Oh no he didn’t did he? Yikes. Problem is, when the Congressional Jets refuse to protect their home turf, the Administration Sharks piss all over it.

Heard back from the DOJ, EW? I’ve been holding my breath and it’s getting difficult.

Waxman’s site now has the documents up and, oh yes, he did.

Remember, this is Waxman’s first go around with this stuff. And given that Bush did NOT invoke EP when Cheney first testified, hard to see how it’s legitimate here.

Shorter Mukasey:

Impeach or shut up.

Obstruction of Justice.

Audacious contempt!

‘cept if they did insta declassification I guess they made outing a spy legal. Asses.

Well yeah, I didn’t even bother with that, which goes without saying. Said all along, privileges are subject to waiver.

Hi JThompson. Have you done any more research on FARC or the hostages?

Thanks for starting a thread on this. Kind of highjacked the end of your “Lying Sack” thread to start discussion on this. Sorry.

So? DO we have our new netroots marching orders?

I almost agree with Mukasey. Here’s the crux of his argument:

The only subpoenaed document that the Committee addresses with any particularity is the Vice President’s interview report, which the Department has not made available for review because of heightened separation of powers concerns. Despite repeatedly referencing the report, however, the Committee never articulates any legitimate legislative interest in the document that might outweigh an executive privilege claim. Instead, the Comminee simply reiterates its general interest in White House procedures for handling classified information, July 8 Committee Letter at 6, and broadly asserts that “this Committee and the American people are entitled to know” about the Vice President’s conduct in the Plame matter, id. at 2.

These general assertions fall well short of the “demonstrably critical” particularized need required to overcome an executive privilege claim.

By not using impeachment as the lever, the Congress has weakened its case for getting these documents.

Does this privilege even belong to Bush? The interview already exists. I hope the Democrats do something about this and politicians like Levin don’t just blame a lack of oversight from two years ago. Honestly, it’s why holding him accountible yesterday seemed important to me, even though I didn’t jump in. At some point, if we’re overly polite to the enablers in Congress who continue to do nothing, we are complicit in torture as well.

Oversight CAN’T use impeachment; they’re not the ones that get to impeach. HJC–which has a pending subpoena to Mukasey specifically citing the President’s pardon power–can. And HJC’s claim is much more on point.

Just so there’s no doubt, from Asst. AG Nelson’s letter to Waxman:

Accordingly,the Attorney General has requested that the President assert executive privilege with respect to these documents, and the President has done so.

Unfortunately, Waxan will probably hem and Haw for a few months. I doubt we’ll see contempt vote before election. All talk, no action.

I disagree. The idea that impeachment has to start in the Judiciary Committee is strictly tradition. There’s no reason that Waxman can’t start his own impeachment investigation for later referral to Conyers’ committee.

As long as the threat of impeachment is off the table, there is no threat to keep McCheney from telling congress fuck you. Impeachment hearings are the only way to short circuit the specious Bush claims to executive privilege.

It all leads to a Adam Kidan, a DEA operative, an Italian/Israeli arm’s dealer, a Venezuelan/FARC double agent,Russian mafia kingpin and a Tibetan midget having Mai Tais by the swimming pool at the St. Martin Beach Club & Casino in the Dutch Antilles with large stacks of Euros, Dollars and automatic weapons on the table. It was agreed that action needed be taken no matter who ultimately would be left holding the bag, the global media angle was covered and that there were friends in the White House. A little jail time would be part of the work.

It gets awfully hazy after this and I had to make great inferential leaps to posit this meeting. The one outstanding question though is where was Francis Brooke?

Is it up to the AG to rule on Congress’s “legitimate legislative needs” (”interests” in one other passage)?

Subpoena Fitz for a full week discussion session on camera on everything he knows about Plame, including any details he can recall on the Cheney interview.

If Cheney wants to refute the testimony, he can turn over the interview.

Hmmm…from Mukasey’s letter to Bush:

“Other portions of the documents fall “within the scope
of presidential communications component of the privilege because they summarize deliberations among your most senior advisers in the course of preparing information or advice for presentation to you, including information related to the preparation of your 2003 State of
the Union Address and possible responses to public assertions that the address contained an inaccurate statement.”w

It may be tradition, but it has been ingrained into their internal rules and procedures for impeachment consideration at this point. Like any other internal rule, it could be changed. I am sure not Congress, but I have two other beefs with what is going on here. First off, per your @13, I don’t think their assertion has validity because the time for proper assertion of EP was when negotiating with Fitz; that time has passed and been thus waived. There should be no relative strength to an assertion of EP that is fraudulent and illusory to begin with. Secondly, where the hell does the AG get off affirmatively demanding the President to assert EP??? That is completely bass ackwards.

