Waxman, Fitzgerald, and Mukasey
In a response to Waxman today, Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that Mukasey’s obstruction is the only thing standing between Waxman getting the Bush and Cheney interview reports. And Waxman is none too happy about it. Good.
In his letter, Fitzgerald confirms what has been clear thus far: because Bush and Cheney avoided the dangers of grand jury testimony, their interview reports are not protected under grand jury secrecy. But if Waxman wants them, he’s going to have to get them from Mukasey.
As to interviews which we have determined are not protected by Rule 6(e), we have provided responsive information to you, after allowing the appropriate executive branch agencies to review the documents consistent with the process described in my earlier letters. As discussed in prior correspondence, the Special Counsel team is not responsible for determining whether executive branch confidentiality interests will be asserted in response to particular requests by the Committee.
Consistent with the above process, I can advise you that as to any interviews of either the President or Vice President not protected by the rules of grand jury secrecy, there were no "agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation" and either the President or Vice President "regarding the conduct and use of the interview of interviews."
Shorter Fitz: blame Mukasey.
Which Waxman promptly did.
On June 16, 2008, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena to you for the production of documents relevant to the Committee’s investigation of the leak of the covert identity ofCIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. You have neither complied with this subpoena by its returnable date nor asserted any privilege to justify withholding documents from the Committee. In light of your actions, I am writing to inform you that the Committee will meet on July 16, 2008, to consider a resolution citing you for contempt of Congress.
[snip]
The arguments you have raised for withholding the interview report are not tenable. When the FBI interview with the Vice President was conducted, the Vice President knew that the information in the interview could be made public in a criminal trial and that there were no restrictions on Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s use of the interview. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified this key point last week, writing to the Committee that "there were no agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and either the President or Vice President regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews." .
Vice President Cheney’s attorneys have consistently maintained that he is not an "entity within the executive branch." Whether this unusual claim is accurate or not, I am aware of no freestanding vice presidential communications privilege, let alone one that covers voluntary and unrestricted conversations with a special counsel investigating wrongdoing. There certainly was no such understanding when our Committee sought the FBI interview report of an interview with Vice President Gore. The Justice Department produced the interview to the Committee despite the fact that it contained discussion of official White House business.
In his closing remarks in the criminal trial of Mr. Libby, Special Counsel Fitzgerald stated: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week." Your cooperation in this matter could go a long way to dispelling this notion or perhaps confirming Mr. Fitzgerald’s fears. Either way, this Committee and the American people are entitled to know what happened.
Now, given how embarrassingly crappy DOJ’s last attempt to shield these interview reports from Congress was (Waxman shreds it pretty thoroughly in his letter to Mukasey), I’m not all that confident that Waxman’s threat of contempt will work. After all, Mukasey has already abased himself on this issue, why stop now? Though we’ll quickly get into the interesting position where Mukasey’s underlings would have to either justify his refusal to cooperate or pursue Congress’ contempt charge.
Underlings, underlings! Oh boy!
And the question is, “Do you prefer your underlings as boxers or briefs?”
Spotlighted, EW.
Fitz the Hog Farmer, ” Soieee!!! Soieee!!! Come and git it!! Fresh Slop!!”
L’Affaire Plame, in which We Relish Once Again The Diverting Understatedness Of WaxManian Snark, to wit:
Well, my goodness.
No VP privilege for ‘wrongdoing’?
No wonder Cheney is so anxious to be designated The Barnacle Branch: existing rules would require the evidence be turned over to Congress. Claiming that he’s a newly-identified species to which prior rules do not apply is Cheney’s only hope.
Deeelicious.
I like this part from Waxman:
Alright, here’s my favorite bit, aside from where he says “we’re voting on contempt”:
Wow. pat threw Mukasey under the bus. Did’t leave Mike any cover at all.
There must have been SOME INTERSTING DISCUSSIONS between the two of them. Pat had a very log trial in fornt of Mukasey and AFAIK, they got along well.
