Leahy: Bush Not Involved In Firings (Therefore, Exec Privilege Claims for Rove, Bolton are Illegal)

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Leahy: Bush not involved in firings
Judiciary Committee Chairman Says Bush Not Involved in Prosecutor Firings

LAURIE KELLMAN
AP News

Nov 29, 2007 11:19 EST

A powerful Senate chairman acknowledged explicitly on Thursday that President Bush was not involved in the firings of U.S. attorneys last winter and therefore ruled illegal the president's executive privilege claims protecting his chief of staff and former adviser Karl Rove.

The ruling by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is a formality that clears the way for his panel to vote on contempt citations if Josh Bolten, Rove and others do not immediately comply with congressional subpoenas for documents and information about the White House's role in the firings.

The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings," Leahy, D-Vt., wrote in his ruling. "The president's lack of involvement in these firings — by his own account and that of many others — calls into question any claim of executive privilege."

Leahy directed chief of staff Bolten, Rove, former political director Sara Taylor and her deputy, J. Scott Jennings, to comply "immediately," but did not set a deadline. "I hereby rule that those claims are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation," Leahy wrote.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Leahy_Bush_not_involved_in_firings_11292007.html

---

ALSO:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004800.php

Leahy Takes Step Towards Contempt against White House Aides
By Paul Kiel - November 29, 2007, 11:04AM
No, he hasn't forgotten. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) took a step today towards contempt proceedings against Karl Rove, two of his former aides, and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for not complying with subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney firings.

There hasn't been much movement since this summer, when Leahy issued the subpoenas. The administration claimed executive privilege for all documents and testimony sought, and said that Rove didn't need to even show up for a hearing. Rove's aides Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings appeared, but refused to discuss the firings. A subpoena for documents was sent to Bolten, and the White House refused.

Today, Leahy ruled that the claims of executive privilege and immunity were not legally valid, a necessary step toward issuing contempt citations in the committee. He didn't say when he might do that.

The timing for this might have something to do with what's going on in the House, where leaders have said they plan to schedule a floor vote to find former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Bolten in contempt for ignoring subpoenas there. That vote has been repeatedly delayed and is currently expected to take place next month.

[rateyes]

1. Wow. Another threat from Senator Leahy....

I hope he follows through this time, but, I'm not holding my breath.

[Hissyspit]

2. Detail from TPM:

"Today, Leahy ruled that the claims of executive privilege and immunity were not legally valid, a necessary step toward issuing contempt citations in the committee. He didn't say when he might do that.

The timing for this might have something to do with what's going on in the House, where leaders have said they plan to schedule a floor vote to find former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Bolten in contempt for ignoring subpoenas there. That vote has been repeatedly delayed and is currently expected to take place next month."

[rateyes]

3. That's what they said month before last...

"It will take place next month." I'll believe it when I see it.

[FREEWILL56]

28. I like the circumstances this places bush into.

It is a catch 22 as he would be admitting wrong doing himself if he insists upon the executive privilage and if he doesn't issue it they will implicate him in the wrong doing as they won't go down without him. we may need the space in Gitmo to send these criminals to.B-)

[Chulanowa]

43. "I do not recall," "I cannot remember," and "I was not aware," coming soon to a hearing near you!

[PurpleChez]

30. I hear ya....

Leahy hasn't disappointed me as much as Reid, Pelosi, and some of the others. Nonetheless, I've come to expect any display of Potential Democratic Backbone to be merely a prelude to Democrats bending over, grabbing their ankles, and letting Li'l George Do His Thang. I mean, how unpopular does a rethuglican president have to be before a Democratic Congress actually calls Shenanigans?

[acmavm]

4. Like I said the first time I read this...

Leahy is a big bag of wind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2369902

[goforit]

25. This Congress is Anti-America!

[Supersedeas]

5. then whats the hold-up on contempt hearings....lets move it

[tularetom]

6. If almost anybody else said this I'd be encouraged

but I've learned over the past year not to rely on any of the bluster I hear so often from Sen Leahy. Far as I'm concerned he can go cheney himself.

[formercia]

7. So Junior pleads guilty, cites executive privilege

and pardons everyone.

His father taught him well.

[JDPriestly]

38. Congress can still investigate to determine whether laws need to

be passed or amended. And they should. In fact, I think they should investigate the Plame matter to determine whether they need to change the laws on outing CIA agents.

[formercia]

42. It would be good if they did their job. n/t

[mlevans]

8. This could be good if it actually happens

but for now I'm going to rein in my natural delight. Been too many disappointments already. Thanks for posting it though; I'll definitely be keeping an eye and ear out for developments.

