Brush up on Executive Privilege because

[Raven]

that is where this is going. Bush had all the buzz words tonight. If sobpeonas go out, if they go out, this ends up in the DC Circuit Court. One of the problems for the President here, I think, is that he did not prevent his people from going to Congress, he said he would not let them testify in public, under oath. To me, this goes way past any concept of Executive Privilege...in fact, I wonder if he waived EP tonight. This is an issue, not of whether WH people testify, but HOW they testify. I'm not sure that there are any legal precedents for that, but there must be folks on DU who know the answer.

[Fridays Child]

1. When you get past all of his chest-thumping BS, does Bush...

...really have a leg to stand on? I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the Constitution but I think this is just one more attempt to alter the public's perception of reality by Team Bush.

[aquart]

4. He's praying that his treasonous Court will bail him out again.

Alito. Scalia. Thomas. Roberts. Kennedy?

He can't do anything else. The truth will hang him.

[Raven]

10. Oh it definately is an attempt to alter reality but

I've been reading some of the EP cases today and this is a very complicated legal area, very fact-driven and there are still many areas of it that haven't been decided by the courts. In fact, I read in one of these documents that the US Supreme Court was split on the Nixon tapes but decided to make their decision unanimous because of the impact on the country of a split decision. I've said this before but what is really interesting about Bush's statement today is that he's letting his people testify but trying to control how they testify ie, privately and not under oath.

[Sydnie]

17. He made a very clear distinction though

Semantics? Yes, but clearly defined all the same. The DOJ employees can testify, under oath and in public. Rove and Miers will be "interviewed" which means no oath, no public, and no transcript ... in other words, no paper trail to come back and haunt them, just he said she said memories to recall what happened.

He's a slick snake and that might be how he skirts the charge that he gave up EP today.

[lovuian]

2. Legal precedents Nixon Watergate Iran Contra 911 investigation

Clinton Blue dress ... there is tons of evidence for supoena power of Congress if this is not available then why have Congress

[stevedeshazer]

3. This really burns me up

That's the issue exactly.

Is the President, who heads the Executive Branch, above the law?

Not only is he claiming that, but he's also saying that his subordinates are as well.

This is fast turning into a constitutional crisis and I'd be willing to bet that any D.C. Circuit Court ruling will end up in front of Tony Scalia and his Evil Gang of Five.

That's where the rubber meets the road IMO.

[aquart]

6. Five?

Scalia. Alito. Thomas. Roberts. Kennedy? Can they absolutely count on that?

This is Roberts' moment to become immortal. To stamp his court. He's been practically invisible so far.

I don't know what he'll do about Bush's attempt to place himself above the judiciary and legislative branches.

If Roberts gives Bush the power to ignore Congress, less than two years from now that same power will fall into Democratic hands. Can he think that far ahead?

[stevedeshazer]

24. It's definitely not a given

Though I'd bet Roberts would go with the Scalia bloc. Kennedy is definitely the wild card.

[Terri S]

5. check out this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x458035

[ThoughtCriminal]

7. I can explain the Administration view in one sentence

Unless his aides know they can safely tell lies to Congress in closed sessions, it might impair their ability to give advise.

And he is certainly getting the kind of quality advise that this viewpoint provides.

[malaise]

8. I'm brushing up on the fall of Nixon

Bushco is desperate. It will only get worse for Bush.

[aquart]

12. Yes. Yes, it will.

Which reminds me. I have to stop and buy popping corn while I'm out.

[DUgosh]

13. me too

[creeksneakers2]

9. John Dean says there's nothing Congress can do

other than to apply political pressure.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070112.html

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet. I can't find a case that ruled on congressional subpoena power versus executive privilege. There is the Nixon case about executive privilege from subpoenas from the courts. The Supreme Court in that case ruled that a general claim of executive privilege (no specific reason other than precedent harming president's ability to get candid advice) didn't trump a subpoena. The court did allow exceptions for national security, etc.

[Raven]

21. Here is what to read...and it's dense

Onenote gave me this citation and it has been very informative...go to the Congressional Record Service of the Library of Congress. You want the Report for Congress - Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege, History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments. It's dated September 21, 1999 and has a code number of RL.30319. Good reading!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

11. Clinton and his staff had to testify. Staff numerous times.

This is under thinkprogress.org.

High level Clinton staff members testified before congress 47 times.

[WinkyDink]

14. Baker, Olson, and Toensing are already on it. And I'll bet have made

illicit phone calls to some SCOTUSers.

Bush is holding a losing hand. Nixon had won in a landslide, just 2 years earlier. Bush actually lost, in the public arena, and the Republicans lost in both public and political arenas in 2006.

There IS NO CAPITAL he has left, and he's drawn the Dead Man's Hand.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. Will the Supreme Court bail out Bush AGAIN?

[NightWatcher]

16. Of Course,

look who sits on the bench, all of his boys

[WinkyDink]

18. Harriet doesn't look like such an out-of-left-field choice now, given her involvement.

[paparush]

19. Bush is rolling the dice and praying they come up 5-4

[AnnInLa]

20. Comment from Atrios:

"Any executive privilege claims can only theoretically potentially limit the scope of questioning, not prevent them from testifying at all. Working for the president doesn't give you magic immunity from everything."

Also Reid's statement:

After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush Administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.

www.atrios.blogspot.com (no permalink yet)

[liberalnurse]

22. Let them go up to Congress thinking they

won't be placed under oath...then on live TV C-Span and for all the MSM...for all to see and hear,; have Senator Leahy begin to swear then in under oath....They freak out and walk away having to address all the people and media on their way out the halls of Congress. :rofl:

A girl can dream can't she?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

23. I'd like to know, too. I remember reading a "specific" basis for EP,...

,...had to be provided in order for the excutive branch to avoid a subpoena.

I would think that the Dems have had lawyers all over this issue, though. Plus, I imagine the Repugs treatment of the Clinton administration (as a matter of 'practice' and dirty hands) would be relevant, too.

:shrug:

The Dems are soooooo "SAFE" that I have to believe they've got this one in the pocket in spite of the current make-up of the 'supremes'.