistic.
Apparently we can only put members of the White House staff on trial if it involves blowjobs.
Speaking of perjury. . .
You...don't realize the difference between lieing about getting a hummer and lieing about exposing an operative of the CIA to the press? What national interest rests in the President's pants?
How can the firings NOT be political?
Ask Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who says they were fired for cause.
When did Gonzales make any of these statements under oath? Because if he didnt, labeling it as perjury is just sensationalizing it.
Apparently we can only put members of the White House staff on trial if it involves blowjobs.
Speaking of perjury. . .
How can the firings NOT be political? They are servants of the President, and as such of course they are expected to persue an agenda that agree's with the PoTUS. However this guys testimony blows out of the water the INSISTENCE that these were REVENGE firings for not pursuing PUNITIVE action against various "enemies".
Uh, because they actually were?
Here's a hint kid: If you're going to sling words in these here parts, its best not to get your news from just one fair and balanced source, if you get my drift.
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited March 2007
Honestly, I never really got that there was much of a fundamental big deal going on in this case, except that Gonzalez was stupid to lie when there was no real need. He could have said "yeah, we fired them because we wanted more reliable cronies in their seats" and it would be completely legal.
It, along with this recent cigarette lawsuit, does illustrate some flaws in the supposed independence of Justice Department employees. If someone can fire you, they're your boss, no matter how independent you claim to be.
When did Gonzales make any of these statements under oath? Because if he didnt, labeling it as perjury is just sensationalizing it.
I was under the impression that testifying before Congress involves taking an oath, no?
[Edit] - OK, I missed the full discussion on this one. Oops.
Apparently we can only put members of the White House staff on trial if it involves blowjobs.
Speaking of perjury. . .
How can the firings NOT be political? They are servants of the President, and as such of course they are expected to persue an agenda that agree's with the PoTUS. However this guys testimony blows out of the water the INSISTENCE that these were REVENGE firings for not pursuing PUNITIVE action against various "enemies".
Here's the thing - the motivations behind the firing don't fucking matter. Political hirings and firings are par for the course in that neighborhood. What's at issue is the method of firing, i.e. giving reason and essentially blacklisting these attorneys. The president/AG can be as big a dick as he wants, but as soon as he breaks tradition the curtain falls and he's in trouble.
Libby perjured himself by "lying" about what he knew in the process of a federal investigation. Sorry, but the situations arent even close to being the same.
You...don't realize the difference between lieing about getting a hummer
If your statement referred to what I was even talking about - Id say comments like this is why intellectual honesty has all but died, and partisan nonsense is the name of the game in debates. "It was just a bj" - yea sure it was.
Ask Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who says they were fired for cause.
The "cause" has to be "political" - its the folks who assume "political" can only meet this black and white criteria that are getting their panties in a bunch. Its the folks who assume "political" is synonymous with "self-interest/preservation". Sometimes political just means "they dont mesh with what we're doing here - and they HAVE to go".
Here's a hint kid
Heres a hint for yourself. Im damn near 30 years old, and havent been a "kid" for a long while. You can take the sanctimonious salutation, and generalizations and stick them up your keister.
Please tell me how these attorneys are "blacklisted". Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures them work.
Honestly, I never really got that there was much of a fundamental big deal going on in this case, except that Gonzalez was stupid to lie when there was no real need. He could have said "yeah, we fired them because we wanted more reliable cronies in their seats" and it would be completely legal.
It, along with this recent cigarette lawsuit, does illustrate some flaws in the supposed independence of Justice Department employees. If someone can fire you, they're your boss, no matter how independent you claim to be.
legal in that it would not be purjury.
But it would be illegal because it would be interfering with active investigations/prosecutions.
ed: there is a reason he lied, and its because what they did could be construed as illegal, and he knows it.
Please tell me how these attorneys are "blacklisted". Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures them work.
So because the AG's actions are now public knowledge, thus giving the attorneys some publicity, that makes it OK? Because that's what I'm getting from that. If these guys had been fired with cause and nobody exposed it, they never could have gotten a public job again. That's blacklisting.
Please tell me how these attorneys are "blacklisted". Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures them work.
