Journal pudge's Journal: Rove Subpoena 26
President Bush thinks -- correctly, in my view -- that it is his job as President to defend the office of the President from any encroachments by the Legislature. The President does not have to honor a subpoena for Rove, so he will not do so. Rove will only testify if it is Bush's choice that Rove testify, so any demand by Congress will be rejected.
That is, Congress has to ask nicely and say please, and there have to be negotiations, and the President has to at the very least get the appearance that he is the one making the choice for Rove to testify (and perhaps get something else in return, too).
This is not exceptional, and everyone on the Hill who has been around knows what's going on.
What does make this somewhat exceptional is that there seems to be less of a way out than usual. When Bush resisted having Rice testify in public, under oath, before the 9/11 Commission, in the end Bush allowed it, because he had nothing really to lose, and everything to gain. He had to make a good show to defend Executive authority. But here, Bush has little if anything to gain by having Rove testify as Congress wants, and (if there was wrongdoing, or if Congress can twist what did happen to create the appearance of such) perhaps a lot to lose.
Congress is on a fishing expedition (literally: they have no actual evidence of any wrongdoing), and they similarly would take a huge risk by hauling Rove in there and not getting it on the record, not getting it under oath, and so on, because if anything is said, they won't be able to really use it, so why bother wasting all that political capital?
So while this story is the same as one we've seen many times over the years, it's still tough to see a way out. But I expect that we will see Bush soften some of his terms (maybe allow a transcript?) and Congress will accept it, because Congress really has no leverage other than trying to use the media to beat up Bush, and they will take what they can get in the end.
Not so fastb (Score:2)
President Bush thinks -- correctly, in my view -- that it is his job as President to defend the office of the President from any encroachments by the Legislature. The President does not have to honor a subpoena for Rove, so he will not do so. Rove will only testify if it is Bush's choice that Rove testify, so any demand by Congress will be rejected.
This is an open question and one only the SCOTUS can answer for sure.
That is, Congress has to ask nicely and say please, and there have to be negotiations, and the President has to at the very least get the appearance that he is the one making the choice for Rove to testify (and perhaps get something else in return, too).
Congress can also go to court or order the House sergeant-at-arms to fetch Rove for them. Ultimately Congress could (but is unlikely to) go to the ultimate Constitutional remedy.
Congress is on a fishing expedition (literally: they have no actual evidence of any wrongdoing), and they similarly would take a huge risk by hauling Rove in there and not getting it on the record, not getting it under oath, and so on, because if anything is said, they won't be able to really use it, so why bother wasting all that political capital?
Um, I would disagree here. There is the appearance of obstruction of justice in several ongoing investigations. As well as the appearance of an attempt to overly politicize the US Attorneys.
So while this story is the same as one we've seen many times over the years, it's still tough to see a way out. But I expect that we will see Bush soften some of his terms (maybe allow a transcript?) and Congress will accept it, because Congress really has no leverage other than trying to use the media to beat up Bush, and they will take what they can get in the end.
See what I said above. It is hard to see Congress backing down for the
Re: (Score:2)
They could try, but I doubt their sergeant-at-arms would fare well against the Marines and Secret Service. Moreover, if POTUS were to sink to their level the committee members could then find themselves hauled in for questioning by the FBI, added to no-fly lists...
Asking SCOTUS to rule their subpoena valid? A bit of a gamble - e
Re: (Score:2)
President Bush thinks -- correctly, in my view -- that it is his job as President to defend the office of the President from any encroachments by the Legislature. The President does not have to honor a subpoena for Rove, so he will not do so. Rove will only testify if it is Bush's choice that Rove testify, so any demand by Congress will be rejected.
This is an open question and one only the SCOTUS can answer for sure.
Well, yes and no. There is no reason to think the SCOTUS would overturn centuries of legal understanding about the separation of powers in this case, but certainly, they have the authority to do so and find in favor of the Congress. But there is very little chance of it. These White House communications are presumptively privileged and that cannot be overriden, except in an extraordinary case, and so far, this is not it, because there is no direct evidence of any actual wrongdoing.
That is, Congress has to ask nicely and say please, and there have to be negotiations, and the President has to at the very least get the appearance that he is the one making the choice for Rove to testify (and perhaps get something else in return, too).
Congress can also go to court or order the House sergeant-at-arms to fetch Rove for them.
