TOOBIN: WH Will NOT Allow Former Admin Officials To Testify-EVEN IF They Want to

[kpete]

UPDATE III: CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports,

“The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/13/breaking-top-white-house-officials-subpoenaed/


Judiciary committees subpoena former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor.

The timing has to do with emails released last night that provided even more evidence of White House involvement in the U.S. attorney firings.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003419.php

[Kagemusha]

1. Then let them cite it.

Let's have at it.

[Demeter]

20. Executive Privilege Cannot Be Used In Criminal Matters

or so I have been told: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege


US v. Nixon

The Supreme Court addressed that the 'executive privilege' in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski that Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations he and his colleagues had in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.

The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties.

The Supreme Court however rejected the notion that the President has an "absolute privilege." The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.

[Kagemusha]

21. Right. It's basically need to know, and investigating crime = need

And this was all completely resolved during the Clinton administration. But Cheney wants all that re-litigated apparently. He's only gotten away with it for so long because the Republicans had control of Congress.

If Republicans had not controlled Congress, in spite of Congress' wheels historically turning slowly we'd be much further down the process already. OTOH, that means that the current process need not stop for anything, certainly not for claims of executive privilege.

Bonus fact: Executive privilege must be claimed by the President, not independently by his minions.

[roguevalley]

27. King Dick Head would be obstructing justice at that point, hiding

ciminal acts.

[havocmom]

2. Boo hoo. Send the papers and arrest those who don't come to tesitfy

This is NOT a dictatorship! Time to make that clear.

DEMS on the Hill: Define the structure of government in the US. NOW!

[malaise]

9. 100% correct n/t

[BOSSHOG]

3. I'm incredibly confused. According to Bartlett and Tony Snow

Each said about a month ago that bush never talked to anyone about any attorney firings.

SO WHAT CONVERSATIONS WOULD BE PROTECTED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?

Please would a Heritage Foundation Executive Poo-bah who is taking a peek in there this morning, just jump right in and explain it. Are conservatives claiming executive privilege for conversations which never took place? Is bush a liar? Why did scooter HAVE to lie? If she were just a desk jockey why the need to expose her identity? Where are those WMD's? So many questions that nobody in the party of responsibility and integrity ever wants to answer.

[catmandu57]

12. If you talk to yourself while taking a dump in a whitehouse john

then it automatically becomes priveleged conversation, especially when you bitch about hemes.

[tanglefoot]

16. nice catch

**tapping foot waiting for Heritage Foundation executive to appear**

[VP505]

4. Sounds as if

its time to get those subpoenas going and have the House and Senate Security ready escort their asses into the hearings.

[BOSSHOG]

5. I do not recall who said it but I find it quite telling of anyone associated with bush

Any person who does not want their counsel with the president of the United States made public should not be counseling the president of the United States.

[aquart]

13. Wasn't everything said to Clinton made public?

[mopinko]

18. yes, indeedie do.

you idiots set the precedent, now eat it.

[aquart]

29. Is it possible to get glasses or mental short-sightedness?

[mopinko]

30. i think so, but

the ones these guys would need would crush their noses.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. I Know You Didn't Mean Me, But. . .

. . .i've been saying that for years. Most people would wear it as a badge of honor.
GAC

[BOSSHOG]

23. Maybe it was You Prof !!!!

I read it somewhere and don't recall where but I'm on DU almost every day. It does make sense. If you are plotting crimes and coverups I don't blame you for not wanting to testify under oath. I chuckle at that sweet lil christian girl Monica Goodling saying if I tell the truth I'll go to jail so I need immunity. One could chalk her up as another victim of bush values but she hired on voluntarily cause as a graduate of regents her mission was to change the world for god!!

[WiseButAngrySara]

6. Get these self-serving thugs OUT OF THE WH! They have never

represented us. B* is to serve at the pleasure of the collective will of the people!

[annabanana]

7. So Meiers & Taylor will fight the subpoenas, right?

[AndyA]

8. In U.S. vs. Nixon:

The Supreme Court however rejected the notion that the President has an "absolute privilege." The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III."

It would seem a fight is in the works, as Nixon attempted this excuse as well. The U.S. Attorney firings were not of a military or diplomatic nature.

[EVDebs]

25. Bush goons on SCOTUS Alito and Roberts supported the martial law

executive orders brought up during the Reagan years, what makes you think they'll support the Constitution this time around ?

[cascadiance]

26. Maybe SCOTUS won't support it if THEY don't want to get impeached later!

I think it would be PERFECT to push this to SCOTUS so that we can have grounds to get rid of these goons and "clean up" the SCOTUS. If it is shown that they are protecting coverups and obstructing justice in effect, I'm thinking that might be something that can be found impeachable for judges. My guess is that is why SCOTUS soundly rejected Nixon's appeal earlier too. They didn't want to get that treatment either.

[Solly Mack]

10. I'd ask how is that legal but....

well... what is legal has yet to play into anything

[liberal N proud]

11. Under normal circumstance that would be obstruction of justice

But since we have the department of in-justice I guess anything is allowed.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Claiming executive privilege for aides and staff members didn't work with Clinton, so

should never work for Bush. This should be simple since the SCOTUS decided the issue in 1974.

The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html

[w4rma]

15. There is no such thing as "executive privilege". It is a made up term. (nt)

[babylonsister]

17. The wh may not have the final say so:

Here's a snip of a conversation between Jonathan Turley and KO, RE: executive privilege

http://mrspickles.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/keith-olberm... /


OLBERMANN: On this other matter of the Rove e-mails, is Senator Leahy more likely to get them because he‘s targeting the people who received them? Will it ultimately matter, or has the White House successfully insulated itself from any of these probes, whether they‘re criminal or otherwise?

TURLEY: I think Leahy is, at this point, unstoppable, because of the mistakes the White House has made, and these allegations. There‘s a misconception that executive privilege is an absolute protection for the White House. It is not. Even when it applies, and it may not apply, the court says it can be overcome by a compelling interest in Congress.

Leahy‘s now investigating possible crimes. He‘s had statements made to Congress that appear quite clearly to be false. Those are very compelling situations, and he‘s being very smart. He‘s asking first for e-mails that go to Justice Department officials. He‘s entitled to those e-mails, because they dead-ended in the Justice Department, which fall under his jurisdiction.

It‘s a smart move. And if those e-mails show any evidence of crime, then he‘s going to be a bulldozer, and he‘s going to go straight for the White House, and I think he‘s going to succeed.

OLBERMANN: Yes, forget executive privilege at that point, if those e-mails turn anything up.

Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University. As always, sir, great thanks.

TURLEY: Thanks, Keith.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. "The illegal stuff we do here is none of your business, public." n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

24. Exactly. Could it BE any more transparent and obvious? Hardly. nt

[Supersedeas]

28. And Toobin will probably explain that EVEN IF the President was not party to the conversations in

question, that Executive Privilege still applies -- cause Toobin carries Bush Admin 'legal' water at CNN