So because the AG's actions are now public knowledge, thus giving the attorneys some publicity, that makes it OK? Because that's what I'm getting from that. If these guys had been fired with cause and nobody exposed it, they never could have gotten a public job again. That's blacklisting.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand the import of "with cause." ED!, there are basically two ways to fire these people. One, you fire them and write, "political." Two, you fire them and write "cause." Writing "cause" means they were awful at the job and you fired them because they sucked; writing "political" means hey, good luck finding employment with people of similar views. This has been explained better previously in the thread if you care to hunt up those posts.
Please tell me how these attorneys are "blacklisted". Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures them work.
This is... circular. Like, explain to me how theft makes people "lose money." Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures that their suit for damages will be successful.
The point is that if this had not come to light in the brouhaha you dislike so much, then substantial damage would have been done.
Honestly, I never really got that there was much of a fundamental big deal going on in this case, except that Gonzalez was stupid to lie when there was no real need. He could have said "yeah, we fired them because we wanted more reliable cronies in their seats" and it would be completely legal.
It, along with this recent cigarette lawsuit, does illustrate some flaws in the supposed independence of Justice Department employees. If someone can fire you, they're your boss, no matter how independent you claim to be.
Even if he hadn't lied about it he still broke the promise he made to congress about not firing anyone for political reasons. Not illegal, but a major promise breaking jackass that would make him.
Hoz on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Honestly, I never really got that there was much of a fundamental big deal going on in this case, except that Gonzalez was stupid to lie when there was no real need. He could have said "yeah, we fired them because we wanted more reliable cronies in their seats" and it would be completely legal.
It, along with this recent cigarette lawsuit, does illustrate some flaws in the supposed independence of Justice Department employees. If someone can fire you, they're your boss, no matter how independent you claim to be.
Even if he hadn't lied about it he still broke the promise he made to congress about not firing anyone for political reasons. Not illegal, but a major promise breaking jackass that would make him.
Yeah, but at least that would've been consistent with the administration.
Libby perjured himself by "lying" about what he knew in the process of a federal investigation.
Mind explaining how the quotation marks are justified?
Sorry, but the situations arent even close to being the same.
You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life, Libby was obstructing an investigation into the exposure of a CIA agent, damaging our nation's security. They're not even close. In fact, I'll let a former CIA Director elucidate the seriousness.
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the identity of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.
Punitive dismissals are hella illegal, actually. There are four crimes this whole affair may involve on the part of Gonzales and co. I'll give an imaginary cookie to everyone who explains what each one is.
This is actually a really big deal, if you look at it terms of an Executive power grab. Remember, if the Bush administration sets this kind of precedent- that you can fire US Attorneys in order to disrupt their investigations of your own party's corruption (Look at the connections to the Delay investigation, as an example) then so can the next Democratic administration.
We want this cat to stay in the bag. We really, really do. Plus, obstructing Congress is Executive overreach and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, which is again bad.
Punitive dismissals are hella illegal, actually. There are four crimes this whole affair may involve on the part of Gonzales and co. I'll give an imaginary cookie to everyone who explains what each one is.
The failure to suspend or drop charges against Republican candidates and the failure to bring up charges against Democratic ones. However, it's a bit circumstantial and may not be quite as malicious as things seem. At least, not for all of them. A lot of questions certainly do come to mind, though.
I'll give you a cookie for explaining the best way for Congress to get answers to the questions they have.
I'll give you a cookie for explaining the best way for Congress to get answers to the questions they have.
I honestly have no idea. If Bush refuses to cooperate, there'll be a stalemate. It will be bad for the country, but not illegal for Bush to do so. I suppose all Congress could do is start running ads that say: "Bush. Less honest than Clinton" or something like that, since Clinton's administration testified under oath to Congress a whole bunch of times.
I'll give you a cookie for explaining the best way for Congress to get answers to the questions they have.
I honestly have no idea. If Bush refuses to cooperate, there'll be a stalemate. It will be bad for the country, but not illegal for Bush to do so. I suppose all Congress could do is start running ads that say: "Bush. Less honest than Clinton" or something like that, since Clinton's administration testified under oath to Congress a whole bunch of times.
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'[/quote]
Can SCOTUS do anything in this case? They can only review laws, and then only once they've gone through the court system and reached their desk. Congress would have to pass a law requiring Executive branch officials to testify under oath when asked to do so, then the Bush administration would have to refuse, go to court, go all the way to SCOTUS and then the Supreme Court would have to say: "Yes, it was within Congress' power to do this."
