“‘I think sometimes you’ve stepped on one side of the line and then not wanted to step on the other,’ said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. ‘This broad claim of privilege doesn’t stand up.‘” A belated persecuted prosecutor update: After Dubya apparatchik Sara Taylor’s tortured performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee (which included lots of shaky claims of executive privilege, stories that don’t hold up, and some rather depressing confusion over oath-taking), Dubya orders Harriet Miers not to testify, thus prompting the House to move forward on a contempt citation for Miers (and thus increasing the likelihood of a legal foray into the still-murky waters of executive privilege.) [Oath link via Medley.]
Category: Persecuted Prosecutors
No, you back down.
“As the letter from the Acting Attorney General explained in considerable detail, the assertion of Executive Privilege here is intended to protect a fundamental interest of the Presidency: the necessity that a President receive candid advice from his advisors and that those advisors be able to communicate freely and openly with the President, with each other, and with others inside and outside the Executive Branch.” Dubya invokes executive privilege again in response to the Leahy/Conyers letter of a week ago, prompting further outrage among congressional Dems and increasing the likelihood of a protracted legal standoff. “Speaking on the floor of the Senate Monday afternoon, Leahy blasted what he called ‘the White House disdain for our system of checks and balances.’ ‘What is the White House trying to hide by refusing to hand over this evidence?’ he said.”
Leahy/Conyers: Not so Fast.
“We had hoped our Committees’ subpoenas would be met with compliance and not a Nixonian stonewalling that reveals the White House’s disdain for our system of checks and balances…The veil of secrecy you have attempted to pull over the White House by withholding documents and witnesses is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic.” In a “barbed” letter to the administration, Judiciary Committee Chairmen Conyers and Leahy demand that Dubya explain his rationale for executive privilege (which he invoked earlier in the week to thwart subpoenas concerning the persecuted prosecutors case.) Thus far, the White House has described the letter as “another overreach.“
Shields Up.
“‘This is a further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances,’ said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ‘Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law.'” The Dubya administration invokes executive privilege to thwart the recently-issued congressional subpoenas for info pertaining to the persecuted prosecutor scandal. Instead, Dubya has offered Miers and Taylor for untranscribed private interviews (not under oath), an offer Spineless Specter, among others, thinks the Dems should take. “[C]onstitutional scholars cautioned that this area of law is so unsettled that it is impossible to predict the outcome if the matter ends up in court.”
More Subpoenas Sent.
“By refusing to cooperate with congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation. The White House cannot have it both ways–it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses while claiming nothing improper occurred.” After e-mails surface showing their involvement in responding to the persecuted prosecutor fervor (and after an attempt to hold a no-confidence vote on Gonzales is derailed by the Senate GOP), former White House counsel (and Supreme Court nominee) Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor are subpoenaed by the House and Senate Judiciary committees to ascertain what they know about the scandal. “‘This subpoena is not a request, it is a demand on behalf of the American people,’ Conyers said.”
Above the Law.
“The story isn’t who picked on a sick guy or even who did or didn’t break laws. The story is who gets to decide what’s legal. And the president’s now-familiar claim, a la Richard Nixon, is that it’s never illegal when he does it.” Dahlia Lithwick drives home the disturbing message of last week’s Comey revelations. And, also in Slate, Frank Bowman offers another reason why Alberto Gonzales should be impeached: the firing of David Iglesias. Update: In related news, Specter thinks Gonzales will soon quit, particularly if the Senate passes a no-confidence vote on him. (The White House, thus far, disagrees.)
Digging Deeper…
“I continue to hope that the Department will cooperate with the Committee’s investigation, but it is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry have not been produced.” On the prosecutorial front, Patrick Leahy subpoenas Karl Rove’s e-mails (or at least what’s left of them), and the Justice Department begins its own inquiry into Monica Goodling, to ascertain whether political bias played a part in her hiring decisions. The plot thickens…
McCain piles on.
Meanwhile, also on the persecuted prosecutors tip, McCain says it’s time for Gonzales to go. “I think that out of loyalty to the president that that would probably be the best thing that he could do.“
Now Dubya has a Monica problem.
Ah, I do love me that oversight. On the persecuted prosecutor front, the House Judiciary votes 32-6 to grant Gonzales aide Monica Gooding limited immunity, so that she may testify with impunity about the shady goings-on in Dubya’s Justice Department. “‘She was apparently involved in crucial discussions over a two-year period with senior White House aides, and with other senior Justice officials, in which the termination list was developed, refined and finalized,’ Conyers said.” Meanwhile, despite Dubya’s reaffirmed support of late, more Republican senators call for Gonzales’ ousting, including Norm Coleman (MN), Lamar Alexander (TN), and Susan Collins (ME).
We’re coming to get you, Karl.
“‘We will take the evidence where it leads us. We will not leave any stone unturned.’” Well, Sheryl Crow’s the least of his worries now. Based on the fact that several different current investigations seem to point his way, the White House’s Office of Special Counsel opens an inquiry into Karl Rove, to ascertain if (and how often) he’s violated the Hatch Act. “‘This is a big deal,’ Paul C. Light, a New York University expert on the executive branch, said of [Special Counsel] Bloch’s plan. ‘It is a significant moment for the administration and Karl Rove. It speaks to the growing sense that there is a nexus at the White House that explains what’s going on in these disparate investigations.’” And, in related news, John Edwards calls for Rove’s firing, based on his refusal to testify about the persecuted prosecutors.