Bush uses privilege to deny ex-aides’ testimony Options

[dauss]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675580/

WASHINGTON - President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.

The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.

In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers’ demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

“You may be assured that the president’s assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented,” the letter said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers offered a stinging response. “Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally,” the Michigan Democrat said in a statement.

The exchange Monday was the latest step in a slow-motion legal waltz between the White House and lawmakers toward eventual contempt-of-Congress citations. If neither side yields, the matter could land in federal court.

[impala454]

why do people keep bitching about the president using his special executive powers?

[dauss]

What's he hiding?

[impala454]

what does it matter? it's part of being the president, you get those extra powers to use as you wish. he could be hiding something, he could be simply helping a friend, whatever. just like the libby case. sure sometimes those decisions are unpopular but they're still legal. because they're unpopular you usually don't see presidents use those powers until the end of their term. I don't see any of his latest actions as unusual.

[Testm0nkey]

i just like how they think they have ultimate rule. thats what i was bitching about earlier. "it is how it is because we said so" where does that play into a democracy? its unusual in that its a pretty deep running coverup

[impala454]

i just like how they think they have ultimate rule. thats what i was bitching about earlier. "it is how it is because we said so" where does that play into a democracy?

it's not ultimate rule. it's a fundamental part of our democracy. there are checks and balances for each branch on the other two. this is one of those checks for the executive branch against the judicial. come on this is 3rd grade stuff here.

[woody]

once again....


perks of the job

[Testm0nkey]

it's not ultimate rule. it's a fundamental part of our democracy. there are checks and balances for each branch on the other two. this is one of those checks for the executive branch against the judicial. come on this is 3rd grade stuff here.

yes third grade stuff and you arent getting it. by doing this he is "uncheckable" thus why he doesnt legally have the power to do that, as stated in the article

[impala454]

yes third grade stuff and you arent getting it. by doing this he is "uncheckable" thus why he doesnt legally have the power to do that, as stated in the article

no, this is his check power against the judicial branch. just like congress' 2/3 vote is their power against the executive. just like unconstitutional ruling is the judicial's power against executive or legislative. etc etc. keep telling me I'm the one not getting it though

here, since you apparently missed that lesson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of..._three_branches

[Testm0nkey]

did you read the article?

[impala454]

did you read the article?

uh.. yes? next post

[False Dude]

“Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally,”

- testmo

[impala454]

uh, that's them checking back on the president's executive powers...

[Spectatrix]

It's just a power struggle back and forth at this point. It's a little pissy because this move does little but impede the investigation without actually stopping it. Chances are good that the courts will rule that the White House must comply with the subpoenas and the investigation will proceed.

I do understand what Impala is saying about this all being part of the checks and balances, because it is, but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious. I totally see the "because we said so" vibe that Testmo mentioned. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that it doesn't still come off as slimy.

Honestly, I think if the White House had simply come out and said "yes, we fired them because they did not match the ideology of the Bush administration", people would've been a little pissed initially, then dismissed it as business as usual. As is, what with trying to dodge the issue, "losing" emails concerning the firings, Alberto Gonzales giving contradictory testimony, etc., etc., it has blown up into this huge mess that looks a lot more sinister than it probably is. Bleh.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jul 9 2007, 09:06 PM

[impala454]

well yeah i wont disagree. but you wont find many cases where executive powers get used and it doesn't look shady. i'd say mostly due to the fact that it's one man who executes the order. it's usually unpopular, which is also why you don't see pardons and stuff like this until the end of a president's term.