The Democrats are just being nosey and are trying to see how much control they can get. It’s really a waste of time, there’s no way they can override executive privilege without a Supreme Court order, which is unlikely. The point of executive privilege is so that the other branches can’t see what you’re doing. What other reason do you need besides that? It’s not the first time it was used.

The way the House and Senate are wasting their time with certain things makes you wonder if they honestly have any clue what they’re doing. What I mean is, wasting their time trying to defeat executive privilege, submitting bills with troop withdrawl times, no-confidence votes, etc.

Here’s my big problem right now; Bush won’t even explain how or why the concept of executive privilege applies

I believe it has to do with the fact that there is no crime under investigation here.

However, Congress should (and I believe does) have the right to ask questions.  Once asked, those questions should either be answered, or a good (read: legal) reason should be given as to why they will not be answered.  No, it doesn’t matter that the whole thing is over a witch hunt (the AG firings issue) to begin with.  Congress has legally requested to speak with certain White House staff members.  The White House has returned a response that boils down to “We don’t have to listen to you and we don’t even have to tell you why.”

I believe Bush has offered to let them speak to Congress too.  Just not under oath.  You know in a way where they now have them on record, and as soon as one thing of contradiction comes up (like what the order of events was over a 2 week time 2 years ago), they can then bring them up on charges of perjury.

Congress has the right to “closed door hearings” with the bang of a gavel, but Bush doesn’t get the same authority with his own appointed staffers?

One other minor point, if I may: Congress gets its say on key appointed positions, such as Cabinet members and Ambassadors and judges and the like, but not on those internal positions that merely shuffle papers.

If it is a Cabinet official they are calling, it is very different than it would be if it were the Junior Assistant Deputy Under-Secretary of Inter-office Data Transfer (formerly known as “that pimple-faced kid in the mail room").

Chief Justice Warren Berger stated: “Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

It really depends whether the action taken - the firings of politically appointed US Attorneys - would be considered the exclusive prerogative of the Executive Branch. If it is, Congress gets no say in the matter unless they can show that laws were broken, based on information they already have in their possession. (And simply saying “we want it” is not sufficient to overcome the Article II separation of powers.)

Guys, I don’t disagree with any of the factual, legal justifications you’ve written here.

What I disagree with is Bush not giving those EXACT justifications.  It’s the blanket “fuck off” attitude with which I take issue.

What I disagree with is Bush not giving those EXACT justifications.  It’s the blanket “fuck off” attitude with which I take issue

Yeah but that’s always the problem with him.  The complete inability to state why he or his administration are taking a specific point of action.  It sucks, but its how he is.  They’re never going to change, but on this part there is information available where you can find out why he’s taking the action.

And even if they laid it out at the feet for everyone to see, there would still be massive criticisms and claims to the contrary. 

Like you said, Bush isn’t King, but he also isn’t Prime Minister.

Guys, I don’t disagree with any of the factual, legal justifications you’ve written here.

What I disagree with is Bush not giving those EXACT justifications.  It’s the blanket “fuck off” attitude with which I take issue.

Maybe I should refrain from pointing out these things, lest some “True Conservative” accuse me of being a Bush panty-sniffer. But once the precedent of executive privilege has been established, does it really need to be spelled out Every. Single. Time. some dumbass Donk wants to push along another non-scandal in the hopes of taking a bite out of Bush?

It’s not like he deserves to exercise the power granted by the people in the 2004 election or anything. I mean, he’s Bush!! Isn’t that enough anymore?

:-/

Drum, that’s not entirely fair.  When a legal decision is rendered, judges cite case law, even if it’s the same case law over and over again.  Should I ask less of my President?  His office is a branch of the government - not the whole thing

Bush should be REQUIRED to just tell us SPECIFICALLY what legal right grants him the executive privilege in this particular matter.  THEN he can start with the ‘Fuck off, I don’t have to talk to you, I’m the decider” posturing.

There’s a process.  I want it followed.  I don’t think that’s asking too much.  Too often this administration has skirted or simply ignored the process.

Enough is enough.  Even if it is 100% true Congress is acting like big spoiled babies (and they are), I’ve had enough of the “Fuck you” arrogance from this White House.  So yes.  It does need to be spelled out each and every time.  We should WANT it spelled out each and every time.

We elected his as leader of one of the three branches of government.  We did not elect him King.  He should have to explain himself now and again.

Yeah but that’s always the problem with him.  The complete inability to state why he or his administration are taking a specific point of action.  It sucks, but its how he is.

This is my major complaint about this presidency.  The dude couldn’t explain why he ordered lunch, much less why we need to be in Iraq. Its like he just assumes that we all understand why he’s doing something, so why wouldn’t we just go along with him?  Its arrogance at its finest.

