A “bold new assertion of executive authority” my ass. Call it what it is…a declaration of dictatorship.

There is no rule of law. We are no longer a nation of laws. Not so long as this president is allowed to occupy the Peoples House. Not when he proclaims that he is above all law.

Yesterday, the administration asserted that under the false flag of executive privilege that the Justice Department will be prohibited from pursuing contempt charges against presidential aides and White House officials in the matter of the wrongful firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

This unprecedented and stunning assertion on the part of the White House sets up a Constitutional showdown between the president who fancies himself a king and a Congress attempting to reassert their standing as a co-equal branch of government with oversight authority, after six years of a rubber-stamp, feckless Republican body taht abdicated all responsibility in favor of blind political fealty.

The way the system is set up, the House or Senate citation of Contempt must be submitted to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the Grand Jury for it’s action.”

Yesterday, the administration made the breathtaking argument that the Congress has no power to compel a U.S. Attorney to pursue the charges in such a case as the U.S. Attorney firings. "A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, said the administration's stance is simply "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all…"is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

From the Washington Post:

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Now, the Congress does have the power to hold their own trials, and even condemn people found in contempt to serve jail time. Known as Inherent Contempt, the procedure was invoked frequently in the 19^th century, but has not been used since 1934 (Jurney v McCracken).

When Inherent Contempt is invoked, it involves only the house issuing the citation for contempt. Following the issuance of the citation, Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate is empowered to arrest the person named in the citation and deliver them to the floor of the chamber, where they can be held to answer the charges and then be subjected to punishment that the chamber dictates as appropriate. This usually involves imprisonment for either punishment or coercive effect, or the charge of contempt might be dismissed.

The way it stands right now, it seems entirely possible that Harriet Meiers will be the first person cited for Inherent Contempt in 73 years.

What a proud legacy this administration offers for posterity.

Future generations will not be kind to us when they write the history of this shameful era. At our gravesides, it will be invective that issues forth, not eulogies. And if we do not impeach these imperial pricks, we will deserve the scorn and derision that will certainly be our due.

There's more: "A “bold new assertion of executive authority” my ass. Call it what it is…a declaration of dictatorship." >>

This (Political) Ball Needs a New Court

And that court should be the Supreme Court, I would imagine. Because, guess who decided that protecting her boss's ass is more important than serving the interests of the nation?

Loyal even after leaving the White House, President Bush's former political director Sara M. Taylor obeyed his instructions and declined to answer Congress' questions Wednesday about her role in the firings of federal prosecutors.

But Democrats insisted that the decision to cooperate with their subpoena - or not - is hers.

"It is apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels that it does not have to explain itself to anybody," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said as he opened the hearing.

"I urge Ms. Taylor not to follow that contemptuous position and not to follow the White House down this path."

A court fight could take years, dragging on even after Bush leaves office.

Though I'd rather not wait years for a resolution, I don't think it is the worst thing that could happen. If it were to set real precedent for exactly how executive privilege could be wielded (and for once and all correct the incorrect assumption that some belabor under that said privilege creates an umbrella for all employees of the Executive), perhaps something good could be taken from this egregious administration's tenure.

There's more: "This (Political) Ball Needs a New Court" >>

Betting the Farm on Executive Privilege

Talk about stones! On Tuesday, while the nation absorbed the shock of what happened in Virginia, the White House used the political cover the tragedy provided to assert (as they had indicated they would) that Executive Privilege extends to the Republican National Committee computer system.

Yep. You read that right . (Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had tried to assert such a thing? There would have been great wailing and howling and gnashing of teeth. A racket would have set up from the Republicans that would have drowned out a Spinal Tap show - and their amps go to 11.)

From the Washington Post:

The RNC deferred yesterday to White House requests that all documents from administration officials who used RNC e-mail accounts first be reviewed by Bush's lawyers. Congress has requested several years' worth of e-mails from top White House advisers, including Karl Rove, as part of its investigation of the prosecutor firings. In letters to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, an RNC lawyer said those documents belong to the White House.

"Recognizing the unique and significant nature of the potential privilege issue raised by the committee's requests, the RNC has agreed to the White House's reasonable request," Robert K. Kelner, an RNC lawyer, wrote to Conyers. Conyers responded that the action was "a clear attempt on the administration's part to delay this process."

House and Senate investigators have focused on e-mails by J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director, who used RNC e-mail accounts to discuss Rove's interest in appointing a former deputy as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

A leading House Democrat said last week that he had been told that as many as four years' worth of Rove's RNC e-mails may be missing. The e-mails are also sought in a congressional investigation of the alleged politicization of the General Services Administration.

The overreaching of the imperial presidency is stunning in scope. It's as if it truly knows no bounds. This stubborn digging in, in the face of overwhelming public disapproval, seems to me like a hail-Mary pass into heavy coverage. There is no precedent and no reason to believe that any court would uphold this imaginary divine right of the worst president ever.

It is a desperate ploy, and it is certain to fail. I honestly believe that they know they have cashed in all their chits and probably bounced a few checks too boot - the political capital account is overdrawn. All they have left is monkeywrenching...An activity that both Conyers and Leahy long since grow tired of.


[Cross posted to Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Betting the Farm on Executive Privilege" >>