White House: 'We're not negotiating'

To all wingers who will blindly support the WH claims of executive privilege here:

Beware the Hillary Rule. Whatever powers you sanctimoniously ascribe to Bush here will, in the name of principle and consistency, apply to future Presidents. Hillary may well be the next President and she'll be able to cover up misdeeds just like Blessed Be He, GWB.

One caveat to this, of course, is that no rational person expects Republicans to act with honesty or consistency. So of course, if Hillary (or any other Dem) gets elected, Executive Privilege will of course fall out of favor among the Party of Hypocrisy.

So, no oath. No transcript. No record of any kind.

Sort of a pre-emptive memory hole, if you will.

Anyone who supports the WH in this should question their own patriotism, because they are effectively saying that the President is above all law and reason.

If they've got nothing to hide, what's the problem? Why is this reasoning considered fair to apply to common citizens, ala the "Patriot" Act, but not for those in power who are supposed to be answering to us, NOT the other way around?

They're argument that it could make it harder for Presidential aides to give the President advice should only RAISE our suspicions. This implies that they're advising him to do illegal things. Why would we want to allow this? Have people lost their minds?!

I thought we lived in a constitutional democratic republic, by the people, for the people. Guess not. Guess the President is a demi-god.

"If [a] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127

Time to serve the subpoenas.

This whole idea of advisers giving depositions not under oath and with very little to no recording going on while being questioned is madness. No one is exempt from being recorded and the sessions have a right to be heard by the American public. This isn't some top-secret hearing-- it's whether or not eight people unfairly lost their jobs. Whether or not it was politically motivated is for Congress to decide-- but no average American citizen speaking in court or during an investigation would be exempt.
This is a classic example of political hierarchies thinking they're above the law.
Time to answer to it, I say.

'We're not negotiating'

That's been the this administration's policy in every domestic & international issue they've had to deal with.

But Snow was at least right about one thing. Yes, we are looking for people to behave like grownups in DC. We made some progress towards that in Nov. '06. Nov '08 can't come soon enough.

Investigate. Indict. Impeach. Imprison.

One caveat to this, of course, is that no rational person expects Republicans to act with honesty or consistency. So of course, if Hillary (or any other Dem) gets elected, Executive Privilege will of course fall out of favor among the Party of Hypocrisy.

Posted by: a blinkin | Mar 23, 2007 10:02:45 AM

I'm sure you're aware of some of these facts' a blinkin, you seem like a person who's really in the know. Why should the W.H. go through a dog and pony show for the likes of Chuckie ( where's the camera )Schumer, Patrick( what day is it ) Leahy. Subpoenas should be used for serious affairs,not political gamesmanship . Sen. Feinstein wrote Al Gonzalez on June 15 '06 to complain about Ms. Lams' non-prosecutions of illegals with priors. She wanted to wait for two prior felonies. Mr Charlton was cited by law enforcement in So. Calif. for non -prosecution of pot cases, he said he wouldn't bring up charges for anything less than 500 lbs. Then we have Mr. Ryan in the San Francisco district It was only after a threat by a Dem. Federal judge to go to congress about his poor performance that he was terminated. I'm thinking
the BOOGEYMAN ROVE is setting up the Looney Left for a hard fall. The radical left should stick to things that they may be able to accomplish, such as passing minimum wage, and investing heavily in our failure in Iraq.

I fully agree with the WH that the US Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the president". That may be the letter of the law. But shouldn't it be that "the US Attorneys serve THE PUBLIC at the pleasure of the president"? I don't think they were ever intended to be the President's henchmen.

And one note on "Executive privilege". When used it applies to conversations with the President - so he can seek confidential advice. It should not extend to ALL MATTERS involving the president. Conversations between Rove and Gonzales should not be covered by "Executive Privilege".

I would think that the Republicans would be getting tired of defending the W. administration.

I don't think Republicans realize how much W and company are dragging down their party,I would quit defending these liars and move on to repairing my party's image.

The 08 GOP nominee for President is going to have drag Bush and Cheney's baggage around with them for a year while campaigning or they can totally ignore them,either way is bad.

"So, no oath. No transcript. No record of any kind.
Sort of a pre-emptive memory hole, if you will."

frosty,

well said.