So, this must have put a huge chunk of pressure on Pat. It must have been hard to do the right thing. I’m glad he did.
Well, I just landed on this TP item (via TPM) and it looks like Scott McClellan is also throwing Cheney under the bus. Money quote seems to be this one:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/…..heney-oil/
Wow.
If McClellan’s brakes fail, color me damn suspicious.
Keep in mind, too, the other thing that’s going on. DOJ has not issued a public statement on Rove’s testimony on Thursday. But by all measures they should be willing to pursue Congress’ contempt once Rove doesn’t show.
If Mukasey refuses to enforce a Congressional subpoena on Thursday when no claim to privilege is made–and one thing Rove is likely hiding from is being questioned about his plans with Kjellander to fire Fitz–that might make Fitz cranky.
Besides, he set up the Bush and Cheney interviews so nicely, I can imagine it would piss him off if Mukasey–of all people–didn’t play along.
I’m not saying Pat never gets cranky, he does.
But the Pat FItz I know does not allow crankiness to influence how he conucts the public’s business.
I am certain, he had this all mapped out, light a chess strategy with alternative lines of thinking to account for contingenicies in how others would act, long ago.
I am aslo certain that he made it a point to do that advance planning when he was calm, cool and collected (it’s one of the reasons it takes him so frickin long to actually do anything, he will not be rushed into a hasty decision, especailly when all emotional)
I suspect that he further, vetted his advance planning with other’s who’s opinions he trusts. Deending on what Mukasey, WH, et al do, Pat will just execute the prviousy decided upon plan for that eventuality.
He is almost freakishly disciplined in that way.
Granted. But he’s in a spot right now where Mukasey’s got his hand on two different chess pieces, and he’s making the most cynical moves imaginable. I suspect Fitz expected that from AGAG, but not from Mukasey.
Conyers has been dared to do so by Bates, too.
I don’t think Pat’s letter is a surprise to Mukasey nor that Mukasey’s letters were a surpise to Pat. I expect that each geave the other a heads up.
Sorry, that’s not my point–I’m sure they did give each other a heads up.
My point is that, at a time months ago when Fitz moved his chess piece to a point that required Mukasey to approve turning over the reports, he believed Mukasey would lean towards turning them over. That is, I suspect Fitz believed Mukasey would put his interpretation of what was right ahead of what the WH told him.
Because part of this whole chess game is that WH, too, dumped this all in Mukasey’s lap. They coudl have tried to invoke privilege, but did not (though I’m sure they made it clear what they preferred).
Really? You think they had discussions? Would that even be proper? I’m doubting there were discussions, but I have nothing solid to base that on.
I think Cheney may be angling to claim the inherent “big shot” privilege. This combined with the occult legal duty that Mukasey has to “do whatever the VP says,” is ironclad especially with the “let’s make nice” Congress. The public is distracted with cheap bananas and disappearing white women or if that doesn’t work there are jungle camps of guerrillas on the Ecuadorian and Columbian borders with a fungible idealism who are outfitted upon DEA order to act as freedom fighters or communist agitators as the news cycle demands.
The only inherent consequence is the rampant epidemic of acid indigestion that seizes the blogsphere. But in the end this only boosts Maalox sales.
Such are the checks and balances of arbitrage capitalism.
(Picking up on exchange with EW from last thread): I can sure see the genius of Fitzgerald’s clipped correctness, and in fact I think that many people caught that almost a year and a half ago. The invitation was there at the end of the trial.
It doesn’t seem realistic to expect Fitzgerald to step out of character, although I wonder how he has restrained himself this long. But then I’m not all that clipped and correct. I’m just hoping that Waxman, having sunk his teeth in, refuses to let go.
Yes, the tragedy is really that it took Congress a year to play along. I explained what evidence there was where to a Congressperson on Waxman’s committee in March 2007. That person “got” that Fitz had left the Bush chcney interviews out there immediately. It has taken thus long to get to a contempt vote on those materials.
As to Fitz’ clipped correctness, keep in mind that he’s quite good at working the flow of information within the laws that are out there. Problem is, not many people are subtle enough readers to get that.
