• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

People are complicated. Love is not.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

No one could have predicted…

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

DeSantis transforms Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Subpoena Powers

Subpoena Powers

by John Cole|  March 20, 20075:31 pm| 85 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Just watched Bush’s presser, and my first thought was that despite Rove’s alleged political genius, this group sure steps in it a lot. The party is in shambles, the administration is a bunch of bungling incompetent boobs and under fire, and they have no one to thank but themselves.

My second thought is that I am siding with Bush on the subpoena nonsense (despite my snarky post last night, which was actually more about the other administration misbehaviors/power grabs and how they were excused), and so will the courts. They will not allow aides to come forward and testify, and the courts will side with him. The Democrats will have to use the document dumps and other means to find out what really happened, and I am not willing to throw aside a necessary precedent that has served previous Presidents well.

That doesn’t mean I think the way this was done and the reasons for firing these attornies were legit- I don’t. Something stinks here, and there is more to ithis issue than we know right now. But I think Bush is on pretty firm ground denying acceso to his aides, and I think the courts will agree, regardless the malfeasance involved.

*** Update ***

I am under the impression that executive privilege would extend to these aides in this situation. I may be wrong. Pointing out that other aides have in the past testified is interesting and everything, but it matters more whether or not they were forced to or not. If they were subpoenaed and testified is one thing, if they were subpoenaed, chose to fight it, and were forced to testify is another. If that makes any sense.

*** Update ***

To read this, I would be wrong. Which just goes to show you how much of what I think I know is just based on bullshit that was spewed in the past decade. Regardless, I just don’t think we are going to see Rove testifying. They will drag this out, etc.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Remove Oversight, Dysfunction Follows
Next Post: HELP THE CAPTAIN, HE IS GOING DOWN! »

Reader Interactions

85Comments

  1. 1.

    Zifnab

    March 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm

    Didn’t this play out with Nixon, though? The President claims executive priviledge, the case goes to court, the courts acknowledge executive priviledge… except in this particular case, and Nixon has to turn over the White House tapes. Two days later he’s boarding the chopper out and Ford becomes our 38th President.

  2. 2.

    ThymeZone

    March 20, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Two days later he’s boarding the chopper out and Ford becomes our 38th President Darth Cheney becomes president and starts WW3

    We’re truly fucked.

  3. 3.

    Geoff

    March 20, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    I don’t disagree that Bush’s assertion of executive privilege is legitimate, but neither would I argue that Congress is wrong to subpoena them in the first place. The fact that you don’t expect the other side to comply with a demand for testimony isn’t necessarily a reason to avoid doing demanding it in the first place – for both practical and political reasons.

    And of course, politically, it’s just a disaster – it makes Bush look like he’s got something to hide (which is most likely the case as it is). I don’t get it – has Gonzales really been such a great AG that we can’t let him quietly resign? Personal friendships are all well and good, but at a certain point you just become incapable of performing your job effectively.

  4. 4.

    RSA

    March 20, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    t I think Bush is on pretty firm ground denying that people be subpoenaed

    I think Bush is has legal grounds for this (in the sense that Congress may not be able to do anything without the courts to get him to agree), but as usual (e.g., as with signing statements) he’s completely blowing away past precedents. ThinkProgress or some such site has a list of dozens of appearances of Clinton aides before Congress; Rove and Miers aren’t that special. I think that if Bush refuses it raises the stakes considerably, even if Democrats are reluctant to talk about impeachment.

  5. 5.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 20, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    It can be fun to see what the Freeper take on this is:

    To: West Coast Conservative

    Will they discipline the traitors in the Justice Department who leaked all those emails to congress? If they can’t fire them, the least they can do is stop copying any emails to them.

    14 posted on 03/20/2007 3:11:53 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)

    Those traitorous aides, printing out the emails that were legally demanded by Congress, under the instructions of the AG!

  6. 6.

    chopper

    March 20, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    i’m trying to imagine how the right-wingers would have reacted if clinton stonewalled all subpoenas of his various aides back in the 90’s. i guess 9/11 truly changed everything.

  7. 7.

    Dreggas

    March 20, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    Actually John TPM has a bit on the whole “Aides Testifying” via Thinkprogress as RSA Mentioned:

    Here

    Regardless what legal precedents are set the white house is trying to keep their dirty laundry from seeing the light of day, they have done so since day one. Of course things are starting to change now and I wouldn’t be suprised if we see Rove under oath. Even if Bush stands his ground it only makes him look like he has even more to hide and his whole spiel about “They weren’t going after enough voter fraud cases” has already been shot through of holes.

    But, to use Bush’s own words “Bring it On” it’s time this petulant child and his gang were taken to the woodshed.

  8. 8.

    sjrx0213

    March 20, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    De-lurking to say:

    …and so will the courts….I am not willing to throw aside a necessary precedent that has served previous Presidents well.

    .

    Thing is, there’s Clinton-era precedent in the other direction.

