lindainks55 said:

 

Seems like holding up your right hand and agreeing to TELL THE TRUTH isn't possible for Rove. (shakes head and wonders how we got this far down...)

 

CF said:

 

lindainks55,

Yeah, truth decay seems to have set in throughout the Administration.

Thus far, Shumer has been making the right noises about not accepting these conditions. But I dont' know. I'm not confident that there isn't some sort of inside game between the Democratic "Leadership" and Holy Joe / Specter to play ball with the Administration and not open up the conflict over Executive Privilege. What we've seen thus far from Reid et al hasn't been too encouraging.

Still, this is BIG STUFF. The fact that Fielding is making this offer at all suggests that the WH feels pretty backed into a corner. Apparently, Bush has a 5:45 PM EST press conference scheduled. Speculation is that he'll offer up Gonzales' head in the hopes of defusing the calls for Rove to testify.

The hell with that. To paraphrase a highly off-color joke from the end of the movie "Colors":

The Boy Bull says to Papa Bull, "Dad, let's run down there and **** one of those cows!" Papa Bull smiles indulgently and says "No, son; instead, let's WALK down there and **** 'em all!"

As CF said, highly off-color. But it'll bear watching to see which option the Senate Democratic leadership chooses to pursue.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

As I understand the latest "offer", interviews with Rove and Miers, not under oath; not yet accepted, but wondering if it will be...

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Well, events move fast on this one today; according to cnn.com, the House Judiciary Committee has accepted the offer.

 

CF said:

 

VT,

Ick. I KNEW they would cave. Pathetic.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Why bother? If someone isn't willing to tell the truth I don't see any reason to speak with them at all.

 

CF said:

 

VT,

I withdraw that: can't see it reported yet on the CNN site.

 

Gster said:

 

If there is a valid and legal reason to pursue this, so be it. If not , let it go. Right, like either party is going to stop playing "gotcha" politics when they can! That doesn't serve the public good, but neither party seems to consider that when there's a game to be played.

One hopes st some point in time, things change.

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

They House should have made them go all the way in defending their executive privilege. If their terms have been accepted that is very disappointing.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

CF, here's the link; I just went back and looked at it, and the story has been revised from what I read some 20 minutes ago, and is not as strong on the point I posted originally now as it was then; prior version was quoting a Rep. Cannon (IIRC), not mentioned in latest version.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/20/us.attorney...

 

CF said:

 

VT,

Interesting. Sounds like CNN jumped the gun and reported there was a deal when there wasn't. Wish you had a screen cap for the earlier version of the story.

So, as yet, Dems standing strong. Good. They should settle for NOTHING LESS than testimony under oath.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

CF, abc on its web site is much more clear that no deal has been made, just that the offer is on the table; Fielding is already trotting out the executive privilege argument, and I expect more of the same from W during his press conference in about 20 minutes.

 

CF said:

 

VT,

Indeed. I almost feel bad for Fielding: he doesn't have a lot to work with or much room to move. Rove is guilty as sin, and invoking claims of Executive Privilege isn't going to sit well with anyone--a lot of Republicans included.

I think the Democrats in the Senate can wait this one out. There's no reason for them to concede anything. However, as I've said before, there are other dynamics going on that make me hesitant to assert that Democrats are going to stick together; a weird, inside ball thing is going on between Shumer, Reid, and Lieberman that has me worried.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

According to "Breaking News" on cnn.com, Leahy has turned the White House down; wonder if his old proseuctor's blood has been stirred up?

 

CF said:

 

VT,

DOH! You got me. Wanted to scoop you on Leahey's refusal.

But the more I think about it, the more I think there may a deal between Specter and Fielding, involving Lieberman, to keep Rove from having to testify under oath.

It comes from a thread I saw over at Digby's place.

***************************************************

Here's the thread. The poster named Bliox writes:

"Leahy can issue subpoenas on his own but he can't enforce them on his own. It takes a majority vote of the Senate to hold a person in contempt for refusing to obey a subpoena. (BY the way, the matter is then refered to a US Attorney - ie a Justice Dept employee - for prosecution.)

