subpoena

[bob000555]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/28/bush.subpoenas.ap/index.html

This is sounding like Watergate all over agene…apparently the White House is unfamiliar with the precedent set in United States Vs. Nixon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

Thoughts?

[Realitycheck]

They won't make a Watergate out of this. It's not that significant. This isn't exactly theft and obstruction of justice. The arguments lean to his right to fire whoever he wants, even if its for frivolous reasons. Tapes are one thing, while advisor documents are something else altogether. Does anybody know exactly why they were fired? They wanted to fire a lot more than just eight of them. Either way, they had a system-wide issue with many of the prosecutors. Did they not want to go after questionable wiretapping terrorism cases or were they just all Democrats?

[bascule]

Cheney is claiming executive privilege but at the same time claiming he's not part of the executive branch...

 

HUH?

[ParanoiA]

This has nothing in common with watergate. Watergate was an actual criminal act. The firing of federal prosecuters is totally subjective, and most administrations fire many of them upon initializing of their term, with no explanation - and none is necessary. They are not protected by the same rights as the common worker - it's understood to be entirely political...in other words, "fair" is irrelevant and not worthy of regard here. Same goes for cabinet members and staff.

 

However, I'm not saying that gives them a right to fire prosecuters solely because they may be investigating friends. The thing is, you can't prove what the president is thinking and if he doesn't really have to explain himself. That would be like putting the president on trial for being republican. He isn't required to NOT to be partisan and NOT make decisions based on that.

 

And since the democrat playbook has already been revealed to include the constant harrassment of the president, none of it can be trusted. Seriously, it's been written and put in motion to constantly accuse and harrass the president until the end of his term. This is not designed to actually go anywhere - just to keep the idea of "corruption" strong in everyone's minds. Remember, in this country you don't have to prove anything - just accuse. The public will do the hanging for you.

 

That in mind, how can I really trust anything they try to accuse him of?

[Pangloss]

Cheney is claiming executive privilege but at the same time claiming he's not part of the executive branch...

 

HUH?

 

That's the way it's being spun on the liberal side of the blogosphere. The counterpoint from the right seems to be that he's not saying that he's not part of the executive branch, but rather than he's part of two branches, being president of the senate.

 

Why anyone would think that this should make him immune from a congressional subpoena directed at one of those branches is beyond me. Logically one would this would make him more susceptible to congressional subpoena.

 

I'm actually hoping this will be resolved under judicial review. We need better definition of the power of congressional subpoena over the executive branch. Anybody who thinks this sort of thing is going to become LESS common under future presidents is just delusional. Constitutional challenges have been growing in frequency for decades. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are the Brothers Gracchi of the fall of the American Republic.

[bob000555]

Whether or not the subpoena is the result of a criminal act is completely irrelevant (and it may be a criminal act; preventing prosecutors from doing their work may very well be obstruction of justice, secondly some of the papers that where subpoenaed where about the warrantless wire taping fiasco). United States Vs Nixon was a Supreme Court case in which the court ordered Nixon to comply with a subpoena. Basically what the court said is that the laws of the United States apply just as much to the President of the United States as they apply to John Doe(granted a few more laws apply to the president which give him squirmy little loop holes).

 

Anyway…. contempt of congress is a federal felony, yahhhh it's impeachment time!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Procedures ohhhh that sounds fun!

[ParanoiA]

Basically what the court said is that the laws of the United States apply just as much to the President of the United States as they apply to John Doe

 

Exactly. Which is why it has nothing in common with this.

 

For instance, you can try taking me to court because I wouldn't let a minority kid in my house. But I have a right to pick and choose who I want in my house and there is no law to stop me from that. So yeah, I'm not above the law...and uh..neither are you. You don't get to pretend like I violated one when one wasn't there to be violated.

 

Apples and oranges, really, but the heart of the point is the same. The president has a right to pick and choose who he wants as federal prosecutors and he doesn't have to have a good reason for any of it. As I said before, these jobs aren't protected by the same laws that protect the rest of us. It's designed that way on purpose. It's supposed to be a politically driven decision.