None of the EP should relate to Cheney, because Addington said that he is not part of the Executive Branch at all.

This is as good a time as any to quote one of my former professors:

My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

…

The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of this body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachment of the Executive. In establishing the division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term, “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: “We need one branch to check the others.”

The North Carolina ratification convention: “No one need to be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.

…

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President’s actions.

Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. “If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there is grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.”

…

the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the … case which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions; impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who “behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

James Madison, again at the constitutional convention: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury …

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth century paper shredder.

Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? This is the question. We know that. We know the question.

We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question.

It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Barbara Jordan, July 25, 1974

It’s amazing how much of the specifics of her speech still apply, not to mention the general principles. One of her colleagues on the committee that day was John Conyers.

John Conyers when he was a much younger man.

The house lost all respect as a governing body when Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table. They have earned the contempt they get from the White House.

Congress? ….SO!

So, who’s gonna stop them?

As I said yesterday re Rove’s refusal even to show up, the merits of Bush’s assertion of executive privilege are irrelevant. They are just making this stuff up. They could just as easily invoke the Peter Pan-Tinkerbell principle. It doesn’t matter. As long as the Congress doesn’t challenge them on this, and they haven’t for 7 1/2 years, Peter Pan and Tinkerbell trump the Constitution and the Congress’ Article I powers.

Thank you. This answers my question: if “Executive privilege…extends to all Executive Branch deliberations”, how does one investigate deliberations about how to commit a crime?

When this kind of thing arises–another opportunity for the Congress to exert itself ob hehalf of itself and the good the American people—Congress fails to respond properly. Talk about “ingrained” behavior and “internal rules”. The internal rule here is that Congress and the Democrats in particular have no interest in performing their duties. Dennis Kucinich has formally called for impeachment consideration before Conyers’ committee and is it reported he will get ‘consideration’ formally, but Conyers has already told the press there will be no impeachment coming out of his committee. Waxman is an ardent “letter to the editor” writer, and the extent of his bulldog nature is to harass with pointed letters. What has he really done? HIs claim can only be “I threw light on the subject. It’s up to the American People to decide what to do.” He too, by the way, has publicly stated he does not favor impeachment because he doesn’t see evidence of a worthy crime.

So while we are all hot and bothered today over this development of Mukasey urging the Prez to proclaim EP over an recorded interview with his Barnacle Branch Brother, I want someone to tell me: Where is the Crime?–Because that is the only thing the Congress will move on. They saw the crime with Bill Clinton and called it “perjury”, a crime almost everybody down to street-level understands. What is comparable in the present circumstance that will move Congress off-center?

This is essentially the criticism of lots of others : John Dean, Gary Hart–they want something people can understand and get outraged over. A crime everyone can understand.

That definition of executive privelege is only valid Republic Administrations.

I like this:

Were future Presidents, Vice Presidents and senior White
House staff to perceive that providing voluntary interviews in the course of Justice Department
investigations would create records that would likely be made available to Congress (and then
possibly disclosed publicly outside ofjudicial proceedings such as a trial), there would be an
unacceptable risk that such knowledge could adversely impact their willingness to cooperate
fully and candidly in voluntary interviews….Such a result would significantly impair
the Department’s ability to conduct future law enforcement investigations where such
investigations would benefit from full and voluntary White House cooperation.

If you try to investigate this crime further, it might force future Republican presidents to stonewall immediately instead of going through the farce of cooperating.

I certainly hope I am wrong, but I just don’t believe the Demos in Congress have the cojones to do anything except talk. And I am getting more concerned that even if Obama is elected and the Demos increase their majority that nothing will happen on real investigation of the Bushies.

Does “executive privilege ” apply to the “barnacle” branch that Cheney operates out of?

What can be done now?

What would citing Mukasey for contempt lead to? How would that theoretically be enforced?

Waxman’s committee could initiate an impeachment investigation. The House rules don’t actually mention impeachment. The Judiciary Committee asserts jurisdiction because they have jurisdiction over:

The judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal

.

