Via KagroX, WaPo reports:

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 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 essence of the Bush position is that the federal statute that calls for US Attorneys to enforce congressional subpoenas through contempt proceedings is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Rather than testing this proposition in court, it appears that Bush will rely on his bald assertion. In such circumstances, the Congress appears to have two options - file a lawsuit through a special counsel (not a special counsel appointed by Justice) to enforce the subpoena or proceed with inherent contempt, a proceeding solely judged by the House or Senate, as opposed to the more traditional contempt proceedings through judicial process.

With Fred Fielding as White House counsel, this postion from the Bush Administration is less surprising, though still shocking, than one imagines, as he asserted the same position in 1982 in the Gorsuch matter, though he filed suit that time:

On December 2, the Administration withheld 64 documents from the subcommittee. . . . By a vote of 9 to 2, a subcommittee of the House Public Works Committeedecided to cite Gorsuch for contempt. The full committee did likewise, after it rejected a Justice Department proposal to give briefings on the contents of the documents. The House of Representatives voted 259 to 105 to support the contempt citation. . . Pursuant to the statutory procedures for contempt citations, the Speaker certified the facts and referred them to the U.S. Attorney for presentation to a grand jury. The Justice Department, anticipating the House vote, moved quickly: “Immediately after the House vote and prior to the delivery of the contempt citation,” the department chose not to prosecute the case. Instead, it asked a district court to declare the House action an unconstitutional intrusion into the President’s authority to withhold information from Congress.

More. And see Marty Lederman, who links to Reagan era Ted Olson opinion that is the basis for the claim today.

Whatever is going on in the world today, here's a place for you to discuss it. It's a court day for me, I'll be back here tonight.

Via Sargent:

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office. . . .

More

This is truly outrageous politicization of the Pentagon and deserves the most serious reubke:

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions [Sen.] Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

Edelman seems not to know that the Pentagon is not the commanding officer of the Senate. His response is disrespectful, outrageous and he should be immediately fired for his unacceptable behavior. And you can have no doubt that Edelman is not a uniform wearing member of the military, but rather a BushCo hack (From February 2001 to June 2003, he was Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. Career foreign service officers do not get that posting without being Cheney acolytes.) Senator Clinton's response is right on the mark:

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates should apologize and fire Edelman for this outrageous behavior.

With General Petraeus set to discuss the surge strategy in Iraq, it is interesting to see how the start of the surge has been, erm pushed back. In an interview yesterday with Hugh Hewitt, Gen. Petraeus said:

we have been surging our forces during that time [since he was named Commander on February 10]. We have added five Army brigade combat teams, two Marine battalions, and a Marine expeditionary unit, and some enablers, as they’re called. And over the last month, that surge of forces has turned into a surge of offensive operations. . . .

This would establish mid-February as the start of the Surge. This is confirmed in this news report, based on a June 15, 2007 Pentagon report to Congress:

The security operation was launched Feb. 14 and is still unfolding as the last of an additional 28,000 or so U.S. forces are getting into position in and around the Iraqi capital. The Pentagon is required by Congress to provide its initial assessment of the operation in July, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said he will report in September.

(Emphasis supplied.) So I think it is fair to say the Surge commenced in mid-February and became fully equipped and staffed by June. The question is do the results from February to June count? WaPo's Bob Kagan, of the Surging Kagan family, (h/t atrios), said yes in March:

Judge Robert Conrad, Jr., one of the four judges President Bush nominated last week to be federal appeals court judges sounds dangerous. Check out what Sen. Patrick Leahy said (scroll down) about him in 2005 when he was nominated to the District Court:

Listen to what he wrote about Sister Helen Prejean, one of the bravest and most caring people I have ever met. He calls her book, “Dead Man Walking,” “liberal drivel,” and shows nothing but contempt for her compassionate work with condemned prisoners. The rhetoric he uses is heated, and his bias for the death penalty is clear. Will any defendant in a capital case who comes before a Judge Conrad feel that they will get a fair hearing from him?

