not happy

[emchy]

I preface this by a comment. I have always thought that Bush would try to stay in office past two terms. I think that this recent development is leading us in that direction. This means he can never be impeached, b/c logically he can invoke exec priv to prevent any investigation that would lead to impeachment. Please - tell me i am wrong.

Executive privilege -- Bush's new twist

President insists his authority trumps all in attorney firings

Dan Eggen, Amy Goldstein, Washington Post

Friday, July 20, 2007

(07-20) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Bush administration officials introduced a bold new assertion of executive authority Thursday 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 position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued Thursday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

 

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity and said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided Thursday that it was time to highlight it.

Thursday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Judiciary Committee chairman, declined to comment. But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege." Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice

Comments

[ginoushka.livejournal.com]

oh, JESUS this is terrifying.

that bit about "inherent contempt" is pretty interesting...

[borggrrl.livejournal.com]

...Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege.

Protected from release to anyone at all?

[cindymonkey.livejournal.com]

bingo

[borggrrl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, "terrifying" is a good word for this.

maybe i'm being overly skeptical but...

[sfgabe.livejournal.com]

I've thought the same thing for the past 4 years. I think it entirely likely that there would be some kind of "national emergency" right around November 2008 that could cause the elections to be postponed and invoke some of that there executive priviledge. Didn't Roosevelt do that too?

[goodbadgirl.livejournal.com]

Yup.