White House Refuses to Answer Subpoenas

[JLB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19480518/

WASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

[TRIPLE P]

Hang the traitor. I would love to see that video.

[Gilly]

dems fishing....DENIED!

[JLB]

Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

[gilchristfan]

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/72.htm

[TheGoodShepherd]

I've never witnessed a more pathetic time for the Republic since I've been alive.

[nehemiah]

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/72.htm:rofl:

good thing they put some cronies on the supreme court this time, eh?

chimp is (finally) correct. one of the most embarrassing periods in US history.

[TheGoodShepherd]

:rofl:

good thing they put some cronies on the supreme court this time, eh?

chimp is (finally) correct. one of the most embarrassing periods in US history.

Ha.

I've been more right than anyone. My record in politics and Bills related discussions remain clearly above everyone else.

[nehemiah]

Ha.

I've been more right than anyone, my record in politics and Bills related discussions remains clearly above everyone else.nope.

you're wrong again.

[TheGoodShepherd]

nope.

you're wrong again.


I don't even remember you back in the golden days.

[nehemiah]

I don't even remember you back in the golden days.well, then........... the golden days must have been the last time you were correct.

:D

[Bellowing4DaBills]

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/72.htm

What's the probability of this current executive priviledge "debate" going back to the supreme court and them overturning it ?

I see in the news today that SCOTUS just overtuned a previous precedent.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/28/news/economy/bc.antitrust.court.reut/?postversion=2007062811

[35Pete]

What's the probability of this current executive priviledge "debate" going back to the supreme court and them overturning it ?

I see in the news today that SCOTUS just overtuned a previous precedent.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/28/news/economy/bc.antitrust.court.reut/?postversion=2007062811

Actually I doubt they'll overturn two precedents so soon apart. I think Gil nailed with with United States V. Nixon (1974).

[nehemiah]

Actually I doubt they'll overturn two precedents so soon apart. I think Gil nailed with with United States V. Nixon (1974).and they just overturned brown v. board of ed.

so they've hit 2 in one day.

bully for your "strict constitutionalizationismisticfraggiliciousists".

[35Pete]

and they just overturned brown v. board of ed.

so they've hit 2 in one day.

bully for your "strict constitutionalizationismisticfraggiliciousists".

Brown was an activist ruling and should have been trashed. I just read Gil's court case and I agree wit the majority opinion.

[nehemiah]

Brown was an activist ruling and should have been trashed.:rofl:

racism is a myth.

[nehemiah]

and NO, pete, i am not calling YOU a racist.

[Meathead]

its early but this has the feeling of the start of the sea change ive been looking for the last five years

digging his heels in is exactly the wrong thing to do right now. you could already feel our outrage growing before this as the wingnut colored glasses continue to fade. there are some very serious questions on the table and we finally are deciding to pay some attention. this stonewall tactic is going to backfire, its only going to heighten the publics desire to know what the king and his men have been doing behind their dirty little curtain

once that tide has clearly turned republicans will abandon the dumbass criminal like paris dumping her prison friends

the resistance is lowering

we might just do the right thing after all. maybe. possibly

ok its a longshot but the odds are shrinking. im palpitating again

[Meathead]

well, then........... the golden days must have been the last time you were correct.
zzing

[Gilly]

:rofl:

racism is a myth.


not a myth, fixes like affirm action was needed back when.. but like unions they are not needed now. if someone runs into a racist ***** move on and work somewhere else. we all get gut punched and run into idiots who dont like us for no reason. just pick up and find a better situation. we all have done it.

[Gibby]

dems fishing....DENIED!

constitutional checks and balances and therefore the republican form of government which has run this country for 231 years is being denied.

[dilbert]

You people need to realize that the Bush Administration is above the law.

Not quit bothering them and let them get back to work of protecting America and fighting terrorists!

[Gibby]

You people need to realize that the Bush Administration is above the law.

Not quit bothering them and let them get back to work of protecting America and fighting terrorists!

my sarcasm meter is broken so I am well prepared in that event.

If you seriously think this: :upyours:

If this is sarcasm: :rofl:

[dilbert]

my sarcasm meter is broken so I am well prepared in that event.

If you seriously think this: :upyours:

If this is sarcasm: :rofl:
lol!

You must hate the "Decider Guy" and the "Commander Guy".

President Bush is a great American, who only has Cheney and Rummy close to him.

(Hopefully this is now clear enough for even a Missourian to understand.)

[Gibby]

lol!

You must hate the "Decider Guy" and the "Commander Guy".

President Bush is a great American, who only has Cheney and Rummy close to him.

(Hopefully this is now clear enough for even a Missourian to understand.)

:D, now please explain it again so Jayhawk and Gil can understand, what with them being from and/or educated in Kansas and all.

[dilbert]

When it comes to Kansasians, I usually only use words with one syllable or else they get confused.

[gilchristfan]

What's the probability of this current executive priviledge "debate" going back to the supreme court and them overturning it ?

