Bush Claims Executive Privilege Over Valerie Plame Leak

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:10:10 PM EST
Tags: Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, Dick Cheney (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It's official. President Bush invoked a claim of executive privilege to prevent Congress from obtaining Justice Department interviews with Dick Cheney and others over the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson. A subpoena for the information was issued in June.

The Wilsons respond (no link, received by e-mail):

“Today the president took the unprecedented step of asserting executive privilege to thwart congressional efforts to review Vice President Cheney’s interview with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concerning the betrayal of Valerie Wilson’s covert CIA identity. We agree with Congressman Waxman that the position taken by the president is ludicrous.

The American people have a right to know what role the vice president played in the leak of Ms. Wilson’s covert identity for political purposes. The fact that the Attorney General is recommending the assertion of executive privilege reveals that this Department of Justice is as beholden to the White House as that run by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

More...

Given the White House’s continued efforts to cover up the truth and subvert legitimate congressional inquiries, our civil suit may be the only way the American people will learn the truth. We seek to hold those public officials responsible for this serious breach of national security accountable for their actions, and to ensure that future generations of public servants are not tempted to engage in similarly despicable behavior.”

No word yet on whether Committee Chair Rep. Henry Waxman will request a contempt citation against Attorney General Michael Mukasey for refusing to comply with the subpoena for Cheney's interview.

Some speculation on what Cheney knew and from whom is here.

< Child Rape and the Death Penalty | DEA, Others to Recruit Teens at Colorado Conference >

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.

Bush Claims Executive Privilege Over Valerie Plame Leak | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think the notes Cheney wrote (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by madamab on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:23:14 PM EST

in the margins of that news story are pretty d$mning.

Henry Waxman is a great Congressman. Unfortunately, the Justice Department's partisan unwillingness to enforce subpoenas is hamstringing him in his efforts to bring accountability back to the Fourth Branch, er, the Executive Branch.

Look, we all know that Bush and Cheney did it, but it's going to be really hard to prove it after what Cheney did to the DOJ. That's why they targeted the DOJ instantly upon taking office. They knew they were going to break the law a lot, and they didn't want to pay for it.

D&mn you, Nancy, for not setting the table a long time ago.

There is no frakkin' way that (5.00 / 6) (#3)
by litigatormom on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM EST

interview memos created by the DOJ are subject to executive privilege. In the corporate context, employee interview memos might be subject to a qualified work-product privilege, but that privilege may be waived by the corporation regardless of the desires of the individual employee.

The DOJ investigation was not conducted for the purpose of providing advice to the president in the execution of his executive duties. It was, presumably, a law enforcement investigation. If the memos are privileged at all, they are subject to grand jury secrecy rules. But grand jury secrecy rules merely preclude the government from disclosing evidence that has been presented to (or prepared for presentation to) a grand jury. The rules do not prevent the witnesses themselves from revealing the substance of their testimony or interviews.

Thus, Karl Rove is perfectly free to tell the world what if anything he told the president about the Plame matter, or what he said to others about the Plame matter, or what he told the DOJ. The White House is invoking executive privileged only because it permits not only the DOJ but Rove to say "I vas only followink orderz."


Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Steve M on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:23 PM EST

If you creatively combine the unitary executive with executive privilege, oh, the fun theories you can concoct!

In the political context, literally any argument can prevail if no one is willing to push back against it. I'm still waiting in vain for the Democrats to move beyond writing sternly-worded letters.


: hold your breathe (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Salo on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:10:35 PM EST

and it's sure to come true, right after the FISA bill is kicked out in 2009.

You're right (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by Claw on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST

But you're argument assumes that Bush has any respect for the limits of executive privilege...or, for that matter, any respect for the rule of law.
It's kind of fruitless to make any argument attacking the legal merits of Bush's behavior because the law, for him, is irrelevant.


: Typo (none / 0) (#19)
by Claw on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:55:22 PM EST

Sorry, it drives me insane. I wrote "you're," when I meant "your."

Inherent Contempt (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:55:10 PM EST

And off to the capitol hill pokey with him et al. Frog marched.

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).

Bush jailed in the Congressional jail? Whoohoo! (none / 0) (#30)
by jawbone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:40:05 PM EST

And, can you imagine how Congress's favorability rating would soar if they voted to do that?

The cheering would echo from sea to shining sea!


: Actually jawbone (none / 0) (#33)
by weltec2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:40:05 PM EST

over here in Japan as well... and no doubt around the entire globe.

What's wrong with a 4 (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by waldenpond on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:14:40 PM EST

I agree with Dadler. I want action or STFU. I usually save my 5s for something I agree with that is very informative or humorous.

I think of a 3 as neutral and a 2 as disagreement.

Number One Problem (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:56:38 PM EST

With this whole scenerio is that it lowers the bar so bad. Not only will this administration walk away from all of this, but future administrations will push it even further. Congress has to act and now because I don't believe Obama will allow it to be pursued if he's elected. And I'm certain McCain won't either.

Nadler said that Bush... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by citizen53 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:20:18 PM EST

committed war crimes, but politics was more important than impeachment.

There is a diary at DKos on this, but it scrolls down the page.

As I said there, it shows why the Democrats have, in too may negative ways, become like their adversaries.

Political and personal gain above all else. What a sad shell we have become to our principles, exemplified by the politics of the 21st Century and George Bush.

A Big *YAWN* From The Obamoshpere (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by OxyCon on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:55:08 PM EST

The Wilsons were both chopped up and spit out by the Obama loving blogs for daring to actually show their support for Hillary Clinton. No need to name names here, but I've seen many, many, many really disgusting comments directed to both Joe and Valarie Wilson by Obama supporters.

: The left blogosphere has a bus about the same size (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by jawbone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:42:44 PM EST

as Obama's, under which to throw former heroes and any who go the wrong way.

Another contempt citation? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by JohnS on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST

Yawn...Waxman et al are just going through the motions. I'm gonna ignore it all until after the elections, but I won't be holding my breath then either. I predict the spineless Vichy Dems will just try to pretend that Bush never happened.

Congress needs to start making arrests (4.83 / 6) (#4)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM EST

The capitol police can do it legally. Enforce these subpeonas with malice or shut the hell up. Period.

: By the rights of combat (none / 0) (#13)
by Salo on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:14:17 PM EST

Bush out to be stuck in Iraq losing the war personally instead of making subordinates do it.

heh (1.00 / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST

The Wilsons respond:

We agree with Congressman Waxman that the position taken by the president is ludicrous.

I am shocked, yes shocked at their position.

Likewise (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Steve M on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:29:54 PM EST

We are all shocked at yours.


Not All Of Us Are Shocked (none / 0) (#45)
by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:39:31 PM EST

Ppj provides aTL with a high quality portal channeling the right wing echochamber.

Predictable, consistent and very booring... shocking... I dunno.


Booring?? (1.00 / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:22:55 AM EST

Then why do you always respond?

hehehe


Always Respond? Nah (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:18:57 AM EST

You need to learn to separate the voices in your head from the ones here at TL. Yes I know, you are a diva at heart and in your mind you are center stage 24/7. Meds?


Then why at all??? (1.00 / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:06:07 PM EST

Let's face it. You just enjoy me kicking your butt.


: I Think (5.00 / 0) (#61)
by squeaky