Fitzgerald is a lawyer: one step at a time. This is just another example. Waxman is using the Fitzgerald approach. It is tedious, but that is how a good case is made and prosecuted. There is a real problem of people going nuts watching the construction project. It is helpful to remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint.
Maybe, but it has been a marathon of infinite duration and distance with no, or little, apparent ground covered. I fully understand building a case, and sometimes taking the time to set the adversary up for a complex backdoor play etc., but this has been inane. There are nine million different ways Congress could have taken the prerogative and gone after the malefactors, but they have diddled their time and self respect away.
bmaz, Fitzgerald can’t do it by himself. He needed others to act. It looks to me like he has done everything he could do within his power to tell others to go ask.
Oh, I was referring to Congress, not Fitzgerald. You will get no argument from me as to Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald could have put Bush and Cheney before the Grand Jury and he balked at doing so.
Now you sound like LHP!!
I wrote Waxman when I heard about his letter to Muckkasey, and said contempt was good, but could he make it inherent contempt? (A lot of us would enjoy seeing these guys walked out of their offices in hadndcuffs.)
You’re MUCH more likely to get inherent contempt from HJC than Oversight. Waxman’s not all taht fond of it. Conyers and others on HJC are increasingly champing at the bit to try it out.
“Champing at the bit”
Can I save you the suspense?
Because I know how this ends……
If Mukasey refuses to provide transcripts and Congress votes to hold him in contempt, will Congress rely on Mukasey’s Justice Department to uphold the contempt citation, or will Congress attempt to arrest Mukasey using their inherent contempt powers?
i see others are thinking the same thing, but are faster on the keyboard.
Who does Mukasey call for help once he in the brig in the basement of the Capital building? Nothing like the nation’s chief prosecutor reaching out to the defense bar for aid and assistance.
That’s my point though. Waxman is not going to hold someone in inherent contempt. Conyers just might. I’m sure he’d rather first try it out on Turdblossom. But remember, he just subpoenaed Mukasey too.
If Waxman hits Mike with contempt who then represents him? He would have to recuse himself I would think and someone else from DOJ steps to the plate?
Now that’s an interesting point, since we’re talking about judges that Fitz knows well–since the DAG is Mark Filip, recently a judge in SD IL.
Two possibilites come readily to mind.
DOJ civil division represents the Gov’t when it is a defendant. it also represents government officials when they are sued in their official capacities. So, the civil division could represent him
2) alternatively, he gets private counsel. Likely someone he knows from NYC.
Or, for kicks, he gets the ACLU.*snark*
if the aclu agreed with his position they would take it up regardless his affiliation, however it is brutally clear they would not agree with his position
I cannot imagine Mukasey would allow them to represent him in such acircumstance. It was not a knock on the ACLU, at all
Well kudos to Fitz for having the matter postured where neither executive privilege or some kind of baroque national defense argument appear likely applicable to the interviews. Its a nice foundation. I would say Mukasey is boxed in no matter how it plays out except that it simply plays out.
How weird, and ironic, would that be?
“he is in”…even.
Do you suppose he would seek relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus?
I am not sure that Habeas would be effective on a duly voted on inherent contempt.
simple stuff as far as I can see;
the president WILL invoke priviledge whether or not fizt says any exist
it is not up to fitz to say yes or no, it is up the the president, not the courts, not fitz
it is left to congress to deny the priviledge by impeaching the president
impeachment is the only remedy against anything the president wants to do
on this I now agree with cheney, the president has no restrictions unless congress makes it so
otherwise he is king, plain and simple
Despite “barnacle” theory the office of federal prosecutor is really the one federal office where the theory of the unitary executive is especially vulnerable because a prosecutor is not only an agent of the executive but is also an officer of the court. And the ability of the judiciary to check the scope of the agency of prosecutor, beyond the ethical concerns of the bar, is clearly recognized in the doctrine of prosecutorial misconduct framed by the overarching concern that judicial proceedings are designed to seek truth.
