NationStates Jolt Archive

Clinton

I stopped reading here.

ALL UR THREADZ ARE BELONG TO REFUSED PARTY PROGRAM.

Nothing to see here, move along Generalites.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v96/207/53/286001300/n286001300_452972_7581.jpg

He says that he'll never authorize people to answer subpoenas from Congress.

Apparently, there's some precedence. A Reagan-era Justice Department opinion - and, best of all, the former Clinton Administration made the EXACT same claim.

But administration officials and other legal scholars, including some Democrats, noted that Justice Department lawyers in the Clinton administration made a similar argument during a controversy with Congress over the nomination of a federal judge.

Walter E. Dellinger III, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department then, wrote in a 1995 legal opinion that "the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege."

That conclusion echoed a broader legal opinion issued 11 years earlier by then-Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson, who headed the OLC during the first term of the Reagan administration.

Dellinger and several other legal experts from the Clinton era said yesterday that the Bush administration is fundamentally correct in its assertion that lawmakers cannot force the Justice Department to pursue a course that undermines a president's prerogative, including his power to protect information through executive privilege.

"Congress can determine what's unlawful but not determine who should be prosecuted," said Dellinger, who is now a Duke University law professor. "It's an important part of the separation of powers. . . . The real issue in this case is whether the claims of executive privilege are valid," a matter that he said would have to be adjudicated on its merits in the courts.

Christopher H. Schroeder, a Duke University law professor who was OLC deputy chief from 1994 to 1997, said that the administration's stance "as a legal matter may leave the Democrats without an effective remedy." He described the administration's legal argument as "a little over the line, but it's not that far out there."

Schroeder said that, if Congress passes a contempt citation that the administration blocks, lawmakers still have the option of initiating a civil proceeding against White House officials, but such an action could take years to settle.

Martin S. Lederman, another Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, said he regards a civil action as the most likely way for Congress to try to enforce its subpoenas for White House testimony and documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002277.html

Looks like this could take forever, because it would end up in civil court.

I stopped reading here.

ALL UR THREADZ ARE BELONG TO REFUSED PARTY PROGRAM.

Nothing to see here, move along Generalites.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v96/207/53/286001300/n286001300_452972_7581.jpg

If it's good enough for Bill, it's good enough to stick.

I stopped reading here.

ALL UR THREADZ ARE BELONG TO REFUSED PARTY PROGRAM.

Nothing to see here, move along Generalites.

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v96/207/53/286001300/n286001300_452972_7581.jpg

Thats some sandwich.....

So people Bush likes can never be subpoena-ed?

So people Bush likes can never be subpoena-ed?

That's what he seems to be saying. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Congress resurrects the notion of inherent contempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Inherent_contempt) and has those people who defied subpoenas tossed in the can.

That's what he seems to be saying. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Congress resurrects the notion of inherent contempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Inherent_contempt) and has those people who defied subpoenas tossed in the can.

... so why not wait till Bush is out of office then serve the subpoenas?

That's what he seems to be saying. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the Congress resurrects the notion of inherent contempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Inherent_contempt) and has those people who defied subpoenas tossed in the can.


D...did you not see the cat with the invisible sandwich?

... so why not wait till Bush is out of office then serve the subpoenas?

The most important reason to not wait, to my mind, is to refuse to allow Bush to set this sort of precedent. If Congress doesn't challenge this abuse of power, then any President in the future will be able to not only do this, but extend the power beyond this point. This blogger (http://www.shakesville.com/2007/07/cut-down-every-law/) imagines a situation with a Democratic President and asks "what if?" He sets it in 2012 with President Hillary Clinton
Republicans have found evidence that President Clinton’s staff took kickbacks when she awarded federal contracts for the new national health care program. The GOP has retaken the Senate, and the newly-returned chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee (Sen. Joe Lieberman, R-Conn.) brings forth a surprise witness, a former employee of Blue Cross Blue Shield, who confirms that he paid Clinton’s chief of staff $10 million for favorable treatment in the bidding process.

The committee erupts. It’s scandal! And yet minutes later, the president of Blue Cross Blue Shield testifies that nothing of the sort happened.

Clearly, there’s something going on. Perhaps graft, perhaps just an ex-employee with an ax to grind. The committee issues subpoenas.

After wangling, missed hearings, angry recrimination, and frustration by Congress, the committee finally votes to hold the President’s chief of staff in contempt of Congress. They forward their request to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. And get back a one-paragraph letter.

“Dear Mr. Chairman,

“I regret to inform you that we cannot pursue this matter. Unfortunately, the President has invoked executive privilege in this matter. Under precedent established under the preceding administration, we are prohibited from enforcing a Congressional subpoena under these circumstances. Have a nice day.

“Sincerely,

“Anders Folk, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia”

With only he-said/he-said evidence, and without the testimony of the chief of staff, Congress is stymied. Hillary Clinton and her supporters say that there’s no real evidence of wrongdoing, and point to Bush’s conduct in 2007 to prove that there’s bipartisan agreement on the need for a unitary executive.

Two years later, very quietly, a former executive from Blue Cross Blue Shield will be spirited away to a detention center in Guam.
Outlandish? Not really, not if this precedent is allowed to stand. Congress must act to preserve its powers or it will become as irrelevant as the Roman Senate under Octavian.

... so why not wait till Bush is out of office then serve the subpoenas?

Because if we can stop continued violation of the law now, why wait?

And "Clinton did it too" is still no defense, RO, but you already knew that.

If it's good enough for Bill, it's good enough to stick.

You know, as a brit who is quite fond of american politics for the way it makes our own politicians seem competent and honest, I'm quite ignorant. I'm a casual observer so I have no idea what Bill Clinton may or may not have done. What I do know, however, is that any democrat foolish enough to defend whatever it is you're are implying Clinton has done would probably use the same arguement as you. Does that make them right?

