U.S. Senate Democrats should know issuing contempt citations and pursuing a criminal case in the firings of U.S. attorneys is futile, the White House said.
Dana Perino, White House press secretary, said Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee’s issuing contempt citations against former White House adviser Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten is pointless because “the constitutional prerogative of the president would make it a futile effort for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys.”
The committee issued citations because Bolten did not provide information or documents in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. Rove, who resigned as deputy chief of staff in August, was cited because he did not appear before the committee to testify. The White House said Rove was immune because of executive privilege.
“The Department of Justice would not require a U.S. attorney to convene a grand jury or otherwise pursue a prosecution of an individual who carries out a president’s instruction not to provide documents or testimony on the basis of the president’s assertion of executive privilege,” Perino said.
Perino didn’t know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis why should we expect her or her boos to know anything about executive privilege and legal precedent. The Scope of Executive Privilege: The Nixon Case
The Court recognized “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” It noted that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.”
Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court’s decision, Nixon complied with the order.
Even Thomas Jefferson found that he could not withhold important documents from the Senate. He eventually complied with a court order, though afterwards claimed he only complied because he wanted to. Common sense tells us that Bush is not motivated by concerns about national security when it comes to “losing” e-mail pertaining to U.S. attorneys and he is not forbidding present or former Whitehouse staff from cooperating for any reason having to do with the Senate’s intrusion into genuine presidential authority. Bush’s stance strains the limits of reality. If Congress has no authority to investigate wrong doing on the part of the executive, then we no longer have an officer of a democracy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but a tyrant. In this essay John Dean states exactly what is at stake, “For both Bush and Cheney, virtually any limit on presidential power is too great.” It’s the Whitehouse position that they are at no time regardless of circumstances accountable to anyone.
If Congress wants to roll back some of the damage that Bush is done they have to play the same type of hard ball, Congress Defies Bush on CIA Tape Probe – House Will Continue Investigation Despite White House Request to Drop It
House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes told ABC News today that he will ignore the Bush administration’s request to drop its investigation of why CIA interrogation tapes were destroyed.
“This is an administration that frankly does not have a good track record of policing itself,” Reyes said. “We intend to go forward and issue subpoenas next week because we are a whole equal branch of government.”
After telling Congress to get out of the way, the Justice Department took the highly unusual step of telling the same thing to a federal judge.
In 2005, Judge Henry Kennedy ordered the government not to destroy any evidence of mistreatment or torture at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Administration says that because the destroyed tapes were interrogations of two suspects in secret CIA prisons, not at Guantanamo, the judge should not interfere.
“This is becoming increasingly bizarre,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “The Justice Department insists it will essentially investigate itself and then tells the court that because it is investigating itself it won’t turn over evidence of its possible criminal misconduct. It’s so circular, it’s maddening.”
Why would a
President King whatever yell yippee about this apparent loophole concerning the preservation of the tapes if he isn’t torturing people or if as his supporters claim there is nothing wrong with torture. Wouldn’t he want to save them, make copies to distribute to friends and family.
It is unfortunate that most of the time, most of the media focuses on the presidential race regardless of far-right or Democrat as a horse race. John Edwards is still out there, without the benefit of Oprah. Bill or Fox. Some editor over at Newsweek must have gotten as bored with it all as I am and decided to pay attention to one of the best runners in the race, The Road Warrior – Even if he loses in Iowa’s bigger cities, Edwards can still win by wrapping up smaller, far-flung precincts.
For months, Edwards has been rounding up support in the state’s rural precincts where the front runners have paid less attention. While Obama and Clinton have drawn crowds in the thousands in places like Des Moines and Ames, Edwards has been winning over people in tiny towns like Sac City (population: 2,189). That’s important, the strategists say, because under Iowa’s arcane caucus rules, a precinct where 25 people show up to vote gets the same number of delegates as a place that packs in 2,500. In other words, even if he loses to Obama and Clinton in the state’s bigger cities, he can still win by wrapping up smaller, far-flung precincts that other candidates have ignored.