Court says Bush aides can be subpoenaed

UPI ^ | 7-31-08

[STARWISE]

Top aides to U.S. President George Bush can be subpoenaed to testify before a congressional committee, a federal court in Washington ruled Thursday.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected White House arguments that former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and current Chief of Staff Josh Bolten have absolute immunity from testifying before Congress.

The House Judiciary Committee filed suit after the two, citing executive privilege, refused to testify in the committee's investigation into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

Regarding Miers's claim of absolute immunity, the court wrote, "The (executive branch's) current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law,"

[Gaffer]

As with most of these challenges, they end up in Scotus.

[PLMerite]

Crap like this is why you can’t get anyone good to run for public office or serve at high levels of government any more. No way would I expose myself to this kind of b.s. for whatever pittance they pay.

[longtermmemmory]

...and this will be appealed.

[longtermmemmory]

True Republicans treat government as the halls of the enemy

Democrats treat government as a safe haven for them.

Is it any wonder Demcrats are more at home with our enemies.

[ridesthemiles]

Make me testify??

“I don’t remember”... over and over and over again

[antiRepublicrat]

Then the executive branch should be able to subpoena the members of Congress and ask them about their support of al-Qaeda.

They can, they have the DOJ.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

What the court said is that the assertion of executive privilege at this time is too broad and needs to be tailored to fit the specifics, then the court will likely uphold the right to assert executive privilege. They can't refuse to say anything about all knowledge they have but they can refuse to give specific information related to the President's Executive authority.

[ElectricStrawberry]

I say he goes right into the House on his own with this tactic:

"I do not recall."

Repeat as necessary. Make them make a case......and give them nothing to twist into a "making false statements" charge.

[KantianBurke]

So your advice is to them is to lie under oath? You happen to work for Bubba Clinton by any chance?

[Dahoser]

“I don’t remember”... over and over and over again

All I needed to learn about perjury, I learned from watching the Klintoons and their supporters testify. You don't say, "I don't remember." You're lying if you do that. What you say instead are things like "To the best of my recollection" and "I don't have a specific memory of that." These are the perjury dodges that you have to use.

[ElectricStrawberry]

No, because this is nothing more than a stupid political ploy, you make them make a case against you without giving them a "A-HA!! You lied under oath." moment a la Scooter Libby. You say "I do not recall" and if they want to try to get the "A-HA!!" moment, they have to prove that you actually did recall when you said "I do not recall." Otherwise, you answer their questions in any other manner, they're going to find the one stupid statement where you have minorly conflicting answers and jam it right up your arse with an indictment.

OK.....a supplementary answer to all questions relating to the firings of U.S. attorneys would be "Title 28, Chapter 35, Section 541(c) pertaining to U.S. attorneys states that 'Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President' and that's what we did".......but that's entirely too many words and they're clearly not interested in "the law".

They wanna play stupid politics, ya play stupid politics to your advantage.....you lean over to your attorney, let him whisper in your ear, and say "I do not recall at this time."

Or you could stand there and let them make every Republican look tainted and give them a super-majority with an uber-socialist President.

[KantianBurke]

I'd take following the law over winning political points any day. That's what separates me from this guy -

If they are under oath, they MUST tell the truth. Its as simple as that. Or are Repubs exempt from the laws the rest of us have to follow?

[ElectricStrawberry]

This isn't in a court of law.

In this political situation where one cannot fall back on 5th Amendment rights because it isn't a court of law........pass...."I do not recall". If it were an actual court of law....then yep...tell the truth.

Difference between this and your Billy C. is that HE was in a court of law in front of a grand jury, not in front of the court of opinion with hostile jurors.

[KantianBurke]

Do they or do they not testify under oath while appearing before Congress?

[ElectricStrawberry]

OK....super majority socialist Congress with a socialist President for the next 2 years it is all so you can feel fuzzy over a political ruse.

If you do not enjoy 5th amendment protections, one of those rights espoused in the governing document, then it is a political farce, should be treated as such, and "I do not recall" is the answer.

I know it's a political farce because "Each U.S. Attorney is subject to removal by the President" is written in plain english, without qualifiers.

Worked for Reagan.

[KantianBurke]

Coward. Instead of being able to man up and at least admit you’re advocating that govt officials lie under oath for crass political gain, you spout off about electoral concerns. Have a nice day.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Oooooo.....lame insults. How original.