  9. 9.

    numbskull

    March 20, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    What precedent is it that you are protecting against setting here, John? Are you saying that no presidential aides have testified before Congress due to their having been subpoenaed? Because if presidential aides have been subpoenaed and have subsequently testified under subpoena, then you have no argument; the precedent has already been set.

    Regardless, I am not sure I buy an argument of executive privilege here. At some point Congress has to have oversight power as to the actions of Executive. Otherwise, don’t we have an elected dictator?

  10. 10.

    Bas-O-Matic

    March 20, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Also, assuming the executive privilege applies in this situation, it only covers the scope of the testimony an aide can be compelled to give. It doesn’t give anyone the right to ignore a subpoena and refuse to come before congress if one is issued. Congress has every right to bring them forward and compel them to invoke the privilege while under oath.

  11. 11.

    Pb

    March 20, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Glenn Greenwald, out in front, again. I swear, I should just have a permanent link to him.

    “Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.” — Tony Snow, 3/29/1998

  12. 12.

    The Other Steve

    March 20, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    I believe all precedents regarding investigation of the Administration were tossed out the window by the Republicans when Clinton was in office.

    Too bad they didn’t think about that before hand, eh?

  13. 13.

    numbskull

    March 20, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Don’t know if this carries any weight, just saw it at ThinkProgress:

    Congress has every right to subpoena members of the Executive Branch. “The separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence. The Constitution enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.” – U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974). (See also Gorsuch v. House of Representatives (DC., 1983); Morrison v. Olson (U.S., 1988).)

  14. 14.

    Tsulagi

    March 20, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    You knew the executive privilege blast walls were going to go up at some point. I actually saw the presser too. Kind of funny. All that was missing was the brat stomping his feet and saying he’s not gonna do it and no one can make him.

    The only purpose for the press conference was to say the reason he’s going to stonewall is because the evildoer Dems are picking on him and it’s not fair. Appeal to the Sisters of Perpetual Victimhood, aka the Party of Bush. Look for some sympathy.

    Pretty stinky to start claiming privilege now on the attorney firings. Hearings already underway and the AG had said others would testify. You also have on record AG Gonzo engaging in willful shading/misspeaking/lying and just starting into his Alzheimer’s defense. Now you have dipshit saying “Okay, my people will talk to you about the attorney firings, but not on record. What is that saying other than we reserve the right to lie without ending up like Libby?

  15. 15.

    Pb

    March 20, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Geoff,

    I don’t get it – has Gonzales really been such a great AG that we can’t let him quietly resign?

    No, but their performance evaluations seem to work a bit differently than the ones I’m familiar with.

    Personal friendships are all well and good, but at a certain point you just become incapable of performing your job effectively.

    If ‘loyalty’ isn’t enough of a reason for you, then there are others. If this goes forward, we might actually find out what their jobs really were, and how they were performing them–we’re seeing some of that alreeady. But as long as the real focus and the heat is on Gonzales, then it’s not on Rove, Miers, and ultimately Bush. Right now, Gonzales is a human firewall, and stonewalling this protects the rest of them as well.

  16. 16.

    JC

    March 20, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    “I am under the impression that executive privilege would extend to these aides in this situation. I may be wrong”.

    I don’t know either – but, as has been said, when both Nixon and Clinton attempted to rely on executive privilege, they were shot down.

    That must mean something, right?

  17. 17.

    Dreggas

    March 20, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    I don’t get it – has Gonzales really been such a great AG that we can’t let him quietly resign?

    Yes he has been.

    Torture Memos.

    Geneva Conventions.

    Redirecting the FBI from investigating terrorism to go after legitimate businesses under 2257.

    The list goes on Gonzales, with the blessing of the administration, has been working to turn the DoJ and the various federal law enforcement agencies into nothing short of the Federal Gestapo and I think it’s high time he was held accountable.

  18. 18.

    Bruce Moomaw

    March 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    Well, John, in any case, even if you were right about executive privilege, you would still have to explain why Bush has now offered to actually let Rove and Miers testify — but ONLY if they’re not under oath, in a closed room, and without any official transcript. It’s rather hard to interpret this offer as Executive Privilege for anything but the right to lie to Congress.

  19. 19.

    sidereal

    March 20, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    “I am not willing to throw aside a necessary precedent that has served previous Presidents well”

    I’ve been curious about this. Others can wrangle about the extent to which previous Presidents were granted such immunity, but I’m wondering about the ‘has served.. well’. Why is there a presumption that executive secrecy is a good thing? The President is my employee and the employee of every American citizen, and I ought have the right to know what he’s doing. The entire government is built on an assumption of transparency (all records in the public domain, FOIA, etc). The primary exception is ‘national security’, a supposedly specialized and constrained area of executive action where transparency could be dangerous. And yet it seems in recent years that this ‘exception’ has spread like a cancer until the assumption is that every action and communication of the President ought be secret unless he decides otherwise. That’s bullshit, and is a poisonous trend in American politics. No faithful conservative should carry that water, unless they are so obsessed with questions of national security that they assume all other issues are subsumed by it. Replacing the USAs has nothing to do with national security as any reasonable person would define it, and therefore there is no principled reason to grant Bush any sort of secrecy.

