Incredibly, A New Record For Chutzpah From BushCo

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:35:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is not to be believed:

Now that Democrats are also demanding access to the political e-mail, the White House took steps on Thursday to use those latest demands as leverage to force Democrats to accept the White House’s conditions for making Mr. Rove and the others available.
In a letter to Mr. Leahy and Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Fielding, the White House counsel, said the administration was prepared to produce e-mail from the national committee, but only as part of a “carefully and thoughtfully considered package of accommodations” — in other words, only as part of the offer for Mr. Rove and the others to appear in private.
Mr. Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, issued a tart reply: “The White House position seems to be that executive privilege not only applies in the Oval Office, but to the R.N.C. as well. There is absolutely no basis in law or fact for such a claim.”

Fielding is full of s**t. The White House does not have to produce the RNC e-mail. The RNC does. The White House has no control over those e-mails and has no standing to even challenge a subpoena issued against the RNC for those e-mails. What do they possibly think they can argue to a court on this. This is the most ridiculous claim, from an Administration that has broken all records on such claims, EVER!

Frankly, I think this must mean Rove is cooked by those e-mails. And not just politically. Rove messed up big time by using his RNC e-mail. All claims of executive privilege were utterly lost when he chose to go "off the White House record" with his communications. I have a very strong suspicion that some of the things Rove told Fitzgerald are likely to be contradicted by these RNC e-mails. Rove could be in some serious hot water.

And let's not pretend there will be a Constitutional crisis Media. This is a brazen, outrageous attempt at coverup now.

< N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine Critically Injured While En Route to Imus Meeting | Wolfowitz Apologizes, His Job in Jeopardy >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Incredibly, A New Record For Chutzpah From BushCo | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

ACitizen -- perfect! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by the rainnn on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:47:35 AM EST

the chinese do surely have 'em!

my shiny, happy thought for the day?

"subpoenas are like high colonics,
they sure get things a'movin'!"

mr. bush's latest, and most desperate,
attempt to broaden executive privilege
would be breath-taking -- if it were
any other presidency -- but this one? par
for the course. . . it's almost yawn-inducing
in its utterly shameless transparency. . .

this morning's new york times reports
that the white house now claims an
"executive privilege" covers what its
staffers do amongst themselves, on their
own time, while working for the republican
national committee. erh, riiiiight.

i guess that's the natural consequence
of outsourcing the presidency to rove/
cheney and the R.N.C. fundies. . .

i cannot now remember whether the '04
ballot read "bush". . . or R.N.C. for
president. it definitely read "cheney".

oh well. this will be one wild news day.

Wasn't that actually done... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by sphealey on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:05:08 AM EST

Wasn't that actually done in the Area 51 workers compensation case? The USG refused to acknowledge that Area 51 existed, so the plantiff's attorney threated to call the Soviet military attache' as a witness?

sPh

We Repubs want.. (none / 0) (#1)
by demohypocrates on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:17:31 AM EST

similar emails from Dems. And pics from DC cameras (Which Kennedy hit a pole) and FBI Jefferson freezer pics. We want anything Sanderrific - maybe Sandy at the construction site shovin docs under the trailer. Oh oh, and Dem emails to the DNC and vice versa.

When Dems purge prosecutors for political reasons (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:27:58 AM EST

and when Dem White House officials use DNC e-mails to discuss said purges, have at it.

In the meantime, don't come here with nonsense.

[ Parent ]

BTD (1.00 / 2) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:13:01 AM EST

Uh.... Tell me again about Clinton firing all of'em in '93....

Politics then.

Politics now.

[ Parent ]

Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:29:10 AM EST

You know better and I won't play this stupid game with you.

You look ridiculous with these types of comments Jim.

Why not be a principled conservative instead of mouthing stupid GOP talking points?

[ Parent ]

: BTD - Nonsense (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:34:01 PM EST

Big Tent - I again tell you that I am not a conservative. I am a social liberal and ex-democrat who has supported time and again gay rights, women's rights, drug law reform, tax reform, national health care, etc.
I again note that I have not changed on these positions in four years, and my comments are in the archives.
Plainer. Anti-war people do not have an exclusive on these issues, although I find in general that the anti-war Left think they do.
Now that you have been advised of the above (at least) twice, I would appreciate it if you would stop making a charge that you know to be wrong.
I note Clinton's actions because he did it. The Repubs accused him of firing all to mask the firing some who was investigating Whitewater and Hillary's amazing success in options trading.
I thought their actions wrong then, just as I think the Demos' actions are wrong now. I see both as politics, and I think both are bad for the country.
Now. When you find evidence that the Repubs fired an AG to protect a Repub from being prosecuted, let me know.
Until then I'll abide by what Leahy said on TV.
No crimes have been found.

