House subcommittee authorizes subpoenas for White House staff
posted at 12:34 pm on March 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They didn’t blink, which means either we’re going to court a la Hamdan or Bush is going to cave a la FISA. The Commissar predicts the latter, but there’s much too at stake this time. He can’t afford to set a precedent by letting the Dems subpoena White House staff now for fear of what they’ll do with that power later.
Like I said yesterday, the legal issue will probably end up being whether the limitations on executive privilege in criminal investigations announced by the Supreme Court in the Nixon case also apply in congressional investigations. Some people don’t grasp that distinction. One who does: Mr. Subpoena himself, Pat Leahy, who was singing a different tune when the president under fire was named Clinton. Patterico nails him with this quote:
I recognize that the presidential communications privilege is not absolute. For instance, in the context of a criminal case (one of the Watergate cases), the Supreme Court found that an assertion of executive privilege “based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality . . . must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” 418 U.S. at 713. In the context of a congressional investigation, the privilege would be more difficult to overcome and require a showing that the information sought to be obtained is “demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s functions.” Senate Select Committee v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 731 (D.C. Cir. 1974). This would be a difficult task in this matter given the peculiarly executive nature of the clemency process.
Eh, I think the left wins here just by forcing Bush to take it to court. It makes him look like he’s covering up even if he isn’t, and it gives them an opportunity to brandish those Nixon comparisons they like so much. If they win, great for them — they finally get to ask Rove under oath whether he orchestrated 9/11 or whatever. If they lose, they get to demagogue “the same right-wing Supreme Court that cost us the election in 2000″ etc while speculating about what the president has to hide. It’s a political windfall either way, which is why Reid and Pelosi are milking it with both hands and at least one major newspaper is already deep in the tank.
The first ad on the subject is out, too. Listen here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The Dems smell blood in the water because of the outcome of the Libby trial. Let the endless investigations begin! This is the dems plan fight the war on terror: don’t fight, concede. Hamstring the last two years of the Bush admin causing the kind of distraction caused by the Libby prosecution, then put a dem in as POTUS to lead the USA onto the final downward spiral into hell. Goooooooo dems!
JustTruth101 on March 21, 2007 at 12:39 PM
This is impeachment writ small. Spending all of Congress’s time on useless hearings. Pelosi didn’t want impeachment because it would show the Dems just want to attack and have no agenda of their own, and now we have the same thing, minus the impeachment.
Congress doesn’t win with this. Not clear Bush wins, either, but I don’t see Congress winning.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 21, 2007 at 12:45 PM
If he caves short of the SCOTUS he better get ready to be impeached becuase that will be next.
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2007 at 12:45 PM
The inmates over at DUmbville are cheering and rooting for a constitutional crisis. It’s simply amazing the level of anger and hate they have.
Enoxo on March 21, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Can you imagine the reaction if the Justice Dept tried to subpoena records and emails between congressmen and their own staff?? I’d wager that these congressmen who just authorized subpoenas would suddenly discover that such conversations need to remain private.
GEC on March 21, 2007 at 12:49 PM
GEC, remember these are the people who complained when a search warrant was executed against Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.). They tried to prevent the FBI for even going through the evidence the seized.
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2007 at 12:52 PM
More BDS from the DEMs ’cause they’re SOBs.
Let’s hope GWB isn’t a
f-a-g-g-ot,w-u-s-s-i-e, ….a limp-wrist CEO.Separation of powers, Mr. Prez!
Hey, Nancy!
Check yer watch.
It’s half past a hundred hours.