  20. 20.

    JC

    March 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    With regard to the Salon article – Would be interesting to hear those court cases – the citing of Norma Johnson, and not allowing Clinton to claim executive privilege, applied to why Bush can’t be allowed to claim executive privilege.

    How would that double standard be rationalized?

  21. 21.

    Dreggas

    March 20, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    To read this, I would be wrong. Which just goes to show you how much of what I think I know is just based on bullshit that was spewed in the past decade. Regardless, I just don’t think we are going to see Rove testifying. They will drag this out, etc.

    Eh, they’re gonna drag it out but it’s not going to work in their favor. The only real outrage being voiced is over what the admin did, not what Congress is currently doing. The end result is they will cave or people will resign. If they resign I am not so sure they can be protected.

  22. 22.

    John Cole

    March 20, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Well, John, in any case, even if you were right about executive privilege, you would still have to explain why Bush has now offered to actually let Rove and Miers testify—but ONLY if they’re not under oath, in a closed room, and without any official transcript. It’s rather hard to interpret this offer as Executive Privilege for anything but the right to lie to Congress.

    Oh, I am pretty firmly convinced they are doing this to provide every assurance that the dirtiest of the dirty laundry will be kept behind closed doors, and if it is then leaked by Democrats, they can run the whole “See they can not be trusted” game.

    Additionally, I think the idea of Karl Rove testifying scares the hell out of them for obvious reasons.

  23. 23.

    Steve

    March 20, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    At least John has the stones to acknowledge when he’s been snookered. That’s a rare quality.

    I’m thrilled Bush has insisted on picking this particular fight. Keep saying how it’s fine for Rove and Miers to testify, as long as it’s not under oath and there’s no transcript. You don’t have to be a genius to see how that will play in Peoria.

    Thing is, I think a lot of people assume Bush is taking this position out of pure stubbornness. But I suspect the other plausible scenario – that, in fact, these guys really do have something to hide. Sometimes when people act completely guilty it’s because they actually are guilty.

  24. 24.

    Dreggas

    March 20, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Anyone suspect that this is the start of the “breeze” against the house of cards that is this administration and if this card falls the entire aparatus will fall apart? That’s the only reason I can think of that the admin would be choosing this as their battleground.

  25. 25.

    Dreggas

    March 20, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Thing is, I think a lot of people assume Bush is taking this position out of pure stubbornness. But I suspect the other plausible scenario – that, in fact, these guys really do have something to hide. Sometimes when people act completely guilty it’s because they actually are guilty.

    I didn’t see the presser but a lot can be learned from body language, Gonzales’ spoke volumes during his presser with regard to “oh shit we got caught”. Bush is known to very “vocal” with regards to body language and I am sure he gave a lot of tells in his presser.

  26. 26.

    RSA

    March 20, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    How would that double standard be rationalized?

    When it comes to Republicans, this can’t be anything more than a rhetorical question. By the way, kudos to JC for a quick, evidence-based reconsideration (though not necessarily a reversal) of his position. That’s why I like this blog.

  27. 27.

    Leah

    March 20, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    I agree in principle that a President has the right to some kind of private space in which his interaction with close aides can take place.

    Clinton made similar points when he invoked executive privilege and went to court to seek such protection.

    To almost no avail. And to Republican taunts that Clinton was hiding stuff. Turned out he wasn’t, other than Monica.

    Have we all forgotten that one of the original counts of the House’s impeachment charges claimed that Clinton’s invocation of executive privilege had been so extreme as to constitute obstruction of justice. And remember, Bush hasn’t had to do that much invoking, due to the negligence of the Republican congress over the last six years. It will be interesting to watch all those straight faces as Republicans rush to support this President’s combative defiance of congressional oversight.

  28. 28.

    Tsulagi

    March 20, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    I don’t get it – has Gonzales really been such a great AG that we can’t let him quietly resign?

    We could, but they can’t. In addition to his value in writing democracy enhancing executive findings that the moronarchy supercedes all, he knows where the bodies are buried. NSA wiretapping? Gonzales is in the center of that. And a lot of other things.

    In one sense they need him to continue to be AG so they can extend executive privilege around him. If he wasn’t part of the admin, that could be a problem. Gonzales is one of the last people they’d want talking.

  29. 29.

    Zifnab

    March 20, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Oh, I am pretty firmly convinced they are doing this to provide every assurance that the dirtiest of the dirty laundry will be kept behind closed doors, and if it is then leaked by Democrats, they can run the whole “See they can not be trusted” game.

    Yes, because in the trust game, the Bush Administration is batting 1000.

    The Democrats are slowly but steadily earning a halo. The Republicans have been so dirty and the Democrats have been so complaciently naive about the whole mess that I just don’t see anybody but the 28%ers buying the “evil liberals!” line anymore.

