Where in the Constitution does it grant the Prezzzz authority to retry cases??? It's in a special version that Busholini keeps in his outhouse in Crawford.
Posted by Kax at July 9, 2007 08:04 AMAwarding The Hillary the 08 presidency may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Somehow, I wonder if this WH Stonewalling isn't part of a bigger plan? Maybe they want all this to go to the SC, where Bush appointees will rule in Bush's favor and thereby set up a permanent Legal Stonewall from now on. Another brick in the wall of GOP rule forever.
Posted by T2 at July 9, 2007 08:17 AMI gave you an answer before on retrying the facts. You ignored what I said.
Posted by JohnT at July 9, 2007 08:20 AMOn the executive privilege issue..
1)How does he claim it for two aides? Not only that former aides?
2)How does he claim it at the same time insisting that he had no involvement in the issue? If he knows nothing of and had nothing to do with the issue, then how can he invoke it?
3)How can he claim it yet also state he will allow their testimony under special circumstances (will allow them to talk not under oath and no transcript in private)
It's sort of like a Bush special dispensation executive privilege invocation here....He claims it for other people who no longer work for him and for an issue he had nothing to do with (Gonzo already told us McNulty did it)and only claims it if those other people have to testify under oath with a transcript and in public. Otherwise he doesn't claim it. Only in BushCheney world only in BushCheneyworld. Kind of reminds me of that valid only once decision of the Scotus that selected him by one vote back at the 2000 election.
Okay and whose taking bets on how the democrats will handle this. I'm leaning toward more of the keeping their powder dry option....sigh.
Impeach them all Now!
Posted by emal at July 9, 2007 08:23 AMthe Bush Supreme Court may rule that the executive branch has monarch-like authority to run roughshod over the other two branches. But if they do, it will only provide Hillary Clinton with the ability to make the GOP rue the day it gave the executive branch that authority.
?? I'm sorry, I can't imagine that the Second Clinton White House will run roughshod over much of anything. Even the relief of Bush-era policies will be slow and tedious in coming. Except maybe the resurrection of the Starr Independent Prosecutor Law, which would be voted in February 2009 by an enthusiastic minority GOP, Blue Dogs, and Libermites in a 2/3s majority coalition.
Honestly, it should scare the GOP only if Gravel or Kucinich win. The other candidates are beholden to the political machine in one degree or another, and are therefore controllable.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 9, 2007 08:26 AM"But if they do, it will only provide Hillary Clinton with the ability to make the GOP rue the day it gave the executive branch that authority." -(Steve Soto)
-Come again? Hillary Clinton?
Do you even understand the most remedial thing about the farce loosely called 'American politics,' much less America itself?
Hasn't there already been enough water under that bridge already?
You should be more careful what you write to retain any credibility at all. When sees nonsense like this how can you ever be trusted to speak truthfully?
Unless you actually do believe what you wrote which even more unforgiveable.
"Left Coaster?" That's some sad shit.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 9, 2007 08:38 AMSo Bush made his move (no surprise here). The ball is in your court Leahy. Now what? Here is where your threats will be tested. We are all waiting to see if you stand by your word.
Posted by Judith at July 9, 2007 08:45 AMJill, go somewhere else if this is beneath you. I haven't found much of anything you have said to be compelling, so goodbye.
JohnT:
I read what you offered, and disagree with your reasoning.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 9, 2007 09:00 AMI get your point Steve. No matter which Dem gets in power the Repubs will rue the day. While I don't see dems being as ruthless, I do think that if they get a chance to drive the Repubs further down the regional party road, they'll take it. But they are going to have to find and empower some knucklebangers within their ranks to pull it off.
This is not what Karl Rove meant when he talked about one party rule.
Posted by Daryl at July 9, 2007 09:11 AMPerhaps Mr. Fielding would be good enough to inform us of just what areas the President does NOT feel compelled to invoke privilege on? This claim seems pretty far-fetched. What's next, a claim of privilege covering the Forest Service system for campground reservations?
Posted by biggerbox at July 9, 2007 09:33 AMNan more likely it will be executive privilege on all the virgins in Washington DC for the "right of the first night". Now that "everybody" is refering to him as the monarch King George, he might just as well claim that ancient right too. :)
Posted by at July 9, 2007 10:03 AMSteve Soto says:
Sure, the White House wants to drag this out until January 2009, and yes, the Bush Supreme Court may rule that the executive branch has monarch-like authority to run roughshod over the other two branches. But if they do, it will only provide Hillary Clinton with the ability to make the GOP rue the day it gave the executive branch that authority.
So, let's see, Hillary is president, she tries to run roughshod over the constitution a la W. Now let me think for a second, who makes up the Supreme Court? Um, oh yeah, I mean the Supremacist Court. I have a strong feeling that the right wing of the Supermacist Court will follow the IOKIYAR policy, and not let Hillary get away with something that W would get away with. Why would you think otherwise?
Posted by Paige at July 9, 2007 10:22 AMPaige exactly....these loyal Bushbozo's on the Supremacist court (love that aptly used word...hope you don't mind if I use it in the future) will come up with their classic it's a one time only decision and shouldn't be used as a precedent just as they did when they selected the Boy King back in 2000. Yup and then when a Democratic elected president tries to invoke the same thing the Supremacists say, "Ooops sorry, no can do...one time only decision"...(wink wink...it's only valid to use if your a repuke).
Posted by emal at July 9, 2007 10:49 AMHas Leahy responded yet?
First of all, Executive Privilage was fairly well defined during the Watergate scandal (another GOP scandal that tore this Country apart).
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said yesterday that he will attempt to cite the White House for criminal contempt of Congress if it does not turn over documents related to the firing of nine federal prosecutors.