 

If you don't like what Bush did, then change the law. I don't understand why we would just pick him out the 43 presidents we've had and start sounding an alarm. It's quite common to fire far more than just 8 prosecutors - and it doesn't get explained because it doesn't have to.

 

Actually I do understand, it's about politics and pretending like half the country didn't put him in office to do exactly what he did.

[bob000555]

Paranoia your missing the point: justifying what Bush did doesn’t justify contempt of congress(not obeying a subpoena). Just because you don’t agree with congress doesn’t let you can pick and chose which subpoenas to listen to.

[Pangloss]

Congressional subpoenas are not holy writs. They don't even have the power of the judiciary behind them, bob.

 

I'm not opposed to impeachment of a president if the grounds are sufficient, but I think it should be done only after grave, NON-PARTISAN consideration to the POLITICAL implications. If he is impeached over partisanship, regardless of the legitimacy of that impeachment aside from its partisanship, there will be a consequence to that impeachment: Never again will an American president NOT be impeached. It will become automatic (and yes it will be Republicans' own fault for starting it with Clinton, so just don't even go there).

 

That's just my opinion, but I think it's a valid one.

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia your missing the point: justifying what Bush did doesn’t justify contempt of congress(not obeying a subpoena). Just because you don’t agree with congress doesn’t let you can pick and chose which subpoenas to listen to.

 

I think he's trying to make the point that you can't subpoena his decision because it's protected by law as well. His right to hire and fire certain positions at will. They have no right to demand any explanation. In fact, it's not uncommon to lose all 93 in one sweep of forced unemployment.

 

I do have to admit some hesitance due to the timing of this firing. Usually it's at the beginning of the term, not in the middle. However, it's so subjective, it's about as much of a waste of the country's time and money as the immigration bill that just got killed. These are salaried employees of ours and they're wasting our money.

 

And in this case, it's a political tactic to keep the idea of corruption associated with republicans and this administration as long as possible. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother and instead visit the legal grounds that allow this kind of hiring and firing of federal prosecutors and etc.

 

It will become automatic (and yes it will be Republicans' own fault for starting it with Clinton, so just don't even go there).

 

Yes, and the republicans should be ashamed of that...very ashamed. Particularly when they have Guiliani as a presidential front runner for their party.

 

------------------------

 

Edit: I have a question...why is there such a thing as executive privilege? What would be a legitimate purpose for it? It seems so...dirty.

[bob000555]

Congressional subpoenas are not holy writs.

right...they just carry the weight of the law.

They don't even have the power of the judiciary behind them, bob.

So?

 

peranoia added a post before i could respond to pangaloss, so:

 

Paranoia you just completely ignored the argument agene! Whether or not Bush can pick and chose his attorneys has no impact on his right to pick and chose which subpoenas to listen to!

 

edit in responce to peranoia's edit: executive privilege is acutaly never mentioned in the constatution; its somthing that was made up much later... i don't know by whom or why, I suspect it was Nixion during Water Gate.

[Pangloss]

right...they just carry the weight of the law.

 

Actually, technically they don't carry the weight of law. They carry the weight of congressional authority, which is equal to the authority of the judicial and executive branches.

 

The questions raised by presidents (including Democratic ones) about executive privacy against the congressional branch are valid ones.

 

And they need to be answered in a non-partisan manner. You know, by people who don't say "yahhhh it's impeachment time!"

[ParanoiA]

Paranoia you just completely ignored the argument agene! Whether or not Bush can pick and chose his attorneys has no impact on his right to pick and chose which subpoenas to listen to!

 

No I didn't ignore it, I responded to it by saying that I think Bush is trying to prove a point by ignoring the subpoena that you and the congress thinks he should listen to.

 

Read carefully, I am answering your argument...

 

If you were subpoenaed because the court wanted to know why you painted your house yellow, you might feel like complying. I wouldn't. It's just two different approaches to the same unjustified subpoena. You think the point is to submit to the subpoena, irregardless of their right to issue it. I think the point is to challenge their right to issue it, by ignoring it.