    It’s classic Boy Who Cried Wolf. They’ve been crying wolf for so long that liberal hate-speech just doesn’t carry a punch anymore. It’s always the same guys saying the same things with the same amount of rightous indignation. If the Dems leaked this – and I have a hard time seeing why they wouldn’t – then you wouldn’t hear any more winger hate than usual. But when Karl Rove lied – and I have a hard time seeing why he wouldn’t – they couldn’t bust him up for perjury. That’s the only reason to put these guys under oath.

    Make’m plead the 5th.

  30. 30.

    demkat620

    March 20, 2007 at 7:01 pm

    Look what I found with the gizoogle:

    Bush Needs An Outside Attorney To Maintain Attorney-Client Privilege
    Readers may wonder, why is Bush going to an outside counsel, when numerous government attorneys are available to him – for instance, in the White House Counsel’s Office?
    The answer is that the President has likely been told it would be risky to talk to his White House lawyers, particularly if he knows more than he claims publicly.
    Ironically, it was the fair-haired Republican stalwart Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr who decimated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients – which, to paraphrase the authority Wigmore, applies when legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, where the advice is sought in confidence.
    The reason the privilege was created was to insure open and candid discussion between a lawyer and his or her client. It traditionally applied in both civil and criminal situations for government lawyers, just as it did for non-government lawyers. It applied to written records of communications, such as attorney’s notes, as well as to the communications themselves.
    But Starr tried to thwart that tradition in two different cases, before two federal appeals courts. There, he contended that there should be no such privilege in criminal cases involving government lawyers.
    In the first case, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, former First Lady Hillary Clinton had spoken with her private counsel in the presence of White House counsel (who had made notes of the conversation). Starr wanted the notes. Hillary Clinton claimed the privilege.
    A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with Starr. The court held that a grand jury was entitled to the information. It also held that government officials — even when serving as attorneys — had a special obligation to provide incriminating information in their possession.
    In the second case, In re Lindsey, Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey refused to testify about his knowledge of President Clinton’s relationship to Monica Lewinsky, based on attorney-client privilege. Starr sought to compel Lindsey’s testimony, and he won again.
    This time, Starr persuaded the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to follow the Eighth Circuit. The court ruled that exposure of wrongdoing by government lawyers fostered democracy, as “openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government.”
    Based on these precedents, President Bush has almost certainly been told that the only way he can discuss his potential testimony with a lawyer is by hiring one outside the government.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0604-09.htm

    You see, during the Starr investigations, Good ole GOP hammer man Starr did everything he could to destroy both attorney client privilege and executive privilege. Republicans were ecstatic cause Clinton was on the skewer. Now that there is a GOPer in the WH they may regret all they did to weaken that president’s position.

  31. 31.

    numbskull

    March 20, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    And now it’s all explained: Excellent rundown by a premier procedural pro:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/20/192727/375

    Kagro X explains why Bush is playing it this way.

  32. 32.

    Nick Kasoff

    March 20, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    In the Nixon case, executive privilege was at once acknowledged as existing, and declared to be less than absolute. Nixon sought to use a general claim of executive privilege to shield his staff from serious criminal charges. In Bush’s case, the decision to terminate some US Attorneys may be bad policy in the eyes of some, but it is certainly not criminal. If executive privilege doesn’t place a shield of privacy over the discussions leading to an executive policy decision, then it is without meaning.

    Furthermore, if separation of powers protects William Jefferson from being searched, it certainly ought to protect Karl Rove from being subpoenaed. And if Rove has learned anything from the Scooter Libby case, his answer to every question, should he be forced to testify, will be “I do not remember.”

    Nick Kasoff
    The Thug Report

  33. 33.

    AkaDad

    March 20, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    When I think of Karl Rove testifying under oath it makes me feel like Meg Ryan’s diner scene in Sleepless In Seattle.

  34. 34.

    Punchy

    March 20, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Mr. Cole, if all WH aides were completely immune from testifying about anything the President so chooses, they’d be damn near immune to prosecution for crimes and corruption. To allow a President to just say “no, get lost” once Congress comes alookin’ is antithetical to how the checks and balances are laid out.

    The Dems are WELL within their right to both subpoena AND expect testimony from Bush’s aides.

  35. 35.

    numbskull

    March 20, 2007 at 7:40 pm

    Interesting that you bring up Starr. I went to a talk he gave last week in front of some of Bush’s base (you know, the top 1% of the top 1% of the nation’s “earners”). The number one message I got from him is that for Republicans, the most important thing is that you are a trustworthy member of the club. EVERYTHING is forgivable if you are part of the club. All bona fides derive from club membership. All points of law can be warped based on club membership. As jaded as I’ve become about these guys, it was shocking to see it so blatantly put. It really brought home the “Country Club Republican” meme more than anything I’d previously experienced.

    Now, that was the central aspect of his outlook on life, the universe, and everything.