Um, that would be an
Re: (Score:2)
What understanding? Congress creates laws, the President enacts them, and the Supreme Court sorts things out when they go wrong (after they go wrong, that is. One of the biggest weaknesses in the "separated power" triumverate: if you can't prove you've been hurt, you can't do jack shit about it, but I'm digressing). Things are going wrong, but the administration needs to use t
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to think the SCOTUS would overturn centuries of legal understanding about the separation of powers in this case
What understanding?
What I said: that Executive branch communications are presumptively privileged.
Congress creates laws, the President enacts them, and the Supreme Court sorts things out when they go wrong (after they go wrong, that is. One of the biggest weaknesses in the "separated power" triumverate: if you can't prove you've been hurt, you can't do jack shit about it, but I'm digressing). Things are going wrong, but the administration needs to use the proper path for sorting it out (ie injunction-appeal*-scotus), not just sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming.
Nope. It is the Executive who has the power in this case; it is the Congress that has no legal standing. The Congress can appeal if they like; the Executive can simply "stick their fingers in their ears" because they have no obligation to honor Congressional subpoenas.
Note that the same thing happened very recently in out history, regarding the Vice President's "Energy Task Force." The Executive said no, and it was up to Con
Re: (Score:2)
I generally don't consider that a "power", more of a "feature" since unlike the ability to create or enforce law, it can't be used "against" someone else.
the President has the authority to sign that bill, and then say, I will enforce this law in accordance with the Constitution, which means that he won't violate the Constitution and take away the right of a white blonde women to carry a gun.
And this is acceptable because? If he
Re: (Score:2)
What I said: that Executive branch communications are presumptively privileged.
I generally don't consider that a "power", more of a "feature" since unlike the ability to create or enforce law, it can't be used "against" someone else.
Well, not according to James Madison. In Federalist 51 [federali.st], he talks about the separation of powers, and notes that one of the powers each branch has is the power of self-defense (his words) from encroachments by the other two branches. This power is important because, he notes:
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well, thanks! That clears it right up. Since he is permitted to cherry pick whatever laws he wishes to enforce [wikipedia.org], not upholding the law in its entirety is not a violation of his oath. Therefore, I concede that signing statements contradicting the laws he signs are therefore not grounds for impeachment. (As for laws already on the books, if I ha
Re: (Score:2)
He has a duty to faithfully execute the duties of the office of the President. Nowhere is it stated that one of those duties is to enforce all the laws he signs
Oh, well, thanks! That clears it right up. Since he is permitted to cherry pick whatever laws he wishes to enforce [wikipedia.org], not upholding the law in its entirety is not a violation of his oath.
Correct.
Therefore, I concede that signing statements contradicting the laws he signs are therefore not grounds for impeachment.
"Therefore"? One has nothing to do with another. The (fictional) obligation to enforce all the laws has nothing to do with signing statements. Presidents ignored laws long before signing statements, and Bush has issued signing statements reserving the right to not comply with the law, and then went ahead and complied anyway.
Nowhere is it written or assumed that the President must assume these pathological cases are intended by every law and veto any such law that does not account for all such potential cases.
Where is it written or assumed that a law that can infringe on the Constitution should be permitted to exist?
You have it backward. Where is it written or assumed that it cannot? Hell, laws that DO infringe on the Constitution are permitted to exist, all the time. That's how hou
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress shall make no law..." "shall not be infringed" "shall not be violated" to name a few.
Hell, laws that DO infringe on the Constitution are permitted to exist, all the time.
All sorts of things that infringe the law occur, all the time, yet people generally recognize these infringements as "bad" and attempt to stop them. Why is infringing the Constitution different?
Specter introduced it. You can pretend he didn't, but it's quite plai
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backward. Where is it written or assumed that it cannot?
"Congress shall make no law..." "shall not be infringed" "shall not be violated" to name a few.
That's beside the point. We know unconstitutional laws get passed, and exist, like laws for Social Security and the Department of Education. These laws are allowed to exist, even though they are plainly unconstitutional.
Hell, laws that DO infringe on the Constitution are permitted to exist, all the time.
All sorts of things that infringe the law occur, all the time, yet people generally recognize these infringements as "bad" and attempt to stop them. Why is infringing the Constitution different?
Because that's how the Constitution is set up.
Specter introduced it. You can pretend he didn't, but it's quite plain from the transcript.