 

Of course, in my example I would probably then go to jail while you enjoyed cold beer on the patio...

 

And that may very well be what happens to Bush, but I agree with his approach in not complying with it - legally anyway. A constitutional showdown is not a bad thing by the way.

[bob000555]

Mmeehh if Bush wants to go to jail I’m all for it...but comparing you or I being subpoenaed by the courts for the painting of a house to The President of The United States being subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee is ridiculous. One is the type of thing where you spend a month in jail the other is the sort of thing that causes riots, protests, months of senate time wasted and, at worst civil wars( I can imagine something similar to the English civil war with forces loyal to the president versus forces loyal to congress (the English civil war was between forces loyal to parliament and forces loyal to the king))

[ParanoiA]

Meh if Bush wants to go to jail I’m all for it...but comparing you or I being subpoenaed by the courts for the painting of a house to The President of The United States being subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee is ridiculous.

 

Interesting that you don't find it ridiculous to issue a subpoena on the basis of your home color.

 

I don't think GWB invoking a legal executive privilege over the firing of 8 US attorneys that don't have any rights to their job in the first place is going to cause riots or civil wars. And I think Pangloss already cleared up the power hierarchy to the point that I should update my house paint example to receiving the subpoena from my neighbor. I'll definately be ignoring it...

 

However, politicians are exellent at wasting our money - and of course, time.

[Pangloss]

Meh if Bush wants to go to jail I’m all for it...but comparing you or I being subpoenaed by the courts for the painting of a house to The President of The United States being subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee is ridiculous. One is the type of thing where you spend a month in jail the other is the sort of thing that causes riots, protests, months of senate time wasted and, at worst civil wars( I can imagine something similar to the English civil war with forces loyal to the president versus forces loyal to congress (the English civil war was between forces loyal to parliament and forces loyal to the king))

 

Well that's your opinion, but there's a lot of spin going on in there. I could easily counter that "argument" by saying that comparing a legally objective document that's based on the careful deliberation of unassailable fact (judicial-branch subpoena) to a partisan political power-play (congressional subpoena) is what's ridiculous.

 

Welcome to politics. Now, would you like this decision to be made based on heated opinions and rhetoric, or would you like it to be made based on logical legal precedent and carefully determined rule of law?

 

Chose wisely.

[bob000555]

…Now you’re not even making sense your neighbor has no right to issue a subpoena while a congressional subpoena carries the same weight if not more then a judicial subpoena.

 

Pangloss responded before I could post so:

Your no making sense either, a congressional subpoena caries the same weight as a judicial subpoena. The only difference is one is made by a body that the people elect and trust with perhaps the most important power to declare war, the other is made by a single person that was appointed. Your not the judge and jury pangloss its not up to you to decide what’s a political power play and what’s not.

[bob000555]

The supreme court has already decided that congressional subpoenas must be listened to in the fallowing cases(on even specifically mentions subpoenas of executive branch officials):

Wilkinson v. United States http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=399

 

Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&friend=nytimes&court=US&case=/us/421/491.html

 

 

In fact the court has heard this issue severl more times.

 

http://www.oyez.org/issues/first-amendment/legislative-investigations/rss.xml

[ParanoiA]

Very well then, let's look closer into US v Nixon...

 

The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.[/b']" This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties.

 

Now the supreme court did not agree with absolute power of the presidency, but they clearly acknowledged that for a president to truly utilize his staff, they needed to be able to advise without fear.

 

These are the documents they are trying to subpoena. It's wrong, and even the supreme court thinks so.

 

You're also being disingenuous to the issue of the balance of powers. Much of this could also have to do with posturing and refusal to bow to an equal power - the congress. Washington did it. Jefferson did it - but lost.

[bob000555]

You're also being disingenuous to the issue of the balance of powers. Much of this could also have to do with posturing and refusal to bow to an equal power - the congress. Washington did it. Jefferson did it - but lost.