The administration figures that if there is deal that Spector has okayed, and that Lieberman will go along with, the Senate will not vote to hold the witness in contempt and it will be impossible for Leahy to get his subpoenas enforced. That's why they are cutting Leahy out and talking to Spector. Leahy may sound tough but he's carrying a very little stick.
bloix | 03.19.07 - 5:24 pm | # "

------------------------------------------------------
bloix--you make a good point but you also assume there are Republicans who won't support enforcing the subpoena, those running in tight races, for instances, in '08.
noblejoanie | 03.19.07 - 5:25 pm | #

------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it's a tight-run thing. There are potential defectors on both sides of the aisle. But Karl Rove is not timid and he is not afraid of provoking a constitutional crisis. These people live by Nietzche's motto, "that which does not kill me makes me stronger." Every audacious battle that they fight and win increases the odds that they will be able to install one-party rule for the next generation. Remember, the substitute US Attorneys are still holding their positions. Even if Gonzales has to go, these new guys in place to help steal the 2008 election - which is what they were appointed for. And who is going to stop them? Pat Leahy? Rove's not afraid of Pat Leahy.
bloix | 03.19.07 - 5:30 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------

bloix, thanks for the analysis of how a subpoena would be enforced, but I don't think the Republicans relish walking that plank.

Beating back subpoenas in 50-49 votes or 51-50 votes is going to be risky.

The media could play it badly for Republicans and the Dems control the House. What stops the Dems from issuing the same subpoenas in the House?
Carl Nyberg | Homepage | 03.19.07 - 6:30 pm | #

------------------------------------------------------

[To Bliox] I think you are wrong, subpoenas are issued by the committee with a majority vote of the committee. not the full senate.
treebark | 03.19.07 - 7:35 pm | #

------------------------------------------------------

treebark, you are correct that subpoenas are ISSUED by the committee. But what happens if the witness refuses to appear? One mechanism for enforcement is to find the witness in contempt of Congress and refer him for prosecution. The other is for Senate itself to initiate civil enforcement proceedings. Both require a vote of entire Senate. In this case, if the White House works a deal with Spector and Leahy doesn't accept it, then the administration will say, "we were willing to testify but the Dems want to invade executive privilege," and the full Senate will not vote to enforce the subpoena. So Spector is the key player. Leahy can exert pressure but Spector can make the deal.

Carl Nyberg- I honestly don't know if this could come to a 50-49 vote, because I don't if cloture applies. I think it probably does, and if so then the Dems would need 60 votes, which they won't ever get if Spector has cut a deal.
Bloix | 03.19.07 - 8:06 pm | #

------------------------------------------------------

And then, this:

The obvious explanation is that Lieberman will change caucases/parties because a deal was cut, Specter knows this, and he just slipped up in conversation, revealing the plot.

I wish I was kidding.
Reader X | 03.19.07 - 9:32 pm | #

------------------------------------------------------
Bloix, I very much appreciate your laying out possible scenarios. But what about Carl's question about House subpoenas? Don't we have enough of a majority there to make this happen?
Nell | Homepage | 03.20.07 - 10:51 am | #

www.digbysblog.blogspot.com

******************************************************

I think this is an amazing discussion, and it certainly one way to explain Specter's apparent behavior as some kind of deal-maker even though he's in the minority.

If this plays out, then the question arises--which I've been wondering about--as to which House Committee can take this up. I think it would be Judiciary under John Conyers. And I don't know enough about House rules to know whether a simple majority is enough, or whether 2/3 is required to invoke contempt against someone refusing a subpeona.

If the subpeona and criminal contempt die in the Senate in the way laid out above, I expect the House to take it up.

 

Predestined said:

 

"So, as yet, Dems standing strong. Good. They should settle for NOTHING LESS than testimony under oath."

Oh, hail yes, CF! Except for Libby (or is that Liddy? ), there's been no under oath testimony from anyone that I can remember in this admin. It's waaaaay past time for it. But it will take dragging them kicking and screaming, and I'm still not sure I would believe their testimony under oath, if they did it.

Call me jaded...

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

CF, you're right; the house committee with jurisdiction over this one is Judiciary, with Conyers in the chair. On House procedure, I'm ignorant on that as well.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Well, looks like the WH got its talking points straight; according to abc's web site, the President has made it clear that any subpoenas for Rove, et al, will be "opposed". Clear the decks; every argument ever made (plus a few more, I surmise) in favor of Executive Privilege are on their way.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

And once again, IOKIYAR. Standing firm isn't partisan when it's bush, but Congress is partisan now that the Democrats are in the majority.

I hope they stand firm -- it is high time they showed some resolve in making this administration accountable.

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

Harry Reid gets to the heart of the matter:

"Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer," Reid said. "If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070320/pl_nm/usa_pros...

Anybody else think that might be a pretty BIG "IF".