Clinton was a douchenozzle, but boy could he talk.  He could explain why he was doing a goat on the lawn of the White House and make half the people love him.

Should I ask less of my President?  His office is a branch of the government - not the whole thing

Bush should be REQUIRED to just tell us SPECIFICALLY what legal right grants him the executive privilege in this particular matter.  THEN he can start with the ‘Fuck off, I don’t have to talk to you, I’m the decider” posturing.

There’s a process.  I want it followed.  I don’t think that’s asking too much.  Too often this administration has skirted or simply ignored the process.

Wouldn’t that be nice?  If everytime some leftist moron started off on a tirade we wouldn’t have to explain in great detail why its allowed, we could simply point them to the speech the president made on the subject.  They wouldn’t understand any better but it would save so much time.

When a legal decision is rendered, judges cite case law, even if it’s the same case law over and over again.

But they don’t cite each and every precedent in each and every single paragraph of the decision, do they?

That’s what you are asking.

It has been clearly established that the political positions - which includes the fired attorneys - can be terminated at will by the President. He can even request those political positions requiring Congressional approval - such as Cabinet officials and military theater commanders - to step down, even if he would have to get Congress to approve of any replacements. That has long since been established, and was loudly defended by the same dunderheads who are now crying “foul!” back when Clinton did it at the beginning of his term, firing 92 of the 93 US Attorneys.

There being no crime for what happened, and because the substance of the decision-making process was primarily political, and since it is clearly yet another partisan attempt to cause problems for a President already under siege, I refuse to play along. Why should Congress have the right to subpoena someone over something that wasn’t a crime?

I understand why the President did what he did in telling Congress to pack sand. You have even stipulated that he had the right to do so. I didn’t need it explained in page, paragraph, sentence and phrase format.

I’m not nit-picking, but you have the facts, you agree with the reasoning, and you’re still upset. Why?

If I understand things correctly, you are upset because he didn’t sit you down personally and explain that politics are a big part of a political job. Or is it that he took the position that he shouldn’t have to keep explaining that politics are a big part of a political job?

Congress has the right of oversight, as do the other branches, each over the other two.  If Bush disagrees about a specific, it’s his job to at least tell them, and by extension us, why they don’t.

He’s stonewalling and no one has the foggiest idea why or under what authority.  You can project and guess all you want, but Bush simply refuses to speak on the matter.  I find that arrogant, and quite frankly wrong.

If Congress is legally wrong, Bush should simply explain why.  Period.

I’m just tired of this whole pissing contest.

Congress has the right of oversight

No question, and if there was any indication of a crime here - even the slightest hint of it - I would be right behind you.

But that isn’t the case.

You know and I know that (the Democratically-controlled) Congress is going on a fishing expedition and getting everything they can “under oath” so that if two people remember a conversation even slightly differently, then “obviously” one of them must be lying to cover something up, and that means a perjury charge, not to mention obstruction of justice and (in the current political scenario) probably Contempt of Congress to boot. And more investigations and subpoenas on anyone who has ever spoken with that victim.

THAT precedent exists. “McCarthy” ring a bell? HUAC?

People blackballed for nothing more than knowing someone with opinions different than the House leadership…

A high-level aide sentenced to thirty months and $250,000 fine for remembering something differently than a news reporter (who, of course, would have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to speak a lie for political and professional gain, am I right?)…

Tell me it wouldn’t happen.

He’s stonewalling and no one has the foggiest idea why or under what authority.

He may be stonewalling, but there is no legal precedent that says that Congress can conduct an open-ended investigation on the internal operation of the Executive Branch without at least some sort of underlying offense. Congress should be forced to state their authority for demanding the information before Bush should have to state his reasons for refusing.

Let’s see their reason for investigating a perfectly legitimate - and entirely legal - act of a co-equal branch, accompanied by the legal precedent granting them that authority, rather than the “guilty until proven innocent” setup you’re arguing…

EVEN IF Bush, et alia, didn’t have the authority to fire those attorneys, Congress doesn’t have the authority to issue subpoenas for a purely civil case (wrongful termination) anyway.

‘Mjusane…

Still love ya! :-D

I’m just tired of this whole pissing contest.

Heh. I am as well, hence the post’s title.  Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately I dunno, the system we have means it’s always gonna be this way.

I love when people, and it is far from just Drumwaster, refer to the President as being under siege. The comic absurdity of it gives me a good laugh.

Can anyone imagine Bush being elected in a Parliamentary system? I would LOVE to see him have to withstand actual public scrutiny on a daily basis, to his face, in the House of Lords (or even the much more polite House of Commons up here). My prediction would be tears within 5 minutes.