********
Hey Blinky,

I am starting to ascribe to your theory here.

The Dems. go ahead and put up a good fight to try to do the right thing on all fronts, are rejected and stonewalled on all fronts, then get to use the new assumed powers when they are in charge of the executive branch in 08.

I don't understand why Republics of good sense don't see this.

Does anyone remember back in 2005 when Congress called the CEOs of the big oil companies to testify? The republican in charge of the committee saw no reason why they should testify "under oath".

Even though government documents showed that these individuals had met with the VP and "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" - no one could remember the meeting. Of course none of them were under oath. So it really doesn't matter if those statements were proven true or false.

How is that Energy Policy working for everybody? I know it's working for those CEOs, just look at their anual reports.

Hold those subpoenas. Bring the subject up every other day for the next two months. Bush will go crazy. He will fire Gonzo in hope of the problem going away. Rove is not going to admit intimidation of Attorneys anyway. Someone should survey the remaining attorneys to see if the have been pressured by the administration. They are the ones that can have their political careers ruined by being labeled "failed U.S. attorney". They are the actual targets of the firings. What a club in the hands of Karl Rove.

Hey Folks!

We gonna have a "constitutional crisis" on our hands!

You just knew a president who got into the White House through the Supreme Court was going to end up in some kind of Watergate slam-bang.

Will be interesting to see if wingnut screwballs like Alito and Roberts follow their boss, or really are the "strict constrictionists" they claim to be.

Either way, our system of government will never be the same.

I seem to recall a certain president that was subpoenaed to testify under oath to, a then, republic congress, and without the ability to claim executive privilege. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they try to claim that authority, I think not. The obstructionists of the truth reside in the White House, and if anyone cannot see this for what it is you should seriously consider moving to another part of the world. I’m quite sure you’ll feel more comfortable living under communist control.

"Subpoenas should be used for serious affairs,not political gamesmanship ."

Yeah, like when we're trying to find out whether a sitting President was getting some action on the side.

Don B, Sure, Ms. Lam was fired because she didn't prosecute enough illegals and some Democrat complained. It had nothing to do with all that "Duke" Cunningham bribery stuff, right? So you're suggesting that the Bush administration was galvanized into action by a complaint from a Democrat? Yeah, right. Do you have any other bridges you'd like to sell us?

And what do you think about Fitzgerald's label as a poor performer? Seems to me like he has done pretty well in both his Illinois cases and his Libby perjury trial. I wonder what they could possibly dislike about Fitzgerald?

I think it's safe to say Don B. got his copy of the RNC talking points.

"We're not negotiating."

I've got news for you Tony, you already have.

This is the administration that fought adamantly for the Patriot Act -- even though it inhibits our civil rights -- under the premise of protecting us from who-knows-what. They claimed that if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.

Well, the same holds true now for WH officials who should testify under oath. If they -- or the President -- have done nothing wrong, they should have no fear of answering questions under oath.

This is all political drama that's being spewed upon the American people by the democrats that want to show the aurora of a cover-up when there is none.
Subpeonas being issued for a non-criminal act should be rejected by Bush and the White House,this is nothing more than a political witch hunt by the dems because they failed at every agenda they proposed to their base,they're power-less and they know it so they moved to plan B,move the attention away from our failures and divert it to The Bush Administration.
Paulo

Don B:

I read your post and fail to see how it in any way relates to mine. Do you or don't you approve of executive privilege in these circumstances? And, if so, do you agree that as a matter of principle and consistency, future presidents (including those of the Looney Left), should be able to assert it just as freely as Bush has here?

""Our position has been, we have a position, that's it,'' Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said today. "I think what we're looking for is a yes to the president's position… We're not negotiating.''

Not only are the Crypto-Fascists (GWB,Rove,Snow) trying to frame the answers, they are trying to frame the questions.

Looks like constitutional crisis time.

GWB wants this crisis. He figures if it goes to the Supremes, so what? Most of them are on his team anyway, right?

We'll see. Maybe one or two of them will get a conscience.

Further, this was bound to happen with congress changing hands.

As long as GWB had the Republic controlled congress in his corner America could bounce and scrape along looking 'kinda' like always, but as soon as the opposition took over and started demanding accountability and digging in the dirt, look out!

