RNC Seeking Shelter Of Executive Privilege-Will NOT Abide By Subpoena

[kpete]

RNC Now Seeks Shelter of Executive Privilege
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Tuesday 14 August 2007

The Republican National Committee said it will not abide by a subpoena and turn over documents to a Congressional committee investigating the firings of at least eight US attorneys last year because the RNC is waiting to see if the White House will assert executive privilege over RNC documents at the center of the controversy, according to an outside law firm retained by the RNC.

The White House has asserted executive privilege to block senior administration officials from testifying before Congress about their involvement in the decision to fire the federal prosecutors. Moreover, the White House has cited executive privilege in declining to turn over specific documents to Congress that may shed further light on the circumstances behind the attorney firings. The US attorneys believe they were fired for partisan political reasons. In some instances, the US attorneys said they were pressured by Republican lawmakers and RNC operatives to file criminal charges against Democrats at the center of public corruption probes prior to last year's midterm election as well as individual cases of voter fraud, which the attorneys said was based on weak evidence, in order to cast a dark cloud over Democratic incumbents and swing election results toward Republican challengers.

..........



At issue is whether the "Category Two" documents are relevant to the Judiciary Committee's investigation into the firings of the US attorneys. The White House has taken the position that President Bush has the "constitutional prerogative" to nominate US attorneys and, therefore, any discussion about the issue between Bush administration officials and RNC officials is off limits to Congress. Conyers says Congress has the right to obtain the documents regarding the White House's interest in selecting US attorneys in specific parts of the country.

The Judiciary Committee chairman has taken issue with the White House's interpretation of the law, stating, "the president has no inviolable constitutional prerogative to nominate US Attorneys."

[KittyWampus]

1. It's President of the USA not the fucking RNC.

[aquart]

2. They want the Roberts Court to decide this.

Thanks to all who brought us the Roberts Court.

[robinlynne]

10. exactly.

[tbyg52]

16. If even the Roberts court

decides that the *RNC* has executive privilege, it is officially *over*.

[robinlynne]

23. Bush vs Gore is still stuck in my throat....

[tbyg52]

25. I am still looking for a statement O'Connor made on that

I saw it in a news magazine at the time and should have torn it out then, but I didn't. (I was not as politically sensitive then as I am now.

I think it was in Newsweek--that's the one I subscribe to, anyway. I think it was in the six months to a year after her retirement, but I'm not sure.

It was in a page of paragraphs, I think with photos, by famous people, in honor of some major event or another. She came right out and said that she voted for Bush because she didn't want a Democrat appointing the next new justice. I have seen this.

Unfortunately, I can't find it again. I've tried the library's search and gotten nothing except a similar statement that someone else heard her make on election night. But I'm looking for the one that was actually in print, straight from her mouth. The trouble, I think, is the kind of article it appeared in--just a bunch of little blurbs from lots of people.

I tried starting at her retirement and paging through the hard copies, but it killed my arm and wrist to try to do it fast. Maybe someday I'll go back and try it slow.

Not sure why I care so much, except I just want to see it from her own mouth (by way of magazine) again. It wouldn't make any difference if I found it--what else has?

Anyway, just throwing it out in case it rings a bell with anyone else. If it does, could you give me the date of the issue (and whether I'm right that it was Newsweek)? Thanks!

[robinlynne]

28. That is hard core. That would be proof of a crime. I do remember her

mocking the senior citizens from florida in the trial, about how stupid the voters were if they couldn't figure out where to mark the ballot. (The ballots had lines pointing to the wrong candidate."

[Phredicles]

30. The hell with that - it's time to break out INHERENT CONTEMPT;

though the fact that Congressman Waxman claimed not to have heard of inherent contempt recently makes me very pessimistic.

[rodeodance]

3. umm.. so Bush considers the RNC advisory for this case? HUH

[liberal N proud]

4. How in the hell can Executive Privilege extend to a political organization?

This can't fly, but I am sure it will like all the other shit that shouldn't have over the last 6 1/2 years.

[babylonsister]

9. How did it extend to the Tillman case? nt

[havocmom]

13. Roberts Court

Bet it flies x(

Roberts Court not about the Constitution. It's about making sure the junta gets its way and stays in control. If they lose control, they go to jail. They won't do that.

[Beetwasher]

5. This Will Be Interesting And Bring Tortured Legal Arguments To New Levels Of Idiocy

Incredible. Incredible for many reasons, not the least of which is they are, at least momentarily, getting away with it.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Executive privilege for political parties? What will they think of next?

[GOTV]

7. This is just getting unbelievable. Can *I* stop cooperating with law enforcment....

... after all, I don't know if the white house might soon assert executive privilege over my activities. It could happen.

[tbyg52]

26. No, you may not.

What part of they are "us" and we are "them" don't you understand? :sarcasm:

[berni_mccoy]

8. UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE! JAIL THESE BASTARDS!

[baldguy]

11. The United States is not a monarchy and the President is not a king.

In terms of the law, putting the needs of his party ahead on the needs of his country is treason.

Can we finally - at long last - impeach the bastard now?

[tridim]

12. A preemptive f*ck you to anyone who whips out the lame "business days" line.

Please don't ruin another great post. Thank you.

[MissMillie]

14. I don't think there's any precedent for their position

documents sent on the RNC servers are not protected.

[rudy23]

15. Ah, the BRILLIANCE of the Democrats' "Don't rock the boat" strategy for '08

It gives Chimpy and friends carte blanche for another year and a half to decimate this country.

Way to go Dems! Keep reaching for the Center!

[grytpype]

17. Is there another source for this?

You know why.

[spanone]

18. Fucking Absurd....Exec Privelege for a POLITICAL PARTY???????

if this precedent gets set.....fuck democracy.

[Dhalgren]

19. I don't get what everyone is so upset about. Bush is the Dictator,

he gets to decide what is or is not legal. "Executive" privilege, is the "privilege" of the Executive; geez, I though everyone knew that! All of these Democratic congress people had better watch out, the Dictator might just get tired of all this shit and fire them. You don't think that he can fire a congressperson? Why do you think that?

[blogslut]

20. I wonder how the propaganda spinners will justify this one

The executive privilege excuse may have finally worn out its welcome.

[KittyWampus]

21. it will be a trip watching.

[Peace Patriot]

22. More comment on this at duplicate thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1585008http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1585008

[mudesi]

24. IMPEACH, CHARGE, and IMPRISON these criminals. (nm)

[radfringe]

27. the bigger question - should bush throw the cloak of executive priviledge over the RNC

are dems willing to take the next step? do they have the:

[GOTV]

29. Maybe he could just throw executive privilege over all corporations and everyone worth > $1 mill. nt