I love when people ... refer to the President as being under siege.

What other word would be a better description? He faces a hostile press corps, a hostile Congress, and one of the branches of the US Government is actively agitating for surrendering to the enemy in an ongoing shooting war.

And a Parliamentary system in today’s political scenario would be changing hands every other week, with every scandal imaginable being dredged up on every single member they can find and regularly-scheduled “votes of confidence”, instead of ... oh, wait, we’ve got that already.

The only difference is that Bush has official spokespersons to keep explaining that 1 + 1 = 2 to media reporters who aren’t competent enough to look that up for themselves, rather than stand there wasting hours a day on repetitive questions of the “when did you stop beating your wife?” variety…

Congress has the right of oversight, as do the other branches, each over the other two.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of oversight does the Executive Branch have on the Legislative? Or on the Judicial, for that matter?

A veto can be overridden by Congress, and the only interaction that the Executive Branch has with the Judicial is either as defendent in various legal issues or when appointing the judges at the SCOTUS or Federal levels (with the approval and oversight of Congress).

Oversight is one thing. Investigating with subpoenas and witnesses under oath is what happens by the police and court system (which is a Constitutional prerogative of the Executive Branch, not the Legislative).

What you are suggesting is that Congress should be judge (issuing subpoenas and confining uncooperative witnesses for Contempt), jury (sitting in judgement with indictments made by a simple majority vote) and executioner (sitting in trial during Impreachment proceedings against the President, Vice-President or assorted judges) of both of the other branches, with no evidence whatsoever.

And I don’t see that in my copy of the Constitution.

He faces a hostile press corps, a hostile Congress, and one of the branches of the US Government is actively agitating for surrendering to the enemy in an ongoing shooting war.

All of which his admin brought on itself.

The reality is Bush is being told to stonewall and he really doesn’t know why he can. It goes back to the whole “hire people who know what they’re doing” thing he promised he would do.

All of which his admin brought on itself.

Oh, so it’s Bush’s fault that the Dems are actively assisting Al Qaeda by agitating for surrender and retreat during a “hot war”? It’s Bush’s fault that the media leans liberal 8-to-1? Who in his administration should be held responsible for either of those things? Who should he have hired or fired to correct those problems?

What’s next, blaming him for the destruction caused by a Cat-5 hurricane? Or for the incompetence and inadequacies by the failure of the local (Democratically-controlled) government agencies?

Oh, wait…

How’s the view from up inside Lee’s ass?

The reality is Bush is being told to stonewall

Yeah, he’s just a moron who wouldn’t know how to tie his shoes if it weren’t for that little earpiece that Willem Dafoe was using to walk him through the procedure.

Fortunately we have all those “True Conservatives” who can see through all that, because they know that Bush is really an utter moron who nevertheless managed to deceive the entire global governmental infrastructure.

For the Oil!

he really doesn’t know why he can.

Let’s try this again, and see if one of you can come up with the authorization for Congress to conduct investigations into a perfectly legal act. Of course, since this isn’t about Congress, you’re going to immediately assume that it is Bush who must prove his innocence, rather than Congress having to justify its own intrusions into Executive authority.

Because it’s Bush’s fault. Whatever it is, it’s Bush’s fault.

Sure makes life easier when you can quit thinking.

Wow, I simply stated an opinion. I’m surprised that it would get you so wound up, Drum.

You have some serious emotional problems. This is why very few can stand to debate you anymore. Anyway, I’ll spare you the psychoanalysis.

Refuting points I never made. How very lame.

I think this debate is moving too much into the realm of imagined slights, personal business and so forth.  Lotta talking past each other going on.  I assign no blame to one person or the other...it’s as much my fault as anyone else’s.  Can we agree to disagree and call it a day?

We don’t have to get mad at each other over this crap, I swear to you.  :)

Wow, I simply stated an opinion.

“Opinion”?

The reality is Bush is being told to stonewall and he really doesn’t know why he can.

This unsupported insult is what you call “an opinion”? Based on what, exactly? (Bush Derangement Syndrome doesn’t count.)

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.

By the way, got an answer for me? Or shall I just accept your ignorance as a given?

You have some serious emotional problems.

So requiring that you stick to facts is an “emotional problem”, but blaming Bush for everything under the sun is perfectly normal?

Says a lot, and none of it good.

Guess I called those cranial coordinates pretty accurately, huh?

This is why very few can stand to debate you anymore.

Damn those pesky facts! How dare I require them as evidence instead of your rampant BDS symptoms! Who do I think I am, anyway!

(You guys crack me up sometimes...)

Refuting points I never made.