Quote? If I've been suckered into reading an edited transcript, that's ok, point me to an unedited one and quote it.
Nope, it's right there in the one you provided. I am not sure why you are having trouble understanding this simple point. Specter brought up the Supreme Court decision in question, and said it applied to the Constitutional right to habeas
Re: (Score:2)
My optimism is no match for the harsh reality, I'm clearly wrong here.
I am not sure why you are having trouble understanding this simple point
Sen. Specter brought up a case involving "Guantanamo detainees - aliens in Guantanamo". I'm sorry that I can't see your point, but at this point, I'm basically arguing over what some guy thinks based on things that were probably entirely m
Re: (Score:2)
These laws are allowed to exist, even though they are plainly unconstitutional. ... Because that's how the Constitution is set up.
My optimism is no match for the harsh reality, I'm clearly wrong here.
I don't know what is so harsh about it. Anything less would cede too much power to something other than the People, such as the Court.
Sen. Specter brought up a case involving "Guantanamo detainees - aliens in Guantanamo"
And in doing so made a larger point about the Constitutional right to habeas, which prompted Gonzalez to throw in his two cents about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the Executive who has the power in this case; it is the Congress that has no legal standing. The Congress can appeal if they like; the Executive can simply "stick their fingers in their ears" because they have no obligation to honor Congressional subpoenas.
Just checking, do you actually mean what you wrote there? Or, did you mean to say that the Executive and Legislative may and should each take these differing approaches, and it will be up to the Supreme Court to sort out which is correct, and you will of course hope this process will be followed appropriately?
Re: (Score:2)
It is the Executive who has the power in this case; it is the Congress that has no legal standing. The Congress can appeal if they like; the Executive can simply "stick their fingers in their ears" because they have no obligation to honor Congressional subpoenas.
Just checking, do you actually mean what you wrote there? Or, did you mean to say that the Executive and Legislative may and should each take these differing approaches, and it will be up to the Supreme Court to sort out which is correct, and you will of course hope this process will be followed appropriately?
The Executive has no legal obligation here to comply with the subpoenas, as these Executive communications are presumptively privileged. Congress can appeal to override that. It's not that there are "different approaches." It's that the Executive has no default obligation to comply, and Congress cannot force them to, only the SCOTUS can.
And no, I do not hope this goes to SCOTUS, and I doubt the SCOTUS would even hear the case. There's nothing that's been presented that would justify the Court's stepping
Re: (Score:2)
And your proof is...?
They're political appointees. They get to stick around as long as the President wants them around.
At least one was presented rock-solid evidence of voter fraud. He refused to prosecute, most likely because voter fraud is the only way Democrats can win elections. Other crimes that tended
Evidence of wrongdoing (Score:2)
they have no actual evidence of any wrongdoing
I'm not gonna get in a debate with you over this, but I thought you might like to be aware of a key fact the media is burying. Gonzales told Congress in January that he was committed to Senate confirmation of all US Attorneys [thinkprogress.org]. Emails recently released show that his office had been planning the opposite -- the Patriot Act end-run around Senate confirmation -- since at least December.
He also said -- and it is hard to imagine a more forceful statement [thinkprogress.org] on this matter -- "I think I would never, ever make a c
Re: (Score:2)
So you were in favor of Clinton's impeachment, I take it? Or is it only a crime when Republicans do it?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not gonna get in a debate with you over this
Good, because you won't win!
Gonzales told Congress in January that he was committed to Senate confirmation of all US Attorneys [thinkprogress.org]. Emails recently released show that his office had been planning the opposite -- the Patriot Act end-run around Senate confirmation -- since at least December.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about, because -- as you know -- Gonzales is already required to testify before Congress. What I am discussing here is only the matter of compelling testimony from people like Rove, who are clearly covered by Executive privilege. Gonzales is not so covered.
He also said -- and it is hard to imagine a more forceful statement [thinkprogress.org] on this matter -- "I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States Attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it."
And there's no direct evidence he did do it. There's only jumping to conclusions.
But, again, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since Gonzales is already re
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about...
Of course it does. It has been reported that the advisors in question, Rove and Miers, were directly involved in the US Attorney decision-making. It may be necessary to have them testify regarding Gonzales's knowledge during and before his possibly-false testimony, in order to help establish whether or not a crime was committed.
