|
Banned
|
July 19, 2007 Bush Has Declared Himself Dictator of the U.S. ....and Our Response?
Remember the background on how much clout the DOJ's OLC <b>(Office of Legal Counsel)</b> wielded....triggering the Ashcroft ICU bed altercation between acting Atty. General James Comey vs. white house COS Andrew Card and legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales? I detailed the role of OLC's Jack Goldstein, after he took over the position that had been held by Cheney's current COS, David Addington:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=11
It was reported, last week, that the OLC's legal opinion, written by Stephen G. Bradbury, was relied on by the white house and Harriet Meiers to justify her
failure to acknowledge a congressional committee subpoena:
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=2&cset=true
or http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/12/2477/ or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...es&btnG=Search
Disregard subpoenas, Justice Dept. says
The opinion raises questions over whether Bush officials would be prosecuted for not cooperating in probe of U.S. attorneys firings.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
July 12, 2007
WASHINGTON — In a broadly worded legal opinion, the Justice Department has concluded that President Bush's former top lawyer, and possibly other senior White House officials, can ignore subpoenas from Congress to testify about the firings of U.S. attorneys.
The three-page opinion raises questions about whether the Justice Department would prosecute senior administration officials if Congress voted to hold them in contempt for not cooperating with the investigation into the firing last year of eight top prosecutors.
The opinion was prepared this week by the department's Office of Legal Counsel, in response to questions from former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, who was subpoenaed to testify today before the House Judiciary Committee. Miers told the panel in a letter faxed Tuesday night that she would not appear, citing the Justice memo and advice from the White House.
Under the law, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia decides whether to pursue contempt of Congress cases. Though that official can exercise independent judgment, some legal experts said it might be hard to ignore the <b>opinion from the legal counsel office</b>, whose decisions are often viewed as controlling throughout the federal government.
Others said that, as an alternative, lawmakers might seek the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate any contempt charges.
The legal opinion surfaced as another former White House official, Sara M. Taylor, testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the U.S. attorney case. Taylor was the White House political director and reported to longtime Bush advisor Karl Rove.....
|
Thursday, senate democrats on the judiciary committee wrote a letter that makes a case for the accusation that Stephen G. Bradbury is not serving legally (with senate approval...) in the OLC position that he wrote the legal opinion (excuse?) that Meiers and the white house relied on......
<center><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-exec-priv/?resultpage=1&">Stephen G. Bradbury opnion, page 1</a><br>
<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-exec-priv/?resultpage=2&">Stephen G. Bradbury opnion, page 2</a><br>
<img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1184266665DOJ-exec-priv_Page_3.jpg"><br><br><p><img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1184866326OLC-vacancies_Page_1.jpg"><br><img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1184866359OLC-vacancies_Page_2.jpg"></center>
Now, Bush "clears it all up"....by having his "administration officials" assert that the US Attorney in DC will be prohibited from enforcing congressional subpoenaes:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071902625.html
Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that <b>the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."</b>
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
<b>Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."</b>
The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.
Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.
The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."
Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."
Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.
Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.
In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."
In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.
The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.
David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."
But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."
Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. <h3>Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."</h3>
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
|
...I think we can now observe, unless we refuse to look, that all precedent for congressional oversight....checks and balances is now "fair game". This "op" began with someone on Sen. Arlen Spector's staff, "sneaking in" a provision in a 2006 bill previously finalized via senate and house conference committee negotiations, and voted unnoticed into law....that exempted US Atty appointments from senate judiciary committee hearings (candidates have to testify, under oath....)...and approval. Now, the "op", if the 4 Senators who wrote the letter on thursday, are correct, has progressed to a point where an DOJ asst. Atty. General.....Bradbury, has continued to serve at the OLC, and to issue highly contentious legal opinions, even as he and the president who appointed him, ignore the requirement that he be examined, under oath, by the senate judiciary committee, as a condition of serving in the office that he wields such large influence, from.....
.....and now, we're told, that none of that even matters....because Mr. Bush is the law....and is above the law.
....and now, it's confirmed for us...the executive branch is unaccountable to the legislative branch, which was elected by the people, to provide oversight iof the other two constitutional branches, and to check and balance them.
Mr. Bush swore an oath of office:
Bush seems to have violated the oath that he took. The speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, and the senators of the senate judiciary committee, including the four who wrote the letter displayed above, should immediately call for, and begin an impeachment investigation against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
.....Or...."wait", you say....not so fast..... Wait? Wait? Wait for what? |