The Nixon case was a little different, because the subpoena came from a judge (Judge Sirica) in a criminal case. Here, its coming from a congressional committee. What difference, if any, that would make, I don't know offhand. I suspect very little.

The point made in the Nixon case, quite clearly, is that executive privilege can't be made just for the sake of asserting it. The executive branch has to give justifiable reasons, national security, for instance. BTW, that was a unanimous decision of the SC at the time, the decision being written by Burger, a Nixon appointee. It was a slam dunk.

What this court would do if they ever got a hold of it, I don't know.


I see in the news today that SCOTUS just overtuned a previous precedent.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/28/news/economy/bc.antitrust.court.reut/?postversion=2007062811

Without reading it, that's disturbing. From the time the feds started hitting unfair trade practices through the Sherman Act, allowing a manufacturer to dictate the price a retailer could sell a product was always prohibited.

[dilbert]

Without reading it, that's disturbing. From the time the feds started hitting unfair trade practices through the Sherman Act, allowing a manufacturer to dictate the price a retailer could sell a product was always prohibited.

I remember when this ruling came out and thought it was horrible.

[JLB]

Bedrock presidential prerogative

In his letter, Fielding explained Bush's position on executive privilege this way: "For the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch."

[35Pete]

Question Gil. Is there a looming constitutional crisis here?

[Gibby]

Question Gil. Is there a looming constitutional crisis here?

Answer, yes

Gil what are your comments oh educated one and do you know of any semi affordable law schools?

[JLB]

Answer, yes

Gil what are your comments oh educated one and do you know of any semi affordable law schools?

Gibby the lawyer.:rockon:

[TheGoodShepherd]

Question Gil. Is there a looming constitutional crisis here?

Yeap.

Fielding is trying to muddy public discourse by making it seem like Congress was requesting military or national security documents.

Well, they weren't and that point must be made clear.

Remember, the Congress is in fact requesting papers related to the fired federal attorneys.

I don't think I've ever heard of an executive branch claim innocence; while at the same time refusing to cooperate with the Congress concerning an internal Justice Department investigation that could potentially expose unethical and illegal schemes.

The next step is to issue Contempt-of-Congress citations.

[35Pete]

Yeap.

Fielding is trying to muddy public discourse by making it seem like Congress was requesting military or national security documents.

Well, they weren't and that point must be made clear.

Remember, the Congress is in fact requesting papers related to the fired federal attorneys.

I don't think I've ever heard of an executive branch claim innocence; while at the same time refusing to cooperate with the Congress concerning an internal Justice Department investigation that could potentially expose unethical and illegal schemes.

The next step is to issue Contempt-of-Congress citations.


Regarding item in red. If these are ignored THEN we'll have a constitutional crisis.

Then it goes to the Supreme Court.

United States V. George Bush et al.

Welcome to impeachment.

[JLB]

That would be a huge error.

[Green Lantern]

Answer, yes

Gil what are your comments oh educated one and do you know of any semi affordable law schools?

You go to the best law school you can, and you pay for it.

[Green Lantern]

We have a constitutional crisis when each branch has played it's last card and the Supreme Court agrees to decide the dispute.

[35Pete]

We have a constitutional crisis when each branch has played it's last card and the Supreme Court agrees to decide the dispute.

Didn't I pretty much say that? LOL

Once two branches turn on the third then the jigs up. If the offending branch doesn't comply then the American people will riot.

[Green Lantern]

Didn't I pretty much say that? LOL

Once two branches turn on the third then the jigs up. If the offending branch doesn't comply then the American people will riot.

Your post makes it sound like the constitutional crisis is when the exec. and legis. disagree. You posted: constitutional crisis, then it goes to the SC.

I posted, constitutional crisis if the court accepts to hear the case.

Sometimes the court refuses to get involved and tells them to sort things out on their own. Which essentially means the branch with the last trump wins. In this case, the President.

[35Pete]

Your post makes it sound like the constitutional crisis is when the exec. and legis. disagree. You posted: constitutional crisis, then it goes to the SC.

I posted, constitutional crisis if the court accepts to hear the case.

Sometimes the court refuses to get involved and tells them to sort things out on their own. Which essentially means the branch with the last trump wins. In this case, the President.

I said no such thing. Reread my post. Should I call you a ****ing idiot for misinterpreting it? LOL

[Green Lantern]

Regarding item in red. If these are ignored THEN we'll have a constitutional crisis.

Then it goes to the Supreme Court.

United States V. George Bush et al.

Welcome to impeachment.

We have a constitutional crisis when each branch has played it's last card and the Supreme Court agrees to decide the dispute.

I may be an idiot but I see a difference in what we posted.

[JLB]

no worries.

[35Pete]

I may be an idiot but I see a difference in what we posted.

Well, if the exec ignores the legislative branch then wasn't the 2nd line of my statement really just stating the obvious? At that point you have your constitutional crisis because a SCOTUS petition would be for all intents and purposes automatic. I mean, it's not like congress is going to take the "screw you" reply from the WH and just take their ball and go home pouting, right?

