Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings

Washington Post ^ | Friday, July 20, 2007 | By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein

[gondramB]

This is deadly serious. Its the Washington Post so we need other sources. But if the President really take the position that Justice Department "will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials" its going to be hard to take any position except the President is actively engaged in obstruction of justice. This could lead to lengthy, divisive and distracting impeachment proceedings.

Even though conviction seems impossible it will not be good for the country.

Hopefully the Press has this wrong of the President will back off. The President can fire all the attorneys he wants - that's (unfortunately a political position. Tell the Justice Department they cannot pursue charges against the White House would be viewed as political interference in an investigation of which he is a target - that sounds a whole lot like obstruction of justice.

Hopefully the story is wrong.

[wastedyears]

I guess they don’t understand ‘at the pleasure of the President’.

[COBOL2Java]

It’ll be interesting to hear Mark Levin’s opinion on this tonight...

[xcamel]

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”.

[glorgau]

Yep, if the Justice Department can’t do it, then all that’s left is an endless stream of “Special Prosecutors” - and that is certainly a failed experiment.

[pacelvi]

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.

[andrew7]

The president can definitely fire the attorneys, it’s certainly his pleasure, — but when their terms are up for renewal, NOT in the middle of their terms.

That is the big difference here.

[free me]

From the article:

It concluded: The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual.
Ted Olson

You are being hysterical. The President has claimed executive privilege in this case. If the congress disagrees that executive privilege applies then they can take that to the courts. What would the point of a privilege be if the congress could still compel testimony or documents claimed under the privilege?

[PureTrouble]

There is nothing in the constitution that gives congress oversight of the executive branch.

This is a fishing expedition by congress. Its politically motivated and nothing illegal has been done. So, its not obstruction of justice.

If they had evidence that an illegal act occurred then I might be inclined to see your point of view.

[free me]

...but when their terms are up for renewal, NOT in the middle of their terms

Please show us your source for this law.

US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Period.

[wastedyears]

That I didn’t know. Thanks for pointing it out.

[jude24]

Wow..

Just damn.

[mak5]

No, they are at will employees, who can be fired for any reason, including no reason at all, at any time.

This is purely a matter within the powers of the President and not subject to congressional interference.

[vaudine]

The Congress is wrong. The Executive had the authority to hire and fire these attys. at will. This dimwitted, politically motivated Congress is wasting its time and our money. They need to be caged. Of course, the Ex. Branch invited this by not nipping it in the bud and by hanging Gonzales in the wind in the first place.

Congress has absolutely no authority to go on a hunting expedition amongst the Ex. Branch papers with NO hint of wrong doing.

vaudine

[Logical me]

The president can definitely fire the attorneys, it’s certainly his pleasure, — but when their terms are up for renewal, NOT in the middle of their terms. That is the big difference here.

Where did you get this? That is totally wrong.

[ricks_place]

...its going to be hard to take any position except the President is actively engaged in obstruction of justice...

B*llSh!t gondram! The President must protect the U.S. Constitution and the Executive Office. The U.S. Congress can not compel the Office of the President which includes the advisers! It is the Democrat Congress that is usurping power it does not legitimately hold.

[traditional1]

"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."

[pacelvi]

What a load of crap. Please cite the law.

[longtermmemmory]

This story is pure spin.

Congress is trying to weaking the presidential power to just a “policeman at the pleasure of congress”.

They want to push a parlamentary system of governance where the house speaker, SELECTED by politicians rather than LEGAL VOTERS, is the head of the USA.

[cdnerds]

Monica did! LOL ;)