Contempt of Congress
Dec 14th, 2007 at 8:26 am by Susie
Of course, as several people have already pointed out, how can the president claim executive privilege over something everyone says he had nothing to do with?
But don’t ask Dana, her brain would explode:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 (UPI) — U.S. Senate Democrats should know issuing contempt citations and pursuing a criminal case in the firings of U.S. attorneys is futile, the White House said.
Dana Perino, White House press secretary, said Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee’s issuing contempt citations against former White House adviser Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten is pointless because “the constitutional prerogative of the president would make it a futile effort for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys.”
The committee issued citations because Bolten did not provide information or documents in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. Rove, who resigned as deputy chief of staff in August, was cited because he did not appear before the committee to testify. The White House said Rove was immune because of executive privilege.
“The Department of Justice would not require a U.S. attorney to convene a grand jury or otherwise pursue a prosecution of an individual who carries out a president’s instruction not to provide documents or testimony on the basis of the president’s assertion of executive privilege,” Perino said.
I was just following orders is the new excuse.
“I was only following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg, but that’s now considered quaint…
Under Bush, executive privilege means that the executive
is privileged to do whatever he wishes, and to extend those
privileges to anyone he chooses.
I’ve never understood why this executive priviledge thing goes on. A PERSON WHO IS NOT PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATION OR COMMUNICATION CANNOT CLAIM A PRIVILEDGE!!!! I can’t claim spousal priviledge about a conversation my husband had with someone else, even if its about me! That’s not how priviledge works! Why doesn’t somwonw in the press talk to theri employer’s attorney about his and then ask Dana to learn about the nature of priviledge and come back next time ready to answer some questions?
Hey they Strict Constructionists!
Exactly where in the U.S. Constitution is “executive privilege” mentioned?
OMG! It’s NOT? Oh, perhaps it was hiding under an “emanation” or a “penumbra” of something else. Of course, any such critter is clearly a creation of radical activist judges, and should be immediately overturned.
It’s spelled “Republican”. It’s pronounced “Hypocrite”.