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'
Can SCOTUS do anything in this case? They can only review laws, and then only once they've gone through the court system and reached their desk. Congress would have to pass a law requiring Executive branch officials to testify under oath when asked to do so, then the Bush administration would have to refuse, go to court, go all the way to SCOTUS and then the Supreme Court would have to say: "Yes, it was within Congress' power to do this."
Right? Not right?
There is most definitly a law that says you cannot resist a congressional subpeona. Its like a regular subpeona, except much stronger.
Goumindong on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'
Can SCOTUS do anything in this case? They can only review laws, and then only once they've gone through the court system and reached their desk. Congress would have to pass a law requiring Executive branch officials to testify under oath when asked to do so, then the Bush administration would have to refuse, go to court, go all the way to SCOTUS and then the Supreme Court would have to say: "Yes, it was within Congress' power to do this."
Right? Not right?
There is most definitly a law that says you cannot resist a congressional subpeona. Its like a regular subpeona, except much stronger.
Considering that the president feels that most laws don't really apply to him, I'd like to see how this would turn out.
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'
Can SCOTUS do anything in this case? They can only review laws, and then only once they've gone through the court system and reached their desk. Congress would have to pass a law requiring Executive branch officials to testify under oath when asked to do so, then the Bush administration would have to refuse, go to court, go all the way to SCOTUS and then the Supreme Court would have to say: "Yes, it was within Congress' power to do this."
Right? Not right?
There is most definitly a law that says you cannot resist a congressional subpeona. Its like a regular subpeona, except much stronger.
Considering that the president feels that most laws don't really apply to him, I'd like to see how this would turn out.
Heres a hint for yourself. Im damn near 30 years old, and havent been a "kid" for a long while. You can take the sanctimonious salutation, and generalizations and stick them up your keister.
Please tell me how these attorneys are "blacklisted". Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures them work.
Oh really? Because I thought the need to make sure everyone knows your "black", the argumentative skills of a 17 year old who listens to Rush Limbaugh, and running around acting like you see what everyone else misses pointed at someone who might have taken an elective Debate course in high school.
Personally, I would have just said you were young. At least you would have had an excuse.
And they were "blacklisted" because it was put out they were relieved for performance issues as opposed to political ones. Who's going to hire someone who got fired from a DoJ job under "relief for cause"? Unless they were going to open up their own firms, no one was going to touch them.
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'
Can SCOTUS do anything in this case? They can only review laws, and then only once they've gone through the court system and reached their desk. Congress would have to pass a law requiring Executive branch officials to testify under oath when asked to do so, then the Bush administration would have to refuse, go to court, go all the way to SCOTUS and then the Supreme Court would have to say: "Yes, it was within Congress' power to do this."
Right? Not right?
There is most definitly a law that says you cannot resist a congressional subpeona. Its like a regular subpeona, except much stronger.
The two branches have so far avoided a legal showdown on the question of which legal principle dominates the other as I understand it.
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'
Can SCOTUS do anything in this case? They can only review laws, and then only once they've gone through the court system and reached their desk. Congress would have to pass a law requiring Executive branch officials to testify under oath when asked to do so, then the Bush administration would have to refuse, go to court, go all the way to SCOTUS and then the Supreme Court would have to say: "Yes, it was within Congress' power to do this."
Right? Not right?
There is most definitly a law that says you cannot resist a congressional subpeona. Its like a regular subpeona, except much stronger.
The two branches have so far avoided a legal showdown on the question of which legal principle dominates the other as I understand it.
In the general sense there is a law about it. If you arent the executive there isnt even a question.
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
I was under the impression that a compromise was worked out after the chairman of the committee threatend to have anyone who wouldn't appear arrested. I could be wrong though.
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
I was under the impression that a compromise was worked out after the chairman of the committee threatend to have anyone who wouldn't appear arrested. I could be wrong though.
Did this happen under Nixon or are we talking about Gonzales here?
In the historical race to the bottom that is Nixon v. Bush, the late trickster would seem to have the edge: He was an unimpeachable lawbreaker--actually, an impeachable one--a claim that doesn't quite stick to Bush. But, in the last month, Bush has been closing fast. While he may not have any second-rate burglaries under his belt, his record now includes his very own version of the Saturday Night Massacre, thanks to the purging of eight U.S. attorneys. It's true that his behavior in this episode may not run up the score in compulsory categories like obstruction of justice or lying under oath. But the fact that he has inflicted massive damage on the American system without apparently breaking many laws should earn Bush major style points.