    The FUNNIEST part of the evening was when someone asked him “In the end, what were the Clintons actually found guilty of?” His response was that years of being asked the question had led him to answer it by directing people to the public record.

    Fucking HILARIOUS, given that the public record shows that they were found guilty of NOTHING and that Kenny Boy Starr had essentially blown tens of millions of dollars on utter bullshit.

    And I don’t even like Clinton. Either of them.

    In the end, I came away thinking the Starr deep down knows that he did something very wrong. He got swept up in an inside-the-beltway feeding frenzy and did things he would never have done if he was firmly ensconced as Dean of a third tier CA law school. He just can’t admit it to himself and he’s now spending the rest of his life trying to justify that wrong.

  36. 36.

    p.lukasiak

    March 20, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    In Bush’s case, the decision to terminate some US Attorneys may be bad policy in the eyes of some, but it is certainly not criminal

    actually, some of this does look criminal, as in, getting rid of USAs in order to keep criminal investigations against republicans to procede (i.e. obstruction of justice).

    Dems shouldn’t even screw around with the courts… supoena Rove, and if he doesn’t show up cite him, AND HIS BOSS, for Contempt of Congress…. then start impeachment proceedings on his boss.

  37. 37.

    Zifnab

    March 20, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    In Bush’s case, the decision to terminate some US Attorneys may be bad policy in the eyes of some, but it is certainly not criminal. If executive privilege doesn’t place a shield of privacy over the discussions leading to an executive policy decision, then it is without meaning.

    Except, in many ways this was more than just firing President Pleasuring USAs. This was obstruction of justice in the middle of a criminal investigation. These were USAs from the Cunningham and Abramoff investigations, directly linked to some of the biggest scandals in the past two years.

    And the subpeonaed testimony is designed to determine who was involved in the implimentation of said obstruction of justice.

  38. 38.

    RSA

    March 20, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    I went to a talk he gave last week in front of some of Bush’s base (you know, the top 1% of the top 1% of the nation’s “earners”). The number one message I got from him is that for Republicans, the most important thing is that you are a trustworthy member of the club.

    How’d you get in?

  39. 39.

    Jay C

    March 20, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    How would that double standard be rationalized?

    Easy.

    IOKIYAR

    That simple principle that covers SO much…..

  40. 40.

    numbskull

    March 20, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    “How’d you get in?”

    I was invited.

  41. 41.

    CaseyL

    March 20, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    If Congress folds, we’re fucked. Checks and balances don’t mean anything, and any President can get away with anything.

    If Congress fights, it’s going to be a death brawl. It’s going to go to the courts and/or impeachment. There’s no other way to play this out, since Bush will absolutely ignore a contempt order.

  42. 42.

    RSA

    March 20, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    I was invited.

    Ah, I was hoping you’d say you were a member of the creme de la creme, or a mole in their midst, or perhaps just an unnoticed fly on the wall.

  43. 43.

    numbskull

    March 20, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    “Ah, I was hoping you’d say you were a member of the creme de la creme, or a mole in their midst, or perhaps just an unnoticed fly on the wall.”

    Haven’t checked my stats recently, but I didn’t mean to put on airs. It was more Kevin Bacon six degrees thing. Friends of friends and all that rot. Nobody had any illusions about my politics or my account balances. I did manage, however, to use the correct fork whilst not drooling on myself.

    (Which, btw, put me one up on the fossil sitting opposite me at the table…)

  44. 44.

    AkaDad

    March 20, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    I should have said When Harry Met Sally not Sleepless in Seattle.

  45. 45.

    neil

    March 20, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    Bush’s first truly Nixonian speech. This speech was a post on the roadmap. We’re on the way now.

  46. 46.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 20, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    Anyone want to put odds on how readily Scalia will throw out all the precedents in order to rule for whatever Ted Olson asks of him?

    I smell another “this case shall hold no precedential value” decision coming down the pike.

  47. 47.

    Andrew

    March 20, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    Sounds like it’s time to raise the Homeland Security Threat Level to ORANGE!!!!

    Woooooowowowowowowo!

  48. 48.

    Andrew

    March 20, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Also, what the fuck does it matter whether or not Rove is under oath? Isn’t it fucking illegal to lie to Congress?

  49. 49.

    Andrew

    March 20, 2007 at 8:53 pm

    Also, if you’re a blond starlet, it would be a really good time to dye your hair and go into hiding before you “die” of a “drug overdose.”

  50. 50.

    Richard Bottoms

    March 20, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    Regardless, I just don’t think we are going to see Rove testifying. They will drag this out, etc.

    And that’s bad for the Democrats how?

    Dickhead president let’s AG resign for doing a heckava job. Public knows something’s up.

    or

    Dickhead president loses fight over Rove, and also lets AG resign. Public knows something’s up.

  51. 51.

    SPIIDERWEB™

    March 20, 2007 at 9:03 pm

    The intricacies of the law are quite fascinating.