The Oversight Committee could start the investigation under this rule:

In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform may at any time conduct investigations of any matter without regard to clause 1, 2, 3, or this clause conferring jurisdiction over the matter to another standing committee. The findings and recommendations of the committee in such an investigation shall be made available to any other standing committee having jurisdiction over the matter involved.

Waxman uses this rule all the time. All he has to do is say “this is an impeachment investigation” and his case is that much stronger. I grant you that he should coordinate with Conyers, but still it’s there for him to use and it doesn’t require any rule changes.

Isn’t that incredible? Future politicians in high places might have to make peace with the idea that, yeah, they work for us and their deliberations and actions will always be open to scrutiny by representatives of The People.

There have certainly been countless forms of government where such scrutiny did not occur and the powerful could deliberate and scheme in secret, but just this once, just this one time in the United States of America, WE THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD DO IT DIFFERENTLY, IF YOU DON’T MIND!!!

If an aspiring politician doesn’t like those preconditions, well, don’t run: nobody’s forcing ya.

…and Nixon should have used Executive Privilege to stop the investigation of Agnew…

…and why then didn’t the Repugs think Clinton should have used Executive Privilege to cover up Monica or Paula — seems they went to the Supremes to get there way…

…oh I know what it is…Bush and Mukasey realize that Halliburton, Carlyle, ExoChevroTex, BofA etc. can still bleed a bit more wealth out of the Tresury but it will take another six months…

It would be nice if Fitz., or a true hero, would release the Prez/VPres interviews ala Daniel Ellsberg and let the chips fall where they may. Since no one inside the Beltway is held responsible for illegal acts, what is there to fear?

Yawn. It was already clear-cut obstruction of justice when Bush commuted Libby’s sentence. Congress won’t do a damn thing on this, which is only 99%-certain obstruction of justice.

It would be nice if Fitz., or a true hero, would release the Prez/VPres interviews ala Daniel Ellsberg and let the chips fall where they may. Since no one inside the Beltway is held responsible for illegal acts, what is there to fear?

It’s just not his style.

This really ticks me off:

“The subpoenaed documents concern the Department’s investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as an employee of the Central lntelligence Agency.”

Doesn’t Mukasey know that she was “covert”? Maybe that’s why he thinks this is no big deal…

“High crimes and misdemeanors” are what the Congress says they are. There is no criminal code which enumerates them. So the idea that there must be such an infraction before initiating an impeachment proceeding is a pure smoke screen and a justification for inaction.

Lying the country into a trumped up war, spying on Americans, negligence in the run up to 9/11, sitting back while a major American city drowned, violating the separation of powers, trampling on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, engaging in torture, detention without trial, the list goes on but the central point is that these are all infinitely weightier than perjury over a private sexual matter. And if these do not provide grounds for impeachment then there are no substantial reasons to impeach a President ever.

I would finally point out that impeachment is a process. The initial phase is an investigation. It is this uncovering of events that no stonewalling or invocations of privilege can prevent that truly provides the evidence and legal charges for a bill of impeachment. So when members of Congress say well we see no crime or we do not have sufficient evidence of one they are merely seeking to pull the wool over your eyes and duck their Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

There’s one more problem with this.

Waxman’s stated reason for investigation is that he needs to make sure the Administration is following guidelines on classified information. He hasn’t even held a hearing on fucking pixie dust, which might elevate it, but for now, it’s a relatively non-urgent reason for it.

HJC’s reason for investigation: the propriety of pardons, is much more appropriate for an impeachment investigation. Madison himself has bought off on that.

Waxman’s letter makes it clear that he sees the crime here (I’m doing a post on that now). But he hasn’t stated he wants the information for the reason he really does.

Interesting point. He’s been reading too much Free Republic, I guess.

Since no one inside the Beltway is held responsible for illegal acts, what is there to fear?

Oh, but some people are. The admin think their own criminal leaks are ok, but if anyone leaks something damaging to them, they will suddenly rediscover inquiries and laws. I’ve just been reading the Scott Horton/Jean Mayer “six questions” interview, and her recounting of what was done to Jessica Raddack (for giving good advice about the interrogation of Lindh) is chilling.

That’s exactly right.