The Bush administration has exacted such damage because it has poisoned a fragile ecosystem. It turns out that, for generations, presidential power has been checked by an unwritten set of customs and norms as much as by laws and rules. Take the Justice Department. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But, until now, presidents almost never fired prosecutors they appointed in the middle of their terms--perhaps only two of the 486 appointed in the last 25 years have been canned in this fashion. This is in part because presidents from both parties have implicitly conceded that these attorneys have a higher loyalty to the law than to political patrons--an understanding never enshrined in the U.S. Code but deeply ingrained in the culture of Washington.
Then along came Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, and the reductio ad absurdum of unthinking Bush loyalism, Kyle Sampson. In their memos, they conflate the competence of prosecutors with fealty to the Republican Party. Thus, they judge David Iglesias to be underperforming for his failure to prosecute New Mexico Democrats on tenuous charges on the eve of the 2006 election, and they concoct post-hoc rationales for displeasure with Carol Lam, who indicted the corrupt GOP representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham and began scouring the dealings of his seemingly venal colleagues and their co-conspirators in the Defense Department. And, in a flash, by purging these attorneys, the Bushies have subverted a set of norms that had long ensured federal prosecutors would deploy the law without partisan favor.
It's not the only norm that this administration has shredded. There's arguably nothing in the law to suggest that presidential aides like Rove should be compelled to testify under oath in public about their roles in bureaucratic hijinks--although the Supreme Court could change that. Yet generations of presidents have largely deferred to Congress and subjected their underlings to the humiliating spectacle of raising their hands and then answering (or not) showboating congressmen. Nor is there any specific statute mandating that presidents pay heed to government scientists, intelligence analysts, and other in-house wonks. But, before the Bush administration, presidents generally yielded to disinterested expertise. That's to say nothing of Bush's unprecedented mania for secrecy and rampant classification of documents or his exploitation of government agencies to disseminate pro-administration agitprop.
Congress has been the stage for the brashest stunts. Bush's allies have rewritten legislation from whole cloth in closed-door conference committees, reversing decades of democratic procedure and rendering vast swaths of the legislative process a charade. They have held votes open for hours, bucking time-honored codes of conduct in order to aggressively lobby (or, in one case, allegedly bribe) Republicans who intended to vote against the president. With the notable exception of the alleged bribe, the Republicans weren't breaking any laws. They were simply ignoring a long-standing bipartisan consensus that had developed over time to ensure transparency and fairness.
There are, on the margins, correctives for the Bush-era abuses. Congress could repeal the provisions in the Patriot Act that permit the president to fill vacant U.S. attorney slots without Senate approval. And it could rewrite its own rules to limit the power of conference committees to remake legislation in the middle of the night.
But one can't help feeling a sense of helplessness in the face of this partisan subversion of process. If a president breaks the law, then he stands to incur the retributive justice laid out in the Constitution--Sam Ervin's gavel landing hard. Breaking a norm, on the other hand, isn't a punishable offense--except with shame and name-calling. And denouncing a president as a "norm-breaker" is, let's face it, not the most devastating retort.
Worst of all, once a president destroys an old norm, it isn't very easy to restore it. The next presidents, even high-minded ones, will have difficulty denying themselves the political advantages accrued by Bush. The history of reform, not to mention the annals of cultural anthropology, is filled with cautionary tales about the near-impossibility of restoring old standards. For example, every time a candidate or political party discovers a new loophole in the campaign finance laws--soft money, 527s--every other candidate quickly embraces the very same reform-skirting device.
If they set aside partisan interests, Bush's supporters would understand the toll of his presidency. Conservatives, at least those in the Burkean tradition, have eloquently extolled the wisdom embedded in norms and the futility of restoring them after they fall. Nixon's ghost is surely hearing Bush's footsteps.
This pretty much sums up why I think we desperately need a Democrat in the white house next, to me it's more important than the war. The damage that Bush has done to the federal government, and to the power of the executive, has been massive.
The thing that scares me about all this is that 35% of America still thinks he's doing an ok job. You'd think 10% would cover all the radically idiotic.
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
I was under the impression that a compromise was worked out after the chairman of the committee threatend to have anyone who wouldn't appear arrested. I could be wrong though.
Did this happen under Nixon or are we talking about Gonzales here?
The thing that scares me about all this is that 35% of America still thinks he's doing an ok job. You'd think 10% would cover all the radically idiotic.
