Executive Secrecy
 

With the Congress hogtied when it comes to investigations, and the POTUS and VP offices no longer following executive order, what do you think the chances are they will pay attention to the latest round of subpoenas:



If the Congress no longer has the ability to investigate, and hold the Executive accountable we no longer have even the semblance of a republic.

I would be shocked if the White House fully complies, in which case the Senate Judiciary Committee has several options...negotiate with the WH which would likely drag out through the summer, find the WH in "contempt of congress", do nothing, or recommend an impeachment inquiry to the House.

In a similar scenario,thee WH is facing a deadline today on subpoenas issued earlier by the House Judiciary Committee on documents related to the firing of US Attorneys.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats warned yesterday they would pursue a contempt of Congress motion if the White House fails respond to subpoenas for testimony and documents related to the firings of U.S. attorneys last year.

The deadline for a response is Thursday, June 28. If the White House does not comply, it opens the possibility of a constitutional showdown between the two branches. In an ironic twist, the Department of Justice (DoJ) would be called on to enforce the contempt motion.
...
One of the contempt motions would likely be directed at Presidential Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, to whom the subpoena for documents was addressed, according to a Democratic aide.

Others who could face contempt motions include ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former White House political director Sara Taylor. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena testimony from Miers, while the Senate Judiciary panel voted to subpoena testimony from Taylor.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-22.html

The WH may be gambling that they can win public opinion with the argument that the Dem Congress is pursuing these Oversight Investigations for purely political purposes.

IMO, this is mostly an "inside the beltway" issue....these WH/Congress confrontations on oversight differ from the confrontations on war funding and other higher priority legislative issues... and most voters may not give a shit about either side.

Congress continues and will continue to have the ability to investigate and hold the Executive accountable. They just need to be clear on what they are investigating. From Washington Post quote in the OP we have the following:

Why do they care about internal disputes?

It should be clear - if they think the Executive branch abused its power they should proceed on that basis, they should have people present evidence of that abuse, come to a conclusion, and take corrective action. I simply wonder why they make these things more complicated than they need to be. Actually, I have my suspensions - but I will keep them to myself for now.

Congress is attempting to do just that, but is continuously hampered by subterfuge, and a blatant disregard for accountability. Do you actually believe issuing subpoenas would have been required if they could get people to testify without them? In my opinion, The executive branch has forced congress to take this action (which likely wont work anyway), By systematically refusing every other attempt by the Congress to get a truthful statement.
Its interesting though, knowing you would be critical of Congress for inaction if they didn't take this step....simply because they are not "Your Guys", Yet seemingly have no problem with the underlying reason they must be aggressive in the first place.

First they may want to talk to victims of Bush's warrantless wire taps.

Second they may want to talk to those who carried out the orders of the Executive Branch.

Third they may want to bring in legal experts to define how the warrantless wire taps were an abuse of power.

Then the folks in the Executive Branch may want to present a defense of their actions.

Once you have that person testifying and on the record, I would think issueing a subpeonas would be easier to support once you have a specific basis for the subpeona.

Of course I am no expert, and there much be a logcal explanation of why Congress has not taken the approach above, what do you think the explanation is?

Can't do that when you don't know who was targeted by the wiretaps.

Can't do that when you don't know who carried out the orders

You should try reading the constitution (namely the section on ILLEGAL search and seizure).

That would work great if congress could get past the stonewalling.


Stonewalling

I'm sorry but exactly when are we going to have a Congress and President that at least try to work together to help rebuild the us????


The rest of this is bullshit. Bush is a lameduck. I want a Congress that cares and tries to rebuild than play power trip games.

We have gone through 2 presidencies 16 years of nothing truly getting done to help the people.

At least with Reagan and Bush I, like the direction or not, our country had direction, things got done and there was some semblance and hope for national prosperity.