[ Parent ]

Jim please answer this question: (none / 0) (#15)
by Freewill on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:10:58 PM EST

Ok, why did Bush Senior in 1989, Regan in 1981, Carter in 1977, and Nixon in 1969 etc... fire all their inherited U.S. Attorneys from a previous administration? Why did Bush fire them in 2001?

Please answer those intriguing questions before exposing yourself as only a one sided water carrying authoritarian loyalist who doesn't do the research for his/herself but instead has to be told how to argue the points of misdirection.

Once you answer the questions noted above I truly believe you just might find the answer to the question you posted:

However, since I've noticed that you usually pose questions that try to implicate the opponent party as conducting some sort of similarity in the past as a reasoned response for why Bushie does the things he does nowadays please answer these questions without posing another question. Also, please don't use the "Well, I see you didn't answer my first question" as a way to validate truthfulness. That tactic is so Bill O'Really and becoming really lame nowadays!

BTW: Thank you so very much for enlightening me on the blockquote Sensi PPJ.

[ Parent ]

Freewill (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:46:29 PM EST

My point was that, although it was poorly made in my desire to note that firing AGs over politics is nothing new or unreasonable. If I offended you I see that you have set the record (I guess) straight.

And did you also fail to understand my point?

Politics now.

No charge on the bockquote lesson.

[ Parent ]

: PPJ, what's unusual (none / 0) (#18)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:36:12 AM EST

is that the reasons initially offered for the firings were ostensibly not political but had to to with 'performance review' issues, which later turned out to be, shall we say, not quite accurate, to say the least.
Also, why hasn't Bushco just come clean and say that 'yes, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the POTUS, and he doesn't need to explain why he no longer wanted them in office'?
Of course, you never accuse Republicans with playing politics over serious matters, so that wouldn't compute with your mind-set, now would it?
TA!

[ Parent ]

demohypocrates -- whose name was on. . . (none / 0) (#5)
by the rainnn on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:53:09 AM EST

. . .the 2004 ballot?

bush? cheney?

or the R.N.C.?

i forget.

[ Parent ]

thanks for the laugh! (none / 0) (#7)
by chicago dyke on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 07:59:07 AM EST

hahaha. i wonder what the chinese characters are for "turdblossom?"

Hey - I'm subpoena-proof! (none / 0) (#9)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:21:16 AM EST

I once wrote to Bush and offered him advice (which he didn't take) bus as his advisor I am now free and clear of any 'oversight' or subpoenas!

Seriously now, they have privatized Walter Reed, the military, all Federal Agencies. Shouldn't we have expected the White House to be next?

PPJ, I hate to be the first to break it to you (none / 0) (#10)
by Dark Avenger on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:02:59 AM EST

but the firings under discussion didn't take place because of a change of administration, as was true in the case you cite and in 2001 when aWol did the same thing as well. As James Thurber once wrote, you could look it up.

You really aren't going to earn Rove points today, but thanks for playing!

what i would (none / 0) (#11)
by orionATL on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:05:35 AM EST

like to see now is a "chart" of the congress' options.

i know they can issue subpoenas.

i understand that the doj normally aids the congress in such matters

i know the sergent-at-arms in either body can act for the body in delivering subpoena

i understand the congress has it's own calaboose.

but what would be the legal path to a court confrontation?

why is the congress taking so long to "go to court" on this?

i assume the court system would expedite any congressional request for court clarification of subpoena requests.

i assume, possibly wrongly, that the court would have great deference to wards the congress' requests.

anybody know enough to fill out a supreme court time line for this crisis, if it heads that way?

Now I'm furious (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:39:02 AM EST

Banned from the computer for the rest of the day. I'm part of a celebratiing spring party with my son's class today. The first grade is making sundaes. Furious and sundaes and first graders just don't mix.

Rove is toast (none / 0) (#14)
by scribe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:43:32 AM EST

I was going to post a comment here, but it went long and I made it into a diary, which is posted here.