tagged w/ Executive Privilege
-
Reading this makes my blood boil. I don't understand the logic of what Mukasey is saying:
"Mukasey warned that, were the records turned over, White House officials would be less likely to cooperate in future investigations out of fear that their words would become public, forcing the department to rely on grand jury subpoenas instead. “I am greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the Committee’s subpoena would have on future White House deliberations and White House cooperation with future Justice Department investigations,” Mukasey wrote in the opinion, which is dated July 15."
They should be afraid that their words become public if they are doing something wrong! It's called accountability. I think that they all forget that they work for We the People and we have a right to know EVERYTHING that our government does. Am I allowed to withhold information from my boss without being fired? How can we not impeach Mukasey for not doing his job?
Also, how does this fall under Executive Privilege? What could be in the interview with Cheney about the outing of former spy Valerie Plame-Wilson that needs to be kept secret?
Mukasey talks about separation of powers as the 3 branches of government are all there is to America. What about us, the citizens? We have every right now know why Mr Cheney committed treason by outing a spy in wartime.Reading this makes my blood boil. I don't understand the logic of what Mukasey... more
-
-
by Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, September 4, 2008
Though few Americans realize it, Cheney and Rumsfeld worked through the 1980s and 1990s on emergency nuclear-response plans which allegedly suspended the American constitution and also Congress.[1] (Through these decades Rumsfeld was CEO of a major pharmaceutical firm, and in the later 1990s Cheney was CEO of Halliburton; but their private status did not deter them from continuing to exercise a supra-constitutional planning power conferred on them by Ronald Reagan.)
Even fewer Americans know that these rules, originally dealing with a nuclear attack on America, were extended by Reagan Executive Order 12656 to cover “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”[2] And few Americans realize that at least some of these rules, known technically as Continuity of Government or COG rules, were invoked before 10:00 AM on September 11, 2001.[3]
As he did in 2007, President Bush has again, on August 28, 2008, continued for another year the national emergency first officially proclaimed on September 14, 2001, along with “the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency:”
[...]
see also:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/the-reality-of-nspd-51-is-almost-as-bad-as-the-paranoia-by-ron-rosenbaum/
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/bush-declares-himself-dictator-presidential-directive-51-may-2007-video-link/
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/national-security-homeland-security-presidential-directive-51-2007/by Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, September 4, 2008
Though few Americans... more
-
-
Congress can force White House aides to testify under subpoena, a U.S. District Court ruled Thursday, rejecting Bush administration claims of immunity.
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers is not immune from congressional subpoenas, a judge ruled Thursday.
Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers is not immune from congressional subpoenas, a judge ruled Thursday.
The House Judiciary Committee has been seeking to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify before Congress about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. The White House has been resisting, claiming she cannot be compelled to appear.
But the White House position "is without any support in case law," Judge John D. Bates wrote in a 93-page opinion released Thursday.
He said the notion that "Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process" is "unprecedented."
But, Bates added, the ruling does not mean that Miers and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff from whom House Democrats have demanded White House documents, could not assert executive privilege during congressional testimony.
The court "resolves, and again rejects" the notion that senior White House aides are absolutely immune from subpoena, but the "specific claims of executive privilege that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten may assert are not addressed -- and the court expresses no view on such claims," Bates wrote.
In a hearing in June, Bates had urged the White House and Congress to resolve their dispute via negotiations.
He also expressed concern the clock would run out because he expected an appeal of his ruling no matter which way he decided. That could keep the dispute in the courts until a new Congress is elected in November. The subpoenas expire when this Congress leaves office.
Rep. John Boehner, an Ohio Republican and the House minority leader, appeared to agree on Thursday.
"I'm sure it'll be appealed and it'll go on into next year and it'll become a moot issue," he said.
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, called the ruling a "victory for Congress," but urged congressional Democrats and the administration to "seek a reasonable compromise" rather than continue to fight the matter in court.
The House Judiciary committee filed suit against Miers and Bolten in March after the Department of Justice said it would not pursue contempt charges against them for failing to obey the subpoena.
