A short observation about Chimpy's latest executive privilege assertion:

[BuyingThyme]

I think it's worth mentioning that he isn't actually making a traditional separation of powers argument by which the executive branch maintains its independence from the legislative branch. Not yet, anyways.

To the contrary, in regards to the US attorneys matter, the Chimp has generously offered to allow his criminals, err... shills, err... aides to interact directly with Congress in an official capacity.

However, he seems to have created a new privilege whereby he hopes to separate himself (and his lackeys) from the people and the law.

In other words, because he wants our Constitutional checks and balances to be conducted behind closed doors, we the people will be excluded. And because he wants our Constitutional checks and balances to proceed without the benefit of sworn testimony, or any sort of official record at all, he (and his lackeys) will effectively be exempt from the established laws of the land which are intended to protect we the people from those who wish to do us harm by ways of offering false testimony before Congress.

So, what name should be given to this new form of executive privilege, where a separation is established between the president (and his lackeys) on one side, and the people and the law on the other?

ANSWER: Dictatorship.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Yup, ya got it right....Raw Power.....

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. We're just peolpe for god's sake. We don't have rights. Cmon!

:wtf: :sarcasm:

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. First trial run on this was Cheney's Energy Committee

They're giving it a second shot now. But yes, definitely Dictatorship.

I have no doubt if the exact things that are going on now were read to Bush/GOP inserting the names of a fictitious country (or just for fun, Bill Clinton and his aides), that they would have their hair on fire and screaming at the top of their lungs.

But, no. It's not political. :eyes:

[BuyingThyme]

4. I don't know. Did anybody at all testify in any capacity

before Congress?

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Nope! They took it to court and SCOTUS refused to hear it

Appeals Court had ruled he can keep the records secret.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5309.shtml

"A U.S. District Court ordered the Vice President and the NEPDG to respond to Judicial Watch’s discovery requests for records and information about the Energy Task Force meetings, including the names of participants. The Bush administration refused to comply. After the Appellate Court refused to intervene, the administration appealed the U.S. Supreme Court, which last April refused to dismiss the case, but sent it back to the Appellate Court for further review.

The Appellate Court today ruled against any discovery related to the make up of the Energy Task Force or its committees and dismissed the suit. According to the court, the open meetings law does not apply even if an outsider participates in or influences an advisory committee, but only if the outsider actually “votes” as a member of the committee or “vetoes” the committee’s recommendations. The court further ruled that statements provided by administration officials were sufficient evidence, by themselves, to conclude that no outsiders voted on or vetoed the task force’s recommendation on energy policy."

[BuyingThyme]

10. That's what I thought.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Which begs the question - If they do not reveal who was and was

not on the task force, how do we know who was or was not legitimately voting or vetoing the committee's recommendations. For that matter, how do we know what the recommendations were? It's like going to court and allowing testimony from only one side -- no, it's not LIKE...it IS.

[chefgirl]

5. I think you hit the nail on the head there, BT

SNOW: "Executive Branch DOESN'T Have to Do Anything-Legislative Branch Has No Oversight Of WH".


When I read this statement from Snow(job), my first reaction, after six years of listening to this administration split hairs whenever it concerns the Constitution, was that they are trying to put forth the idea that, although the Legislative branch does have oversight responsibility of the Executive 'Branch', they don't believe that that extends to the actual Executive.

Won't surprise me even a little bit to hear them try and narrow it down to some bullshit principle like this.

-chef-

[BuyingThyme]

8. I was just reading that thread.

It's also interesting to consider the fact that they're having trouble making their executive privilege argument while, at the same time, arguing that the chief executive was in no way involved in the hiring/blackmailing/obstructions of the US attorneys.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Snow is claiming that the Congress has no oversight authority over the executive!

[radfringe]

9. link posted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=475541&mesg_id=475541