    In my vehicle, I got hit by someone who was speeding, passing in a no passing zone before railroad tracks in a school zone and I had my turn signal on. I was found guilty of failure to yield right of way. The judge understood my position in challenging the charge, but stated the law was clear.

    Shit happens.

  52. 52.

    RSA

    March 20, 2007 at 9:10 pm

    Haven’t checked my stats recently, but I didn’t mean to put on airs.

    I don’t think anyone took it that way; I was just bullshitting with the limited nudge-nudge possibilities supported by blog comments. But your general point is a good one: A lot of Bush’s behavior seems to come back to a sense of entitlement. For me, while the principles are important, watching Bush’s descent has an additional element of Schadenfreude that I can appreciate.

  53. 53.

    AkaDad

    March 20, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    President Bush is absolutely correct in defying the Democrats just for holding that quaint and archaic notion of oversight and checks and balances.

    Who wants to sign my petition to have Bush added to Mount Rushmore?

  54. 54.

    Punchy

    March 20, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    Also, what the fuck does it matter whether or not Rove is under oath? Isn’t it fucking illegal to lie to Congress?

    What is it about “not in public, with no transcripts allowed” don’t you understand?

  55. 55.

    Pb

    March 20, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    In the end, I came away thinking the Starr deep down knows that he did something very wrong. […] He just can’t admit it to himself and he’s now spending the rest of his life trying to justify that wrong.

    Duh. A man died in prison because of that asshole, and that’s just for starters. A guilty conscience is the absolute least that he deserves.

  56. 56.

    matt

    March 20, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Since you linked to Greenwald in your update, I just wanted to let you know that your Greenwald link is out of date on your blog roll.

  57. 57.

    Mr Furious

    March 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Bush has now offered to actually let Rove and Miers testify—but ONLY if they’re not under oath, in a closed room, and without any official transcript. It’s rather hard to interpret this offer as Executive Privilege for anything but the right to lie to Congress.

    That just about sums it up for me. If you’re asserting privilege. Then do it. Keep your secrets. The whole premise is based on being able to maintain separation from the Legislative Branch, if you are willing to share that info with Congress “on the QT,” then you’ve already surrendered said privilege. The only reason to do it is so lie or keep unsavory details either inadmissable or under wraps.

    That, quite frankly, is crap.

  58. 58.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 20, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    Who wants to sign my petition to have Bush added to Mount Rushmore?

    That depends. Do you wnat to have his likeness added to Mount Rushmore, or do you want to have him physically added to Mount Rushmore?

  59. 59.

    AkaDad

    March 20, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    That depends. Do you want to have his likeness added to Mount Rushmore, or do you want to have him physically added to Mount Rushmore?

    LOL I had to squeegee my monitor after that one…

  60. 60.

    Andrew

    March 20, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    What is it about “not in public, with no transcripts allowed” don’t you understand?

    So why don’t they accidentally tape it and release it to the public?

  61. 61.

    mrmobi

    March 20, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Nick Kasoff:

    If executive privilege doesn’t place a shield of privacy over the discussions leading to an executive policy decision, then it is without meaning.

    If that shield is being used to keep the public from finding out that those discussions were about firing a USAttorney to stop an investigation, then you have extremely arrogant and un-democratic behavior, and quite possibly a crime.

    Furthermore, if separation of powers protects William Jefferson from being searched, it certainly ought to protect Karl Rove from being subpoenaed.

    How exactly are those two situations similar? Karl Rove isn’t being searched, he’s going to be supoenaed. Separation of powers doesn’t make members of the administration completely immune from congressional inquiries. This isn’t Stalin’s Russia. Not yet, at least.

  62. 62.

    mrmobi

    March 20, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Nick Kasoff:

    If executive privilege doesn’t place a shield of privacy over the discussions leading to an executive policy decision, then it is without meaning.

    If that shield is being used to keep the public from finding out that those discussions were about firing a USAttorney to stop an investigation, then you have extremely arrogant and un-democratic behavior, and quite possibly a crime.

    Furthermore, if separation of powers protects William Jefferson from being searched, it certainly ought to protect Karl Rove from being subpoenaed.

    How exactly are those two situations similar? Karl Rove isn’t being searched, he’s going to be supoenaed. Separation of powers doesn’t make members of the administration completely immune from congressional inquiries. This isn’t Stalin’s Russia. Not yet, at least.

  63. 63.

    Richard 23

    March 21, 2007 at 12:54 am

    This so-called scandal is not going to develop into anything whatsoever. It’s amazing how easily the moonbats are distracted by the shiny keys. Hiring and firing people is a routine occurence that goes on every day in the United States and the world.

    Who cares? At least it keeps you off the streets.

  64. 64.

    Geoduck

    March 21, 2007 at 1:24 am

    Sounds like it’s time to raise the Homeland Security Threat Level to ORANGE!

    Or just quit all the pussyfooting around and attack Iran.