Boneheads.
locomotivebreath1901 on March 21, 2007 at 12:52 PM
On May 20th FBI agents raided Jefferson’s Capitol Hill office and stayed for 17 hours collecting documents. This was the first time that the FBI had raided and searched a Congressional office. The raid followed explicit procedures laid out in a judge-approved search warrant. Nevertheless, it has created a furor on Capitol Hill as lawmakers from both parties have charged the FBI with violating the constitutional separation of powers between the congressional and executive branches. [Washington Post, 5/22/2006; Associated Press, 5/24/2006]
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2007 at 12:56 PM
This circus is just getting started. George needs to stand in the street and be ready to slap leather or RINOs are going to join the sharks. Any hesitation to fight these subpoenas and he might as well start packing the desk cause his friends and neighbors are gonna lock their doors and look the other way.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 12:58 PM
If the democrats can’t think far enough ahead to understand the dangerous precedent they’re setting here … they should be forcibly removed from office this instant for incompetency.
They are doing nothing more but opening the door for a hearing and subpoena riddled presidency if fool the American people to vote a dem in.
darwin on March 21, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Absolute waste of time. These people are not worthy of representing the people of the USA. Time to put the dogs out on Jefferson, Reid and all others with any shady past. Want to waste time, let’s go for it all the way.
Wade on March 21, 2007 at 1:00 PM
DOJ needs to start dragging Schumer’s staff in front of a grand jury to investigate the Steele credit report incident. The authorization to run the report must have come from somewhere other than the bottom.
rw on March 21, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I think this is definitely a fight worth having. The Dems have an uphill battle on the privilege issue because this is not a criminal investigation – it’s likely overreaching by the legislative branch beyond what Checks and Balances allows. You are right in that the Dems think they got a winner either way, but I think the Administration needs to come out swinging, and show the country that this is all part of one big witch hunt conducted by the Dems. Bush needs to turn the tables on them, and more importantly, get some momentum going for the Republicans for the next election. If the administration just tries to explain the issues at hand to the public, they will likely side with him (instead of letting the Dems do all the talking as has happened over the last few years). The reality is that this fight will more than likely be decided in the court of public opinion (before the SCOTUS opines on it) – and Bush has done nothing but lose all of those fights of late.
Rick on March 21, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I’d be yelling “BRING IT ON” but I don’t know if POTUS has the stones needed for this fight!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 PM
That pretty much sums it up. Nothing illegal ever happened, the firings just looked like shady, politicized, underhanded deals. With Bush refusing to allow the supeanas, it just makes it look even more like there were sketchy going-ons even if there weren’t. This is all about image and regardless of if you believe the substance, Libby, followed by Walter Reed, followed by this just looks plan bad and begs for the phrase “scandal-ridden.”
Well that’s only if you believe the GOP reclaims Congress in ‘08…pretty bold assumption.
JaHerer22 on March 21, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Tony Snow is putting up a bit of a fight with the media, but not too much. I guess he’s trying to leave room for the Dems to back down gracefully, but it’s so frustrating – the media is foaming at the mouth, declaring that something illegal has obviously happened, and Tony won’t just ask, “Was it illegal for Clinton to summarily fire all 93?” He just won’t play hardball.
They’re gonna cave. Again.
Laura on March 21, 2007 at 1:33 PM
My prediction is the Dems end up caving. I think Bush will stand his ground on this one. I wish he would be as hard nosed about immigration.
bopbottle on March 21, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Countdown to a new AG in 10 . . . 9 . . . 8 . . .
xardoz on March 21, 2007 at 1:37 PM
The US is on the verge of losing a war that the democrats want to lose for us. Our economy is quickly tanking under the control of the new democratic congress. Housing and the stock markets are declining.
And the democrats answer to all this ? BDS. That is all they have to offer the American people and that is all they will offer the American people.
There has truely never been a more inept party in the history of this country.
William Amos on March 21, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I have yet to hear of any crime that was supposedly committed. It’s not illegal for the WH/DOJ to fire an attorney. That should be the end of it. The whole “investigation” of this is a complete sham and the Dems are just feining indignation for political payback. The president was right to call it a “show trial”. It’s reprehensible and absurd and a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. These members of Congress are a disgrace to the institution and to our country. I should stop now. Clearly…’I'm outraged!’