On Planned Parenthood:

Mr. Conrad’s view of the well-respected family planning organization is that it is a “most radical legal advocate of unfettered abortion on demand,” and argues they do nothing to reduce teen pregnancy.

Leahy also says then Senator John Edwards opposed Conrad's nomination when it first came up in 2002.

Wikipedia mentions "He is best known for recommending an independent counsel be named to investigate then Vice President Al Gore."

He's had a rather meteoric rise in the past few years, from U.S. Attorney in North Carolina, to federal judge in 2005 to Chief Judge (Western District of North Carolina) in 2006 and now to the Court of Appeals.

I think we need more information on Judge Conrad before his confirmation. How has he ruled while on the District Court?

Via Crooks and Liars and U.S.A. Today:

The Bush administration announced a new tool Tuesday to freeze financial assets of those who want to destabilize Iraq.

President Bush unveiled a new executive order that allows the administration to block bank accounts and any other financial assets that might be found in this country belonging to people, companies or groups that the United States deems are working to threaten stability in Iraq.

Is this really necessary?

The administration already has tools to clamp down financially on people, companies and groups that seek to bankroll terrorist activities or help funds specific terror groups, such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The United States also has financial sanctions against countries accused of fostering terrorism, such as Iran.

I love the line about "threatening stability" in Iraq. As if there's any stability left to threaten.

Former President Bill Clinton appeared on Good Morning America today. As to Hillary's record of supporting women, he said:

"I defy you to find anybody who has run for office in recent history who's got a longer history of working for women, for families and children, than Hillary does," he said. "I don't think it's inconsistent with being a woman that you can also be knowledgeable on military and security affairs, and be strong when the occasion demands it. I don't consider that being manly -- I consider that being a leader."

He also said the U.S. cannot succeed militarily in Iraq and come September, President Bush will be out excuses.

More...

As I mentioned yesterday, the idea that in September the report of General David Petraeus on the Surge will weaken Godot Republican resolve on following Bush's Iraq Debacle policy is simply unrealistic. Glenn Greenwald catches Gen. Petraeus interviewed by Hugh Hewitt of all people:

HH: Now you’re due to make a report back in September, I don’t know if it’s early, mid or late September, General Petraeus, is that enough time to really get a fix on how the surge is progressing? DP: Well, I have always said that we will have a sense by that time of basically, of how things are going, have we been able to achieve progress on the ground, where have their been shortfalls, and so forth. And I think that is a reasonable amount of time to have had all the forces on the ground, again, for about three months, to have that kind of sense. . . .

Does anyone believe that a proud soldier like Petraeus will provide a sense that he can't succeed? Of course he will not. Heck, if he would, would you really want him to be leading the forces? Unlike Glenn, I am not as skeptical of Petraeus' intentions; I just realize he is human and the commander of the operation is not going to be the one to declare his operation a failure. More.

The defense begins its case today in the terrorism trial of Jose Padilla and two codefendants.

How big are the holes in the case? Journalist Lew Z. Koch, writing at Firedoglake, counts the ways. He concludes:

Ashcroft, then Comey, and now Gonzales, Frazier, Shipley, Killinger and Pell have built a case on fantasy, supposition, prejudice and fear mongering. Can the defense make the jury see the shocking inadequacies of the prosecution’s case?

The Christian Science Monitor asks, Without a Plot, Is Padilla Guilty?

More....

Tens of thousands of graduating law students around the country (11,000 in New York alone) are in final crunch mode studying for next week's bar exam.

The TL kid is one of them.

Above the Law has put up an open thread for sharing bar exam tips and stories. I'm doing the same here. Humor is appreciated. (And thanks to all of you who responded here.)

I can't imagine taking a bar exam in a room with thousands of other people. Nor can I imagine rules like these.

Applicants are NOT permitted to bring any items into the examination room other than one (1) clear, gallon-sized plastic food storage bag which may contain:

Pens (blue or black ink only)
Medication
No. 2 Pencils, Erasers, Highlighters
Feminine Hygiene Products
Beverage in plastic container or juice box only
Tissues
Quiet Snack (No peanut or tree nut products)
Ordinary Earplugs

More....

Let's hope the Democrats are as resolute.