I so want to believe
“. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confined in the Congress the power, if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment is a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim; the federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term, “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,”

##I am trying hard to understand. I just don’t get this part.. if impeachment is truly the only way to get to the crimes committed by Cheney in the Plame/Wilson outing why did they take it off the table so early?

If as Waxman asserts ” We are not seeking access to the communications between the Vice President and the President. We are seeking access to the communications between the Vice President and FBI investigators.”

Why is this not the appropriate strategy? If you do not know what the VP’s role was without accessing the communications between the Vice President and F.B.I. investigators” how can you move towards impeachment FIRST?

Mukasey is obstructing Justice…wtf. (thanks to the Democrats who rolled over and voted for him)

Or it was deliberate in that had it stated “disclosed the identity of a covert CIA agent”…it would have implied that there was a crime, which would make everything else he said in the letter to Bush a “blatant” obstruction of justice via the use of EP.

Interesting point. He’s been reading too much Free Republic, I guess.

No, he hasn’t. He either knows–or at least strongly suspects–that Cheney claims to have insta-declassified her status prior to the leak. And that’s what the FBI interview will show. That’s why team Libby got so upset in the sentencing phase of the trial. They started to argue that Plame was not covert, so Libby’s sentence should not have been based on obstructing on investigation into an IIPA violation. Walton said they should have brought this up earlier in the sentencing, and Team Libby immediately let it drop. Possibly because they realized that they’d made a serious legal blunder, but more likely because they got a phone call saying they shouldn’t worry too much about the sentence.

It’s code hearkening back to the arcane legal formulation of this relationship as “master” and “servant.”

I thought Fitz said that “truth is the engine of our judicial system”. If he truly believes this I hope he puts his style aside and exposes the engine!

Remove those clouds.

I have a question about Waxman’s assertion (and others’ here):

There is a key document that could explain what the Vice President knew and what he
did: the report of the Vice President’s interview with FBI officials working for Mr. Fitzgerald.
If there is one document that could pierce the cloud hanging over the Vice President, this is it.

Why does he seem so confident that Cheney would have openly admitted authorizing the leak of Plame’s identity. Why mightn’t he just have lied? I understand that Plame’s identity might have been “pixie dusted”, but why the presumption that this came out in the interview?

WO, I don’t disagree with you; however, there is a document, and I cannot seem to find it now, that I recall seeing that is something along the lines of “House Procedure Upon Impeachment” or something analogous to that. I think it was published by the House I believe. I looked for it the other day and could not find it in a quick search then either. But I saw it back last fall when the gig was still at TNH and I was researching some point or another. In it, was a recitation of the same principle about it beginning in HJC. As you note, that could be changed quite simply, likely by just doing something different. However, they are creatures of rule and practice over there, and I agree with Marcy, Waxman just isn’t going to do it.

Dude, Nixon’s crime was a cover-up. Bush’s crimes include 1)covering up the illegal outing of a CIA operative by the VP. Crimes, Crimes, Crimes. 2) Intentionally lying to congress in the SOTU address. A crime (you see what would happen to you if you lied to Congress). 3) Firing USAttys who would not follow your “political” agenda. Crimes.

And this is the top of the list. There was also this thing about false evidence to invade a foreign country and kill millions (okay, those things happen all the time). But what about torture? Both a US and International War Crime (why is Jay Bybee still on the bench in the 9th Circuit?)

There is enough here that even Saint Ronald Reagan would have felt compelled to investigate and prosecute (especially if GWB were a Dem).

So Dude, like you asked, where is the easy crime? I hope you were asking that rhetorically, because my head almost exploded. BTW, can you front me some medical herb, cuz I know you’re smokin something…

equal justice under the law…horse shit

Is this possible?

Congress and the DOJ are all scared to death of Bushco.

And given that Bush did NOT invoke EP when Cheney first testified, hard to see how it’s legitimate here.

Well, I’ll put on my devil’s advocate hat and toss this out -

The first instance was a situation involving a criminal investigation by a subordinate of the President, subject to the President’s direction and control with respect to use of the information.

This new effort to access the information does not involve a criminal investigation, or a court proceeding of any kind, and is only a Congressional oversight hearing and the whole reason no EP had to be invoked initially is bc the Special Prosecutor is and was subordinate to the President in a direct chain and could not use the information if directed not to by the President.