 

Yes this does have to do with the balance of powers, if congress losses its right to investigate the executive branch effectively there is no balance of power. Bush could do what ever he wants and when it comes time to answer for it “Erm I’ve decided I don’t want to tell you anything.”

[ParanoiA]

Yes this does have to do with the balance of powers, if congress losses its right to investigate the executive branch effectively there is no balance of power. Bush could do what ever he wants and when it comes time to answer for it “Erm I’ve decided I don’t want to tell you anything.”

 

And it would be better for NO balance of power? That way the country could be dictated by ONE entity, rather than the careful balance preserved by 3 equal powers?

 

The pursuit of one man, criminal or not, does not justify jeopardizing the foundation of our system.

[bob000555]

What I meant was if congress cant do their investigations theirs no balance of power bush must submit to the subpoena or risk breaking the system!

[ParanoiA]

What I meant was if congress cant do their investigations theirs no balance of power bush must submit to the subpoena or risk breaking the system!

 

No, he'd risk breaking the system if we were talking about actual criminal charges, like ordering the breaking and entering of the DNC. Here we're talking about a presidential right to candid counsel. Even if he was advised to do something for corrupt reasons, it doesn't mean he made the decision based on those reasons.

 

At the end of the day you can't prove why he made the decision he made. And to submit to the subpoena surrenders that candid cousel for exposure, which will cost us as a country dearly in the long run with that door open, and proves nothing anyway. Although they'll certainly try to...

[Pangloss]

Good for you, Bob. Now that you're falling back from that closed-minded "yahhh it's impeachment time!" post, you're starting to look at the larger issues. I can tell you're annoyed, and for what it's worth I do understand how frustrated you must be, having lived through plenty of disappointing presidents in my time.

 

What I meant was if congress cant do their investigations theirs no balance of power

 

That's an absolutely valid point.

 

Likewise if the executive branch cannot exercise its authority without being attacked afterwards by the legislative branch, then that, too, would violate an important separation of powers in the Constitution. There is too much incentive for elected legislators to make hay over specific actions for personal gain.

 

Consider for a moment how far this reaches. The purpose of oversight is so that unilateral actions taken by a chief executive ultimately are reviewed and approved by the people, right? But the point of that is to make the executive branch answerable for its decisions. Not to raise the legislative branch above the executive branch in power.

 

Were the legislative branch to be given approval over the executive branch -- in perfect hindsight, I might add -- the only protection remaining to a President would be to have his party in majority power in the legislature. Not only would that rob the executive branch of constitutionally-specified authority, it would also mean that nothing would ever get done unless a political party was able to control both houses of congress and the White House at the same time. The moment the opposition party gained majority in Congress, every decision made by that president would be overturned or reversed.

 

I wasn't kidding around in likening Bush and Clinton to the Brothers Gracchi -- the Romans went through a very similar problem at the end of the Republic. A consul or tribune would have laws passed by public vote, and during their time in office they would be immune. Once out of office, the opposition would nullify their laws, and prosecute the former office-holder, sending him into exile, or worse. Cicero made a whole legal career out of defending such men. Back and forth and around and around it would go. One year, for example, every human being in Italy would be made a citizen of Rome. The next year that citizenship would be lost. Why do you think Caesar crossed the Rubicon? It wasn't because of a mad lust for power. Their rule of law had deteriorated so far that the only way for Caesar to avoid losing absolutely everything he had worked for was for him to take over absolutely everything. And seven centuries of democratic rule went right down the drain. But was that Caesar's fault, or was he just the last small nail in a very large coffin?

 

The same thing is happening today, right before our very eyes. George Bush isn't what's wrong with this country. What's wrong with this country is the short-sighted partisanship and closed-mindedness ideologies of the people living in it. In my opinion.

[bob000555]

Apparently the committee subpoenaed papers on the warrantless wire tapping thing and the attorney thing at the same time. This is odd and makes the argument that he doesn’t have to submit because he can fire who he wants invalid.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/27/wiretapping.subpoenas.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch