NationStates Jolt Archive


"I am above the law" said with the best South Park impression

Liuzzo
27-06-2007, 19:53
This will probably be the response to the new subpoenas issues from the White House and the Scowling Bowels of Injustice that is the 4th Branch of the government (Dick Cheney, who is apparently not party to oversight by anyone). However, the case of firing justices and warrantless wiretapping just gets deeper. Maybe the idea is to let them finish their term in office and then try them for the crimes they have committed. It has been done before and I think this may be the strategy. Anyhow, How do you think the "EXECUTIVE" Branch will respond?

White House, Cheney's office, subpoenaed

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's controversial eavesdropping program that operated warrant-free for five years.

ADVERTISEMENT


Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply, according to a statement by Leahy's office.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program, which Bush put under court review earlier this year.

"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said in his cover letters for the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."

The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Leahy's committee and its counterpart in the House have issued the subpoenas as part of a sweeping look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons. The House and Senate Judiciary committees previously had subpoenaed Miers, one-time legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, in that probe.

But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and his willingness to go along with the wiretapping program.

The Bush administration secretly launched the spy program, run by the National Security Agency, in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspected of having terrorist links. The program, which did not require investigators to seek warrants before conducting surveillance, was revealed in December 2005.

After the program was challenged in court, Bush put it under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established in 1978. The president still claims the power to order warantless spying.

Debate continues over whether the program violates people's civil liberties, and the administration has gone to great lengths to keep it running with extensive presidential discretion.

Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to get Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, to whom Ashcroft had temporarily shifted the power of his office during his illness.

The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes to the classified program that the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.

The fight was one of the most bitter disputes of the Bush presidency and questions remain over whether the program tramples people's civil liberties. The administration says the program is crucial to preventing more terrorist attacks.

Fratto defended the surveillance program as "lawful" and "limited."

"It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties," Fratto said. "The program is classified for a reason — its purpose is to track down and stop terrorist planning. We remain steadfast in our commitment to keeping Americans safe from an enemy determined to use any means possible — including the latest in technology — to attack us."

Majority Democrats and some Republicans are skeptical and have sought to find out more details about the program and how it has been administered.

Leahy's panel is required to serve the subpoenas to specific people within the offices named. One is addressed to Gonzales, while the others are addressed to: David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff; White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, V. Phillip Lago, executive secretary of the National Security Council - or "other custodian of records" in their offices.

The subpoenas themselves seek a wide array of documents on the program from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to the present. Among them are any documents that include analysis or opinions from Justice, the National Security Agency — which administers the program — the Defense Department, the White House, or "any entity within the Executive Branch" on the legality of the electronic surveillance program.
Khadgar
27-06-2007, 20:03
It's legal because the President says so. That's good enough right?
Remote Observer
27-06-2007, 20:07
Sounds like a fishing expedition to me.

The kind that only scores on perjury counts, and nothing else.

Keep asking people questions under oath, even if it's about what they had for lunch seven years ago, and someone will mess up, and you can claim victory.

Ever heard of executive privilege? See you in court.
Lunatic Goofballs
27-06-2007, 20:07
It's legal because the President says so. That's good enough right?

Nope. :)
The_pantless_hero
27-06-2007, 20:09
Keep asking people questions under oath, even if it's about what they had for lunch seven years ago, and someone will mess up, and you can claim victory.
Totally the same as asking them if they ordered warrantless spying on citizens of their own nation and went out of their way to go around the law to do it.
Lunatic Goofballs
27-06-2007, 20:10
Sounds like a fishing expedition to me.

The kind that only scores on perjury counts, and nothing else.

Keep asking people questions under oath, even if it's about what they had for lunch seven years ago, and someone will mess up, and you can claim victory.

Ever heard of executive privilege? See you in court.

Oh, please. It doesn't matter if they lie about lunch seven years ago unless they ate phone tap warrants. Perjury consists of lying(which is by it's nature deliberate) under oath about material facts in evidence. If it's immaterial(like a lunch menu), it isn't perjury. As any hater of Bill Clinton ought to know very well. ;)
Remote Observer
27-06-2007, 20:11
Oh, please. It doesn't matter if they lie about lunch seven years ago unless they ate phone tap warrants. Perjury consists of lying(which is by it's nature deliberate) under oath about material facts in evidence. If it's immaterial(like a lunch menu), it isn't perjury. As any hater of Bill Clinton ought to know very well. ;)

Funny, they ran with the perjury anyway, and impeached him anyway.
Lunatic Goofballs
27-06-2007, 20:12
Funny, they ran with the perjury anyway, and impeached him anyway.

And failed to convict. :)
Neo Undelia
27-06-2007, 20:12
Meh. Bush and his cronies are untouchable.
The_pantless_hero
27-06-2007, 20:15
Funny, they ran with the perjury anyway, and impeached him anyway.

You got a nice supply of smoke and mirrors there.
Remote Observer
27-06-2007, 20:15
And failed to convict. :)

Exactly.

But, that's not the point of these exercises.

The point is to keep someone tied up in knots answering subpoenas and testifying, and making them look bad in the press.
Neo Undelia
27-06-2007, 20:17
Exactly.

But, that's not the point of these exercises.

The point is to keep someone tied up in knots answering subpoenas and testifying, and making them look bad in the press.
Yeah because that always works. Just like when they tried to impeach Clinton and his approval rating stayed about fifty percent the whole time. Wait.
Khadgar
27-06-2007, 20:20
Only DK and maybe Karl Rove could turn an investigation about hundreds of felonies committed by order of the Oval Office into a partisan witch hunt.


How do you even spin that? I mean honestly?
The_pantless_hero
27-06-2007, 20:20
Exactly.

But, that's not the point of these exercises.

The point is to keep someone tied up in knots answering subpoenas and testifying, and making them look bad in the press.

Oh of course, if no one told the public about warrantless spying programs, arresting 'terrorists' without charge, holding people indefinitely, etc etc, Bush wouldn't look so bad in the press. :rolleyes:

How do you even spin that? I mean honestly?
You have to believe Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong.
Lunatic Goofballs
27-06-2007, 20:21
Exactly.

But, that's not the point of these exercises.

The point is to keep someone tied up in knots answering subpoenas and testifying, and making them look bad in the press.

Well, republicans never really did a good job of making Bill Clinton look bad except to the people who never voted for him in the first place. :p

As for making Bush, Dick Cheney and company look bad in the press, there's nobody to blame but themselves. They alienated the media. After Clinton's deliberately leaky government and Reagan's masterful use of the press, Bush is hated by them for his heavy handed secrecy.
Seangolis Revenge
27-06-2007, 20:29
Well, republicans never really did a good job of making Bill Clinton look bad except to the people who never voted for him in the first place. :p

As for making Bush, Dick Cheney and company look bad in the press, there's nobody to blame but themselves. They alienated the media. After Clinton's deliberately leaky government and Reagan's masterful use of the press, Bush is hated by them for his heavy handed secrecy.

It's starting to reach Nixon levels, isn't it? Of course, Nixon actually was a decent administrator, for the most part, and did some rather good things, which is a bit more than one can say about El Presidente Shrubya.