While prosecutorial misconduct is certainly not implicated in Fitzgerald’s actions, it nevertheless is not clear with respect to Mukasey’s whether because procedural matters are implicated, judicial involvement and prerogative is not also implicated. In other words this controversy involves matters where the expansion of the scope of the executive agency conflicts with realms of concern to the judiciary and the duties that run to it. Accordingly the judiciary would seem to need guard against the intrusion of the unfettered will of the executive as sole principal into procedural domains ruled by the judiciary. And the unfettered will of the executive acting under an expanded understanding of the Constitutional definition of executive power is the logical component at the core of the theory of the “unitary executive.”
This fundamental conflict is not as clearly implicated yet in any proceeding as it has been in the Libby matter, though there are matters on the horizon like the Seigelman matter and the other alleged political prosecutions which will invite this kind of analysis if these matters continue to demand legal attention. For this reason in particular, for what it is worth, my sense is that Bush’s reach in this matter may be a more difficult thing for him than he imagines.
Hey, there’s a good idea!! Let’s name Federal Prosecutors Barnacles too! Then we can cancel out their Barnacle with our Barnacle, carry the one, and voila! no claim of privilege or confidentiality.
Carry the one!! Someone gets the one I say. Its a zero sum gain world.
Despite “barnacle” th
I don’t know if he “believed” that at all. It would not matter. Pat was going to do what he set out to do, unless or until someone convinced him he was wrong on the law. And I don’t hink anyone could convicne him of that, because he is so clearly right on the law.
Whether he believed that mukasey would do the right thing or not, would only factor into whether or not he had to try to figure out a work around–assuming his analysis allowed him the right to do a work around.
He is NOT and ends justify the means kinda guy. The journey is as important as the destiantion. Hell, he went to the trouble of going to trial with Scooter, knowing full well that the President would likely pardon Libby. Yet he did it anyway, because the journey matters as much as the destination.
Remeber, Moses never got to cross over into the Promised Land. He died just before they entered. Yet, it is was the journey that mattered.
“The journey is as important as the destiantion.”
Isn’t that kinda what “due process” is all about?
Bob in HI
That’s exactly what due process is about
here’s one thing I disagree lhp;
fitz had the goods on cheney and possibly bush, yet knew the trial would end in a stale mate because of executive priviledge
I believe he chose expedience over correct proceedure
this is a mistake, cheney needed to be charged and he needed to invoke executive priviledge, this would have served our country much better then stopping the process because it was not going to finish
I disagree. For Pat to have gone to trial and lost, would have been a disaster. Nobody would have ever even tried to stand up for rule of law again. I cannot even bring myself to imagine what would have happened tothe COnstitution if he lost.
He had to find a case that was so plain vanilla, so freakin’ obvious that there could be only one result, so easy for the low info citizen to understand that there could be national consensus on the outcome.
And tha’s what he did with Libby. ANd in th ecourse of that trial got all the bush/cheney info transformed fromallegations into adjudicated fact.
Do not overlook the importance of having things now legally proven “facts.”
It’s easy now with hindsight to believe that a jury would have convicted Cheny if given the chance, but don’t forget that throughout most of the trial, I had a running disagreement with Jeralyn Merrit about whether or not Pat had made his case. She was so sure he had fallen short.
I thik he did the right thing.he converted information in his posesion into legally proven facts.he proved that convictions coul dbe won, and he laid a trail of breadcrumbs for COngress. It’s not his fault that it has taken COngress more than a year to act.
It is COngress’s job to go after Bush and Cheney. They have the legal authority to overcome Executive Privledge.
good point lhp, I have two things to offer;
I believe it would not have been divesting if fitz lost due to claims of executive privilege, it would more likely have helped neuter their depravity…
now one more point
their only authority to overcome executive privilege, or ANY crimes the president commits is impeachment, so long as that is not considered they have castrated themselves
“Privilege” just means “private law” in Latin.