CP on March 21, 2007 at 1:43 PM
I want the news to get out WHY they were fired. It was because they refused to prosecute the democratic parties attempts to commit voter fraud !
I sometimes wonder if Rove pushed these because if it got out that they were fired for not investigating democratic misdeeds it would benefit republicans.
And I want some enterprizing republican to keep a running tab on the cost of all these investigations. The dems did that during Clintons investigations. Whats good for the elephants is good for the asses.
William Amos on March 21, 2007 at 1:48 PM
A huge political mistake on part of the Dems
Opinionnation on March 21, 2007 at 1:55 PM
There ya go again….giving me hope.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 2:00 PM
The WH (and Republicans/conservatives in general) need to emphasize that point along with the text of the law stating that these attorneys can be removed at the will of the president.
With enough persistence in getting this message out (and repeating it constantly) through the alternative media channels (you know the MSM will suppress) it can be made to look like the Democrats are trying to get revenge on Bush for his own unwillingness to cover up for their voter fraud.
thirteen28 on March 21, 2007 at 2:14 PM
So what happens if the yellow streams cross in this urination contest? Does a portal open to another universe, or what?
aero on March 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM
I think it is a mistake for the Dems too. Why? They cannot control information like they could before. The GOE outnumbered the protestors 3:1 and I am guessing it is 3:1 who realize the truth already on this non-issue. Only the news organizations and idiot dems are making this an issue.
CrimsonFisted on March 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Nope.. a lot of you don’t get it…
Its all about getting Bush’s advisors to testify under oath, to try to trip them up for Lieing to Congress.
Its the Libby thing Administration wide… chip away enough and sooner or later someone misremembers, or misspeaks… its a fishing expedition.
Romeo13 on March 21, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Karl Rove under oath is the Democrats’ wet dream, and has been since day one.
aero on March 21, 2007 at 2:18 PM
:-)
I understand the American people carry discontent with the administration (I do, and I’m Republican). But I also know that the American people want the partisanship to end. Their misunderstanding, in terms of which party was actually causing the partisan rancor during the last election, will soon be realized. If the Dems continue on this path they will have used up all of the good faith they were given in ‘04.
Opinionnation on March 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Sure they’re going to cave. They have no balls. They won’t fight back any more than they have for the last 6 years. If the cave occurs I’ll vote democrat next time just to end the misery.
Griz on March 21, 2007 at 2:25 PM
We are on the verge of losing a war run under the auspices of one George W Bush. You know, the Commander in Chief.
And the economic stuff–let’s see, dems in Congress for 2 months, and the economy “tanks” and this is their fault? Your grasp of economics is a bit tenuous to put it kindly.
I remember when the GOP was not the party of excuses and whining. Let’s see if I have this right: W takes over from Clinton with a recession beginning (whine, whine, whine; curiously no mention of the economy Clinton inherited from Bush pere–you remember, “it’s the economy, stupid”); economy does well under Bush, a natural decline begins, and it’s all the Dems fault (whine, whine, whine). Talk about Bush needing to grow a pair. Ye gods.
honora on March 21, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I’m holding out a tiny bit of hope that he’ll do something about this. He has a capacity for subtlety that few give him credit for. One example; the Blanco-Katrina-FEMA mess. Bush prevented that from happening again not by embarrassing her publicly and holding the Dems feet to the fire as they deserved, but by making martial law easier to implement. Problem solved, albeit not in a way that I think is wise overall.
Same for Iran; he’s dug his heels in on that and exerted pressure in ways that are not immediately obvious.
So maybe he has some plan to resolve this that won’t satisfy political partisans like me, but will prevent the next two years from being one long fishing expedition for the Dems. Maybe.
Laura on March 21, 2007 at 2:42 PM
George may come to appreciate the fact that Roberts and Alito were pretty good choices.
