The sound bite every American should hear

[Maui]

I realize Democrats have asserted executive privilege in the past, but Bushcheney have pushed this to absurd extremes. Dear god, I can't wait until they are gone.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/3/03454/28216

LEAHY: I'm just asking you what role you have. I'm just asking you what you do. Let's not be too contemptuous of this committee. The American taxpayers pay your salary. You work for the American people. I'm just asking you what you DO.

JENNINGS: (leans over to consult with Mark Paoletta, his attorney) This falls under the terms of executive privilege, and respectfully I must decline to answer that question at this time.

Jennings, by the way, is White House deputy political director.

[it5five]

I wasn't aware that even the janitors at the white house were able to claim executive privilege.

[SMM]

And so it goes.......:(

You can often learn as much by what a person does not say, as by what which they do. Does this (or the testimony of the others) sound like someone who must realize they will probably be 'target practice' in a few months? These bastards act like someone with an 'ace up their sleeve'.

[obeygiant]

What the hell is a 'political director'?

[SMM]

What the hell is a 'political director'?

Someone who will hang before the Political Advisor (Rove). The question is, why are taxpayers footing the bill for them? Somewhere I got the notion that the purpose of the Executive Branch was to be the Administrators of running the government. Why are these people still engaging in politics? Well, one reason is, they are all a bunch of political cronies, with no bona fides for running a government. After the second election, remember how the resignations began to pour in? Those WERE the administrative professionals. They had endured enough. The vacuum created sucked in the political trash. They lied through their teeth about upholding the laws of the land and protecting the constitution. I doubt if any of them have ever looked at it. Their loyalty is to Bush and the Neocon Party - not the Republican Party. That is why they will stand in front of the U.S. Congress and act like good soldiers, being interrogated by the KGB. These creeps remind me of the followers of Jim Jones. And, until I see them packing their Mercedes SUVs, and heading home to wherever, I will not relax. I still have a sick feeling, they do not think they are leaving.

[Swarmlord]

Given what committes do to people that answer questions I wouldn't answer anything with either yes or no myself and even then only questions that were innocuous.

[leekohler]

Given what committes do to people that answer questions I wouldn't answer anything with either yes or no myself and even then only questions that were innocuous.

Quit making excuses for these fools. Really, it's getting old. This person works for us, he should be able to describe his job for god's sake. If he can't, he needs to go.

[FFTT]

I see a considerable amount of denial in people who supported this administration.

It's very much like those finding out that their favorite TV evangelist
is nothing more than an opportunist fleecing them for their donations.

No one wants to admit they were so foolish or so easily mislead.

The highest office in the land "should be" a position of trust and respect
and the old guard, the older Americans still hang on to a memory of times
when our country's leadership projected the Character of the people.

Most people can't even comprehend the amount of money at stake here.
They squander billions as if it's poker money, while needs at home, needs that help everyone are side tracked or under funded.

This is publicly funded extortion at it's highest level.

Every move this administration has made has consistantly benefitted
industrial tycoons, while pandering to the emotions of the sheeple.

They have lied their way into a massive diversion of public funds, fleecing
the taxpayer to line the pockets of that 1% of the population
that calls all the shots.

A here these PUBLIC SERVANTS dare to defy accountability in any form.

They shame all that good we once stood for.

[Maui]

The irony here is that Bush is seeking the most expansive possible meaning of "executive privilege" even though that term never appears in the Constitution. He says he wants judges "who would be strict constructionists" but his commitment to that seems to be situational -- he is now relying on a doctrine that was made up by judges. As CJ Berger described it in US v. Nixon:

Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.

So here we have Bush relying on a doctrine that is absent explicitly from the Constitution, and instead only "derives" and "flows" from other parts of the Constitution. The irony is rich.

But, even Berger I think would be a bit shocked at the claim that the executive privilege applies to the job duties of the deputy political director. From the same case:

To read the Art. 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 Art. III.