For the past 16 years we have had so much partisan bullshit and power trips that nothing has been done and any hope or semblance of prosperity has been wasted and destroyed. Now the rich get richer, the poor poorer, the middle class is dying out and jobs, good paying decent jobs are a thing of the past, education is fried and people are going nuts.

Fix that. Worry about that. Change that. Do something that shows me you still worry and care about the country more than the power.

By the way as for the poll..... Bushco has destroyed and shut anyone up that can hurt him and the powers that be.

Is this sarcasm? Should I take on the tone in your suggestion to me?

For now I will just ask a question. If it is as simple as reading the Constitution, why do we need hearings?


I thought we knew this. I thought the targets were known terrorists making phone calls into this country or call originating from this country to terrorists.


Perhaps I am thinking of something different, but I thought we knew this too. Didn't certain telephone companies provide records and information to the CIA. Information which may have been illegal for them to give to the government in the manner in which they did it.

I would expect the accused to stonewall. That is why you make your case without relying on the accused.

I believe that every effort will be made to 'lose' (read: destroy) any and all damning information.

We need a real president. Everyone, go out and vote for someone who you think would make a good president in 2008.

Help me with this logic.

If given- the Bush administration conducted illegal wiretaps, and that they knew they were was illegal.

You, Congress and others expect the Bush Administration to cooperate with proving they conducted or authorized the illegal activity???

If a guy robbed a bank, would you expect him to give you the evidence that would lead to his conviction? Do you think that he would destroy or at least try to destroy the evidence? Do you think he would voluntarily testify, unless he absolutely had to?

On one hand we can talk about the underlying crime (not the point of this thread) or we can talk about the administration cooperating with an investigation where there is no upside for them and where they think Congress is just grandstanding.

Can someone explain why the Administration would want to cooperate?

They wouldn't. That's the point. The problem is that normal people would be brought to justice. Evidence will be lost, and these people who bypassed FISA will go scott free.

"Normal people" get away with illegal activity all the time.

But given your answer above, why are people and Congress surprised about the Administration putting up a fight against the subpoena?

I doubt very much they are suprised at this point....though we all may be quite dissapointed. The point I think being made here is that they are guilty of criminal activity, and they represent the highest possible level of government, they represent US. Our congress is attempting to prove the illegality in hopes it may prevent further degradation of our national character, and perhaps hold a few bastards accountable for corrupting what was once a well respected institution.
I personally did not expect much in the way of a successful investigation, nor do I forsee impeachment ahead. I am relatively impressed that they are trying though....and will even admit to some satisfaction that the administration is forced to be so blatant in its disregard for Law. One can only wonder what this mess would be like if the DOJ wasn't in the presidents pocket.
On another front ACE....you seem to at least be accepting that Bush and Co. have committed illegal acts, I consider that progress.

Oh no. :no: :no: :no: I don't conceed the Administration violated anyone's rights as outlined in the Constitution. I think this is a very complicated issue where even reasonable Constitutional experts may disagree and my opinion is the wiretaps were o.k. and there are no "victims" . i further think the quote you gave in the OP is dead on. Congress is looking for internal disagreement within the Administration. I do not think they are trying to do anything other than embarass the White House for political reasons.

I was just trying to stay on topic.

Whether or not the Bush administration violated people's Constitutional rights (and they almost certainly did), what they did was flat-out illegal. The law said that you needed warrants for wiretapping, or more specifically, FISA warrants for the kind of wiretapping Bush wanted to do. He simply ignored that part of the law and went ahead with the wiretap anyway. That's illegal.

By the way, there's no way we can possibly know the specific victims of the warrantless wiretapping because Bush illegally bypassed the lawfully mandated judicial review process and engaged in his actions in total secrecy. So the notion that there are "no victims" is really more an article of faith than a likely extrapolation of facts. The fact is, those wiretaps spied on someone, and they were illegally deployed, so someone out there is a victim. Case closed.

And by the way, whether or not you agree that the secret wiretapping is a good or bad thing (it's obviously a fucking horrible thing, but that's another argument), it's an illegal thing.