I'm pretty sure at this point 20% of them just really really hate liberals and what they want to do, so they support Bush even though they realize he's a dickish idiot.
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
I was under the impression that a compromise was worked out after the chairman of the committee threatend to have anyone who wouldn't appear arrested. I could be wrong though.
Did this happen under Nixon or are we talking about Gonzales here?
This incident was back with Nixon.
Nixon went to the Supreme Court on the executive privilege thing, actually. Highlights:
However, neither 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. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
"While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
...
We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Which is to say that the only time Executive Privilege can be invoked is in order to protect military or diplomatic secrets. Of course, as I've said before, this was pre-Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, so who knows how the court will find now (it was an 8-0 decision, for what it's worth; one of the rare decisions that Burger wrote that was worth the paper it's written on).
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
I was under the impression that a compromise was worked out after the chairman of the committee threatend to have anyone who wouldn't appear arrested. I could be wrong though.
Did this happen under Nixon or are we talking about Gonzales here?
This incident was back with Nixon.
Nixon went to the Supreme Court on the executive privilege thing, actually. Highlights:
However, neither 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. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
"While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
...
We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Which is to say that the only time Executive Privilege can be invoked is in order to protect military or diplomatic secrets. Of course, as I've said before, this was pre-Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, so who knows how the court will find now (it was an 8-0 decision, for what it's worth; one of the rare decisions that Burger wrote that was worth the paper it's written on).
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
I was under the impression that a compromise was worked out after the chairman of the committee threatend to have anyone who wouldn't appear arrested. I could be wrong though.
Did this happen under Nixon or are we talking about Gonzales here?
This incident was back with Nixon.
Nixon went to the Supreme Court on the executive privilege thing, actually. Highlights:
However, neither 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. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
"While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
...
We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Which is to say that the only time Executive Privilege can be invoked is in order to protect military or diplomatic secrets. Of course, as I've said before, this was pre-Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, so who knows how the court will find now (it was an 8-0 decision, for what it's worth; one of the rare decisions that Burger wrote that was worth the paper it's written on).
I doubt that even this court would overturn that decision.
THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight U.S. attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.
I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.
At least two of the recently fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.
This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicizing the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.
Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's plan to redraw congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number of Republicans elected to the House. Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the division when the Justice Department OKd a Georgia law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters. The warnings were prescient: Both proposals were struck down by federal courts.
Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim U.S. attorney. Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.
This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.
Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys. In the last two years, 55% to 60% of attorneys in the voting section have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department entirely.
At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of hiring lawyers. Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most important factor in hiring decisions.
For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions. Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of restoring dignity and nonpartisanship to federal law enforcement. As the 2008 elections approach, it is critical to have a Justice Department that approaches its responsibility to all eligible voters without favor.
By Joseph D. Rich, JOSEPH D. RICH was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
March 29, 2007
At this point it already seems safe to assume that this was a conspiracy and did go right up to the President. I have yet to hear anyone explain how it would actually be illegal as opposed to simply unethical, but if the law has been broken, what is there to do about it?
Impeaching Gonzalez will just lead Bush to appoint another kooky attorney general, likely leading to a series of confrontations with congress over the appointee, those in turn will probably not get anything important done. Assuming an investigation can happen quickly enough impeaching Bush is pointless unless Cheney also goes, and with Nancy Pelosi as speaker, the Republicans are not especially likely to go along with that, either. At best the Democrats can carefully develop the issue without doing much, just to keep Bush on his toes until January 2009, this option also gives Democrats something to grandstand about. But grandstanding about this issue also distracts people from a issue the Democrats would rather tackle; Iraq.
Maybe its time to just appoint a prosecutor to handle this, and hope that those involved finally get theirs after years of investigation, grand jury hearings, and appeals.
You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life
Indeed. Thats all it was. Whether you feel Star's pursuit of the sexual harrassment track was a relevant one or not, devaluing it to nothing but a personal hatchet job based on a blowjob is more than dishonest.
Oh really? Because I thought the need to make sure everyone knows your "black", the argumentative skills of a 17 year old who listens to Rush Limbaugh, and running around acting like you see what everyone else misses pointed at someone who might have taken an elective Debate course in high school.
Hoo hoo - what fun. "When all else fails. . .go for the Cliche™" - kudos to you guy - kudos.
EDIT: Haha - just got the "black" reference. . .yup, you definitely take this shit too seriously.
