After reading of President Bush's plan, which is being denounced by Democratic congressional leaders to allow Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other aides to be interviewed by Congress, not under oath and not during public sessions, and with no transcripts released about the ongoing controversy over the firing of eight prosecutors. I am reminded of all the machinations President Nixon went through in 1973 and 1974 to keep information from the courts and Congress.
Instead of releasing tapes, Nixon offered to allow Sen. John Stennis to listen to them. He tried to release information in dribbles and drabbles instead of turning over everything at once.
To Bush's credit, the administration released the e-mails that have proved to be so damning in this case, but otherwise, it appears the president wants to follow the same course as his Republican predecessor, who also tried, unsuccessfully, to keep top aides from testifying.
15 comments:
Randy,
You might try reading history a bit yourself if you think only Republican presidents have asserted executive privilege with regard to administrative officials speaking to congress.
In 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Accordingly, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.
Thomas Jefferson also invoke the privilege when ordered to produce documents during Aaron Burr’s trial for treason.
You are correct to note that Nixon invoked the privilege during Watergate. However, you might consider that in that case the Supreme Court recognized "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." The Court noted 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."
On the other hand, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution.
And what about President Clinton? In the case of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton, the White House successfully argued that the First Lady was an officer or employee of the government and therefore executive privilege allowed her to keep private (i.e. secret) the proceedings of the health-care-reform panel.
In 1998 President Clinton attempted to utilize executive privilege to protect his conversations about Monica Lewinsky with aides Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal and only relented when overruled by a federal judge.
Also, in September of 1999 President Clinton invoked executive privilege and refused a congressional subpoena seeking details of his clemency offer to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists.
I could produce more instances then that but I think I have made my point.
I now look forward to a well-reasoned response from the always thoughtful and historically versed Durst.
To Mr. (anoymous Republican)You forgot to mention Dick(SHOOTER)
Chaney's secret Energy Task Force
members have Never been made public or it's proceedings.Wonder why?
Dear Mr. Clearly-Identifiable S.D.,
I didn’t forget about Cheney’s task force but it wasn’t relevant to the post. Randy said “it appears the president wants to follow the same course as his Republican predecessor, who also tried, unsuccessfully, to keep top aides from testifying.” I interpreted that comment as suggesting that only Nixon and Bush have evoked executive privilege. Ergo, my post was simply pointing out that this issue relates more to the office then to a political party.
As to why Cheney would wish to keep the conversations of the National Energy Policy Development Group private (as Hillary Clinton did with the Health Reform Commission), I’ll let Jack Quinn answer that question (the following quote comes from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/privilege_2-19.html.):
“JACK QUINN, Former Clinton White House Counsel: The White House and all White Houses will always think about invoking executive privilege whenever anyone tries to intrude on that area of communication between a president and his senior advisers. The reason that's so important is that sitting presidents and for all future presidents there's a vital public interest in making sure that they can have candid, honest, forthright advice from their advisers. If people have to worry that what they tell a president will later be disclosed, they might not give the president their best advice. And that is not in the public interest.”
Now, try again, attempt a come back where you use reason to rebut my points rather then silly name calling (e.g., “Shooter”) or cracks about anonymity.
Boy, somebody got the Hackles up on the Bushie spin doctor.
I think another important difference that Randy ignores here is that this most recent "scandal" is political and not criminal. I think everyone agrees that there was no crime, so why the subpeonas? The president should be allowed privacy in his communications with senior advisors, and be protected from this type of partisan investigation -- especially when there is no criminal investigation.
In re-reading the PBS interview I found a section that is even more illustrative of the Clinton administration’s view regarding personal matters and executive privilege, allow me to cut-and-paste the following:
“JACK QUINN: Well, it's really rooted in the separation of powers, principles, and the important purposes of allowing a President to carry out his constitutional functions. And, indeed, that's precisely the point I was just going to make, that really executive privilege protects those communications that are necessary to enable a President to carry out his duties. A significantly more recent decision than the Nixon case is called "In Re: Sealed Matter," though it is no longer sealed, and it is on the public record, it involves the Mike Espy investigation.
MARGARET WARNER: Former Secretary of Agriculture in Clinton's first term.
JACK QUINN: Yes. This is a very instructive case because it has nothing to do with military secrets or national defense. There the prosecutor sought notes that people made when they interviewed different people about perspective cabinet nominees. The White House took the position that the President's power to appoint people to positions of great public trust, cabinet positions, was a vital duty that the President has to carry out, and that the President has to be free to get again candid, forthright, honest advice from people about the people whom he's thinking of appointing to office. The court agreed and said that those notes did not have to be turned over. But that is precisely the kind of situation where you can see an incredibly strong public interest in making sure that the president can get honest advice from people. If you thought that by telling Boyden what you thought about me--if a president was considering me for a job--that that information might be out in the public in a year, you might not be as forthcoming as you would be if you were assured of confidentiality. And the public interest demands confidentiality. That's what executive privilege is all about. That's why it's so important. It is, in fact, about encouraging honesty in these communications at the senior-most levels of government. It's not about hiding things; it's about making sure that these communications are honest and candid and forthright.”
So, I would say if executive privilege applies to advice regarding hiring, then it should apply to firing.