IOW, the Special Prosecutor and the President were never on different sides of the fence - the Special Prosecutor is one of Bush’s lawyers, a direct DOJ employee. No need to invoke privilege when you are the one with control over the info.

Why does he seem so confident that Cheney would have openly admitted authorizing the leak of Plame’s identity. Why mightn’t he just have lied? I understand that Plame’s identity might have been “pixie dusted”, but why the presumption that this came out in the interview?

My guess is that there were a lot of people in the room for that interview, many of whom were appalled by what they heard. And I suspect that one of them probably leaked to Waxman.

Yup. I also think that’s the reason he asked Bush for EP. HAd Bush done it on his own, it would have clearly been obstruction, just like the commutation. This way, they get to skate through that.

I don’t know. Maybe because Mukasey’s working so hard to hide it?

Nelson makes a similar argument (excerpt @34).

He would hide a badly executed lie, too, wouldn’t he?

how does impeachment proceedings get started?? who holds the levers to that?

Why don’t they start impeachment proceedings on Mukasey and subpoena the interview as evidence that he solicited a false claim of executive privilege from the president as a means to prevent his compliance with a lawful congressional subpoena?

How about dereliction of duty for Mukasey?

This executive privilege thing is bullshit- is there a way around it? Maybe not with only six months left. Clusterfuck’s in a four corner stall and the clock’s runnin down.

house judiciary committee.

Never underestimate Cheney’s willingness to pick a fight for no other reason than creating a dictatorship restoring the proper role of the executive branch. It is his overarching raison d’etre.

My question is really part of another thing that’s beyond my comprehending — why wouldn’t Cheney lie? Wouldn’t open admission of leaking an agent’s identity, even a pixie-dusted one, have catalyzed an aggressive investigation and prosecution? I forget the commenter’s handle, but he suggested the other day that Fitzgerald knew of the pixie dusting early on and prosecuted Libby for obstruction precisely because it was the only way of vindicating the public’s interest…to know the facts, if not actually prosecute the malefactor for IIPA.

thanks and what are they waiting on?

“restoring the proper role of the executive branch” will be the Republic battle cry if Obama wins.

i think you are on the right trACk… it is in cheneys nature to obfuscate or lie.. that he has proven beyond a doubt.

So, when does the inconsequential strongly-worded letter go out?

Cus you know that’s all that’s going to happen.

“restoring the proper role of the executive branch” will be the Republic battle cry if Obama wins.

It would be only if they thought Obama was that different from themselves. Cheney didn’t build a Presidential dictatorship as just an 8 year project. He did it because he believes in it and because he believes that a President of either party will use it in more or less the same way.

According to my quote of Mukasey’s letter to W at #23, it sounds to me that what they don’t want to be known is that they knew they were lying in the SOTU by inserting the 16 words, and there is documentation showing how they would deflect charges that it was a lie…at the time they decided to insert it into the speech. They don’t want the public to really know and understand that they deliberately and knowingly put it into the SOTU address to gain public support of citizens to go off and die for their Iraq agenda…after all…that is part of Kucinich’s impeachment charges.

i hope they learn how to stand up to real terrorists better then this…

65 - I haven’t read the letter and I’m not flattered by the comparison, but I think it’s probably technically correct. I know that Fitzgerald struggled in the pretrials to get Walton to not align him with CIA, etc. but he was acting as an in-house DOJ lawyer and Bush never recused and Fitzgerald himself is on file in pleadings agreeing to Bush’s and the AG’s ultimate control over the Spec Counsel’s office. So I don’t think Bush has to claim privilege in discussions with one of his lawyers or have his senior advisors assert privilege when they are talking to a lawyer within Bush’s chain of control and command.

If there had been an independent counsel, then I think the deck would get a different cut.

Heh…”they” are real terrorists….*g*

that is just it~!

But impeachment is off the table. Game, set, match. Bush wins because of PELOSI and ONLY because of PELOSI.

You make him sound idealistic. The ideal of a unitary executive (dictatorship) is not the aim — it’s the power to act above the law on behalf of his own allies and party that dictatorship provides; it’s the vehicle for piracy. Cheney understands that Republicans will always have the discipline to challenge, if not sabotage a Democratic president, while there are always enough buyable Democrats to give a patina of legitimacy to that sabotage.

The “proper role of the executive” is no more an ultimate aim than “spreading democracy” was an aim of invading Iraq.