You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life
Indeed. Thats all it was. Whether you feel Star's pursuit of the sexual harrassment track was a relevant one or not, devaluing it to nothing but a personal hatchet job based on a blowjob is more than dishonest.
Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment in the case of the White Water land deal?
Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment at any time ever?
Posts
Or they could stop fucking lying.
Then they wouldn't have any problems at all.
They were fired for cause, even though it was strictly political reasons. Meaning that Bush and Co. ruined 8 legal careers (or gave them a hell of a black mark) for shits and giggles rather than 'manning up' and admitting to the political nature. Also, firing a political appointee for political reasons isn't shocking or an inherently bad thing. However, there are different kinds of political reasons, some of which (like obstruction of justice) are actually illegal, though.
And are you seriously dismissing perjury over issues of national security with a wave of your hand?
Yes.
Apparently we can only put members of the White House staff on trial if it involves blowjobs.
Speaking of perjury. . .
How can the firings NOT be political? They are servants of the President, and as such of course they are expected to persue an agenda that agree's with the PoTUS. However this guys testimony blows out of the water the INSISTENCE that these were REVENGE firings for not pursuing PUNITIVE action against various "enemies".
I was talking about your reference to Libby. The person who was convicted of Perjury, so labelling it perjury isn't that sensationalistic.
You...don't realize the difference between lieing about getting a hummer and lieing about exposing an operative of the CIA to the press? What national interest rests in the President's pants?
Ask Alberto Gonzales. He's the one who says they were fired for cause.
Uh, because they actually were?
Here's a hint kid: If you're going to sling words in these here parts, its best not to get your news from just one fair and balanced source, if you get my drift.
It, along with this recent cigarette lawsuit, does illustrate some flaws in the supposed independence of Justice Department employees. If someone can fire you, they're your boss, no matter how independent you claim to be.
[Edit] - OK, I missed the full discussion on this one. Oops. Here's the thing - the motivations behind the firing don't fucking matter. Political hirings and firings are par for the course in that neighborhood. What's at issue is the method of firing, i.e. giving reason and essentially blacklisting these attorneys. The president/AG can be as big a dick as he wants, but as soon as he breaks tradition the curtain falls and he's in trouble.
Libby perjured himself by "lying" about what he knew in the process of a federal investigation. Sorry, but the situations arent even close to being the same.
If your statement referred to what I was even talking about - Id say comments like this is why intellectual honesty has all but died, and partisan nonsense is the name of the game in debates. "It was just a bj" - yea sure it was.
The "cause" has to be "political" - its the folks who assume "political" can only meet this black and white criteria that are getting their panties in a bunch. Its the folks who assume "political" is synonymous with "self-interest/preservation". Sometimes political just means "they dont mesh with what we're doing here - and they HAVE to go".
Heres a hint for yourself. Im damn near 30 years old, and havent been a "kid" for a long while. You can take the sanctimonious salutation, and generalizations and stick them up your keister.
Please tell me how these attorneys are "blacklisted". Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures them work.
legal in that it would not be purjury.
But it would be illegal because it would be interfering with active investigations/prosecutions.
ed: there is a reason he lied, and its because what they did could be construed as illegal, and he knows it.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand the import of "with cause." ED!, there are basically two ways to fire these people. One, you fire them and write, "political." Two, you fire them and write "cause." Writing "cause" means they were awful at the job and you fired them because they sucked; writing "political" means hey, good luck finding employment with people of similar views. This has been explained better previously in the thread if you care to hunt up those posts.
So-- This is... circular. Like, explain to me how theft makes people "lose money." Honestly. If anything, this whole bruhaha assures that their suit for damages will be successful.
The point is that if this had not come to light in the brouhaha you dislike so much, then substantial damage would have been done.
Yeah, but at least that would've been consistent with the administration.
Mind explaining how the quotation marks are justified?
You're right. Clinton was obstructing an investigation into his personal life, Libby was obstructing an investigation into the exposure of a CIA agent, damaging our nation's security. They're not even close. In fact, I'll let a former CIA Director elucidate the seriousness.
This is actually a really big deal, if you look at it terms of an Executive power grab. Remember, if the Bush administration sets this kind of precedent- that you can fire US Attorneys in order to disrupt their investigations of your own party's corruption (Look at the connections to the Delay investigation, as an example) then so can the next Democratic administration.