While I’m cutting and pasting, I found this article from time.com interesting:
“Last Tuesday, after being on the job only 11 days, Attorney General Janet Reno had the Justice Department moving and shaking. She requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country "to build a team" that represents "my views" and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was "no linkage"' between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue.”
See, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978161,00.html
Did you hear the one about them using the Republican National Committee to send executive email? Some might think it a dodge by the guilty to circumvent any investigations...
Oh, and I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that they'll probably use the same standards on Bush that the repubs used when they went after Clinton.
Also I know this is one of those "fine points" that you aren't going to like, but there is a difference between letting staff from the previous administration of the other party go at the start of your first term, so that you can hire your own people and dumping your own people.
And then there's that rating system which we now know about that is so obviously aimed at making the federal prosecutors a loyal extension of the presidency rather than the independent check and balance that they were designed to be. Nothing wrong with that, right?
And speaking of Janet Reno, I believe she was independent enough to allow Starr (most recently associated with Blackwater) to expand his investigation, wasn't she? Gee, do you think Gonzalez would stop participating in the cover-up long enough to do the same?
You know, I'm starting to enjoy this a LOT! This is a lot worse than president who cheated on his wife.
The Bush administration cleaned house too when they took over.The difference is this administration
fired thier own Judges who were doing an impartial job, non - partisan which didn't set well with Karl.Because they were prosecuting corrupt Republicans.
So, here’s the Democratic position, it is okay to fire 93 U.S. Attorneys so long as it is part of a political purge but you can never replace eight of your own people. By that theory you would have to say it was a scandal that Bush replaced Donald Rumsfeld.
To the 2:48 poster, a U.S. Attorney is a prosecutor not, as you state, a Judge. I would take your assurances that these individuals were doing impartial, nonpartisan jobs more seriously if you at least knew what jobs they were doing.
To the 2:36 poster, Janet Reno was so independent that she didn’t have anything to do with Ken Starr’s appointment. In fact, Janet Reno wanted to appoint Robert B. Fiske, Jr to lead the investigation. However, the Independent Counsel law at the time mandated that Independent Counsels must be chosen by “The Special Division,” a three-judge panel, and not by the administration under investigation.
See: http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/government/whitewater/starr_appt.html
Any more “fine points” you would like to pitch to me?
One more thing to the 2:36 poster: U.S. Attorney’s are part of the executive branch they are not a fourth independent branch of government. The system of checks and balances to which you refer deals with the relationship between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. Hence, it is the Legislature and the Judiciary which are supposed to check the power of the Executive branch, rather then divisions within the Executive branch checking themselves. So, in fact, U.S. Attorneys are extensions of the Presidency.
I thought it odd that you would condemn the practice of putting people loyal to the President into these posts when just a few sentences prior you argued that it was okay to let the staff of the previous administration go in order to replace them with “your own people.”
Stings, doesn't it.
President Clinton replaced Bush the first's people at the beginning of his term. Bush did that and then re-replaced people in the middle of his presidency because they were prosecuting or thinking about prosecuting republicans, some of thme close to "home" or weren't willing to expedite prosecutions of democrats in time for the recent elections. That's the difference.
The rating system, accidentally leaked by Gonzalez's assistant at a Congressional hearing, which gave very effective prosecutors a bad rating makes it clear what the basis was for the rating. Most of us want prosecutors to go after bad guys without regard to party affiliation or party goals.
And in your anger and frustration, you apparently overlooked my use of the word "expand" in reference to Reno and Starr. It appears you "overlooked" a lot of other things as well.
Lol.
I’ll leave anger and frustration to Democrats who, despite winning the last election, still somehow feel victimized by Bush, the Republicans, Fox News and the world in general.
With regard to the apolitical nature of U.S. Attorneys, that may be true on the planet Cornball but here on Earth the job has always been a political plum appointment. The U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President, based on recommendations from the Senators in the particular District (and maybe even, “gasp,” by the amount of campaign donations they have made). Bottom line, they get the job because they have done something to make the President happy and they lose their job when they make him unhappy.
Now, it would be a scandal if the President had fired a number of ASSISTANT U.S. Attorneys, who are career civil servants and, incidently, the people who really do the job of prosecuting people (whereas, the role of the actual U.S. Attorney is primarily administrative). Thus, these firings will have no more effect on any ongoing prosecution then Reno’s firing of Jay Stephens (then U.S. Attorney in Chicago) had on the prosecution of Dan Rostenkowski (D).
As for Reno, again the Independent Counsel law at the time did not give her the authority to appoint Starr nor did it give her the power to expand the scope of his investigation. Rather, again, it was the three-judge panel that ruled to expand the scope of Starr’s authority.
Also, that expansion came as a result of a taped conversation of Lewinsky stating that she intended to lie when deposed on a case involving the President and also urging a cooperating witness to lie in her own upcoming deposition. So, you see, the difference between these two cases is that in one involved evidence of perjury (which I’m sure you will recall is the name of the thing that Clinton did that got him impeached and later disbarred), whereas in the present case the President has the legal authority to fire presidential appointees at will (i.e., it is not a crime).
Mr. 4:43 am why don't you do us all a fovor and Enlist in the army and go fight for the president you support so proudly. I did in Veit-nam,then you may have a clearer view of planet cornball
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
I have deleted these tiresome exchanges. It needs to stop now. Please feel free to comment on the posts, even to argue points, but do not resort to namecalling.
Post a Comment