“‘Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement.” Faced with continued White House stonewalling and armed with a new report that underscores the adminstration’s malfeasance, the House Judiciary Committee issued contempt citations to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten for their failure to honor House subpoenas on the persecuted prosecutors matter earlier this month. And, on the Senate side, Dems — with a document trail on their side — call for a perjury investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the same day a subpoena is issued for consigliere Karl Rove. Dubya flunkies, meet the rule of law. Update: More grist for the perjury mill: FBI Director Robert Mueller contradicts Gonzales’ prior testimony.
Category: State Secrets
Scorpio Sphinx in a Power-Suit.
“‘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.]
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.”
Steel yourself, America.
In a document dump of both exhilarating and terrifying proportions, the CIA announced it will release its “family jewels” next week: close to 700 pages of documents chronicling secret Agency activity from the fifties to the seventies. (A preview of what’s to come includes reports of detentions, wiretapping, surveillance, and other sordid current administration favorites.) “CIA Director Michael Hayden on Thursday called the documents being released next week unflattering, but he added that ‘it is CIA’s history.’ ‘The documents provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency,’ Hayden told a conference of historians.” Hmm, we’ll see.
The People v. Dick Cheney.
“He’s saying he’s above the law…It just seems to me this is arrogant and shows bad judgment.” Also in related news, historians probably shouldn’t expect a similar classified document dump a quarter-century from now: Word leaks from a congressional committee that Cheney has refused to comply with the National Archives in preserving classified documents over the past four years and even tried to abolish the office responsible for enforcing the law. “Cheney’s office declined to discuss what it called internal matters…The Justice Department confirmed yesterday that it is looking into the issue.” Another day, another imperial prerogative attempted by these lawless yokels in the White House.
Nope, can’t have those either.
Think I’m being shrill? Ok, here’s another: After listening to former Attorney General John Ashcroft discuss internal differences over Dubya’s illegal surveillance program yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-3 to issue subpoenas for White House and Justice Department documents regarding the eavesdropping system. “The White House made no move to comply.“
RNCmail: Off the Radar.
It’s not just Karl. Newly released information finds that as many as 88 officials in the Dubya White House have been (illegally) using RNC e-mail addresses as a back-door way to discuss official business off the record. “‘As a result of these policies, potentially hundreds of thousands of White House e-mails have been destroyed, many of which may be presidential records,’ the report said.“
Deconstructing Harvey.
“But reading Mansfield has real value for understanding the dominant right-wing movement in this country. Because he is an academic, and a quite intelligent one, he makes intellectually honest arguments, by which I mean that he does not disguise what he thinks in politically palatable slogans, but instead really describes the actual premises on which political beliefs are based. And that is Mansfield’s value; he is a clear and honest embodiment of what the Bush movement is.” Glenn Greenwald eviscerates Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield after the latter pens an op-ed for the WSJ entitled “The Case for the Strong Executive — Under some circumstances, the Rule of Law must yield to the need for Energy.” See the problem in that title? It kinda jumps out at you.