[Green Lantern]

Well, if the exec ignores the legislative branch then wasn't the 2nd line of my statement really just stating the obvious? At that point you have your constitutional crisis because a SCOTUS petition would be for all intents and purposes automatic. I mean, it's not like congress is going to take the "screw you" reply from the WH and just take their ball and go home pouting, right?

Congress would probably not let the act just pass, no. But my assertion is that there is only the 'crisis' when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case because there is a conflict of opinion between the branches.

If the SC refuses to hear a debate, then there is no crisis because the conflict is resolved under the assumption that whomever told the other to fly a kite wins. No crisis.

Just my opinion, Pete.

[35Pete]

Congress would probably not let the act just pass, no. But my assertion is that there is only the 'crisis' when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case because there is a conflict of opinion between the branches.

If the SC refuses to hear a debate, then there is no crisis because the conflict is resolved under the assumption that whomever told the other to fly a kite wins. No crisis.

Just my opinion, Pete.

SCOTUS not hearing the case is a decision one way or another.

[г]

I always thought that subpoenas described your small-dicked (i.e.) average Republican.

Who knew ?

[JLB]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/29/164502.shtml?s=ic

Sens. Leahy, Conyers: We Will Enforce Subpoenas

Democrats took the first steps Friday in what could be a long march to court in a tug-of-war between the White House and Congress over subpoenas and executive and legislative branch powers.

[JLB]

In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, the heads of the Senate and House Judiciary committees demanded an explanation in 10 days of why the White House claimed executive privilege on subpoenaed documents and vowed to invoke "the full force of law."

[Green Lantern]

SCOTUS not hearing the case is a decision one way or another.

Pete, I don't want to go over and over this with you as it is not the main issue under discussion. You are right, when the court does not hear a case, it has made a decision. That is not a crisis to me. A crisis is when the other two branches fight and the court HEARS a case. Then, there is a waiting period because there has been no decision. The waiting, the lack of an answer, is the crisis. People speculate, 'oh, no, who has power? Who is right?' etc.

Get me? Again, this is my opinion as to what constitutes a crisis and we are saying different things. That is my only point.

[JLB]

Sens. Leahy, Conyers: We Will Enforce Subpoenas

Those jerkoffs would.:D

[uppy]

Clinton did the same thing "executive privilege" and I don't recall the demo's

screaming constitutional crisis back then

[TheGoodShepherd]

Clinton did the same thing "executive privilege" and I don't recall the demo's

screaming constitutional crisis back then

The above makes no sense.

Can anyone decipher it, please.

[uppy]

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t304/T304870A.jpg

Above:Chimpie building a decipher ring so he can read uppys post

[shiva2999]

The above makes no sense.

Can anyone decipher it, please.

It helps if you're loaded.

[gilchristfan]

The above makes no sense.

Can anyone decipher it, please.

Clinton claimed executive privilege for a few of his advisors during the Lewinsky deal.

He lost at the district court level, it was appealed to the SC but he dropped the matter before they heard the case, I think.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/28/clinton.lewinsky.update/

[JLB]

It helps if you're loaded.

Or you could know the subject matter.:rolleyes2

[uppy]

It helps if you're loaded.

Shiva, I don't get laoded until after 7:00 pm I posted that two hours before
drinking time.

[uppy]

Clinton claimed executive privilege for a few of his advisors during the Lewinsky deal.

He lost at the district court level, it was appealed to the SC but he dropped the matter before they heard the case, I think.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/28/clinton.lewinsky.update/

A Precedent from the Clinton Years

Finally, no case to this point holds that executive privilege applies to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government, such as corporate officers of Enron and other companies.

The closest the courts have come to extending the privilege to such discussions was in the 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton. That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government.

Under FACA, if a person who is not an officer or employee of the government is a member of a government group, then the group's proceedings must be open to the public. The health-care-reform panel had kept its proceedings private, so if the First Lady was not a government officer or employee, it had broken the law. Fortunately for the Clinton Administration, however, the court held that the First Lady is indeed an officer or employee of the government, and FACA thus did not apply.

The court strained the statutory language in order to reach this conclusion - but why? The answer is that a contrary result--to be precise, a finding that the statute's requirement of public meetings applied to the health-care-reform panel--would have raised a difficult constitutional question. And, under a well-established principle of legal interpretation, courts construe statutes in order to avoid difficult constitutional questions. The D.C. Circuit applied that principle in this case.

According to the D.C. Circuit, the difficult constitutional question was this: Does executive privilege extend to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government? If so, then FACA unconstitutionally violates that privilege by requiring those conversations to be disclosed. Had the court ruled that the First Lady was neither a government officer nor a government employee, it would have had to decide the difficult constitutional question--for FACA then would have required disclosure of deliberations between the (non-government) First Lady and the executive branch government officials on the commission.




http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

[JLB]

Shiva, I don't get laoded until after 7:00 pm I posted that two hours before
drinking time.

:rockon: