Bush: "I don't have to, and I don't have to explain why I don't have to!"

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:50pm

Bush is refusing to allow Harriet Miers & Sara Taylor to testify before congress. He is invoking Executive Priviledge. Even better, his lawyers have refused requests to explain WHY he is invoking Executive Priviledge. Maybe this explains it: "Earlier this year, former White House counselor Dan Bartlett unwittingly confirmed that President Bush participated in discussions with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and political czar Karl Rove about firing US Attorneys who weren't sufficiently political in their prosecutions, is hightailing it out of the administration."




The Nation Updated On: 7/9/07 at 01:50 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:53pm

When is executive privilege obstruction of justice?

When the executive has broken the law.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:53pm

You gotta love that man.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 1:56pm

I'd say the white house is drunk on it's success forever ending the Wilson/Plame investigation. Then again, it might just be drunk.

I did like the righties explaining how Cheney could NOT be part of the Excutive Branch to dodge one investigation while he was invoking executive priviledge to dodge another!!

I have to admire this White House-- they break more laws before Lunch than other administrations do in two terms.

[Chita1933]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 2:02pm

Pandora's jar.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 4:35pm

From Fred Fielding's rather bitchy response to the House:

"We are aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may "direct" the Executive..." This is freaky, end of the world stuff as we know it. obviously, very few people understand the implications of what Bush is doing here. You really need to read this...

Fred Fielding's response Updated On: 7/9/07 at 04:35 PM

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 4:48pm

"Your letter does not dispute these principles. It does not take issue with the practical fact that, in order to fulfill his constitutional functions, the President, no less than Members of Congress and federal judges, needs the protection of a principle that shields his close advisors from open-ended inquiry by another branch of government."

OK, call me naive, but if nobody did anything wrong and there's nothing to hide, why would anybody need the protection?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 4:49pm

Nice day for a constitutional crisis.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 4:52pm

how can Executive Privilege cover FORMER staff?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 4:54pm

>> OK, call me naive, but if nobody did anything wrong and there's nothing to hide, why would anybody need the protection?

... which is of couse ironically evocative of Cheney's "well if you have nothing to hide" defense of the Patriot Act.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 4:57pm

The arrogance is just overwhelming.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 5:00pm

His contention is that no one would ever tell the President the truth if they knew that everyone might find out later what they said. Which is just odd.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 5:04pm

WATCH OUT! NAIVETE CROSSING!

Why is it so hard for politicians to just not be corrupt and/or evil? Then there wouldn't be a need for lies or cover-ups.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 5:47pm

This just got more exciting.

From MSNBC.com:

===

Harriet Miers to show up?

Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:53 PM by Mark Murray
Categories: White House, Congress

From NBC's Mike Viqueira

Democrats involved with the two Hill investigations into the firing of the federal prosecutors are insisting that former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers show up as requested this week at hearings -- regardless of today's claim of executive privilege.Their arguments can be summarized like this:

-- The subpoena requires two things: 1) to show up and 2) to testify. Invoking privilege does not excuse a subpoenaed witness from appearing. The House Judiciary is telling Miers to show up no matter what, and they are proceeding as if she will. She is due before House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Taylor was summoned to appear Wednesday before the Senate committee.

-- Privilege would be properly invoked when the witness was asked specific questions during testimony.

-- The White House is motivated by a desire avoid a picture of Taylor and Miers before the committee, being sworn in and invoking privilege.

-- The documents requested do not fit into a claim of executive privilege, which pertain to the president's decision-making process. "However, numerous witnesses before both House and Senate Committees have testified that the President did not decide which U.S. Attorneys should be fired," the Senate committee asserts.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 5:56pm

Maybe this is an even more naive question but why hasn't President Bush been impeached yet?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 6:02pm

Because so far only 46% of the American people want him impeached.

When that goes over 50%, Congress will start to act.

The country was impeachment weary after Clinton was inappropriately impeached, everyone felt guilty and responsible for overreacting, so Congress is loath to act on Bush's genuine excesses unless the polls are solidly behind it.

Impeachment takes 51% of the House and conviction takes 2/3 of the Senate. When the polls are at 51% and 67%, there will be action.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 6:37pm

NPR just had an excellent report on this. The White House WILL supply them to testify, with only a FEW SMALL conditions:

1) They WILL NOT be under oath.
2) No notes or recordings can be made of what they say.
3) They will tesitfy in private, with only the congressman and witnesses in the room.
4) There can be NO FURTHER questions after they testify- no follow up, no further questions, no further hearings.

So Speculation is that Miers & Taylor will show up and if any condition is not met, walk out. If all is OK, they will answer a question or two and walk out. They feel that even appearing and stating their name is complying and so they will have "complied" and they will be subject to NO further questions! It's like a Laugh-in Sketch!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 6:42pm

What IS ths crap about not testifying under oath?

Sheesh...

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/9/07 at 6:54pm

So what? Bush can only be impeached if and only if he gets a blow job??? Good luck...
JoeKv, was your post a joke or were you actually being serious??? Those conditions are beyond absurd.