Incredibly, A New Record For Chutzpah From BushCo

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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:

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

    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.


    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 then.

    Politics now.

    No charge on the bockquote lesson.


    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.


    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?

    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.