Not The Fight They Planned For
With subpoenas authorized, but not yet issued, for Rove and others, the stage is set for a possible fight in front of the Supreme Court over executive privilege. In 1974 the SC set a precedent:
The court, in a unanimous decision by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, also said the case for executive privilege was strongest where there was a need “to protect military, diplomatic or national security secrets.”
The Cheney government has prepared for such a fight all along:
In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."
With the current makeup of the SC the Cheney administration certainly would have a good chance to win, if the issue would be in the realms of national security.
This was the plan:
- set up a conflict with Congress over NSA spying or some other issue in the national security realm so that a successful claim for executive privilege can be made,
- fight this up to the SC and, with the support of all Republicans and the media, win a confirmation for the privilege,
- use the mark set by the SC judgement to deter Congress from further inquiries.
But incompetence and/or recklessness in the dismissals of U.S. attorneys have now led to a different setup. The case is certainly not about national security but about cronyism and obstruction of justice. The victims here are not some anonymous Iraqis or terrorists but strong Republicans with a loud public voice.
To assert executive privilege over handling this issue is quite a stretch. More so after parts of the internal deliberation, except for the critical 18 days, have already voluntarily been released to the public.
So the original plan, I assume, is now in jeopardy. While a court fight about executive privilege in the realm of national security would have full Republican and media backing, the public and party support now will be much smaller and a confirming court verdict would be hardly assured.
If as likely this case is lost in court, Congress would be emboldened in further inquiries. To lose now would emphazise Congress' rights and boost it for the next salvo against the "unitary executive." Bush declaration of war against Congress yesterday was a fake. I seriously doubt this is the fight the White House inhabitants yearned for. They will therefor pull back and settle for a negotiated solution.
Let's hope the Democrats in Committee positions understand this and keep up the pressure for the release of all relevant documents and for full testimonies under oath.
Posted by b on March 21, 2007 at 17:32 UTC | Permalink
a curious twist to all this, as I heard on NPR tonight, is the White House is putting distance between itself and the Justice Department. Little Boots is going to let Abu Gonzales twist in the wind. By putting the blame on DOJ w has taken away one little argument for arguing Executive Privilege.....if it is not about him then why does he think he can invoke it? If the wobblycrats let him get away with this he can then invoke Executive Privilege for anything and everything he doesn't want to come clean about.
oh well, we can hope
Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 21 2007 21:52 utc | 2
There is certainly every kind of legal stricture, angle, framing, and precedent involved in the acting out of this Constitutional crisis. It will turn on exceedingly fine points of the law, and get white hot along the way.
Let's keep in mind; however, that at heart this is a test of political power, and political wills. The intent comes before the act.
Behind the Dems slowly grinding wheels of justice is the will to keep grinding, no matter what comes out of the mill.
Behind the Bush stonewalling is the will to the powers of a military dictator, which can only exist if the nation's laws are inapplicable, or observed as decorum only.
The Bush people are damn close to having just that; they are exceedingly unlikely to retreat on the concept, or to give an inch.
So it's not a pissing contest; it's a staring contest. One side will probably blink, and offer a negotiated middle ground, before it goes all the way.
The most amazing thing about this contest is that the Dems -- who are past masters of surrendering before they ever get started -- have not a whit of a reason to do anything but grind the Bush crew into fine flour, and make a very public pizza of them all.
Mama mia, it's a fine day to be in the kitchen!
Posted by: Antifa | Mar 22 2007 3:09 utc | 3
Kos reports that WH press secretary Tony Snow was vehemently against executive privilege (when Clinton was sheilding himself with it) before he was rabidly for executive privilege (now that Mad George is sheilding himself with it).
It was just snark to refer to the administration as The Church of the Burning Bush... there was no intended implication that it really was a cult or anything.
Posted by: Monolycus | Mar 22 2007 3:39 utc | 4
Is this going to be a battle like the Schiavo case which brought Bush running back to Washington, the non confirmation of Joshua Bolton as UN Ambassador ... if so, it seems that the constitutional fight between the executive branch (White House) and the legislative branch (Congress including Senate) is met.
This fight determines the limits of administration power in the US. Apparently the white house thinks it can win the fight against congress in the legal branch.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in the law of the land, and if the US Attorney case reaches them the Justices might rule that Rove and Myers must testify under oath, leading to a further diminishment of the white house to do harm.
That goal is worth pursuing.
On the other hand there are roadblocks, for example some special prosecutor or other US or Washington District Attorney would have to be appointed to prosecute the case and it seems that the process can be corrupted at any level.
All that said, it is nice to see payback time -- even though the horses, having left the barn four years ago, are contentedly munching grass in their paddocks safe from the conflagration back at the ranch.
One of these days we should talk about the process and evolution of becoming politically aware.
Posted by: jonku | Mar 22 2007 8:24 utc | 5
Call for Abramoff probe renewed
Also, In order to understand the culture of corruption of Saipan and why Abramoff and Delay would be attracted to such a place for collusion and exploitation, the following is a must read article:
saipan sucks
Saipan is an island in the Western Pacific Ocean.
What can they really do even if they subpoena them? What they did was not "illegal" on it's face. It may have been unethical regarding the firings, but isn't that about all they are going to glean out of this?
I was thinking about this situation last evening and it appears to me that this is another big hoopla that is going nowhere and I was wondering about the other scandals that should be in the limelight. Before they are dimmed by this particular one. The 'Three card Monte' anyone?
There are 2 of them regarding Gonzo that could result in some jail time and that is the wiretapping that went on without FISA. Gonzo's participation was to become a central focus in that issue and the real story to me is that he either colluded with Bush to deny the necessary security clearances to those who would have proceeded with this investigation or he misguided Bush in order to block the investigation. Either way, it is criminal, no?