Congress is not only within its rights, but indeed has the obligation, to find out whether that crime was committed. And taking testimony under oath from the people known to be involved is one step in that process.
I agree entirely with that statement.
However, that right/obligation does not extend to overriding Executive privilege. Sorry, it just doesn't.
Do you have a source on that?
I'm not an expert on this but I've skimmed the decision in U.S. v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court wrote:
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about...
Of course it does. It has been reported that the advisors in question, Rove and Miers, were directly involved in the US Attorney decision-making. It may be necessary to have them testify regarding Gonzales's knowledge during and before his possibly-false testimony, in order to help establish whether or not a crime was committed.
Well, no. Congress may say it is necessary, but that doesn't make it so.
However, that right/obligation does not extend to overriding Executive privilege. Sorry, it just doesn't.
Do you have a source on that?
Lots, including the NewsHour transcript I cited in the discussion above.
I'm not an expert on this but I've skimmed the decision in U.S. v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court wrote:
Right. Which is why I said, if there is some actual serious evidence of wrongdoing that justifies overriding privilege, then things may change. And that said, it still does not detract from what I wrote about, which is that the Executive communications are still presumptively privileged, and that Congress has no right to override it: only the Court does.
That says pretty clearly that the claim of "executive privilege" is not absolute.
I never stated it was absolute, and in fact, I directly implied it was not, when I talked about the Court's ability to intervene. :p It is not absolute, but it is presumptive; that is, it is the default.
... it's all pretty thin. I have a hard time seeing the Court go for it, should it get that far.
:-)
Anyway, I think both sides will soften up on their demands, because that is usually what happens. However, this time around, both sides appear exceptionally unwilling to negotiate (though more Bush than Leahy), so who knows. If Bush doesn't budge, we may see an appeal to the Court, and if that happens, I think Bush is in a much more favorable position. Yes, there is a "confrontation with other values," but the Congress really needs to show that there is a serious reason to require this information: that they have strong evidence of a crime, and that this privileged information is necessary to the investigation of that crime. And that's a tough case to make given what we know so far.
The case you have outlines is the strongest one I can see for Leahy: that they are now investigating whether Gonzales lied, and that this requires Rove's testimony, but unless something new has come out, the case that Rove is necessary just doesn't seem to work, to me. And further, while lying to Congress is a crime, lying about your own personal noncriminal motivations, which themselves are subject to subjective interpretation
I would normally say the Dems are squandering political capital by pushing the issue, but as low as Bush is in the polls, I just don't think they could possibly harm themselves in the public's eyes by going after Bush like this.
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about...
Of course it does. It has been reported that the advisors in question, Rove and Miers, were directly involved in the US Attorney decision-making. It may be necessary to have them testify regarding Gonzales's knowledge during and before his possibly-false testimony, in order to help establish whether or not a crime was committed.
Well, no. Congress may say it is necessary, but that doesn't make it so.
However, that right/obligation does not extend to overriding Executive privilege. Sorry, it just doesn't.
Do you have a source on that?
Lots, including the NewsHour transcript I cited in the discussion above.
I'm not an expert on this but I've skimmed the decision in U.S. v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court wrote:
Right. Which is why I said, if there is some actual serious evidence of wrongdoing that justifies overriding privilege, then things may change. And that said, it still does not detract from what I wrote about, which is that the Executive communications are still presumptively privileged, and that Congress has no right to override it: only the Cour
Re: (Score:2)
More late-Friday releases.
Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings [nytimes.com]
Calling Rove and Miers may be mooted when Gonzales steps down.
Note again, the media fails to mention that Gonzales said to Congress that he would not do what we now know he had already approved. Sigh...
Re: (Score:2)
More late-Friday releases.
Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings [nytimes.com]
Holy crap.
That has to be the worst piece of newswriting I've seen in a long time. The lead is one big lie! It says "documents released Friday that indicate he was more involved in the dismissals than he has claimed," but that is simply false.
The transcript is quite clear. The AP story claims Gonzales said he "'was not involved in any discussions about what was going on' in the firings of eight prosecutors that has since led to a political firestorm and calls for his ouster," but he did not claim that at
Re: (Score:2)
I am, of course, now done with this discussion :)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope, however, that you now realize the fact that the story you used as proof that we know something that is not in evidence -- which did not even show what you implied it showed -- was lying in what it did try to show.