Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush's Executive Privilege Stonewalling: What Will Happen Next?

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted July 27, 2007.


If Bush keeps ignoring the separation of powers, Congress has a few options, including imprisoning witnesses who refuse subpoenas in the Capitol basement.
Advertisement

George W. Bush's presidential tenure has been marked by one cover-up after another. But the masterful spinning of Karl Rove and a compliant media enabled Bush to get away with it. Now that the Democrat-controlled Congress is investigating administration malfeasance, Bush's cover-ups have come cloaked in the guise of "executive privilege."

Bush has claimed executive privilege in resisting congressional subpoenas in the investigation of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. U.S. Attorneys who weren't "loyal Bushies" were ousted in a mass purge. Bush instructed former White House political director Sara Taylor and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to refuse to testify about any "White House consideration, deliberations or communications" regarding the firings. He also instructed his chief of staff Joshua Bolten to withhold documents demanded by the House Judiciary Committee. Defying a congressional subpoena is a crime.

Taylor testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, invoking the privilege selectively. Miers's and Bolten's situation is even more problematic. They refused to show-up at the House committee altogether. A witness must appear, be sworn, and then invoke the privilege. Miers and Bolten committed a crime when they failed to appear. They could be locked up for ignoring the subpoenas. Bush will claim the Executive is supreme and that his order to Miers and Bolten nullifies the subpoenas.

There are already signs that Bush will refuse to allow his Justice Department to enforce congressional contempt charges. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy responded angrily, saying, "By acting above the law, this President and Vice President seek to override the independence of law enforcement and manipulate our valued system of checks and balances," adding, "an independent review is probably in order." It remains to be seen whether Congress will match its rhetoric with its votes.

As it did after the Haditha massacre, the U.S. military covered up the real cause of Pat Tillman's death. After claiming he died in a heroic gun battle with the enemy, the administration was later compelled to admit Tillman died from "friendly-fire." When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed "all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President" relating to Tillman's death, Bush refused, claiming executive privilege. Again, a showdown is looming, this time over documents.

Chairman Henry Waxman and ranking Committee Republican Tom Davis wrote a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, which said: "The Committee hearing [on Tillman's death] ... raised questions about whether the administration has been providing accurate information to Congress and the American people about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Congress has three options. First, if a majority of the judiciary committee and the full chamber agree, they can issue contempt citations and then certify them to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to a federal statute. But in spite of that statute, the White House will reportedly forbid the Justice Department from pursuing contempt charges.

Second, Congress could invoke its own "inherent contempt" power, direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the recalcitrant witness, and imprison her in the Capitol basement. This power was last used in 1934.

Finally, Congress can hire counsel to enforce the subpoenas in civil court.

In the past, when the White House and Congress have clashed over claims of executive privilege, the President generally capitulated before criminal proceedings began. But Bush has consistently defied Congress and the courts with his secret spying program and his signing statements. He will likely hold firm, banking on favorable rulings in the increasingly conservative Supreme Court.

Perhaps Congress should subpoena Dick Cheney to shed light on these matters. Since Cheney denies belonging to the executive branch, he'd be hard pressed to assert executive privilege.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: democrats, congress, bush, executive privilege

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," has just been published by PoliPointPress.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Unfairness Doctrine
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 27, 2007 1:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Unfairness Doctrine

No one should be surprised that Republicans oppose the Fairness Doctrine, because they oppose Fairness of any kind. Racism, classism, intolerance, selfishness greed, hate and Unfairness is their Doctrine. Forget moral values, they don’t have any.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

The Fairness Doctrine was a rule established in 1949 to require that the networks—all of them—to air all sides of issues. The doctrine was abandoned in 1987 by Republicans appointed to the FCC, by Ronald Wilson Reagan. That’s when the consolidation and monopolization of the Media began. Reagan paved the way for Super-Rich fascists like Murdoch, to gobble up and control the Media. We’ve been fed little else than propaganda and lies ever since, with the Fox news channel exclusively dedicated to nothing but trash, fear and hatemongering, propaganda and an endless repetition of lies.

American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
— Rep. Luther Johnson (D.-Texas), in the debate that preceded the Radio Act of 1927 (KPFA, 1/16/03)

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Forget enlightened self-interest, we have millions of brainwashed Americans too ignorant to understand the difference between plutocracy and democracy, or even their own self-interest. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was the crime of the century which unleashed a multitude of other crimes that killed democracy.

Welcome to “1984.” which actually began in 1987, thanks to Republicans.