Swarmlord sez: Given what committes do to people that answer questions I wouldn't answer anything with either yes or no myself and even then only questions that were innocuous.

How ironic that you would then be guilty of the same thing Clinton was guilty of: not telling the truth under oath. Please don't do that -- if you went to the hoosegow who would we have to argue with? :)

[Swarmlord]

Quit making excuses for these fools. Really, it's getting old. This person works for us, he should be able to describe his job for god's sake. If he can't, he needs to go.

So does the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of the CIA for that matter. I don't expect either to freely answer questions for some committee of Senators - at least not publicly. If it wasn't for the way that testimony was twisted into perjury charges completely separate from the information that is being investigated, I'd be more interested in seeing people testify.

I don't care who you are or what you've done, any good lawyer is going to advise you to keep your mouth shut.

[solvs]

What the hell is a 'political director'?
That's what we'd like to know, but he doesn't want to answer that.

Given what committes do to people that answer questions I wouldn't answer anything with either yes or no myself and even then only questions that were innocuous.
How much more innocuous can you get than "what do you do"? And if he has nothing to hide, what's the problem? Isn't that what their excuse is for spying on people?

I don't expect either to freely answer questions for some committee of Senators
That's exactly what he has to do, which is what he's there for. You can belittle them all you want, I know how people like you and the administration like to downplay Congress, but they do still have power. You think Bush and his cronies can all just claim executive privilege all they want and render Congress useless, but they rest of us want to know what they're hiding.

Kinda of like we did with Clinton, for which (unlike with this) you seemed to be fine with.

[Maui]

I don't care who you are or what you've done, any good lawyer is going to advise you to keep your mouth shut.

Doubt that.

2 USC 196:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony . . . who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

2 USC 194:

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, rec ords, or documents, as required, or whenever any witness so summoned refuses to answer any question pertinent to the subject under inquiry before either House . . . [the] President of the Senate or Speaker of the House, as the case may be . . . shall so certify, the statement of facts aforesaid under the seal of the Senate or House, as the case may be, to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.

18 USC 1621:

Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal . . . willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true . . . is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

The grounds for refusing to answer a question, or just answering every question "yes" or "no" as the witness sees fit, are narrow. The 5th Amendment (inapplicable here), the attorney client privilege (inapplicable here), spousal immunity in limited instances (inapplicable here), and the narrow doctrine called executive privilege.

There is no such immunity because of what Congress "do[es] to people" or because the testimony might be "twisted into perjury charges." You get a subpoena, from Congress or from a court, you respond and tell the truth, unless your answer is subject to a recognized privilege. That's the way the system works, for everyone except people who work for Bush, apparently. It is ironic that the Bush Administration has prosecuted people for failing to respond to a subpoena.

[hulugu]

So does the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of the CIA for that matter. I don't expect either to freely answer questions for some committee of Senators - at least not publicly. If it wasn't for the way that testimony was twisted into perjury charges completely separate from the information that is being investigated, I'd be more interested in seeing people testify.

I don't care who you are or what you've done, any good lawyer is going to advise you to keep your mouth shut.

Swarm, do you honestly think that Alberto Gonzalez and Libby have had their words twisted? How do these guys get a free pass for their testimony and Bill Clinton, who you've endlessly harped about, doesn't get the same allowances?

I absolutely cannot follow your logic.

Are you arguing that the Executive Branch should ignore Congress and refuse to testify? If so, how is the separation of powers supposed to operate, if at all?

[OutThere]

********** ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IqL6CA5x_w

[solvs]

I absolutely cannot follow your logic.

There is no logic. We aren't going to get a response based on logic or fact. We'd be lucky to get more rhetoric and talking points with a refusal to follow rules and post link to back up his ridiculous (and incorrect) assertions. More likely he'll just post the same crap in another thread the same way, no matter how much we prove him wrong, leaving when he's got nothing.

Maybe throwing in a "Clinton did it", as if that makes it any better, as if none of us have ever criticized Clinton or other Dems when he knows damn well we do.