Once again, I never asserted he was an ends justify the means guy. I said he was following certain means to achieve an end. You seem to think he’s not got the end in mind–that he want to trial on Libby without believing–correctly–that was a step in a process that might well achieve certain ends.
Oh no. He went to trial with a game plan to convert information into legal facts, to expose that information to a wide audience and to create a platform whereby even more information could be disseminated.
I was addressing the issue of whether he lets end game analyis trump goigthrough all the steps.
Long before he issued hte indictment, FBI types were making barroom predicitions about the pintlessness of bothering to go to trial, b/c is was assumed within some cirlces that Bush would pardon. So, the attitude was “what’s the point? You done before you’ve even started”
Yet he did it anyway, because the trial itself achieved many good thigs other than conviction and was itself (I believe) a step in a more subtle and longer journey.
Going back to Moses. He never got to enter Cannan. But inthe ocurse of his journey, he led the Isrealites out of slavery, got manna from heaven, recieved and disseminated the 10 OCmmandments. So, in terms of reaching his destination, his trip was a failure. Yet, in every other way, a huge success.
So, too, with the Libby trial. Though in terms of legal accountatbilty for Libby, it’s a frustration, so many other valuable things came out of it.
True. He has taken us along his journey…
He plays by the rules.
What happens when the rules are driven upsidedown, everwhichway, with the deceit of the Bush cabal?
Do you believe that what goes around comes around?
I did, at my idealistic part of my life.
Not anymore.
If this fails, he needs to don his whistleblower suit a/k/a Eliot
Richardson.
Remember this is worse than Watergate.
Only my opinion…
Maybe in time he will have to do that. I’m willing to wait and see what other cards he plays. I know the way he does things is maddenly slow (never, never, never team up with him to do a crossword puzzle. You will be driven to homicidal rage. Soooo frustrating), but he usually knows exactly what he is doing and how mauch time he has to get it done.
Blow his whistle at what? For whose ears? You can hardly believe anything anyone would say any more would provoke a storm of outrage in our media or make a Republican sabotaged Congress assert its constitutional prerogatives. There’s no deus ex machina in this drama. He’s given Congress enough to act on, and only they have the power to do so at this point — even a Republican judge is taunting them to use inherent contempt.
His whistleblowing testimony will be like the Nixon tapes, revealing, believable, and set in motion the impeachment process… in my opinion….
And honestly, I think that was a ‘gift’ to more Americans than we know.
Two ‘low info’ people that I know did not pay all that much attention UNTIL Bush pardoned Libby. At that point, they had heard the name ‘Scooter Libby/Dick Cheney’ in conjunction with ‘outed CIA officer’ enough times to do a slow, slow burn. (I suspect they’re still smoldering.)
One of them is a person who back when the first Plame images were released asininely remarked something to the effect of, “What’s that Ambassador’s problem? He ended up with the beautiful blonde.” (I keep trying to use variations of that phrase to get my head around the mindset it represents; even with several years practice now, I don’t fully ‘get’ it.
At any rate, although that particular jackass didn’t seem to be jolted by the idea of an outed CIA agent, he **did** catch on to the whole ‘Hey! There ain’t no justice!’ meme once GWBush pardoned Scooter Libby. Interesting what catches some people’s attention. Go figure.
The ‘gift’ was actually going through the trial and following the difficult process. Because only with that sequence was it clear to my Low Info acquaintance that GWBush was a feckless tool of Richard Cheney and heaven only knows what else.
Without the trial, there wouldn’t have been a pardon.
Without the pardon, some people still wouldn’t have caught on.
ot: for those in l.a., appearing next week at the ALOUD author series at central library –
Wed, Jul 16, 7 PM
Steven T. Wax
Kafka Comes to America:
Fighting for Justice
in the War on Terror . . .
A Public Defender’s Inside Account
In conversation with
Laurie Levenson,
Professor of Law & Director,
Center for Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School
reservations
Gracias to the maha-censor.