Does anybody know who the top picks to replace Gonzales would be? Just in case.
Speakup on March 21, 2007 at 2:55 PM
One good subpoena deserves another.
Now would be an ideal time for the Attorney General of the United States to grow some big ones and finally send out a boatload of subpoenas to investigate the treasonous acts of the NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy et al, for revealing intelligence secrets and aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.
Yeah, I know …. wishful thinking.
fogw on March 21, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Actually, they don’t win anything here at all.
The prize is (1) a perjury trap, and (2) trying to impeach and remove the President of the United States.
The Treason Party will obtain neither because Nixon was concerning A CRIMINAL CASE AND COVERUP, not how the President internally decides to remove a US Attorney. The Supreme Court will almost certainly not hear this case as it is POLITICAL, not CRIMINAL.
DEMOCRATS SUCK!
georgej on March 21, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Revenge of the Clinton’s
Kini on March 21, 2007 at 3:20 PM
You misspelled ‘done nothing but quit the field without even a dirty look directed his opponents…’.
I think he’ll cave. He’s not ruthless enough….
CrazyFool on March 21, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Honora, the libby-dem troll wrote: “We are on the verge of losing a war run under the auspices of one George W Bush.”
You’re full of crap. So typical of you liberal democrats.
Honora the libby-dem troll lied: “And the economic stuff–let’s see, dems in Congress for 2 months, and the economy “tanks” and this is their fault?”
You’re lying. The economy hasn’t tanked. But the minute that the Treason Party repeals the Bush tax cuts, it will.
Honora serial lying troll wrote: “Let’s see if I have this right: W takes over from Clinton with a recession beginning (whine, whine, whine; curiously no mention of the economy Clinton inherited from Bush pere–you remember, “it’s the economy, stupid”)”
Point 1: Clinton inherited a GROWING economy from Bush 41, not an economy in recession. As usual CLINTON, the Treason Party’s nominee, LIED with their nifty “slogan.”
The bottom line (since we’re talking trash economics here)” DEMOCRATS SUCK!
HTH, HANCD.
georgej on March 21, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I think that the Bush administration thought that the truth would prevail regarding Libby and it didn’t and now he is facing prison time. I don’t think Pres. Bush is willing to let that happen again with Rove and Miers.
Rose on March 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Yeah, probably so…but, I like the way you think, fwiw. Alas, I doubt we will ever see it. Why do we even have these laws if there is no consequence to breaking it?
Meanwhile, these show trials/fishing expeditions go against the very fabric and principles on which our Republic was founded. People like Leahy and his Dem cronies don’t care about the country at all.
CP on March 21, 2007 at 3:47 PM
When Gingrich and the rest of congress closed down the government to prove a point with Clinton the public blamed the congress. I don’t think the public sees these hearings as anything more than a waste of time and money. Especially when they understand that Clinton fired all the attorneys and it is the right of the president to do so.
Rose on March 21, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Tell me Honora what are the democrats so focused on right now ? Its all about losing the war and bashing GW. I havent seen one inititive from them to help the economy.
Again I will state that the Democrats ONLY plan for the American people is to run endless investigations and waste millions doing and screw the american people.
William Amos on March 21, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Corection: the dem’s have a proposal for the economy – use the Goracle to push for $5 light bulbs by outlawing the .25 cents kind. The first of many in this vein, I’m sure. Goooooooo dems!
JustTruth101 on March 21, 2007 at 4:19 PM
AP, your scenerio only works if the Republicans follow your plan. How about a campaign showing the Dems of being obstructionists, and grand-standers. Charge them with a crime if you think they have done wrong, otherwise listen to what they have to say. Draw the analogy to Whitewater they so hated, wasting millions on something that the President has every right to do…93 vs. 8.
If the president shows some Malkins than he can back them into a corner.
The public does not want these things drug out, and in dragging out will show the most exteme elements of the lefts party.
