A post that some aren't going to like: Don't count your subpoenas before they hatch

[onenote]

I think its terrific that the Democrats responded as quickly and forcefully as they did to chimpy's half-assed "offer" and to his supposed line in the sand.

But, let's not lose sight of reality. Executive privilege law is extremely murky and the case for (and against) its assertion in this present situation is not a slam dunk for either side. You'd be setting yourself up for a major disappointment if you thought otherwise.

Now, if it comes to it, I sure as hell hope that a court would find that in the facts of this situation,the privilege shouldn't apply. But that's more of a hope than a strong expectation.

My strong expectation is that after talking tough, chimpy and the Congress will find some sort of compromise on this; possibly having Miers and Rove testify, in private, and maybe not even under oath, but with a transcript that may be released at a later date.

Ultimately, the key here is public pressure. If the administration thinks that its strategy is backfiring and the public is demanding that rove and miers publicly testify under oath, the more that they will feel the need to compromise. But given that its hard to imagine that anyone who still supports chimpy would turn on him over this (figuring that all the folks capable of independent cognitive thought have already figured out what a disaster chimpy is), the key really is whether Congressional repubs think that chimpy's position puts them in a bad position. The next 24 hours will be important in that regard.

[robinlynne]

1. and the supreme court doesn't flinch while installing presidents who weren't elected, and ruling

against election law. the supreme belongs to bush.

[eleny]

2. The whole process will keep the issues in front of the American people

Just in time for '08.

[LiberalFighter]

8. As a politico stated Bush was dead in the water when Democrats

took control of Congress. With this mess he is deader yet.

Democratic Congress only need to keep it simple when speaking in front of the cameras.

"What is Bushwad hiding?"

[MannyGoldstein]

3. It's Time For The Republicans To Impeach Bush

The bottom line is that our president has violated the law and sodomized the Constitution (and is astonishingly incompetent to boot, although that's not impeachable). The correct solution is impeachment - everything else is a misdirected tangent.

Of course once the Rethugs start the impeachment process, the 'Dems' will have play along. They won't be happy, but sometimes ya gotta do the right thing for the country, no?

[Duer 157099]

4. I just hope the Dems keep pressing

From what I understand, the next step, if he invokes Exec Priv, is a district judge in DC, appointed by Gonzo himself. Hard to imagine how that would go down (not).

[Atman]

5. I've already fully resigned myself to a Pelosi-Reid Backdown

As opposed to a "Smackdown," as we deserve. Remember, Bush and Cheney are still illegally wiretapping and surveilling anyone who crosses them. Nancy's college nudie photos and Reid's endorsements from Mistress Leatherchaps and the girls at the Nevada Ho Ranch are still on file, just waiting to be "leaked." At best, we'll get an "interview" in a secret bunker with no legal standing -- in the name of "bipartisanship." Sorry. That's just the confidence Nancy and Harry have instilled in me so far.

.

[napi21]

6. Oh, I have no false assumptions on this issue. I know it's a High risk

SCOTUS, BUT I also have a wee bit if confidence in the SCOTUS to believe there can be a 5-4 decision to force Shrub to give in. There are only two reasons to be able to use "executive privelege". Things involving State Secrets, and those involving National Security. Unless I'm dense as a damn concrete wall, this issue involves neither!

Ihopethe Dems DO push this subpoena issue to the SCOTUS! Iwant to see the admin. squirm BIG TIME!

[onenote]

7. executive privilege is not that limited

not limited to state secrets and national security. See the Espy case, for example: http://pub.bna.com/lw/19970708/963124.htm

Another detailed discussion of the doctrine of executive privilege can be found here. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

[napi21]

10. Executive Privelege does NOT cover obstruction!

Firing a USA 2 days after she notifies the DOJ she's going to indict 2 more Pubs is REALLY PUSHING it, don't ya think?

[pnwmom]

11. Of course. But it doesn't matter what we think.

Contempt of Congress citations are enforced by -- guess who -- the Justice Department : i.e. the U.S. attorneys.

All of the U.S. Attorneys, with the exception of the 8, are considered to be "loyal Bushies." That's why they weren't fired.

See the problem?

[aquart]

9. After six years of eating Republican dirt?

Don't be too sure you know what will happen.