How can bush white house refuse supoenas?

[panader0]

Is it possible?

[WinkyDink]

1. Brazenly, and remembering the SCOTUS Theft of 2000.

[pinto]

2. They will cite Executive Privilege.

[FightingIrish]

3. Now that his real "accountability moment" is here,

he will hide behind anything. If Congress caves to this maneuver, they should all go home. We, the screwed, have a right to know who is screwing and how.

[meldroc]

4. The White House will probably cite Executive Privilege

just like Nixon did.

Though it didn't work out too well for Nixon - the SCOTUS ruled that Executive Privilege only goes so far.

[Tansy_Gold]

7. from the jacket flap ----

"In Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth, Raoul Berger demonstrates that the presidential claim of authority to withhold information is without historical foundation.

". . . Mr. Berger maintains that our democratic system is imperiled by the assumption that the people and the Congress may know only as much as the President considers appropriate. If there must be secrecy, Mr. Berger concludes, its bounds should be determined by the courts, not by the branch of government interested in concealing unratified policies or misconduct. One of the authors prime examples of how misconstrued power and secrecy have led to disastrous results is the escalation by stealth of America's involvement in the war in Asia."

emphasis mine.

Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth by Raoul Berger, (c) Harvard University Press, 1974.

[renate]

8. nice find!

:applause:

[Tansy_Gold]

10. Nice find indeed -- I picked it up at a library sale for 25 cents

in about 2002. I had a funny feeling it would come in handy.

Sadly, it has.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Quote from Douglas Kmiec served during Reagan and Bush 41

Well, the problem with the current assertion of executive privilege is one finds it very hard to trace the assertion or the need for the privilege to anything related to policy. This isn't a question dealing with military secrets or national security. This isn't necessary to maintain the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation. In fact, quite the opposite; the assertion of the privilege here seems to be calculated to undermine the integrity of an investigation. And as to the issue of deliberative process, the courts have been really quite clear. We've had a number of rulings where the court has said, yes, deliberations must be candid, a certain amount of secrecy is important. But it's secrecy in the formation of policy in terms of implementing and carrying out the rule of law. It is not secrecy for thwarting criminal investigation or an inquiry into misconduct.

He made this statement 24 Mar 1998 regarding Clinton's executive privilege.


They argue that executive privilege is in the Constitution via the separatation of powers. Yet, Bush decides whether we go to war and not Congress. Yet, Bush decides whether he will follow the law that he signs and Congress passes by using signing statements.

[AlinPA]

5. My understanding is that they can. Then the congress will try to get a charge of

contempt of congress. But since Bush** owns the justice dept, he can tell them not to prosecute. Then congress could go to supreme court and lose 5-4.

[City Lights]

6. Andrea Mitchell mentioned the possibility of having to pay a fine if they

are found to be in contempt of court. BFD. :mad:

[hedgehog]

11. Bush said he wants his advisors to be able to speak freely knowing that they'll

never be called upon to repeat their words in public. What kind of advice is he getting from these people, anyways?