Comments on: Bush Invokes Executive Privilege to Shield Cheney’s Role in Outing Valerie Plame

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:37:19 +0000

Wow.
Nothing shouts “GUILTY (and scared shitless)!!” like a claim of EP.

Hell, I might even make an extra political contribution to a Blue Progressive today just to mark the occasion.

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:07:03 +0000

Had Clinton and Lewinsky discussed issues of import for national security? Was Lewinsky tasked with providing advice to the President on related matters? Then Clinton could have asserted EP according to Mukasey.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:53:39 +0000

It is not that Fitz wouldn’t do it, it is that he can’t. Much of that info in Rule 6 protected GJ material he cannot disclose, other is prosecutorial work product that he should ethically not disclose and that Congress has historically never obtained. But mostly, it is that the privilege would be asserted by the Whit House and the DOJ, and at that point Fitz is obligated to let others sort it out, not just unilaterally decide who is right or wrong on the privilege assertion himself. So, the scenario just ain’t happening.

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:42:04 +0000

My analogy isn’t great, but that is like asking an attorney to testify to his client’s conversations about a crime when the defendant has asserted his fifth amendment right.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:15:47 +0000

I don’t agree with the characterization that Bush and Cheney were talking to a lawyer under their control and that, therefore, their communications with that lawyer were inherently non-adversarial. And that as a consequence, any privilege that attached to that information was preserved.

I think the opposite is true. In the context of Fitz’s then role, those communications were inherently adversarial. As a consequence, any privilege that might have attached to the information they disclosed was lost.

Bush was not seeking advice from Fitz. He and Cheney were disclosing to a federal prosecutor information that could incriminate them or those who worked for them. That they chose to talk with Fitz without being compelled to do so is more akin to a suspect knowingly choosing to talk to the police without a lawyer.

That suspect might be a mayor or governor with the power to supervise or fire the police they talked to, but it wouldn’t change the fact that their testimony could be used against them or their direct reports. And that suspect couldn’t do even that legally if it were an attempt to obstruct justice.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:47:45 +0000

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 bullshit. No one intends to follow through on any of it.

In any other time I would say you’re absolutely right. But, during the surreal Bush years everything seems possible.

Usually if someone offers you something you instantly think it’s a gift.
Not so today, now we wonder what the quid is for this pro.

Yes, those things will come to pass, but what circuitous route is required?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:21:03 +0000

Marcy too. I am not saying there was a subpoena. What I am saying is that the reason there was no talk of a subpoena is that Fitz let them know he required evidentiary testimony from Bush and Cheney. They agreed, through counsel, to this format. Even granting that it would not be GJ, but rather an informal interview, there are still certain parameters that have to be set, including, significantly, whether there would be a court reporter transcribing and whether it would be conducted under oath. Coming to the agreement on all that is what I am terming the “negotiation”. All that was done without any definitive invocation of EP; if that was not the case, Fitz could not have made his “no agreements on use” statement. That is what I am saying, and I am sticking with it. But I have been nailed for heinous incompetency once today already, so maybe I will be again.

By: lexalexander

lexalexander — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:17:29 +0000

[[I want someone to tell me: Where is the Crime?–Because that is the only thing the Congress will move on.]]

Serial violations of FISA, already admitted to by the president, are felonies, each count punishable by five years in prison. Violating the Geneva Accords (Common Article 3 in particular) are violations of U.S. and international law — war crimes.

They’re crimes, all right, but Congress hasn’t moved on them and appears unlikely ever to do so.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:16:48 +0000

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

Barnacle to the Congress he is. Heh.

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:12:42 +0000

Thank you for your analysis, all. This thread is a great discussion of the issues, top to bottom.