And I might note that I am not sure that Habeas would not be effective either. Habeas covers wrongful detention or imprisonment. If there is a rationally demonstrable act of contempt of Congress, and there was a properly voted on inherent contempt finding by either the full House or a duly constituted committee, I don’t see where there exists a basis for finding a wrongful detention or imprisonment. so that is really what I am basing my guess on…
I think any republican court might be able to “find” unlawful detainment if it comes by inherant contempt from a democratic congress
I think any republican court might be able to “find” unlawful detainment if it comes by inherant contempt from a democratic congress
—–
Perhaps. But there’s a big separation of powers issue there.
not really, the purpose of the seperate powers is so that each overseas the other, that’s the very reason the seperation exists
Whether or not a petitoner will PREVAIL on a petition for writ of Hbaeous corpus, is not the point.
Mukasey ought to have habeous REVIEW availbale to him. Yeah, I think he would lose, too
I think he would have Habeas review available, I just don’t see under the mechanics of the deal how a writ could be granted thereon. And I even agree that he ought to have Habeas available; although I had to think twice, because these asswipes that are so dismissive of the historical right of Habeas, and the Constitution in general, well it would be kind of poetic justice to show the jackals what life is like without it…
This is kind of what I meant playing for irony rather than expertise. But I suppose in choosing parsimonious phrasing I was open to be misunderstood.
RE: Inherent contempt.
I don’t think the issue is so much Conyers vs Waxman (although I agree that that’s important) as it is Rove vs Mukasey. Rove is a private citizen who is claiming a privilege when none has actually been invoked. That’s a lot different than a sitting AG who’s actually invoking privilege, so matter how bogus the claim might be.
Frank
NEITHER of them are invoking privilege.
Rove is citing an opinion that gives certain former aides absolute immunity from showing up–and it’s not at all clear that conditions listed in the opinion apply to Rove.
NO ONE has invoked executive privilege WRT this subpoena for Rove. Moreover, he has said in the past that it is necessary, but has not yet gotten it.
Mukasey is citing executive branch confidentiality–but not privilege. I’m sure Bush and Cheney don’t want to have to invoke privilege on those reports, and have not yet done so, but without them invoking privilege, it’s not clear how Mukasey can do so for them.
What’s the distinction?
The distinction is that to invoke EP, BUSH needs to invoke it, first of all. Mukasey has no privilege (though he does have the ability to protect investigative proceedings, which is what he’ll say to HJC regarding the Siegelman documents)–it is Bush’s and Bush’s alone (in spite of what Barnacle says).
So one difference is that Mukasey is trying to shield those reports while also shielding Bush from having to say that he doesn’t want them released. Note that if Bush did the latter, he might be liable to obstruction charges…
The other difference is the assertion about governance. The president has privilege to be able to shield certain deliberations from scrutiny by the public and other branches. But that doesn’t extend to legal investigations (see also Nixon v. US).
Mukasey’s trying to argue that because the CONTENT of the stuff Bush and Cheney were talking about is Nat Security, which woudl normally be protected, it’ll be protected here. But the time to invoke privilege at that point would have been when Fitz asked to interview them.
Bush is trying to have his cake (shielding his own actions) and eat it too (a claim that he was cooperating with Fitz). But there’s not a clear legal basis for it.
But he’s also just playing judge and saying “separation of powers”, it’s secret, nah nah.
Forgive the ignorance or naivete, but what business is it of his to utter this “separation of powers” double-talk?
It’s not. That’s why Waxman kicked his ass in his response.
It’s a distinction without meaning when (according to unitary executive “theory”, I guess) every barnacle and underling can assert executive privilege, even if it’s not Executive Privilege.
That is exactly right. All those objections were waived by the agreement and consent to be interviewed. And that process occurred as it did not just with the WH consent, but was by their negotiated demand; otherwise, they would have had their butts under oath and in front of a grand jury. They have got nothing here to stand on; this is simply ridiculous.
Shweeeetttt!! I love when I play lawyer and get away with it.
