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.
I guess they don’t understand ‘at the pleasure of the President’.
It’ll be interesting to hear Mark Levin’s opinion on this tonight...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Just damn.
Congress has absolutely no authority to go on a hunting expedition amongst the Ex. Branch papers with NO hint of wrong doing.
vaudine
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.
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.
Actually, Congress does need to restore its authority to hold individuals who refuse to testify before it in contempt. Too many people in the last 20 or 30 years have just sneered at Congress, openly lied and refused to testify or just not shown up to testify.
And by this, I mean they need to perform “inherent contempt” hearings, not foist off their duty to the Justice Department in the first place.
In turn, this would force Congress to restore some sense to the hearings process. They hold far too many nonsense and harassment hearings and have for far too long.
“In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821) which held that Congress’ power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was “not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.”
The historical interpretation that bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made “contempt of Congress” a criminal offense against the United States.
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in (inherent) contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857.
While Congress retains its “inherent contempt” authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against a U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), a former Postmaster, William P. MacCracken, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.
The Postmaster had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935).
The US Constitution has a procedure for pursuing charges against the President — it’s called impeachment. Anything else is just the blowhards in a Demagogue Congress harassing the WH with bogus allegations. They can go F*** each other.
What is serious is that knuckleheads like Connyers and others of his type think they are president.
no, it’s not wrong. It perfectly describes Bush’s attitude—just look at the immigration bill.
I don’t understand how so many supposed conservatives here can support this.
It seems to me that the justice department is the one who should initiate thing rather than Congress. Congress makes the laws. They don’t enforce them. If a law was broken, they could perhaps point to which one was broken (which of course they can’t because these attorneys serve at the will of the President).
What is deadly serious is how Congress is trying to destroy the separation of powers and weaken the Presidency of the nation. They want to rule it ALL. They need to be checked on their agressive campaign to destroy Bush. THEY are abusing their power. NOT the President.
You left out a very important part. It actually reads, 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.
It makes perfect sense to me. Why should the executive branch do the bidding of the legislative branch on a matter the executive has said is a matter of constitutional separation of powers?
They've already said that they disagree with Congress' position. Why should they pursue themselves over a disagreement?