  65. 65.

    sglover

    March 21, 2007 at 1:35 am

    Anyone suspect that this is the start of the “breeze” against the house of cards that is this administration and if this card falls the entire aparatus will fall apart? That’s the only reason I can think of that the admin would be choosing this as their battleground.

    That is very much my sense, too. This thing seems to reach right into the heart of the White House. What’s more, these guys have got too accustomed to a one-party Congress and a worthless cadre of “journalists”. They’re sloppy and clueless. But Rove was never the genius that a lot of Beltway whores portrayed. Far from it. He may have trumped Herbert Hoover’s record. He might have discredited his party for a generation.

    It’s extremely interesting that, only a couple of months after the new Congress has convened, and with almost nothing in the way of a really serious investigation started, revelations of this magnitude have already jumped out. So I’m hopeful that we’re seeing the opening act of the impeachment.

  66. 66.

    sglover

    March 21, 2007 at 1:37 am

    Anyone suspect that this is the start of the “breeze” against the house of cards that is this administration and if this card falls the entire aparatus will fall apart? That’s the only reason I can think of that the admin would be choosing this as their battleground.

    That is very much my sense, too. This thing seems to reach right into the heart of the White House. What’s more, these guys have got too accustomed to a one-party Congress and a worthless cadre of “journalists”. They’re sloppy and clueless. But Rove was never the genius that a lot of Beltway whores portrayed. Far from it. He may have trumped Herbert Hoover’s record. He might have discredited his party for a generation.

    It’s extremely interesting that, only a couple of months after the new Congress has convened, and with almost nothing in the way of a really serious investigation started, revelations of this magnitude have already jumped out. So I’m hopeful that we’re seeing the opening act of the impeachment.

  67. 67.

    Da Bombz Diggity

    March 21, 2007 at 6:14 am

    “>Do AGs really serve at the pleasure of the president? Can somebody clear this up? Where is this found? Bush, Rove, Gonzales, Sampson all have said this. Is this really in the US attorney job description?

  68. 68.

    Da Bombz Diggity

    March 21, 2007 at 6:23 am

    Do AGs really serve at the pleasure of the president? Can somebody clear this up? Where is this found? Bush, Rove, Gonzales, Sampson all have said this. Is this really in the US attorney job description?

  69. 69.

    Jill

    March 21, 2007 at 6:40 am

    Rove will testify. He will lie under oath just like Condi, Roberto, and Scooter did.

  70. 70.

    Autoversicherung

    March 21, 2007 at 7:39 am

    Anyone suspect that this is the start of the “breeze” against the house of cards that is this administration and if this card falls the entire aparatus will fall apart? That’s the only reason I can think of that the admin would be choosing this as their battleground.

  71. 71.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 21, 2007 at 7:40 am

    Do AG serve at pleasure of Pres?

    I think your link answers that question. In any case, the issue is not relevant to the main charge against the White House and DOJ, which has to do with obstructing justice by firing ‘disloyal’ prosecutors.

    Game out an analogy and it becomes clear: I call someone on the phone and threaten to kill them, and when arrested I declare “I was just making a phone call, since when is that illegal?” My telephone serves at my pleasure, right?

  72. 72.

    Nick Kasoff

    March 21, 2007 at 8:03 am

    mrmobi says:

    If that shield is being used to keep the public from finding out that those discussions were about firing a USAttorney to stop an investigation, then you have extremely arrogant and un-democratic behavior, and quite possibly a crime.

    You can’t determine the motive for the action without denying the privilege in question. Investigating crime is what US Attornies do, so any firing is going to disrupt investigations. Will we now have hearings, with White House staff subpoenas, every time someone serving at the will of the President is fired? Doesn’t sound like a productive outcome to me.

    numbskull says:

    I was invited.

    If it makes you feel any better … maybe he was “invited” by the caterer, when one of his servers called in sick. :-)

  73. 73.

    The Other Steve

    March 21, 2007 at 8:20 am

    You can’t determine the motive for the action without denying the privilege in question. Investigating crime is what US Attornies do, so any firing is going to disrupt investigations. Will we now have hearings, with White House staff subpoenas, every time someone serving at the will of the President is fired? Doesn’t sound like a productive outcome to me.

    Some statements are just so dumb, they give up the fact that you are a spoof.

  74. 74.

    Zifnab

    March 21, 2007 at 8:35 am

    Sounds like it’s time to raise the Homeland Security Threat Level to BURNT ORANGE!

    GO HORNS!

  75. 75.

    Punchy

    March 21, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Honest question–does anyone really think, even IF handed a subpeona, and even IF courts demand that Rove testify, that he’ll THEN tell the truth?

    What happens when he lies under oath? Is that a crime? How many minutes would elapse from the time he’d be convicted and Bush’s pardon?

    Shorter–under oath, forced or not, Rove is going to lie. There’s absolutely no downside to lying.

  76. 76.

    demimondian

    March 21, 2007 at 8:43 am

    Executive privilege is not limitless — just as Congressional privilege is not. Jefferson’s office was searched, after all, even if you’d like to ignore that fact in order to spread your “welfare mom” mythology. And, you know, you don’t have to believe me…there’s precedent.