Rove under oath = Bush's worst nightmare...

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

I am sure we know little on what is going on here, but what in the world would be the advantage of having Rove testify unless he was under oath?

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

Also wanted to say before leaving, that this was an excellent thread. Thanks to "John Smith" for starting this.

 

CF said:

 

DD,

"John Smith" = CF. I think I forgot to tell Dubya who I was when I sent in the suggestion.

 

CF said:

 

So Bush's press conference was his chance to tell the Congress to "tell it to the hand." Good. Battle lines are drawn.

Chuck Schumer and John Conyers both looked pretty pissed off this afternoon. This isn't going to sit well with them. I guess now we get to see whether the scenario I outlined above comes to pass in the Senate, and whether and now John Conyers will pick up the ball in the House.

Alberto Gonzales' head on a pike isn't going to be enough to placate the Democrats. Not by a long shot.

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

"Alberto Gonzales' head on a pike isn't going to be enough to placate the Democrats. Not by a long shot."

Cool!

 

TRACY said:

 

Op-Ed Contributor
Why I Was Fired
By DAVID C. IGLESIAS
Albuquerque

WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.

 

CF said:

 

TRACY,

Good post. The facts are out there for everyone to see, although Republicans have been very message-disciplined with the whole "Bill Clinton fired all 93 USA's." Obviously, the comparison attempts to obscure what we all know perfectly well--that the White House leaned on U.S. Attorneys to bring charges of voter fraud against Democrats regardless of whether the evidence warranted this, and if they failed to do so, were fired.

Today won't be as interesting as yesterday was, what with a red-faced Bush on the sauce, spitting lies and playground bravado. But there will still be some red meat nonetheless.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

I've been thinking about this whole thing; what makes no sense to me is the Executive Privilege argument in what is seemingly a civil, not criminal matter. The battle lines are being drawn on this issue, to be sure; but, absent some sort of criminal activity surrounding the firing of the U.S. Attorneys in question, assertion of the privilege makes no sense.

I believe it is acknowledged by all that the firing of the U.S. Attorneys was, in and of itself, not unlawful. As political appointees, such is their fate. Why, then, go to the barricades over this?

I heard David Gergen last night on CNN. He observed that there was a compromise available, utilized by administrations on both sides, which he felt would be worth pursuing. Simply stated, hearings at which Rove and Miers would testify, under oath, on the record, but which were not open to media coverage. He indicated that this was used in the Reagan years (Iran-Contra) and in the Clinton years. This seems to be a reasonable outcome, to me.

One final comment on the Executive Privilege argument. I had been thinking about this (always dangerous) and wondering what a court would do when, in fact, there is apparently no crime being investigated. I had begun to wonder whether a court might let the argument stand in such a case. Mr. Gergen again to my rescue (?): he seemed to opine that a court might well accept the argument in such a case, vice a criminal matter. Again, perhaps to my predisposition, this made sense to me in a perverse sort of way.

In making my observations, I have tried to segregate the act (the firing of the attorneys) from the rationale (political purposes). If there was something unlawful in the rationale, this is where the testimony, etc., should lead the investigation. Again, the mere act of "firing" the U.S. Attorneys was lawful. What has followed brings questions as to the reasons.

 

CF said:

 

VT,

Indeed. What appears to be at stake in these firings is actually a principle that's so fundamental that it doesn't even have a law: namely, the blindness of justice, or the independence of the law. What's at stake is really "the law of law."

This makes it tricky to define the issue in legal terms, and also makes it easy to obfuscate or to mislead the discussion into side channels about Executive Privilege, which aren't really the issue.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

CF, exactly so.

On a related matter: do you feel, as do I, that this latest dustup preserves AG AG for another day? My gastrointestinal feeling is that the heat has been transferred to Rove, et al, for a bit; and this will allow AG AG to survive a bit longer.

 

CF said:

 

VT,

Could be. Depends what you mean by "a bit longer." AG might last as AG until early next week, but the mere fact that the discussion has moved so forcefully to the testimony of Rove won't save him. He's not well-liked enough to be kept around, since sacrificing him is an easy way for Bush to get back some GOP support that's been peeling.

Yes, he's a trusted capo, but I think he's now more of a liability than an asset. The fact that Rove is in the gunsights doesn't change that basic calculation.

 

CF said:

 

Hot damn: John Conyers is going to issue subpeonas from the House Judiciary Committee for Karl Rove and other top aides. This is intended to provide leverage for negotiating with the White House about testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/washington/21cnd...