.
Barrowed from an article by Steve Rendall
Link http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» At Least Count to Ten Posted by: monkopotamus
The Tipping Point
Posted by: madmac10 on Jul 27, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is it folks. The coup d'etat in 2000 was just the opening volley. This issue right here is what will effectively end the American Experiment (sometehing a very bloody civil war was unable to unravel.)

If this plays out like it appears--that the executive branch will entrench and rely on the judicial branch to (once again) uphold their sovereignty--then our republic will have failed. We will enter an age of neo-feudalism where absolute power will be handed from one generation of oligarchs to another. Representative government will only be a sham covering a society too meek to revolt.

What strikes me as most ironic is how these kleptocrats are handing the empire to the very people they would hate to have it! Imagine Hillary Clinton with all the power of Bush/Chaney! Are they that stupid? or are they that confident that it will not happen?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Too Meek to Revolt" Posted by: monkopotamus
» RE: "Too Meek to Revolt" Posted by: madmac10
» What do you suggest? Posted by: MadFlacc
Bush for Pres '08
Posted by: Buckland on Jul 27, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he already has it if he wants it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush for Pres '08 Posted by: JSquercia
Sadly
Posted by: JSquercia on Jul 27, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly I too share the reservations about the Supreme Court .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember, Bush has the power to Commute, Overturn, Pardon or otherwise Protect the wrongdooers
Posted by: james2021 on Jul 27, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If if the staffers are cited for contempt, Bush via his power as Chief Executive, can pardon, or commute any punishment that may be handed down.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Rupugwican Feudalism. The new Dark Age is dawning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One cat, unbelled, later....
Posted by: NumberSix on Jul 27, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, what are we to do? Apparently, nothing. A lot of nothing.

Justice is as corrupt as the White Slum, so, any investigations, or arrests to those who refuse subpeonae will go obviously nowhere. Yeahbaby, I can just see some congressional sergeant-at-arms at the gate with a writ, demanding Secret Service and the Marines move aside to make an arrest. What reefer are we now smoking?

Impeachment? So far, zero. Off the table. Anymore?

So, all that said, let's just go ahead and say it, get it over with and come clean, stand up and admit it to ourselves:

We have a dictator in charge.

The slow grinding of the gears towards this began long ago, far longer than many realize. Slowly, the water is now to the boil, and we frogs are stew.

Many of us wait, now, as a faux terrorist attack is under planning, it hits, Baby Doc Shlub declares martial law, that's it, the 231-year experiment is officially concluded. Maybe then, the rest will wake up and realize this...or will they?

I doubt it: "And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up."

Welcome to Amerika.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maybe I'm alone on this... Posted by: MadFlacc
» We Had the Guts Once... Posted by: apophenia_monkey
Whatever happened to "alleged" crime?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 27, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one has committed a crime until they are convicted of having committed a crime. To ignore that *detail* is to proffer propaganda. Only the 'choir' listens to propaganda.

Treating AlterNet readers as just a different choir is an insult to our sensitivities.

Likely the Supremes will decide whether Bush's actions are criminal. It was clear that would be the situation when he was elected, in view of announced departures on the Court in 2000. The US electorate voted in (Ohio schmohio; still only "alleged;" that don't get the job done) a Supremes who predictably prefer the fascists. It's called "logical consequences."

We get what we deserve. Educate the people (not propagandize them) if you want to see changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bush administration has delivered a subpoena to Micheal Moore.
Posted by: johngary66 on Jul 27, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He should claim citizen privilege and refuse to show up until Harriet Meirs, Rove tc, show up. Then hide!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nice One Posted by: apophenia_monkey
What will happen next?
Posted by: gathaiga on Jul 27, 2007 8:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What will happen next? Posted by: VZEQICVA
I am absolutely mortified
Posted by: gregii on Jul 28, 2007 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no idea what to say next. Rarely has this happened to me. I don't have the slightest clue. I had no idea this could/would ever happen in my lifetime. And now I'm too old to carry a slingshot. My throwing arm is gone too. I shoulda stayed in better shape. I will need my heart patient medications. Will I be able to get them? Geriatric civil war? By God the spirit is willing: tell the W to stand down. I will keep the Faith of our Fathers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am absolutely mortified Posted by: VZEQICVA
Whine, Whine all the time
Posted by: 60's survivor on Jul 29, 2007 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where were all of you when Clinton claimed executive priviledge? It has been going on forever. Damn, but this board is full of paranoid people. Bush will stay in power forever. Are you guys really believing this or is this just your way of expressing your dissatisfaction?

None of this is going to happen other than Bush protecting the Presidency with his view of executive priviledge which is the same thing that will happen if Hillary or Barrack are elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]