The White House has insisted the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys were legal. But Democrats said the central questions behind the dismissals -- who decided the prosecutors should be ousted, and why -- remain unanswered.
The position is supposed to be an apolitical one. Democrats accuse the administration of political motives in replacing the nine officials.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration is reviewing Thursday's ruling.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she was "pleased" by the ruling, though she said had not had a chance to study it.Congress can force White House aides to testify under subpoena, a U.S. District Court... more
-
-
ANP: Rove could be held in contempt of Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress after repeated efforts to get him to testify under oath. Now the decision to take the matter to the House floor for vote lies with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She says she won't consider the resolution until September but public pressure is mounting. Is Karl Rove headed to jail?ANP: Rove could be held in contempt of Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee has... more
-
-
President Bush invoked executive privilege to keep Congress from seeing the FBI report of an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney and other records related to the administration's leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.
Bush's assertion of privilege prevented Mukasey from complying with the House subpoena for records bearing on the unmasking of Plame at a time that the administration was trying to rebut criticism from her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, of Bush's rationale for going to war in Iraq.
Cheney's chief of staff in 2003, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was later convicted of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about his role in leaking Plame's name and CIA affiliation to a reporter. Last July, Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving prison time.
President Bush invoked executive privilege to keep Congress from seeing the FBI report... more
-
-
rebot
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
-
The late Senator Jesse Helms, who died on July 4, was an arch-conservative opponent of civil rights legislation, arms control treaties and other liberal causes. Though none of the obituaries mentioned it, he was also an outspoken critic of government secrecy.
“This government is shot through with willy-nilly applications of secrecy,” he complained in January 1995 at the first meeting of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy (the Moynihan Commission), of which he was a member.
“I’ve been fussing for years about the application of secrecy on just about every document in this town,” he said then.
Senator Helms co-sponsored secrecy reform legislation based on the recommendations of the Moynihan Commission. That legislation was not enacted. But as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he helped pass legislation to require disclosure of most U.S. arms sales to foreign governments, which was signed into law.
“Secrecy all too often … becomes a political tool used by Executive Branch agencies to shield information which may be politically sensitive or policies which may be unpopular with the American public,” he testified at a Senate hearing in 1997. “Worse yet, information may be classified to hide from public view illegal or unethical activity.”
“On numerous occasions I, and other Members of Congress, have found the Executive Branch to be reluctant to share certain information, the nature of which is not truly a ‘national secret,’ but which would be potentially politically embarrassing to officials in the Executive Branch or which would make known an illegal or indefensible policy,” Sen. Helms said.
The late Senator Jesse Helms, who died on July 4, was an arch-conservative opponent of... more
-
-
In exactly two weeks, we are going to find out whether members of Congress have any respect for the institution they represent. We will see whether they have the courage to stand up to the Bush administration and defend the Constitution they took an oath to protect. Specifically, we will discover whether they are willing to take the measures necessary to ensure that Bush administration officials testify before Congress.
On July 10, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to investigate the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and the questionable prosecution and imprisonment of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. Karl Rove, a potentially key figure in both incidents, has been issued a subpoena to testify before the committee. Rove's lawyer has said that Rove will not appear.
Congress has a few options here. First, if Rove fails to appear, they could pass criminal contempt charges against him, as they did against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. This is good, but will not result in immediate testimony.
The second option is to have Karl Rove arrested, under the theory of inherent contempt, and brought to Congress to testify. This is better, but may still be eventually unsatisfying if Rove ends up testifying yet asserts executive privilege repeatedly in order to avoid disclosing important information.
Another option - and the one supported by the American Freedom Campaign Action Fund - is to tell the president immediately that he will be impeached if members of his administration do not provide full testimony before Congress by a date certain in July. This has historical precedent as one of the three articles of impeachment ultimately brought against President Richard Nixon was based on his refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.