Then there is the issue with the abuse of the National Security Letters in the FBI. This seems more important and more likely to result with some balls in a clamp than the issue of the firing of these lawyers.
Somehow, this feels staged and like another scripted event that could fizzle and is being used to pull attention away from what appears to be obstruction of justice and abuse of power against the American people themselves. Not that the firings were not, in my opinion an abuse of power, but can this really be proven and what are the consequences if it can be proven?
Maybe I'm wrong and they can do something to Gonzo about the firings and there are some repercussions possible, I just don't know what they are. Now, if they can get him for lying under oath regarding the firings,then that's another story. Is that what they are really going for? Or what?
Am I missing something here? If they prove that these prosecutors were fired to put in Bush loyalists, then what? Congress gave them the power to delete congressional scutiny in the Patriot Act. Could the firings be stretched to prove obstruction of justice? If so, Bush will be out of office and sitting on the water lens in South America before this ever happens and Gonzo will probably be down there clearing jungle growth with him.
I hope I am wrong about this and there is something they can do. Just firing Gonzales, to me, would be less than satisfying. I feel there was obstruction of justice regarding the firings, but I wonder how easy that will be to prove. I know they have emails, but I also know how good at keeping the lid on all the other scandals this administration is.
Finally, truth be known, IMHO, both sides are simply making threat displays for the benefit of their respective constituencies, and it will end with some sort of compromise between the White House and the Congress. Neither side wants to risk the Supreme Court ruling against them.
I have been somewhat dismayed by how so locked into this corrupt system we all are, and how unbelievable, it is that it seems we are so infected w/this megalomania virus, that we root for the CIA, vs the Pentagon vs the DOJ/FBI ad infi, as if they (anyone) are benevolent saviors. When in reality the state/god god/state is a uncaring, unfeeling murderous entity.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 22 2007 8:58 utc | 6
There are always more worms in the can then one expects. As this can of political obstruction of justice is now open, one worm after another will wiggle to light:
Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case
The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.More to come ...
...
Government witnesses said they had been asked to change testimony, and one expert withdrew from the case. Government lawyers also announced that they were scaling back a proposed penalty against the industry from $130 billion to $10 billion.
...
The most stressful moment, Eubanks said, came when the three appointees ordered her to read word for word a closing argument they had rewritten. The statement explained the validity of seeking a $10 billion penalty."I couldn't even look at the judge," she said.
an old bbc report on the cia">http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/667/48/">cia is very timely today..
the plan to replace the prosecutors w/out congressional oversite was hatched back then as a bandaid to deal w/where these investigations would lead. they really don't want this scab picked prior to 08.
Posted by: annie | Mar 22 2007 18:34 utc | 8
You can hardly beat the idiocity of Bush lover Fred Hyatt in the Washington Post editorials:
Political Spectacle
If questions remain, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should be interviewed. They don't have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime. But their testimony must be as open as possible and should without question be transcribed.
Now that's his logic - any good reason why NOT testifying under oath?
Snow: Congress has no oversight rights ...
This is becoming rediculous - it will not help the White House at all. I doubt that any "center" media editorial will support such claim.
Tony Snow on ABC: “The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability.”
Snow on CBS: “The legislative branch has no oversight responsibility over the White House.”
Snow during press briefing: “[T]he Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we’re doing something that we’re not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we’re doing.”
copied from The Carpetbagger Report
any good reason why NOT testifying under oath?
obviously, because they intend to lie, otherwisethey would have to admit to obstructing justice.
be we already know that.
re no congressional oversite per WH. this is something cheney has tried to do repeatedly, amass excecutive power and be above the law of the land. just like clinton wasn't hauled in for lying to the american public, or his dalliance w/ms monica, he was finally impeached for lying under oath.
Posted by: annie | Mar 22 2007 21:12 utc | 11
US Senate approves subpoena for Rove
"I counsel my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to work hard to avoid an impasse," said Senator Arlen Specter, the panel's top Republican. "We don't need a constitutional confrontation."
But of course a "constitutional confrontation" is exactly what we must have right now. The alternative is to go quietly into the night of fascism as the "unitary executive" tears up the Constitution.
This is the guy who put the piece into the Patriot Act renewal that opened the door to this particular abuse of the Constitution. The specter of fascism is apparently a comforting one for Arlen.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Mar 22 2007 23:20 utc | 12
U.S. Attorney in Michigan Disputes Reason for Removal
The ousted United States attorney in western Michigan said Thursday that she was told last November that she was being forced out to make way for another lawyer the Bush administration wanted to groom, not because of management problems.The Justice Department was stupid to piss off the fired Attorneys - why do this? Why not just laud them away?
...
Only after Justice Department officials attributed her firing to poor performance as a manager — even though her 2005 evaluation praised her management skills — did she decide to speak out, Ms. Chiara said.
...
Robert Holmes Bell, the chief federal judge in the Western District of Michigan, praised Ms. Chiara as one of the most competent United States attorneys he had encountered in two decades on the federal bench, and said that the charges of poor management were unjustified.
But to move them out of the way with anything but brute force would be the way of the weak. The strong has force and therefore uses force! Fear the strong!
It is the "with or against"-logic applied to internal affairs.
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Mar 23 2007 11:08 utc | 14
The comments to this entry are closed.
Jeeze, this is starting to look like the Dems might know what they are doing -- I hadn't realized that, because of the rules of the game, this is a soft spot.
It just dawned on me -- I'm kind of slow -- that the blessed day may come when Mr. "Snarly" Cheney will regret the day he told Sen. Lehey, "Fuck you!".
Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Mar 21 2007 21:28 utc | 1