[lovuian]

9. Maybe wants it to get closer till Bush gets out of office

then he won't have executive priveledge

He will be out of office

[fascisthunter]

10. Somebody with More Legal Knowledge Than Me

What if the White House "proved" Bush was involved? Would that make this also an impeachable offense?

It almost seems as if Leahy is setting Bush up. Either way, this is not good for Bushco at all. At least, it seems that way, assuming accountability is acted upon.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. I think it would be impeachable

but then they are many other impeachable items that haven't been acted on?

[fascisthunter]

16. That's What I thought

so far he is playing a good hand.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. a very large network

of crooks

[rateyes]

11. I copied this from a thread I started on this in GD:

Meanwhile, on the House side, we were told that contempt charges would be brought after Congress got back from August recess. When it didn't happen in September, we were told it would be October. When it didn't happen in October, FINALLY, in the first week of November, the charges were filed--BUT, NO VOTE WAS SCHEDULED! It's been almost a month since the charges were filed...still no scheduled vote.

Also, let's not forget that Leahy threatened no vote on Mukasey unless the WH complied with the subpoenas. The WH didn't comply. Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of less than 60 Senators (a filibuster might have stopped it.)

Now, we get more threats from Leahy. Sounds good. But, we need to see some actual BITE rather than just hearing more BARKING.

And, the House Contempt charges, yet to be voted on, are NOT inherent contempt charges. And, with Leahy talking about also sending these charges to the US Distric Attorney D.C., they won't be inherent contempt charges either.

Are we going to get our hopes up AGAIN, only to see them dashed on the rocks of politics? My bet: YES.

[KoKo]

20. Yep...and it was confirming Mukasey without having WH comply

with those subpoenas that did it for me with Leahy. I don't have any more hope for him or the House doing much with this. It seems to be stalling tactics while Bush becomes even more outrageous and will probably go ahead and bomb Iran so that everything else pales in comparison to a new war.

Thanks for putting it all together.

[Jackpine Radical]

33. Actually, no. "Are we going to get our hopes up AGAIN...?"

I'm not getting any hopes up. If it happens, great, but to quote a great statesman-philosopher (whose name escapes me at the moment), "Won't get fooled again."

[Demeter]

12. That'sCalled aCleft Stick

Bush has to either give up himself, or all his buddies...oh, well, nice knowing you, Rove! Thanks for all the fish!

[Javaman]

14. Moron* the new teflon don. nt

[Bitwit1234]

15. You know,,we complain about this process but we really don't

know all the legal proceedings that have to be followed. And with the president being involved, I think Leahy is being sure he has the letter of the law on his side. He is very thorough. They say he was damn good prosecutor. So maybe he knows how to be sure he is right. And that it takes a long time to clear the PATH. HOT DAMN PUT ROVE IN THE JAIL CELL NOW.................

[Gonnuts]

17. So, what's the delay?

What I want to know is why the delays? Who is that "repeatedly delay" the citations? Why wait another month? This going around and around in circles smacks of behind the scenes shanigens in justice delayed.

The 08' elections are way too close already in making the public aware of just how corrupted our election process is and any delays are all for the benefit of the corrupter. If (and that's looking more and more like a BIG "if") the public ever becomes aware of just how corrupt it's been since the 2000 election, that not only was not any real effort made towards election reform, but in many instances it's gotten worse, they'll be a revolution in this country of the likes we haven't seen since it's conception.

[pingzing58]

18. If they plead guilty and receive Pres. pardon's it will look bad for GW historically. Timing is ok!

[Gonnuts]

21. You really think ...

that bush gives a fat rat's ass about what his "legacy" will be? Given his history to date whatever good that could be said about this s.o.b. is that ... ah, that ... well, see - there is NOTHING good to say!

[madeline_con]

34. Ithink just about everything he's ever done will look bad for

DUH-bya historically. I honestly believe he will be the most reviled president in ALL of American history. Our very own Caligula.

[Golden Raisin]

19. Snore.

Talk, talk, talk, no action. This administration does not honor subpoenas nor give a damn about threats, votes, citations, chidings, scoldings. They do whatever the hell they want and the Dems just sputter and put all these subpoenas and citations on the same table impeachment is off of.

[Gonnuts]

22. Wake me ...

when they turn the key on the cell-door that they lock these bastards up in. Until then - spare us.

