Defying The Law
The Bring it on-er did it, and is anyone surprised? Nope, Congress, you don't get the documents you need for the president's oversight. The wall is going up to protect the criminals from prosecution, leaving very little choice for the congress in doing its job.
The law will have to be carried out by the legislative branch, since the executive branch has violated its oath to uphold and defend the constitution.
President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from former White House aides Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers.
It offered once more to make the pair available for private, off-the-record interviews on any role the White House might have played in the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.
The latest move in the separation of powers fight between the legislative and executive branches came as members of Congress began returning from their Fourth of July recess. An atmosphere of high tension accompanied the resumption of work as a fight also loomed there between majority Democrats and some key Republicans and Bush over his Iraq war policy.
The law will have to be carried out by the legislative branch, since the executive branch has violated its oath to uphold and defend the constitution.
Labels: 110th Congress, Separation of Powers, The Unitary President
posted by Ruth at 7:20 AM
2 Comments:
This is the part that makes no sense.
He's claiming executive privilege prevents them from testifying under oath. The basis of that privilege is that communications between the President and his advisors need to be confidential.
All right, let's assume that the communications in question here fall under that privilege (I'm not saying they do, but for the purposes of the argument, let's assume that). How, then, can he offer to have them give private answers off the record?
Either the information is privileged or it isn't. If it's privileged, then the very act of giving the information, in whatever form, is a breach of the privilege and a danger to the interests protected by the privilege. If, however, it is not privileged when it comes to communications that are not under oath, then it's not privileged.
Clearly they are afraid of perjury. That's the only reason Fielding would offer "off the record" and "not under oath" answers to questions and claim privilege for testimony on the same issues.
Why isn't anyone else looking at it this way?
I really appeciate your informed comments, Nora, thanks. And I had the pleasure and privilege of hearing Sen. Leahy on the floor yesterday comment that if this information will not show the White House is implicated and a crime was committed, there is No Reason for it to be withheld.
The cretin in chief is demonstrating that he is a traitor to this country. When he swore he would remove from the White House anyone engaged in this outing of a covert agent, he had to believe they could hide it behind his captive DoJ.
There are just too many people who love the country more than they are looking for political gain, even in the GOP.
Post a Comment
<< Home