CAFFERTY FILES: Bush advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas

[L. Coyote]

Run time: 03:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkR2lIdgKDU   Posted on YouTube: August 01, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 01, 2008 By DU Member: L. Coyote Views on DU: 958

 
From the Cafferty File:

There's a long history of the Bush administration simply ignoring subpoenas from Congress. Not that Congress has gone out of its way to exercise oversight of the executive branch. But when it does, President Bush just laughs out loud and ignores them, like unruly children who are acting up to get attention.

Well they got the attention of a federal judge. U.S. District Judge John Bates says the president's top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas. Bates says there's no legal basis for the administration's argument and that former legal counsel Harriet Miers must testify before Congress. However, Bates says Miers and others can assert executive privilege during their testimony.

Democrats call the ruling "very good news" and say that Miers, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Karl Rove must testify before Congress. Of course, the White House says it disagrees with the judge's ruling and will decide in the next day or two if it will appeal.

Karl Rove became the latest to raise his middle finger to the legislative arm of our government, when he defied a subpoena to testify earlier this month. The House Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to cite Rove for contempt of Congress. But this is only a recommendation; Nancy Pelosi will have to decide whether to bring it to a vote by the full House. And we all know how aggressive Pelosi has been when it comes to oversight of the Bush White House. With Madame Speaker, it's all about politics.

Here's my question to you: What does it mean for President Bush when a federal judge rules his people are not immune from congressional subpoenas?

====================
MORE: BREAKING NEWS: Federal judge sides with Congress, says Bush aides can be subpoenaed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3708146

[ncrainbowgrrl]

1. I love the comments from the viewers!

Go north carolina, way to represent!!

[robinlynne]

2. fantastic. I didn't know they had any real news on CNN!

[PatSeg]

3. Cafferty!

The only person worth watching on CNN!

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. How much leeway in terms of executive privilege will they be allowed?

With regard to any matter? How much amnesia will they be able to claim, when an ordinary Joe or Jane would not? If the boom is to be lowered on them for non-compliance, what will be the range of sanctions available?

[L. Coyote]

5. Now, they will have to exert "executive privilege" or the 5th on a question-by-question basis.

Q: "Did Bush commit crimes?"
A: "I must exert executive privilege and my 5th amendment rights."

Q: "Did you commit crimes?"
A: "I must exert executive privilege and my 5th amendment rights."

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. So, it will "lead nowhere" substantively, although it will bring great discredit and

the derision of the public on them, presumably?

[L. Coyote]

7. Remains to be seen, I suspect. They certainly will have a national audience,

and that will be during the run-up to November!! They will wish they had appeared months and months ago, if not last summer.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. In any case, they are not covered by executive privilege, surely. As for the 5th

Amendment, if there is anything that demonstrates most emphatically the frivolous lunacy of the ethos underlying the "tournaments between lawyers" of our adversarial system, that must surely be it. Although it is a fact of life.

I know the inquisitorial system is not perfect, but at least it does not make some kind of game out of seeking to establish the truth.

[Supersedeas]

8. calling Pelosi out again...what a disaster

[gateley]

9. K&R --