So now we see the iron fist in the velvet glove.

Per Paulo:

Subpeonas being issued for a non-criminal act should be rejected by Bush and the White House.

---

Why don't you folks "get it"? This completely mischaracterizes the issues.

1. If you agree that Congress has oversight authority, then you agree that Congress has the right to question Executive Branch officials about the conduct of their duties. This is not merely a Congressional power but a Congressional duty. Unless we go to a monarchical system, the Executive Branch does not get unchecked power.

2. Congress should not have to issue supoenae. Instead, as suggested above, the Executive Branch officials should appear voluntarily, in recognition of the fact that they do not answer to a Monarch.

3. Paulo has in one respect hit the nail on the head. To the knuckle-dragging right, the Executive Branch's only standard of conduct is that it cannot be criminal. It can be inefficient, incompetent and run by unqualified cronies, just not criminal. Just another example of the Bush admin lowering the bar. Yes Paulo, be very proud: your President may not have committed a criminal act here. Since that's the best you cretins seem to be able to muster, you should indeed be proud.

"There is no allegation that anybody shut down or changed a prosecution," says Tony Snow. Right, and the evidence so far indicates that those who resisted political pressure and wouldn't shut down or change a prosecution were fired. THAT'S what this is all about, Mr. Snow.

Just yesterday Alberto Gonzales once again told us he is working tirelessly to be sure he has every American's back covered...especially our children. Should the alleged firing of six top performing U.S. Attorneys make us feel better?

I don't know about anyone else but I’ve always been suspicious of the guy that seems to go out of his way to tell you he’s "got your back covered".

See a sarcastic visual that demonstrates how many Americans feel when the Attorney General reassures us that he's got our backs covered...here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/03/the_white_house_goes_on_the_offensive.php

I love to hear the "Loyal Bushies" talk about political gamesmanship and "show trials". Isn't this the same group tied up congress for days debating Flag burning and abortion and gun control (right before an election) to "energize the base".

They spent days debating issues that their own leadership said would never come up for a vote.

I suppose they want us to get back to using subpeonas and sworn testimony for important things like steroids in professional sports.

a blinkin,

Yeah, Paulo, Crazy John D, Bruce, all seem proud of the fact America is better than,,,than,,,,than,,,,,UKRAINE!! Iran!! China!!

You gotta love this!!!! Our Emperor Dubya ain't got no rubberstamp Congress no more! The Dems load up their opposition bill to the war w/tons of pork. A pox on both your houses!!!! GROW UP & SERVE THE PEOPLE. Both parties make me sick.

Yeah, Paulo, Crazy John D, Bruce, all seem proud of the fact America is better than,,,than,,,,than,,,,,UKRAINE!! Iran!! China!!

Yep. Bush hasn't poisoned a single political opponent -- not even one! -- yet the Looney Left can't acknowledge that this proves him to be the greatest president ever. Deranged leftists all.

Bush administration was galvanized into action by a complaint from a Democrat?

And what do you think about Fitzgerald's label as a poor performer?
Posted by: Tom O | Mar 23, 2007 12:08:41 PM

Tom: I think you have a comprehension problem, that would be two Democrats Sen. Feinstein, and a Federal judge in your socialist utopia of San Francisco that's two out of the three i mentioned.
In regards to Fitzgeral,d he knew that Mr. Armitidge outed the "supposed covert" Plame two weeks before the Libby business, unless of course Ms. Plame wasn't covert. That would make him a poor performer, he didn't do the job he was asked to do.

Right, and the evidence so far indicates that those who resisted political pressure and wouldn't shut down or change a prosecution were fired.
Posted by: Kenneth Leone | Mar 23, 2007 1:21:08 PM

Mr. Leone... Please direct me to the link or site that proves your evidence. I'd be real interested to read about "YOUR FACTS".

That's it Don B, keep attacking Fitzgerald. Keep attacking the only Republican in this state who shows any hope of being able to do well in a state wide election should he chose to run. Keep showing him that the Republican party is hostile to him. You're doing a great job making sure Illinois stays firmly Democratic.

White House: We're not in da bidnez a negotiatin':

This would be a general statement of principle?

GWB;
Please negotiate with the Americans.

So you really do think the Bush administration took action based on complaints from Democrats? San Francisco Democrats? Seriously?