The most important reason to not wait, to my mind, is to refuse to allow Bush to set this sort of precedent. If Congress doesn't challenge this abuse of power, then any President in the future will be able to not only do this, but extend the power beyond this point. This blogger (http://www.shakesville.com/2007/07/cut-down-every-law/) imagines a situation with a Democratic President and asks "what if?" He sets it in 2012 with President Hillary Clinton

Outlandish? Not really, not if this precedent is allowed to stand. Congress must act to preserve its powers or it will become as irrelevant as the Roman Senate under Octavian.
ah, but the Precedent was already set. You just don't want Pres Bush to use the precedent set by previous Presidents, Republican, Democratic or whatnot.

Meanwhile, all this Congress has to do is wait till President Bush's term is up and then go after him (they will still be in session after all.) thus they don't loose any power (not that they lost power when previous Presidents excercised that power.)

Because if we can stop continued violation of the law now, why wait? meanwhile the time can be used to build up the case against President Bush and Co.

Careful planning can do more damage than grandstanding and wasting time with futile actions.

ah, but the Precedent was already set. You just don't want Pres Bush to use the precedent set by previous Presidents, Republican, Democratic or whatnot.
Untrue. No one has ever tried to use Executive Privilege to this extent, RO's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Bush has gone where no one has ever even considered going before.

Untrue. No one has ever tried to use Executive Privilege to this extent, RO's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Bush has gone where no one has ever even considered going before.

Really, no one... that would be an interesting delve into Congressional and Governmental records to see if that's true.

so No other President used Executive Privilege to block Subpoenas?

I see the invisible sandwich :)

Tuna right?

D...did you not see the cat with the invisible sandwich?

I see the invisible sandwich :)

I see the invisible sandwich :)

Fnord?

Really, no one... that would be an interesting delve into Congressional and Governmental records to see if that's true.

so No other President used Executive Privilege to block Subpoenas?

Not what I said--read the words "to this extent." Bush has said, in essence, that no Congressional subpoena can stand, that his privilege is absolute and extends to all corners of the executive branch, and that the Justice Department will not be allowed to prosecute any violation of any Congressional subpoena. In the past, the way it has worked--even under Clinton--was that Congress issued a subpoena, the executive claimed privilege, and the courts decided who was right. Bush has said the courts won't even be allowed to decide now because his privilege is absolute.

"The legislative branch is not in a position to compel action on the part of the executive branch, other than in areas related to its legitimate oversight role."

Did he just say they can't oversee unless they feel like lettin' 'em? Cause that's how it's coming across.

Did he just say they can't oversee unless they feel like lettin' 'em? Cause that's how it's coming across.

When you factor in that Bush/Cheney believes that there is no legitimate oversight role for Congress, then yeah, that's what he said.

When you factor in that Bush/Cheney believes that there is no legitimate oversight role for Congress, then yeah, that's what he said.

Ah, checks and balances...we hardly knew ya...

When you factor in that Bush/Cheney believes that there is no legitimate oversight role for Congress, then yeah, that's what he said.
.... and the land of the Freeeeeeeee!

He says that he'll never authorize people to answer subpoenas from Congress.

Apparently, there's some precedence. A Reagan-era Justice Department opinion - and, best of all, the former Clinton Administration made the EXACT same claim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002277.html

Looks like this could take forever, because it would end up in civil court.

He has no right to do so. No one is above the law.

He has no right to do so. No one is above the law.

Actually, heads of state tend to have an uncanny ability to be above the law.

They shouldn't be, but in many cases, they are.

He has no right to do so. No one is above the law.pure superstition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Superstition)

This isn't the first time Bush has shown general contempt for such things. When he left office as Gov of Texas, he had all of his governor papers (I know there's a fancy term, but I'm brain fried from staying up half the night reading Potter, cut me some slack) sent to his father's Presidential Librayr. All fine and good, except Texas law requires that all governor papers be sent to the State Archives. When the Archivist (a heroine in my book) stood up and demanded that he turn them over, he went to court. This mania for secrecey, this blatant paranoia, is getting old. And scary.

Ah, checks and balances...we hardly knew ya...

Funny... but sad at the same time. Fad? Sunny?

Ah, checks and balances...we hardly knew ya...
Hitler had czechs and balances....


http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/honsem/theses/mkravetz03/CzechBg.png

Outlandish? Not really, not if this precedent is allowed to stand. Congress must act to preserve its powers or it will become as irrelevant as the Roman Senate under Octavian.

See Nazz, the thing is that, with numskulls like these, they'll not only appreciate it, but cheer the Congress becoming useless.

Of course, they never imagine what would happen if a person with different political leanings uses the precedents to declare themselves Emperor of America, preferring to hide in their little la-la lands.

Reads...

Author: DK

Stops reading...

Apparently, there's some precedence. A Reagan-era Justice Department opinion - and, best of all, the former Clinton Administration made the EXACT same claim.

You forgot Nixon. :(

Hitler had czechs and balances....


http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/honsem/theses/mkravetz03/CzechBg.png
He looks so bumbed about it...
See Nazz, the thing is that, with numskulls like these, they'll not only appreciate it, but cheer the Congress becoming useless.

Of course, they never imagine what would happen if a person with different political leanings uses the precedents to declare themselves Emperor of America, preferring to hide in their little la-la lands.
They've already got a hand planted in that vortex-a Democratic president will use some of those expanded powers and people will say, "Well, G.W. did it, so..." and they'll wail, "That excuse wasn't good enough for you!!!" and we'll all be just that much more ridiculous.