Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Executive privilege

Interesting.

"Was Bush Involved in U.S. Attorney Scandal?" That's the headline over Emma Schwartz and Justin Rood's story for ABC News.

"Before the court of public opinion, White House spokespeople have long maintained President Bush had no involvement in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys, the central decision that mushroomed into one of the biggest scandals in eight years of the Bush administration," they write.

"'[T]here is no indication that the President knew about any of the ongoing discussions [about firing U.S. attorneys] over the two years, nor did he see a list or a plan before it was carried out,' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters in March 2007.

"In federal court, however, the administration's lawyers have been more ambiguous.

"'The record does reflect at this stage that the president was not involved in decisions about who would be asked to resign from the department,' Justice Department lawyer Carl Nichols carefully argued before a federal judge in June. But 'the record does not reflect that the President had no future involvement' in the scandal, he noted.

"Just how much of a role the president played in the firings and its aftermath remains unclear. But in trying to prevent top White House officials from testifying or turning over documents to Congress, the Bush administration 'is very consciously trying to walk a very fine tightrope,' explained Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington, D.C.

"On the one hand, experts say, the White House finds it politically necessary to make clear statements insulating Bush from the scandal. But in court, 'If they said [Bush] wasn't involved at all they would undermine their case for executive privilege,' Vladeck said. . . .

"Lawyer Stanley Brand, former counsel to the House of Representatives and one of the capital's leading ethics experts, put it more bluntly. 'The White House press people lie, but the lawyers have to tell the truth because they're officers of the court.' . . .

The court cases will outlive the administration's term. And since the Bush/Cheney administration is, at its heart, a criminal enterprise, those cases will be lively, as witnesses can no longer count on a presidential pardon. Unless, of course, Bush does a blanket pardon of anyone who worked in the administration, from Dick Cheney to the sous-chef.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Blogger Michael Drake said...

Funny. As I noted on my blog:

Say what you will about Clinton's appeal to the ambiguity of the copula (or, for that matter, of 'copulation'); at least he didn't invent a new tense.

11:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com Site Meter