What the heck you doing advocating for the devil? Here we diverge. In the first place if the power relationship you allege was true, what the hell was Bush/Cheney doing having to negotiate with Fitz for conditions? What power would Fitz have had to subpoena them in the first place? And how does this overcome all the traditional principles of waiver? I also don’t know about the assertion that Congress cannot investigate crimes. sure they can, they just cannot charge them other than impeachment. So, in sum, and with great pain, I call hooey on said devil’s advocacy.

If the HJC had any brains, they’d just impeach Libby. That should get them access to everything.

We need more AND BETTER Dems.

Per Greenwald–and I think he is right–FISA passed because the Dem leadership was complicit in the crimes.

We need Dem leadership that will not go along with a criminal gang like the Bush admin

Two OTs-

Over 12,000 Californians voted on one of the most important questions we have ever asked our community: whether or not the Courage Campaign should re-launch a censure resolution against Senator Dianne Feinstein at the next meeting of the California Democratic Party.

And here’s the answer:

95.4 percent (11,524 people) voted YES.
4.6 percent (556 people) voted NO.

Please join the North by Northwest Democrats at a reception featuring John Dean discussing his newest book: Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

Thursday, July 17
5:00 to 7:00 p.m.
Waterloo Ice House
6th and Lamar

##So why did Fitz so clearly say the ball was in congress’s court the last day of the Libby trial?

## When it comes to questions about undermining National Security do the very same “executive privilege” standards apply?

That last Fitz press conference at the Libby trial

“MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, I think you have three questions there. I’m trying to remember
them in order. I’ll go backwards.
And all I’ll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation
with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted,
that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act. That is a
difficult statute to interpret. It’s a statute you want to carefully apply. There are lots of — I think
there are people out there who would argue that you would never use that to prosecute the
transmission of classified information because they think that would convert that statute into
what is in England, the Official Secrets Act.
Let me back up. The average American may not appreciate that there’s no law that specifically
just says if you give classified information to somebody else it is a crime. There may be an
Official Secrets Act in England but there are some narrow statutes and there’s this one statute
that has some flexibility in it.
So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would
become like the Official Secrets Act. I don’t buy that theory, but I do know you should be very
Page 19
19
10/28/2005
careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in
making sure that you pick the right case to charge that statute.
That actually feeds into the other question. When you decide whether or not to charge some
other crime, you want to know as many facts as possible. You want to know what their motive
is. You want to know their state of knowledge. You want to know their intent. You want to
know the facts. Let’s not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty, but let’s assume for the moment that
the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment
to make whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or
walk away from it or recommend any other course of action if you don’t know the truth.
So I understand your question, which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you
have done? Well, if he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those
facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information is and made a decision. We have
not charged him with a crime. I’m not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What
I’m simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don’t have a clear view of what
should be done, and that’s why when people ought to walk in, go into the grand jury, take an
oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why straight. And our commitment on the other
end is to use our judgment as to what we prosecute and we don’t prosecute to keep quiet. And
we’re simply saying here we didn’t get the straight story and we had to, had to, take action.

### Does Bush’s “executive privilege” stance qualify as new information for Fitz?

“MR. FITZGERALD: If I can take it with — to answer your question with a bucket of cold
water and say, let not read too much into it — any new information that would ever come to light,
while the investigation is opened would be handled by our investigative team concerning these
facts. So if there’s anything that we haven’t learned yet that we learn that should be addressed,
we will address it. We don’t want to create any great expectations out there by giving sort of a
general answer.

FITZ AT THAT PRESS CONFERENCE
“Any notion that anyone might have that there is a different standard for a high official or that this
is somehow singling out obstruction of justice or perjury is upside down. If these facts are true,
if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice as perjury, we might as
well just hand in our jobs because our jobs in the criminal justice system is to make sure people
tell us the truth. And when it’s a high level official in a very sensitive investigation, IT IS A VERY, VERY SERIOUS MATTER THAT NO ONE SHOULD TAKE LIGHTLY .

ANY NOTION THAT ANYONE MIGHT HAVE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR A HIGH OFFICIAL OR THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW SINGLING OUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR PERJUR IS UPSIDE DOWN.If these facts are true,
if we were to walk away from this and not charge obstruction of justice as perjury, we might as
well just hand in our jobs because our jobs in the criminal justice system is to make sure people
tell us the truth. And when it’s a high level official in a very sensitive investigation, it is a very,
very serious matter that no one should take lightly.