Apparently, it'll take a little while for the committee to issue subpeonas. The real question is, what happens if Rove and the others refuse to appear? Here's a thread from TPM Muckraker that lays out some possible avenues of response.

******************************************************

"If the witness fails to appear on the subpoena return date, the committee could vote on whether to hold the witness in contempt. If the contempt resolution passes, it is sent to the floor (assuming the leadership schedules it for a vote), where the House would have to vote to hold the witness in contempt. If that passes, the matter is referred to the US attorney for DC, who is supposed to present it to a grand jury. (But in cases involving claims of executive privilege, the US attorney could refuse to do so).

There are other methods that could be used/attempted, but none of them involve Conyers issuing a warrant for anyone's arrest."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002832.php

******************************************************

Game is ON. I can't wait to see the frenzy of Right Wing indignation and traitor talk.

 

TRACY said:

 

I'm just waiting on Bush, Rove, and Cheney to storm the ReichStag and burn that bastard to a crisp!

 

CF said:

 

TRACY,

Wasn't that what 9/11 was for?

JUST KIDDING! JUST KIDDING! Had you going there, though, didn't I?

 

Gster said:

 

By being surrounded by a bunch of bottom-feeding Yes men, isn't Bush more likely to get "canned" rather than "candid" advice?

The notion of his taking and using candid advice is too much of a strech for me to take!

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

CF, the term "a little longer" is deemed for the purposes of this discussion to be a time span beginning on this date and expiring no more than fourteen (14) days from said date, subject to enlargement by the mutual agreement of the parties.

Sorry; just couldn't help myself. :-)

My thought: AG AG has become a liability; would expect his resignation (whenever it may occur) to be announced in a Friday afternoon "dump".

And Gster, remember that one person's canned is another person's candid.

 

CF said:

 

VT,

Some speculation I saw actually had Gonzales' resignation announced on a SATURDAY. Can you imagine how that would feel.

Of course, they'd be well-advised not to treat him TOO ignominiously, since he knows lots of stuff they don't want aired under oath.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

BTW, CF, thanks for the link to tpmmuckraker post; I found the sidebar on the "maternity leave" explanation in AR quite interesting as well. Guess pregnancy is always an out if one is not a private employer, huh. Competency doesn't matter, if Rove's protege is involved. BTW, not saying the protege isn't competent; just another illustration of the "end run" allowed by the revised (and apparently soon to be repealed) statute.

 

TRACY said:

 

Srub came on red-faced and basically said.......
BRING IT ON!

And we all see where that got the whole damned country last time he said that.

I didn't think it could get any worse in the whitehouse,.......

 

longhorn said:

 

heheheheh. Someone said that if a choice has to be made, the rovester is going to be protected at all costs. Something about him knowing where all the bodies are buried way back to Austin.

KKKarl probably shouldnt ride in any small planes...

 

rm6046 said:

 

I feel somewhat badly for AG AG. The wagons are circling to protect Rove, at any cost. And, I think you're right as far as knowing where the bodies are buried. Of course, that's just Texas politics as usual.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Tony Snow's comments on the "need for a transcript"; obviously, he's no lawyer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/21/white-hou...

BTW, the comments to this are well worth the time to read.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

So, Executive Privilege applies to conversations that didn't happen?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/tony-sno...

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

A short history on Presidential loyalty to those who became political problems (remember Sherman Adams, anyone?).

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2970302&pa...

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

Talk about ingratitude. The White House is actually wanting to give Congress MORE than they are asking for; but, no, those panzies in the House are wanting a "show trial."

I think the WH is going to need to do a better job of selling their case than that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20...

Q But I'm pressing on a point that these are not actually interviews -- that's your word. The senators, like Senator Leahy, say they want testimony. Testimony, there is a transcript. This is not an interview. You want it to be an interview, but it's up to the Congress. They're the ones investigating, and they say they want testimony, not interviews.

MR. SNOW: Ed, what we're doing is we're trying to be accommodating to Congress by offering them extraordinary insight into a deliberative process. You also know that everybody who goes -- the President expects everybody who talks to Congress to tell the truth, and so does the law. And they know that it would be illegal not to tell them truth.

So the question you've got to ask yourself is, is this pressure on transcripts and everything, is this really something where somebody thinks that there's going to be a fact that they're not going to receive? The answer is, no. The question is whether you are trying to create a political spectacle, rather than simply the basis of getting at the truth. This, I think, is an important and crucial distinction, because, again, I'm not sure -- well, I think we can say with confidence that they're going to get every fact they need to find out what's going on.