Who the hell cares about surprise? Justice isn't something to compromise on.

Again, if it is so clear Bush and his gang violated the law, why the hearings? They should impeach Bush.

So why is Congress compromising? Again, why aren't they impeaching Bush since this is such a blatant violation of the law and the Constitution?

Because impeachment isn't some crystal clear prosecutorial action that can be enacted whenever the appropriate situation arises. In other words, it isn't like the obvious step of charging someone with murder when the commit murder, or charging someone with perjury if they lie under oath, or charging someone with theft if they steal, etc. It's not decided on by a non-partisan government employee (prosecutor) who applies well-established precedent in determining the proper course of action.

Rather, impeachment is a deadly-serious action that is above all other things political in nature. It requires 100 U.S. senators to vote and 67 to pass. With a closely divided senate, there isn't a chance in hell that an impeachment conviction would pass. So nobody brings up impeachment.

And that's AFTER the House votes on it.

No offense, but that an easy one.

Yeah....what he said. Added to this would be memories of the Clinton Impeachment Fiasco, and the way it castrated government for months....we simply cannot afford to do that right now.

Most of them are cowards, Dem or Republican. They are sitting in power and they don't want to lose that power. If I were a congressman, my screams for impeachment would make Kucinich look like Rummy. I want a good president, and I'm not willing to let shit slide. Calling for impeachment means a massive commitment to investigations that will drag a lot of people through the mud, including those who do the accusing. The risk of losing their clout is something that keeps those in power silent.

I kinda like the idea of a castrated federal government, actually. Too bad there's a war going on right now.

Congress is compromising because they have to, if they wish to investigate at all. They are not asking for impeachment yet, because they are still trying to investigate. No one would try to make a case without evidence to back it up. I doubt very much you are actually confused at all Ace, as I give your intellect more credit than that. More likely you are playing the devils advocate, and hoping the obvious reality is a false one.

I understand the points made and the analogy, but simply disagree. To really bring clarity and closure to the issue, perhaps we would need a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Ace, I agree about the Supreme Court - and we may even be heading in that direction now...

Fortunately for Bushco, the newly constituted court is showing its true colors over the last few days. Goodbye long-standing antitrust rules, goodbye Brown v BOE...

One way or another...we will be there shortly:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


It's unfortunate....but I am beginning to believe this is exactly what the White House wants.

I am beginning to believe it is also. I would rather have a government trying to better this nation (as I have stated repeatedly) but I fear we are in a severe power struggle now, and that this could shape our future in very bad ways.

Let's see Bush stacked the Supreme Court, so I don't see that a "fair, balanced and impartial" judgement that is truly in the nation's best interest coming from there.

I don't see Congress backing down, in fact I see them taking harder and harder lines.

I see the White House play games and continue to not respond.

We have the showdown and Bush decides to enact the Presidential order that allows him to take control of everything.

Far fetched and impossible, I hope so, but anymore I don't know what to think. I just know that this presidency more than any other has inspired me with nothing but fear for the future, I truly worry that hope is just a word with no meaning anymore.

the bush people have argued since december 05 that the church act was an "unconstitutional aborgation of executive power" and so felt free to ignore it. the other argument they have made is that the wiretaps were implicitly authorized by the use of force legislation...my brain does not allow me to access which authorization they could be referring to...at any rate, of the two rationales, the first is the more problematic---i am not sure that any conception of executive power leads to the use of signing orders as a device to decide which laws are binding and which are not. but that appears to be what the bush people have done.

they are not going to comply fully.
i do not see that congress as being able to put aside party allegiances enough to act as the legislative branch in a conflict with the executive over the way in which the separation and balance between the branches is defined.
so i suspect that no matter what happened, the bush people will be able to continue with that kind of noxious, hobbled impunity that has characterized their slo-mo fadeout since november 06.

it'd be nice to see them hoisted by their own petards on this issue *because* it has the potential to unify congress--but like i said, i am not sure that it'll happen.

the system is not working.