And not to mention, the last time I really looked at the parameters of executive privilege in this kind of context (during the Libby trial) it was pretty darn clear that EP falls by the wayside in the face of a legitimate criminal investigation of the very thing that EP is being asserted against. So, again, this is just ridiculous.
they have never had anything to stand on except;
“because I say it, it becomes the law”
and they are correct because congress does not use it’s power to reign these powers
this is all congresses fault…no kidding
Yeah, but the other examples where they’ve invoked EP have at least followed the form by which they invoke it. Everywhere else, they:
1) Ask for an opinion about THAT SPECIFIC invocation of EP
2) Tell Bush they support it
3) Bush invokes it
This is not what has happened in either the Mukasey/Bush Cheney report case or the Rove HJC subpoena case.
marcy, each time the press the envelope and get away with it, there is a new default minimum
the bar gets raised, (or lowered however you want to look at it)
each of their actions should have been impeachable and since it has not they can contnue claiming more and more power with more and more novel “interpretations” and their new interpretation becomes correct since congress allows it.
until congress says “enough”, there will be more and more new ground broken with the claims this president makes
Well, I think two things may change things. First, HJC really is prepping Inherent contempt for Turdblossom. Frankly, I’m not sure if they would need to–if Bush never invokes EP, then they can just ask DOJ to enforce it. THERE’s A REASON why Bush hasn’t invoked EP yet–either because to do so claims involvement in blatantly illegal actions which may well be PROVEN to be illegal, or because he doesn’t want to protect turdblossom for his shit anymore. And without it, then Jeff Taylor might just decide to pursue contempt.
Then, there’s Mukasey. He’s a hack. But he’s nearing the realm of Watergate-type hackery. Will he go that far? I don’t know. He’s closing in on it with the Bush CHeney reports, though, and I suspect he knows that.
Time is of the essence though. Sooner or later, someone in the school has to hit the school bully hard. At least once. Even if they get the crap kicked out of them doing it. No matter, you have to take the shot or the bullying never ends and keeps getting worse. It is the law of the playground. So far, Democrats have been useless playground scaredy cat sissies. Whack the bully.
Yep. I thikn Conyers is almost ready to do the physical (inherent) whack.
But part of me thinks that Waxman may still end up being effecitve first.
No reason whatsoever they cannot tag team the Creeps (gratuitous Nixon/Watergate reference). Healthe competition between Waxman and Conyers here would be good. I say we offer a prize to the winner!
Actually, now that Conyers has subpoenaed for the reports, I DO think there’s a bit of egotistical competition. Frankly, Conyers’ claim is more justified, so Waxman figures he’s probably gotta liberate this while he can.
I say “become the bully” and make these clowns whimper like the maggots they are.
confidentiality is a practice. Privledge is a rebuttabal right
I’m not sure I see the difference here. How is “executive branch confidentiality” not privilege?
which is a rediculous asertation, and congress needs to be punished for allowing it
Last stanzas of ” Ithica “.
Always keep Ithaca in your mind.
To arrive there is your ultimate goal.
But do not hurry the voyage at all.
It is better to let it last for many years;
and to anchor at the island when you are old,
rich with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offer you riches.
Ithaca has given you the beautiful voyage.
Without her you would have never set out on the road.
She has nothing more to give you.
And if you find her poor, Ithaca has not deceived you.
Wise as you have become, with so much experience,
you must already have understood what Ithacas mean.
Constantine P. Cavafy (1911)
23 I suspect Fitz expected that from AGAG, but not from Mukasey.
I think he knew that whoever Bush picked would be someone who would put their duty to defend the criminals in the Executive Branch far above any other duties, or else they wouldn’t get the nod. He might have wondered if Mukasey got fly with them and might be able to pull a rabbit, but I think he’s pretty much known, like all the other interested spectators, how this would end up – with DOJ just being a criminal firewall for the Executive.
He should have known what Mukasey was capable of after all the post 9-11 immigration witchhunt stuff and Padilla.
69 – On Padilla, remember that at least he ruled for Padilla to have a lawyer – something with Clement and Comey trotted into his office to object to for nodamngoodreasonbutbushasskissing. But that was then, this is now.
