idrankwhat 0 #1 July 20, 2007 Anyone else concerned with this power grab? Seems rather broad reaching to me. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html?1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #2 July 20, 2007 July 12, 2007 Bush orders Miers to defy House subpoena WASHINGTON -- President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors, even as a second former aide revealed new details Wednesday about White House involvement in the dismissals. Both women could face contempt of Congress citations. ----------------------------------- July 8, 2007 Lawyer: Bush told ex-staff to ignore subpoena Says it would be 'unfair' for former director to testify on fired U.S. attorneys Updated: 8:02 a.m. PT July 8, 2007 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is urging a former White House political director to ignore a subpoena and not testify before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors, her lawyer says. The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to hear from Sara Taylor at its hearing Wednesday and she is willing to talk. Testifying, however, would defy the wishes of the president, “a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years,” lawyer W. Neil Eggleston said. --------------------------------- Bush Claims Executive Privilege on Subpoenas By Michael Abramowitz and Amy Goldstein Friday, June 29, 2007; Page A01 The White House invoked executive privilege yesterday in withholding subpoenaed documents on fired U.S. attorneys out of confidence that it can prevail in court and weather a political storm by blaming Congress for overreaching, administration officials said. --------------------------- Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A01 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. 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. . . . "A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen." ---------------- "For as in absolute government the King is Law, so in Free Countries the Law ought to be King, and there ought to be no other." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #3 July 20, 2007 I was wondering if the reason Bush and Cheney cut Scooter loose, to fend for himself, is because they knew this stuff was in the pipeline and didn't want it to look like they were circling the wagons every time one of this scandals cropped up. Back when Scooter was under investigation I thought it odd that they cut him loose. Now it looks like they were saving their trump card for a bigger hand. Who knows??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #4 July 20, 2007 > I was wondering if the reason Bush and Cheney cut Scooter loose, to >fend for himself, is because they knew this stuff was in the pipeline and >didn't want it to look like they were circling the wagons every time one of >this scandals cropped up. "Cut him loose?" You mean not stand up for him against the prosecutor? Why would they do that? They knew they could pardon him/commute his sentence if it came to that. Libby never really left their protection. >Now it looks like they were saving their trump card for a bigger hand. What's "the bigger hand?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #5 July 20, 2007 As I've heard it said (must not take credit for such a witty saying that is proving to be just as accurate): "This administration has an incredibly imperial disdain for the cleansing power of sunlight."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 July 20, 2007 There was a plenty funny column in the SF Chronicle where Bush pardons the entire GOP of all crimes. I don't believe anything could prevent such a move. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