We want this cat to stay in the bag. We really, really do. Plus, obstructing Congress is Executive overreach and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, which is again bad.
The failure to suspend or drop charges against Republican candidates and the failure to bring up charges against Democratic ones. However, it's a bit circumstantial and may not be quite as malicious as things seem. At least, not for all of them. A lot of questions certainly do come to mind, though.
I'll give you a cookie for explaining the best way for Congress to get answers to the questions they have.
I honestly have no idea. If Bush refuses to cooperate, there'll be a stalemate. It will be bad for the country, but not illegal for Bush to do so. I suppose all Congress could do is start running ads that say: "Bush. Less honest than Clinton" or something like that, since Clinton's administration testified under oath to Congress a whole bunch of times.
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'
If he refuses to cooperate they'll go to SCOTUS and get his claims of executive priveledge smacked down. I was being facetious, though, and expecting you to respond with 'launch a congressional investigation in the appropriate committee.'[/quote]
Can SCOTUS do anything in this case? They can only review laws, and then only once they've gone through the court system and reached their desk. Congress would have to pass a law requiring Executive branch officials to testify under oath when asked to do so, then the Bush administration would have to refuse, go to court, go all the way to SCOTUS and then the Supreme Court would have to say: "Yes, it was within Congress' power to do this."
Right? Not right?
There is most definitly a law that says you cannot resist a congressional subpeona. Its like a regular subpeona, except much stronger.
Considering that the president feels that most laws don't really apply to him, I'd like to see how this would turn out.
It'll all end in tears.
Oh really? Because I thought the need to make sure everyone knows your "black", the argumentative skills of a 17 year old who listens to Rush Limbaugh, and running around acting like you see what everyone else misses pointed at someone who might have taken an elective Debate course in high school.
Personally, I would have just said you were young. At least you would have had an excuse.
And they were "blacklisted" because it was put out they were relieved for performance issues as opposed to political ones. Who's going to hire someone who got fired from a DoJ job under "relief for cause"? Unless they were going to open up their own firms, no one was going to touch them.
The two branches have so far avoided a legal showdown on the question of which legal principle dominates the other as I understand it.
In the general sense there is a law about it. If you arent the executive there isnt even a question.
Also, wasn't this brought to court and the privledge smashed under Nixon?
I was under the impression that a compromise was worked out after the chairman of the committee threatend to have anyone who wouldn't appear arrested. I could be wrong though.
Did this happen under Nixon or are we talking about Gonzales here?
This pretty much sums up why I think we desperately need a Democrat in the white house next, to me it's more important than the war. The damage that Bush has done to the federal government, and to the power of the executive, has been massive.
This incident was back with Nixon.
I'm pretty sure at this point 20% of them just really really hate liberals and what they want to do, so they support Bush even though they realize he's a dickish idiot.
Which is to say that the only time Executive Privilege can be invoked is in order to protect military or diplomatic secrets. Of course, as I've said before, this was pre-Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, so who knows how the court will find now (it was an 8-0 decision, for what it's worth; one of the rare decisions that Burger wrote that was worth the paper it's written on).
Edit: Nevermind.
I doubt that even this court would overturn that decision.
Impeaching Gonzalez will just lead Bush to appoint another kooky attorney general, likely leading to a series of confrontations with congress over the appointee, those in turn will probably not get anything important done. Assuming an investigation can happen quickly enough impeaching Bush is pointless unless Cheney also goes, and with Nancy Pelosi as speaker, the Republicans are not especially likely to go along with that, either. At best the Democrats can carefully develop the issue without doing much, just to keep Bush on his toes until January 2009, this option also gives Democrats something to grandstand about. But grandstanding about this issue also distracts people from a issue the Democrats would rather tackle; Iraq.
Maybe its time to just appoint a prosecutor to handle this, and hope that those involved finally get theirs after years of investigation, grand jury hearings, and appeals.
Indeed. Thats all it was. Whether you feel Star's pursuit of the sexual harrassment track was a relevant one or not, devaluing it to nothing but a personal hatchet job based on a blowjob is more than dishonest.
Hoo hoo - what fun. "When all else fails. . .go for the Cliche™" - kudos to you guy - kudos.
EDIT: Haha - just got the "black" reference. . .yup, you definitely take this shit too seriously.
On what grounds would you impeach him on?
Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment in the case of the White Water land deal?
Lewinski claimed sexual harrasment at any time ever?