  77. 77.

    Kirk Spencer

    March 21, 2007 at 9:14 am

    Punchy,

    Assuming they put him under oath, Rove’s in a hard place. Yes, he could lie, and then hope that nothing comes out to prove him to have been lying. That puts him in danger of perjury charges. Perjury places him in the hands of those who he bullied – and bullies don’t like being in the hands of their victims. If Bush pardons him, Bush faces the risk of finally crossing the line sufficient to bring calls of impeachment from the GOP members of congress – he’s close already.

    On the other hand, congress might blink.

  78. 78.

    Steve

    March 21, 2007 at 9:27 am

    Some statements are just so dumb, they give up the fact that you are a spoof.

    He’s not a spoof, he’s a racist asshole. Check his link.

  79. 79.

    Andrew

    March 21, 2007 at 9:30 am

    What with all of the pleasure-serving going on at the Whitehouse, you’d think the porno-warriors would want an investigation too.

  80. 80.

    The Kid

    March 21, 2007 at 10:17 am

    You side with the president over the subpoena issue on this matter? Are you on drugs? The words, “executive privelege” appear nowhere in the constitution. Presidents haven’t the right to make up rules and terms that protect them from the rule of law. That’s banana republic, tin pot dictator bullshit. Here in America (at least pre Bush and the Rethuglican power grabs) that is unacceptable.
    Secondly, where was all this concern for executive privelege when a certain Democratic president was being hounded about blowjobs recieved from a certain intern in the White House? It certainly didn’t matter to the Rethuglicans then, did it? As much as I loathe the Rethuglicans and as much as I thought the entire Lewinsky mess was truly a partisan fishing expedition, I still thought Clinton had no right to use that crap rubric to keep his aids from testifying. And I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember but Nixon didn’t get away with this crap either when in 1972 (I believe) the supreme court voted, unanimously, against his invoking executive privelege to shield his corrupt, lying ass. The Dem leadership has to fight this one out. The fact that we have an ideologically tainted supreme court these days that probably will side with the boy king can not stop them. They have to fight. Make no mistake, our very democracy is at stake here.

  81. 81.

    mrmobi

    March 21, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Hey Steve, are you ever right about Nick.

    I went to his website which appears to be devoted exclusively to promoting the proposition that only black and brown people commit crimes. Then, because I was feeling masochistic, I went to some of his linked “friends.”

    You’ve got the whole tinfoil hat brigade in that group, specifically including holocaust deniers. I’m sure Nick believes that the twin towers were rigged with explosives by the Jews.

  82. 82.

    gex

    March 21, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    How does executive privilege square with the fact that they claim the pres was not involved?

  83. 83.

    skip

    March 24, 2007 at 10:09 am

    It is really pretty simple: the boundaries of executive privilege have yet to be drawn with any precision. Indeed, they may never be drawn beyond some legalese rendering of “the greater good,” defined on a case-by-case basis. All the way up to the Supreme Court.

    Its not unlike Green’s shot last night in the NCAAs. Was he fouled (yes)? But did he travel at the same time (yes)? Could there be a wide enough interpretation of executive privilege so as to cripple congressional oversight (yes)? But could not congressional oversight emasculate the executive (yes)?

    Putting on the striped shirt works no better than a black robe when nobody wants to make the definitive call.

  84. 84.

    Newport 9

    March 25, 2007 at 8:12 am

    Hiring and firing people is a routine occurence that goes on every day in the United States and the world.

    Listen up, you braindead dittohead dipshit, it’s a CRIME to cover up other peoples’ crimes. I don’t know how to make it plainer. President Dumbfuck and Attorney General Torture Boy fired those US attorneys because they were investigating corrupt Republicans. By firing those attorneys, Dumbfuck and Torture Boy were OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, which is a fucking CRIME.

    Jesus fucking Christ!

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Bush, Congress And Courts Heading Towards Political High Noon | The Moderate Voice says:
    March 21, 2007 at 9:24 am

    […] –The ever-independent John Cole: Just watched Bush’s presser, and my first thought was that despite Rove’s alleged political genius, this group sure steps in it a lot. The party is in shambles, the administration is a bunch of bungling incompetent boobs and under fire, and they have no one to thank but themselves. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • The Lodger on Late Night Open Thread: That Feeling You’ve Been Cheated (Jun 7, 2023 @ 2:48pm)
  • NotMax on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: Who Are You Gonna Believe?… (Jun 7, 2023 @ 2:47pm)
  • H-Bob on Late Night Open Thread: That Feeling You’ve Been Cheated (Jun 7, 2023 @ 2:43pm)
  • Suzanne on Adios, Jackass (Jun 7, 2023 @ 2:43pm)
  • JPL on Adios, Jackass (Jun 7, 2023 @ 2:42pm)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup on Sat 5/13 at 5pm!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!