The final option is to do nothing and set a precedent for the future by which any administration can claim that Congress does not have the ability to force executive branch officials to testify before Congress. This would be an affront to our Constitution and Congress is dancing perilously close to this line already.
We cannot allow Congress to become subservient to the executive branch. It must exert its oversight authority and force administration officials to testify. Please tell your U.S. representative to take whatever steps are necessary to compel testimony.
Thank you for sharing your feelings with your U.S. representative.
Steve
Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund
I got the email a week ago. Sign petitions, send emails, and mail letters. heres links to legislators and bills.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
http://www.house.gov/
http://catalog.loc.gov/In exactly two weeks, we are going to find out whether members of Congress have any... more
-
-
7c0m9
-
added this
-
4 years ago
- |
-
Executive privilege is arguably a proper and useful way to protect sensitive government information. But, the Bushies consider everything from the WH cheese log budget to retired presidential toilet swabbers as sacrosanct.Executive privilege is arguably a proper and useful way to protect sensitive... more
-
-
"I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president" -from the article.
This article is announcing that President Bush used a special rule to prevent his EPA appointees from handing over questionable documents to an investigation into why they denied the State of California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards. Standards stricter than the EPA's own.
The first question you should be asking yourself is: why would the federal government want to block a state's right to enact stricter pollution standards? Los Angeles is one of the most vehicle-choked, smoggy cities in America. Our state government is acting in the best interests of its citizens. Why block them?
The second question, especially for Republican party members out there (all three of you on Current.com) is this: State's rights. Isn't that a major tenet of the Republican party? That states should be able to decide for themselves when appropriate? Small government?
Here you have California making a major effort to REDUCE VEHICLE EMISSIONS -- that means reduce air pollution and global warming -- and the Bush administration blocks it.
Why?
When we try to get to the bottom of this, we find George W. Bush invoking a special rule: "executive priviledge" to keep the documents secret.
Smells fishy.
Smells like corruption."I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was... more
-
-
WASHINGTON — Setting up a constitutional showdown, the White House on Friday asserted executive privilege in denying a congressional request for thousands of pages of documents related to the federal government's rejection of California's efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Congress is attempting to determine whether President Bush played a role in the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California's request for permission to impose tougher air-quality regulations than federal law called for. California had been granted such waivers numerous times over the years, but the Bush administration delayed and then rejected its request for authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. "I don’t think we’ve had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is conducting the investigation. An EPA official, Jason Burnett, has told committee investigators that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson had favored granting the waiver but denied it after meeting with White House officials. In testimony last month, Johnson refused to say whether he’d discussed the waiver request with Bush. Waxman canceled a contempt vote that had been scheduled for Friday morning against Johnson and White House official Susan Dudley after the White House informed him of its last-minute decision. Waxman said the two had refused to cooperate with his panel...
(Click on the link for the rest of the story)
WASHINGTON — Setting up a constitutional showdown, the White House on Friday... more
-
-
Mainstream media is blocking calls impeachment from the floors of the United States Senate and The United States House of Representatives. Who does control the media ? Why isn't the vast majority of the public even remotely aware of these facts ? What is the extent of Goerge Bush's presidential executive priviledges ? How can the president and his vice president, Dick Chaney refuse to testify ? Image what would have happened if the former president, Bill Clinton, had refuse to testify in his impeachment hearings ? Where is the rage against this machine ? Mainstream media is blocking calls impeachment from the floors of the United States... more
-
-
Former White House counsel Harriet Miers is still taking orders from the Prez, and skipped a heariing before a House panel today about the federal prosecutor firings. The panel voted 7-5 that Bush's executive privilege claim that his former advisers can't be summoned before Congress is "out of order". Next would be to say that Miers is "in contempt of Congress", but that would have to be voted on by the full house. This thing may yet end up in court, but as with just about everything else in this administration (the war, Scooter Libby, the firings, who knows what all else), I can't help but feel that this all can't end soon enough.Former White House counsel Harriet Miers is still taking orders from the Prez, and... more
-
-
Tori
-
added this
-
5 years ago
- |