Except for the whole “quoting your exact words” bit. There’s those pesky ol’ facts again…

That’s okay, you can always blame Bush.

What other word would be a better description?

Part of the fucking job

So I used the right word for the situation, but it was wrong of me to point it out because Bush should be spending his time doing his press secretary’s job?

***

So...... have you given up raping little boys, Sean? (You can’t possibly be offended, because it’s just a simple yes/no question. What have you got to hide, Sean? You won’t mind if we put you under oath for this part of it, do you?)

It’s not the facts that are the problem, Drum, it’s your style. Per Jim’s suggestion, I’ll call it a day.

I should have known better.

Posted by GripeBoy on 07/11 at 01:48 PM - (3 min. limit)

He faces a hostile press corps, a hostile Congress, and one of the branches of the US Government is actively agitating for surrendering to the enemy in an ongoing shooting war.

All of which his admin brought on itself.

Alright, how is a hostile press corps Bush’s fault?  Let’s face it there was a period of time that Bush was not getting slammed by the media and that was after 9/11 because had they done it then, their partisan hackery would have been so obvious that no one would ever believe their claims of neutrality again.  They’ve hated him since he beat their golden boy in 2000, and “I was for the war before I was against it” in 2004.  How did he bring a hostile media on himself?

How did he make the democrats use rhetoric and topics that are practically line for line the words of the terrorists?  How did he make the democrats and True conservatives, who were for victory before they declared the war was lost, decide to repeatedly claim that we are defeated and we aren’t going to win?

How did he bring on himself the democrats investigating a legal act that his administration did, and was legal because the idiots in Congress left a loophole in a law that they have since corrected.  How did Bush bring it on himself that the congress is looking for every little thing to investigate?

The reality is Bush is being told to stonewall and he really doesn’t know why he can. It goes back to the whole “hire people who know what they’re doing” thing he promised he would do.

Since you claim this is only your opinion, how did you arrive at your opinion?  Why didn’t you say “my opinion is bush is being told?” Why do you hold the belief that Bush can’t possibly know the reasons why he can stonewall, instead of he actually does but he sucks so bad at explaining anything known to man that he couldn’t convince a starving eskimo that a seal would be a good meal, so he just will stonewall?  Why do you hold the belief that Bush is too stupid to understand anything?

There you go Gripeboy.  Different style, of course the style shouldn’t matter since you’re a battle hardened warrior of thunderdome.

Drum: You’re nothing if not consistent. Mind you, you’re consistently irrational and irrelevant. But hey, at least you’re consistent.

Is this a detailed enough justification for you Jim?

I wonder if anyone has considered that the reason there is a perception that Bush doesn’t explain himself is because the media don’t fully and clearly report his position?  I mean, this is only a single example of an ongoing problem, and that is the White House has a very difficult time conveying its message to the American people.

I think this is mostly due to the current media mentality that it cannot directly report on government statements because to do so would be “biased”.  Thus those statements are filtered through the media machine and get distorted, diluted or lost altogether.

Thanks for trying, Buzz, but they’re not going to answer any questions on the issue. Bush is a liar and a moron, and he deserved to be blamed for anything and everything, just because he’s Bush, and that’s all there is to it. Just ask any True Conservative.

Who needs facts, anyway?

The funny thing is that they have all appeared to admit that Bush has the right to ignore Congressional subpoenae on the issue, but he’s still wrong for not taking the time to explain something they have admitted that they already knew.

The funny thing, Drum, is that his office has detailed his justification quite clearly.  The message just gets muddled by BDS.

Nice point. Thanks, zoom! :-)

Well, you guys?

Why should POTUS, of any party, answer to a congressional fishing expedition where a) no law was broken b) Congress is challenging something that even if they were right and the firings were political, it’s still legal!???

Like the hearings on the Libby commutation. It is 100% the POTUS’s legal right and the left is wasting time and taxpayer money for a PR hearing just to try to make POTUS look like Clinton.

This is Salem, MA, in what, the 1600’s

Thanks for trying, Buzz, but they’re not going to answer any questions on the issue

I didn’t do it for you drum.  You mentioned something I’d love to see gripeboy actually answer.  And the simple fact that based on where he posts he suddenly has this problem with the way people argue is a flat out joke.

I’d just really love to see how he can blame media bias on bush, or senators more happy to see america fail that they have pretty much said they will not believe any positive progress out of Iraq.  Note that I didn’t say things are going great in Iraq, but that they will just ignore any positive progress.  Even after saying that though they’ll still believe I said things are going good in Iraq.

Ah yes!  There it is!

Link

Money quote supporting my point:

“Just because a public official says it doesn’t mean you need to put it in your story or give his claim equal billing to what you know to be true.”