Posted on 07/20/2007 8:52:39 AM PDT by gondramB
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
>>...under President Reagan the justice department declined to pursue a contempt of congress prosecution. If the article were correct and President Bush was ordering the Justice department not to pursue a contempt of congress referral against him that would be different.
Obviously i have no idea what President Reagan told the JP in private but at least he had the good sense not to announce he was ordering them kill the investigation of himself.
>>Looks like a convoluted “double entendre” - wherein the justice department cannot pursue charges proffered by congressional democrats based on a fictitious belief that the president does not, and cannot assert “executive privilege” or terminate anyone that serves only “at the pleasure of the president”.<<
Maybe Justice can’t or won’t investigate the President but that sure would be better coming from them rather than from the President.
The only two times that executive privalege has gone to the supreme court, that I am aware of, the President lost.
In both cases, Thomas Jefferson and Bill Clinton, the court did not reject the idea of executive privilege but ruled it could not be used to thwart an investigation.
Even if this administration disagrees (which apparently they do) it would be better to have investigations of the President dropped by the Justice Department rather dropped at the order of the President.
That said, this is the Washington Post and there’s no telling how they may have slanted the story.
>>Let them bring on Impeachment. If the American people punished the Republicans for bringing on Impeachment of Clinton during a time of false, then let’s see how the America people react toward Congress if they go for impeachment during a time of dire war.<<
I have the same concern about a possible impeachment that I had about the Clinton impeachment - will it hurt the country.
In retrospect I don’t think the Clinton impeachment hurt the country - but who knows about this one, should it happen.
>>The article makes this much sense.<<
Since its been 24 hours and there hasn’t been wide coverage I’m betting that the Washington Post applied to much spin for even the MSM.
I love this picture
“GW should have cleaned house when he took office - not half way through the term.”
Actually he did, the dismissed attorneys were appointed by President Bush during his first four years.
In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress
The white house is president Reagan's white house.
So... that means Reagan used the courts but gave in before it came to a head, is that correct?
Bush should start every morning by urinating on the Washington Compost and NT Slimes.
Contempt of Congress is a constitutional right, and a sensible position.
This will have to be resolved by the (Roberts) court.
>>Bush should start every morning by urinating on the Washington Compost and NT Slimes.<<
Maybe he does... :)
But I’d just as soon not know about about it - somebody might decide we need urination reality TV shows.
>>Contempt of Congress is a constitutional right, and a sensible position.
This will have to be resolved by the (Roberts) court.<<
Contempt of congress is constitutional and follows a long line of English and Roman law.
Executive privilege is also constitutional.
They both have limits - congress can only investigate with subpoena power those things related to their legislation of constitutional powers.
And executive privilige cannot be used to prevent evidence from being used in legitimate investigations.
Thomas Jefferson claimed the right to withhold evidence against his vice President based on executive privilige and
was slapped down by the supreme court. The President has lost or backed down every time he pushed privilige as including the right to thwart an investigation.
I deeply, sincerely hope President Bush does not follow down that path. Since he is not willing to go to court there are only three possible ends, all bad..
1. We establish the precedent that President can stop investigations against himself and supporters.
or 2. He backs down in humiliation
3. A constitutional crisis and/or impeachment.
What mr bush needs is a good constitutional lawyer...
MS ANNIE COULTER COMES TO MIND....SHE can shove it up the dems like no other....
yes yes....
>>What mr bush needs is a good constitutional lawyer...
MS ANNIE COULTER COMES TO MIND....SHE can shove it up the dems like no other....
yes yes....<<
I don’t understand picking this fight with 18 months left - we have so many important things to do. Not the least of which is keep pushing in Iraq.. and dealing with the re-emerging cold war with Russia... and we have an Islamic movement in Turkey to deal with and they 130,000 troops on the border of Iraq. Iran with nukes and helping terrorists... Not to mention the economy - we need to fight off bailouts for “subprime” loans and try to balance the budget.
And to spend political capital on the fight the President can squash investigations against himself seems a waste.
not to mention its wrong.
If there were some real underlying crime, OK, but all this is political crap from the Congress seeking to tear apart an action which the President HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE WITHOUT EXPLANATION.
>>If there were some real underlying crime, OK, but all this is political crap from the Congress seeking to tear apart an action which the President HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE WITHOUT EXPLANATION.<<
For the future, how do you know if the President has done something wrong if he can quash any investigation by claiming privilege? Are we gonna accept that argument from the next President?
That is the big difference here.
Wrong. There is no difference. They serve entirely at the pleasure of the President, and he can fire them at any time for any reason or for no reason.
No, they are at will employees, who can be fired for any reason, including no reason at all, at any time.
True, with one caveat.
They cannot be fired in order to delay, close or otherwise disrupt an investigation into criminal matters. That would be a crime, as we justly complained when Clinton did it.
Fredo has painted himself into a corner by lying about his role in the firings. He has made it look as though there is something there, and turned a non-event into a legitimate scandal. Fredo ought to pay the price for it, since the scandal is entirely of his own making.
For the future, how do you know if the President has done something wrong if he can quash any investigation by claiming privilege? Are we gonna accept that argument from the next President?
That is a great question, and the reason I am very uncomfortable with this strategy.
We must be very careful not to leave the next Dim president with an unassailable Executive branch above all checks and balances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.