Lets get the promise of every Democrat running that they will not “fire” and attorney without senate consent. These are the points Republicans will begin to make.
This can be a victory for us, if they don’t listen to you.
right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 4:25 PM
I like Ace of Spade’s response to the Democraps Kabuki theater.
It’s time to get busy.
georgej on March 21, 2007 at 4:27 PM
What do you expect? The Dems have no plan – they haven’t had one since the 60s. Every so often, they re-name that plan and try to sell it to the people again (as a new plan). The last couple of elections, the Dems have run on Bush-bashing and “culture of corruption” allegations (while doing their best to keep all their skeletons hidden in the closet).
Rick on March 21, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Yes, but watching the MSM you’d think that this current round of firings was an unprecedented move.
As for Bush fighting the subpoenas and subsequent investigations, I find it interesting that many, if not all of the Dem congressional leaders that are pushing for this were fighting any criminal investigation of one of their own (Jefferson) not too long ago. In fact, they claimed that they policed their own, and any such investigation would be overreaching by the executive.
The fact of the matter is that a criminal investigation (by feds) of the administration is really a part of the executive investigating another part of the executive (until it gets to the courts – then it involves the judiciary). A congressional investigation, like the one the Dems are trying to push, appears to be a clear violation of the separation of powers because the subpoenas issued are for testimony before congress. It’s so obvious that this is being done for purely political reasons.
Rick on March 21, 2007 at 4:56 PM
My 2 cents:
POTUS should:
1. Fire eight more attorney’s just for the hell of it and keep firing eight a week just to stir the pot!
2. Pardon Scooter immediately.
3. Threaten to bomb Iran as they are a threat to the US.
4. Start DOJ investigations on all subversive and corrupt Democrats.
Golfer_75093 on March 21, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Bush has to hang tough. He has precedent on his side:
The Congress v. Andrew Johnson case, which sustained Johnson’s unlimited right to dismiss executive branch political appointees.
Myers v. US (1920’s)
chsw (not a lawyer, just remembering high school history from the DC burbs)
chsw on March 21, 2007 at 9:20 PM
I don’t know why the Republican’s don’t start every statement concerning this matter with, “When Clinton fired the 93 prosecutors . . . .” Holy cow, if you’re going to give them sound bites, make them meaningful. This garbage of, “Oh, goodness, I think some mistakes were made . . .” is making me sick. All you have to do is continually start every single statement with, “When Clinton . . .” and after a while, the MSM will get the hint. This is within the Executive purview. Nothing illegal or unethical went on.
But the Bush White House is constantly rolling over, constantly navel gazing, constantly acting guilty. It’s time to fight back. The AG should subpoena Harry Reid’s real estate agent, Pelosi’s vinyard manager, William Jefferson’s Maytag repairman, Kennedy’s swim instructor, H. Cinton’s lard-butt brother.
The Dems are fighting dirty and the Republicans are worried that they might ruin their manicures.
cmay on March 21, 2007 at 10:25 PM
5. Begin negotiations for PERMANENT military installations in Iraq.
News2Use on March 22, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Time for Bush to switch from Chancellor Palpatine to Lord Sidius (to borrow the Left’s Star Wars allusions towards Cheney as Darth Vader).
Neo on March 22, 2007 at 6:50 AM
Hey consultant boy: I was quoting W Amos’s statement on the tanking. This is what the quotation marks indicate. Duh.
No he did not. Do you not recall why Bush pere raised taxes ? And by the way “Point 1″ implies more sequencial points. If you’re going to post, put down the want ads for a couple minutes.
Nice job on the name calling. I have offered you this counsel before: employers don’t go for that. And also, and I hate to pile on, but your attention to detail, as seen above, well, work on it.
honora on March 22, 2007 at 8:18 AM
“Nice job on the name calling. I have offered you this counsel before: employers don’t go for that”
You needn’t worry as I’d never work for you anyway.
georgej on March 22, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Comment pages: