White House Invokes Executive Privilege on Files

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.

The Democratic chairmen of the two committees seeking the documents accused Bush of stonewalling and disdain for the law, and said they would press forward with enforcing the subpoenas.

''With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,'' White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. ''We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.''

Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush-Subpoenas.html?hp
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,265
Points
1,283
We are headed for a constitutional crisis.

They have packed the DOJ and the supreme court and its going to be very hard to force these assholes to follow the constitution.


This is why Gonzales will be the AG until Bush leaves office.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
What should we do?

Consider this a fresh one, because no opinion was delivered with an article?

Or merge the two>??
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
We are headed for a constitutional crisis.

They have packed the DOJ and the supreme court and its going to be very hard to force these assholes to follow the constitution.


This is why Gonzales will be the AG until Bush leaves office.
You get more idiotic with every post. Executive Privalege IS a power of the President. If Congress disagrees they have no choice but to move to the Courts. And I do love how when a liberal justices votes on the Supreme Court idiots like you think they are just following the law, BUT a Conservative Judge must be placing politics first.

They are Judges and I prefer to believe that each of them makes a decision based more on how they BELIEVE the law works and politics is a very small consideration. I do not believe this with all Judges, since most are elected and are not vetted through the Senate.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
What should we do?

Consider this a fresh one, because no opinion was delivered with an article?

Or merge the two>??
IMO it's better to merge, but someone has to be here to do that. ;) Gunny??? LOL!
 

Larkinn

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
174
Points
48
And I do love how when a liberal justices votes on the Supreme Court idiots like you think they are just following the law, BUT a Conservative Judge must be placing politics first.
Err what is it you said before?...

The problem is we have 4 Justices that are more interested in legislating then ruling on law
Ah yes...basically the exact same thing (except supporting the opposite partisan party, of course) you are now criticizing someone else for!
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,980
Reaction score
10,026
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Err what is it you said before?...



Ah yes...basically the exact same thing (except supporting the opposite partisan party, of course) you are now criticizing someone else for!
Nope, the four in question think for what ever reason that they have that power. Roe vs Wade would be a prime example of Liberal Judges legislating from the bench. BUT they, in my opinion, honestly believed that what they claimed was legally correct.
 

Larkinn

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
5,598
Reaction score
174
Points
48
Nope, the four in question think for what ever reason that they have that power.
No, actually they believe they are correctly interpretating the Constitution.

Roe vs Wade would be a prime example of Liberal Judges legislating from the bench
So you are of the opinion that 7 of the 9 judges in 1973 were liberal and were legislating from the bench?

BUT they, in my opinion, honestly believed that what they claimed was legally correct.
So you don't think they are completely evil....sort partially evil.
 

Edward

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
91
Points
48
You get more idiotic with every post.
Based on the contents of your posts it is apparent that it is you who gets more idiotic with every post but I will get to that in a minute. First, I just wanted to state that you aren't correct in your statements up to this point.

Executive Privalege IS a power of the President. If Congress disagrees they have no choice but to move to the Courts.
The argument that Congress has no choice but to move to the Courts is not correct. That argument is inherently flawed because there are other methods that Congress could take outside of resorting to the Courts. The claim that they have no other choice but to move to the courts is simply idiotic. But if they were to resort to the Courts it would be to charge George Walker Bush with criminal (and less likely civil) contempt of Congress. I doubt that they would want to do so and I doubt George Bush wants to go to jail if convicted.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Based on the contents of your posts it is apparent that it is you who gets more idiotic with every post but I will get to that in a minute. First, I just wanted to state that you aren't correct in your statements up to this point.



The argument that Congress has no choice but to move to the Courts is not correct. That argument is inherently flawed because there are other methods that Congress could take outside of resorting to the Courts. The claim that they have no other choice but to move to the courts is simply idiotic. But if they were to resort to the Courts it would be to charge George Walker Bush with criminal (and less likely civil) contempt of Congress. I doubt that they would want to do so and I doubt George Bush wants to go to jail if convicted.
Congress can vote to withold monies. They could try impeachment. The best way would be to appeal to SCOTUS. In fact, they will probably do none of these, but it gets to share today's headline with 'Bush loses on amnesty', so they are happy.
 

Edward

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
91
Points
48
Congress can vote to withold monies. They could try impeachment. The best way would be to appeal to SCOTUS. In fact, they will probably do none of these, but it gets to share today's headline with 'Bush loses on amnesty', so they are happy.
First, there isn't likely to be a direct appeal to the Supreme Court as it does not have original jurisdiction in the matter and Congress isn't going to submit the decision directly to them. It is likely that any criminal charges filed against the President would be federal court and the President would have been convicted of the crimes he has committed by a jury of his peers before he would be able to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court. If in the process of this the President is impeached by Congress it would fall to Vice President Cheney out the rest of Bush's term of office but it appears that Cheney may have also committed several different criminal acts while serving as Vice President and if that is the case then he may also be removed and that unforunately leaves us with Nancy Pelosi as President.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
You get more idiotic with every post. Executive Privalege IS a power of the President. If Congress disagrees they have no choice but to move to the Courts. And I do love how when a liberal justices votes on the Supreme Court idiots like you think they are just following the law, BUT a Conservative Judge must be placing politics first.

They are Judges and I prefer to believe that each of them makes a decision based more on how they BELIEVE the law works and politics is a very small consideration. I do not believe this with all Judges, since most are elected and are not vetted through the Senate.
Please refresh my memory on Nixon, Watergate and audio tapes. Isn’t there something of a parallel here with respect to executive privilege?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Please refresh my memory on Nixon, Watergate and audio tapes. Isn’t there something of a parallel here with respect to executive privilege?
:shock: They're all about executive privilege and how Nixon tried to abuse it. He wasn't allowed to, though SCOTUS upheld the legitimacy of the privilege.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top