71 – I do agree, but I will say that they can try to do a “left hand on red, right foot on green” approach on this by saying that Fitzgerald et al had security clearance and the fact that they were willing to discuss matters with security cleared persons in an interview was not the same as saying that they would be willing to agree to conversations with nat sec info being made public. And on the “confidential communications” front for Exec Privilege, Bush at least (probably not Cheney) could claim that a conversation Fitzgerald, as an inhouse DOJ lawyer, even in a question/answer setting might also have had elements of confidential Executive Branch exchanges, depending on how the interview was conducted.
We don’t really know how it was conducted, but we do know that unlike Ashcroft, Bush never “recused” and he remained the Special Counsel’s ultimate superior. So if he was answering timeline questions that is somewhat different than if he was questioning back as well – what have you guys been finding out, how are we going to handle this, etc. etc.
Not that I think that was going on or that it is a good argument even if it was, but just floating the universe of possibilities balloon.
79 – Amen. It’s why I sometimes think it would be easier to take those who have a spine and turn them to the light than to try to win against the darkness with DiFis and Schumers.
I see that argument, but much of what went on in that interview wasn’t about national security, and whatever there was could be redacted for public consumption.
It’s infuriatingly beyond my comprehension that they don’t just declare all of these crooks, including Mukasey, in “inherent contempt of congress” and send out the congressional police to enforce it.
Although I disagree with it, I see the argument against formal impeachment. In this case, however, there’s no such argument. Just send out the keystone cops and haul ‘em in. I don’t see Mukasey, Miers or Rove putting up much physical resistance. Rove might be a bit heavy to drag.
Been following this with fascination. It feels like we might be at a long-awaited tipping point in the whole mess. Do emptywheel and looseheadprop, the people I most respect in this thread, agree?
No idea, really. The question is will HJC be allowed to do what it wants to? Will Mukasey decide to go down as a Nixonian level shill, or will he cede to the better–and legally correct–argument.
Will Mukasey decide to go down as a Nixonian level shill?
If it’s up to Mukasey, I bet he sink as low as necessary. If only the HJC would step up to the plate for once in their miserable lives …
And you won’t get any argument from me on our worthless congress.
Executive Branch 1000,000 Legislative Branch Zero Judicial Branch Zero
We can all edit a book “The Threatening Feckless Letters of Waxman and Conyers That Didn’t Amount to Jack.”
For the Bush consiligliere like Material Witness Mukasey, a contempt citation from Waxman or Congress is worn like a trophy. That’s because it goes no where, and no one ever has the cagones to use inherent contempt.
And why did Pat the Fitzie allow Bush and Cheney to avoid the grand jury? Why couldn’t their fat asses been hauled before it? What was Fitz ‘fraid of? And again having seen everything, why doesn’t Fitz finish the job?
Waxman can huff and puff and huff and puff . Ain’t gonna budge Mukasey. Ain’t gonna budge Fitz to finish the job. Ain’t nothin’ gonna happen to anyone who is or has been at the top in this administration. Some of the middle feeders will get trash detail at a federal prison.
He’s threatening and bullshitting and Waxman continues to be the little engine that couldn’t. If he and his feckless committee had any balls he would have arrested Mukasey already using inherent contempt powers. I watched Wasserman-Shultz (she of the masters in political science) flounder around as she realized on camera that there isn’t a damn thing they have the balls to do about Rove or Mukasey.
And as to people who say “screw Congress I’m not showing up” as Rove has said about Thursday, until someone transplants a pair of balls on Conyers, this will just drag on in the D.C. Circuit where nothing helpful will happen.
Obama is either naive or pretending to be naive thinking an Inspector General ever accomplishes a damn thing. Reports come and go, the MSM superficially reports them and clucks and nothing much happens. It takes organizations like CREW to go after scum like Esther Slater McDonald and Michael Elston. The IG didn’t do jack to them.
CREW Files Bar Complaints Against Former DOJ Officials
.
The Serious Implications Of President Bush’s Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation
Bush and Cheney Indicted