As for Fitzgerald, he did exactly what he was asked to do. He investigated the people who exposed the identity of a CIA agent. Maybe he couldn't prosecute them for exposing the agent, but that's likely because the law is narrowly written and he'd have had to prove they knew she was covert. But he did quite successfully prosecute Scooter Libby for lying to his investigators. Plus, he's had some success going after Chicago political corruption as well. I'll take Fitzgerald over the typical Bush appointee any day.

It is my understanding that this goes much deeper then has been portrayed. This gang of 8 Atty's refused to prosecute the democratic voter fraud. Seems that Bush and Rove are setting up the democrats with this issue.

Keep carping and beware, you just might get what you are asking for. Voter fraud allegations were rampant in those districts and they got swept under the rug.

I love it when the loonie left jumps in with their eyes closed.

Pelosi's first 100 days of power is a quagmire, more to come from the inept liars of the left. Code Pink camped outside Pelosi's house and she is squealing like a stuck hog. She thought it was funny when they did that to Bush at Crawford!!!

You're doing a great job making sure Illinois stays firmly Democratic.

Posted by: Tony | Mar 23, 2007 4:50:34 PM

Tony : I couldn't care less who's elected in that state. I was born and raised on the south side, got my 25 yrs. in with the city and moved to the Maine coast, and never looked back. I was a union working democrat for most of my life. Now that it's been taken over by the socialist soros group it will be an ever dwindling party.

"Refused to prosecute voter fraud."

That's funny Jim. Gonzales has a new reason for firing them every time he opens his mouth. I've heard Fox News says they refused to prosecute illegals and drug smugglers and athiest who declared war on Christmas too.

Yep, they should have been prosecuting Dems instead of wasting their time persecuting innocent Republicans who's only crime was that they forgot that lying to federal investigators isn't the same as lying to the rest of us. Think of all the time they wasted on "Duke" Cunningham, a simple congressman who, after watching Congress operate over the last six years was understandably confused about the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe.

It is my understanding that this goes much deeper then has been portrayed. This gang of 8 Atty's refused to prosecute the democratic voter fraud.
-
Don't go there, it only makes the Bush admin. look worse. These are phony charges. They are aimed at groups like MoveOn and the league of Women Voters who go out on the street to register people to vote. We loonies on the left have always accused this admin. of being opposed to Democracy, don't prove it by trying to claim voter fraud, because it will only expose the truth.

Think of all the time they wasted on "Duke" Cunningham, a simple congressman who, after watching Congress operate over the last six years was understandably confused about the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe.

Posted by: Tom O | Mar 24, 2007 12:15:40 AM

Hey Tom.... Speaking of wasted time , I wonder when they will start wasting time on the esteemed congressman Jack ( I might take that money later) Murtha.

Well folks I will go there. Since 2000 an unbelievable amount of dead people have voted democrat. It is documented. But unlike you leftists, I was glad when the duke was cleaned out of our party. I don't want the corrupt among us.

How about you guys? Harry Ried did the same thing in Nevada, will you go after him too? Murtha was involved in bribes with ABSCAM, how about him? Will you go after him? Kennedy murdered a young woman in Chappi, how about him? Pelosi has illegals working her vinyards, how about her?

Democrat vote fraud is real and we are onto it. Just like in the 2000 election where the democrats tried to eliminate the military vote because they didn't have a postmark from a post office, they were sent from a combat zone.

Yes I agree with Pelosi, there is a culture of corruption. Unfortunatley for her it is her own party that is at the center.

Don B, I'm all for investigating and prosecuting crooks on either side of the aisle. I'm not all that familiar with the Murtha story, but I would guess that prosecution might be a challenge if they had no evidence that money did change hands at some point.

How about you guys? ... Murtha was involved in bribes with ABSCAM, how about him? Will you go after him? Kennedy murdered a young woman in Chappi, how about him? ....

Posted by: Jim | Mar 26, 2007 9:50:12 AM

Jim: I can't adress two of your questions because I don't know enough the matters. As far as Murtha and Kennedy. those cases were settled, adjudicated or whatever long ago. They may not have been settled to everyone's liking but they are over.
Personally, I think the chips should fall where they may for everyone. The political party doesn't matter to me.