"If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "This is very important to the American people."
Lawmakers have given the White House until next Monday (today) to provide a signed letter from the president asserting executive privilege, as well as a description of each withheld document, a list of who has seen the documents and the legal basis for arguing that the documents may be shielded from public view.
Leahy's committee last week issued more subpoenas to the White House, Justice Department and vice president's office seeking information about the domestic eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency.
The next step is for the congressional committee chairman to rule on the validity of the privilege claims. If the claims are deemed invalid, the committee can repeat the directive to comply. If the president continues to refuse, the committee can find the president in criminal contempt, and the issue would go to the full Senate or House. If a majority in either chamber approves the criminal citation, the matter is referred to a U.S. attorney with a recommendation to issue an indictment.
Can we please just go to the contempt indictment and save us all the drama?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101192.html
Posted by Judith at July 9, 2007 10:51 AMbiggerbox, bad news for you, ARAMark Inc runs the NPS campground service & I'm sure their system is proprietary.
The campsites are nice though....
Posted by pwapvt at July 9, 2007 11:02 AMThey operate outside of the law, but we go to court.
They bring impeachment charges, but we don't have the votes.
They lose the Senate and the House, but nothing changes.
Let's keep talking about how bad it is.
Posted by Slothrop at July 9, 2007 11:35 AM"But if they do, it will only provide Hillary Clinton with the ability to make the GOP rue the day it gave the executive branch that authority"
Steve,
You gave me a dressing down when I suggested that the NYT's had female reporters that were obviously Pro-Clinton and were doing hit pieces on Obama. You were right. It was another MAJOR newspaper's female reporters that were showing an obvious pro-Clinton/anti-Obama bias. But, I think you knew that......or should.
I'm now left to wonder, by your above statement, if you've filed the necessary paperwork to beome a PAC for the Clinton campaign. I'm also left to wonder when you became an advocate for monarchies.
Must another generation be forced to deal with the out of control personel ambitions of a underwhelming, overfunded political dynasty?
Deeming the continuation of Bush/Clinton - Bush/Clinton monarchies/presidencies as "progressive(?)" hardly passes the giggle test.
Oh, I get it. There are only 4 out of 300 million Americans qualified (sellout or buy-in) to be President. Gee, too bad for the rest of America. Perhaps we can just save some time and money by doing away with the section of our Constitution that defines the minimunm qualifications for President.
When will you do an expose' on the massive funding Sen. Clinton has garnered from the Health Care Industry in stark contrast to her Universal Health Care legislative efforts while First Mistress?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 4 times and Americans either can't read or ar being mislead by the press of either political stripe.
"Loyalists, of either political stripe, are not Patriots."
Kindest Regards,
Domino49
Emal, no I didn't coin the term "Supremacist Court". I saw it on a blog somewhere, but I really don't remember where, as I read so many blogs.
Posted by Paige at July 9, 2007 12:20 PMFDL has a primer on the whole process of Impeachment that is very helpful. If I understand it correctly, an Impeacement Inquiry is what is needed now. Bush would not be able to invoke Exec Priv if He is the one being investigated. I think that will be the only way to force him to provide the information and witnesses that the Judiciary Committee needs to examine. What the hell are they waiting for???
Posted by via at July 9, 2007 12:45 PMOf course the extreme rightist justices will allow a Repub president to violate the constitution while ruling against a Dem president for essentially the same behavior.
That's what bein' a partisan right wing judge is all about, for goodness sake.
Posted by euzoius at July 9, 2007 12:54 PMI don't usually agree with Isikoff but on this I think he's 100% correct.
Posted by Christopher at July 9, 2007 02:47 PMSteve, I don't need to be 'compelling' when I am right.That would be over kill and ill mannered. The truth speaks for itself.
Hillary Clinton will never make the GOP 'rue the day' about anything. Ever.
The sad thing is you would be hard pressed to find ANY Democrat who would, could or even wanted to put the screws to the GOP.
The bitter truth which you and your cohort of rightist liberals cannot face is the obvious one: Even with a Democratic presidency, 80% control of both parties of Congress, the Democrats will revert to obsequious lap dogs, perhaps not to the GOP- but to America itself- which can never abide real change.
Why is this? They are American 'politicians,' practicing something which does not exist: American politics. As such they are ciphers, ghostly protagonists in a spectral zero sum game only good at administering capitalist wars.
They are Americans.
what's the point of your post jill?
the dems aren't mean enough.
is that it?
what grade are you in?
wm
wm,
The point is the Democratic party can never have a program to truly change America, when it is so much part and parcel of what America is. But you knew that, so why do you ask? I would have thought the point of my posting would be clear to all but the most remedial minds.
• There is no public in America
Consequently,
• There are no serious politics in America.
In that respect it is actually too 'mean' to the American people who may deserve better than to be savaged by a grubby band of plutocrats claiming fallaciously the mantle of progressivism. The truth is that if you scratch a Democrat you find a dulcified form of Neo fascism mitigated for smooth digestion.
And since you insinuate that I believe the Democrats would not be "mean" enough to the GOP, you may have a point despite your kindergarten, lollipop style.
I am in favor of suppressing and destroying the GOP and all parties of the right. They are simply too dangerous to the continued existence of mankind to let them have a legitimate voice in a Democratic state. Atavistic groups controlled by the demiurge of the irrational glorify a politics of sadism and death.
Democracy may then proceed from that point.
But you and your ilk would probably want to give them the right to vote so that the very existence of humanity may be made tenuous.
Grade am I in? I don't need a grade. I have already graduated four times.
And besides, it's none of your business.
Posted by Jill Bains at July 9, 2007 11:24 PM