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

Would you buy a used car from Tony "Snowing 'em" Snow?

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Were they sober when they were having this question and answer session? I've read it twice and can’t understand it. That was a bunch of confusing words!

 

CF said:

 

lindainks55,

Believe your eyes and ears. I think this White House doesn't know what to do when reporters won't take "no" for an answer. These aren't the rules we agreed to!

And it's great to see Tony Snow look like the underwhelming pretty boy he is. He doesn't lie nearly as well as did 'ol Ari. But even Ari realized that the thing couldn't go on forever, and that it was time to get some immunity before things REALLY spun out of control.

DD,

If I were a more generous sort, I'd almost feel sorry for them on the basis of that excerpt. But I'm not.

VT,

Indeed; how can Executive Privilege apply to a conversation that in which the President wasn't even a party, much less to one that "never happened."

It really has reached the point where they're just throwing whatever they can at the wall to see what sticks. We already had Gonzales use the passive voice last week--"mistakes were made." What's the over/under on how long it takes for someone to say "the dog ate my homework?"

 

CF said:

 

And nobody has even MENTIONED the 18 day gap in the emails that were turned over yesterday.

That number '18' sounds familiar. Wait, that's right--wasn't there an unexplained 18 minute gap in the Watergate Tapes?

You just can't make this stuff up.

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

"That was a bunch of confusing words!"

You were right and I think that was the goal. Read the whole transcript, and I know you wouldn't say it, but I did, WTF???

 

darwinsdisciple said:

 

Actually, CF,
In the press briefing, the "gap" did come up. I did not notice the deja vu, numerology piece, however. This thing is almost perfect in its dimensions, no?

 

CF said:

 

DD,

Indeed. The cosmos appears to have passed judgment.

 

CF said:

 

And now the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize subpeonas.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FIRED_PROSE...

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

CF, indeed; is this action to create "bargaining chips" or, if negotiations fail, is the Chair ready to issue? Wondering..

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

BTW, it may only be 16 days...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.e...

 

lindainks55 said:

 

More words from Mr. Snow. Think he has changed his tune now?



Here's pre-press secretary Tony Snow in an op-ed headlined "Executive Privilege is a Dodge" in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on March 29, 1998:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Linda, the "person" signing the paycheck does seem to make a difference in Mr. Snow's case, no?

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

A lawyerly, and scholarly, discussion on the issue of Executive Privilege as applicable to the instant matter. It isn't easy reading, but makes several important points.

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/03/beldar_...

 

lindainks55 said:

 

VT, Can't you just translate it into something my pea brain can comprehend? If we ask pretty please?

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Linda, as best I can (from memory) to translate: Beldar's initial post was that the professor, in making his arguments, was giving little to no weight to the precedents in the area, viz, that criminality was a critical factor in determining issues of Executive Privilege. He also was critical of the citation of the GSA case in support of the general proposition concerning the extent, if any, to which Executive Privilege extends in any investigation.

There's more; I'll be back after I have a chance to review the blog posting, and the professor's response.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Back with a little more: Beldar is also critical of the Professor's assertion regarding the appearance of the Clinton officials before Congress, and the appearance of Dr. Rice before the 9/11 commission. Relevant to the latter, he correctly points out the limited nature of the appearance, due to the written agreement. Beldar also correctly points out the Cheney case with respect to the apparent need for criminality in dealing with issues of Executive Privilege.

More later, I hope.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Linda, if you are not already somnolent from my prior two posts, I'm going to have to abandon the long form translation and try to summarize (yes, work beckons):

1) There seems, from the precedent, a need for underlying criminality; Beldar and the professor disagree as to whether this is "set in stone" or not;

2) There appears to be agreement that a general claim will fail, especially with respect to conversations "not close to the President";

3) Prior examples of "waiver" cited by the professor are, more or less, based upon specific limited circumstances set out in writing before testimony is given;

4) There is a justiciable issue here on Executive Privilege, the resolution of which is in no way certain, based upon the sparse precedent.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

I thank you Counselor! I admire a mind that can read that stuff AND find the nitty gritty out of it!

So, bush&co is in deep sheeet and time is on our side?

I'm humming that tune now.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Bushco will go to the wall on this issue; whether they are in the predicament you present is another matter entirely. See my post to today's Open Thread regarding longhorn's du link, which links to a Findlaw piece authored by John Dean.