#### I have a strong strong NOTION that there are different standards for high officials even when it comes to them undermining National Security. A very very strong notion.

typo alert;

if IS true

left out the “it”

That last Press conference with Fitz at the Libby trial

http://209.85.215.104/search?q.....#038;gl=us

No, I’m not surprised by this, if this turns out to be true. But if IS true, then it marks the second time that Bush will have used his privileges to shield something either terribly embarrassing–or downright illegal.

he’s invoked his priviledge to sheild himself and his crimes far more then twice, there is meyers and gonzales there are those underlings who at least showed up but invoked priviledge, there is more then one other time

Well let me prove my point via other means.

David Addington didn’t get EP rights to blow off HJC. In spite of the fact that he CLEARLY advised Bush on torture policies, he still had to go before HJC and answer questions. For some reason, WH didn’t choose to protect that.

But they did here.

obstruction of justice

EP can’t be invoked if it never attached to the communication in the first place. I think Waxman’s response captures this perfectly. The Vice President answered questions put to him by federal officers investigating a possibly criminal leak of information from within the White House. In the end, that investigation was found to have been criminally obstructed by his Chief of Staff. Stop there for a minute.

Whatever else Cheney’s Chief of Staff did, he disclosed confidential - if no longer classified - information to several reporters. He lied about it, as did others in the White House. Some, like Rove, finally “remembered” to clarify their former lies in front of the grand jury in time to avoid being charged for obstruction, too, by Fitzgerald.

Cheney may not have been forced to answer those questions, but arguably he could have been. Rarely for him, he concluded that cooperation was the better part of saying, “Go Cheney Yourself”, and “voluntarily” answered, however fully, the questions of federal investigators. His answers, and the President’s, are not matters subject to the exercise of privilege.

Mukasey tries to assert privilege by claiming that Congress’ request is overbroad and includes material “squarely within” the “presidential communications and deliberative process” exceptions. He throws in the “law enforcement” exception, too. He might contemplate that the Fitzgerald investigation is over and unless the Cheney answers reveal new crimes still subject to prosecution, it’s hard to see how the latter exception applies. As for the former, clearly, he’s gearing up for a long fight.

That’s how Cheney fights all the time. But Mukasey’s position here might tell Congress there’s something nasty in that record that Cheney wants to keep hidden. He certainly wants to avoid its release before the election. Then again, he wants to shield his entire record from the public permanently. So Congress is not facing a one-off problem about a few documents concerning an isolated matter. This is about their and the public’s access to all of Bush’s records. At a minimum, this fight should inform Congress’ efforts - and the reasonableness of honoring any hold - relating to beefing up the PRA and related laws that make clear that the public owns all presidential records, and that their and the government’s interest in making most of them public is of vital importance. As is making criminal the kind of reckless, wholesale destruction of those records that this administration has engaged in.

Privilege exists to promote the conduct of competent, open government. It’s not a business card from the Mayor of Chicago intended to keep Nitty and Capone out of jail. It’s purpose is not to hide the failings or criminal conduct of the chief executive or his co-president.

Congress and the courts would be fully justified in finding that Mukasey’s arguments are derisory and do not support the exercise of privilege. It might be helpful if they did that before the reports Congress wants to look at disappear like millions of White House e-mails and Kennedy’s brain.

Like Feinstein and Schumer who helped bring us Mukasey. No thanks.

the problem with this “invoking executive priviledge” is that from now on and forever, nobody even has has to show up to testify, they just “say they are not comming”

and whatever power this president claims he does indeed have regardless of any court ruling, even if the supremes sided with congress it would not matter one stitch, the president would simply say;

“I have all power necessary to guard and protect this nation, that power includes ignoring supreme court rulings’

there is only one method that will stop this man, that method is impeachment, nothing else matters, no law, no amount of reasoning, no court ruling

if the president says something it becomes law until congress takes that power from him

they are parties to these crimes, he can only do this with their bidding, he cannot do it without

simple, they are guilty of all bush crimes from the day they took their oath

Congress meets for two more weeks- and then it’s August recess—then it’s the conventions- then it’s campaign season..

Anything brought up now is pure politics and pure