[Sam Ervin jret]

23. Maybe the Sen. feels.this puts the Pres. between the proverbial "rock and hard place" .

I think he may feel that this statement leaves the pres. with no way to turn. Either he had something to do with the firings and he wants executive privilege (and he and all his fellows have been lying, some under oath, all this time) or he had nothing to do with the firings and the question of executive privilege is moot.

The problem, as many here have pointed out, is that logic, law, personal promises, shame, and even the lowest public opinion of his presidency and him personally have not moved this man to follow the legislative body rulings. We find it disheartening that the executive feels he is above the laws we all are still bound to.

I hold as an example: The baseball player who hit the home run record. I admit I am not a fanatic baseball follower, but as a mother of two boys in the Boston area, I am "familiar" with the game and its politics. We are in a period of time in sports, in my opinion, where we are trying to get information about past "wrongs" done by people in "baseballs politically powerful positions." Have some of them lied under oath? Have some of them committed perjury? Have they stood in the way of finding the truth in the matter by obstruction? Maybe? But should anyone of them guilty to any degree spend one second of time in a jail? Absolutely NOT!
If a man is not in jail after being convicted of lying to a federal court and obstructing justice in a trial involving TREASON then no person should spend one second of time in jail for lying or obstruction. Which crime is more repugnant, more dangerous to the nation? Treason or taking poison into your own body?

The court system is broken. Justice is a memory. Lady Justice has taken off her blindfold and is searching for a hero who will restore the balance of justice.

Making sure Bush's over reaching executive privilege claims in court and retro active immunity for the communication companies die and stay dead is a good step to giving balance back to the justice system. We all hope The senators, all of them, will stand up, do their work and fix this badly broken system.

[bonito]

24. K&R and hoping for the best.

[still_one]

27. I bet the WH is really shaking in their boots NOT

[JimboDem]

29. I am numbed by these supposed Democratic leaders.

"Leahy directed chief of staff Bolten, Rove, former political director Sara Taylor and her deputy, J. Scott Jennings, to comply "immediately,"but did not set a deadline"

:thumbsdown:

[boricua79]

31. Good...SQUEEZE LONG AND HARD, Sen. Leahy. Keep it going... NT

[rhett o rick]

32. The BushCorp presidency is illegal, so what's your point? I am totally

sick of investigations. I want convictions. I waited and waited patiently during the Fitz investigations and for what? Nothing. A big fat nothing.

[defendandprotect]

35. Turley + Rhodes suggested yesterday that Pelosi PROMISED not to impeach ---

and Turley suggested that this also meant that the Democrats would not go forward with
any investigation which could reach a point where Bush became obviously impeachable ---


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3768965&mesg_id=3768965

[Truth2Tell]

37. Were that true...

it would be treason.

[Sam Ervin jret]

40. promise to who and for what in exchange?

I do not believe that even a weak Dem would "promise" to not impeach Bush just to keep political "peace" in the land. For one thing there is no political peace in the land. If a "deal" was struck, illegal and immoral as it would be, it would certainly have better motives than that lame excuse. So I must conclude that something is indeed "up." What it is, what it covers, I can only guess. But I have noticed a great number of Republican "retirements" as of late. It could be unconnected, or it could be part of a "deal." I hope not. Any "deal" that does not include Bush and company in front of a court and paying for their crimes is not only a "bad deal" it is a fundamental break in the public trust.

[bluesmail]

36. Something's up, what it is I have no idea.

So many variables. I personally like the one where the Dem's (or Dem) made a deal with Bush. He's been acting loonier than usual lately. I wonder if he's laying the groundwork for an insane defense?

[Imagevision]

39. ho-fucking hum... now Leahy can go on Christmas vacation, Dems suck too!

[Usrename]

41. Then it follows that the White House Counsel is a criminal.

Fred Fielding was guilty of witness tampering when he advised these folks NOT to testify to Congress.

Punishable by up to ten years in the pokey.

>

Relevant provisions from section 1512 include subsections (b) through (f).

Subsection (b)

Pertinent language from subsection (b) includes the following:
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to –
(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to –
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; . . .
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

>

This case would seem to be different from the Author Anderson case because:

>

Subsection (e)

Subsection (e) provides:
(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant's sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

>

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/2006/02/ethics-or-witness-tampering-part-3.html

It looks like (according to Leahy) his instruction to them claiming executive privelege is unlawful.

[Sam Ervin jret]

44. That's why this is so NU-cu- LIAR

[DCKit]

45. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" has never sounded so good. n/t

[Orsino]

46. But it's just fine, 'cause impeachment is off the table. n/t

[sam sarrha]

47. that is an accusation to be decided by the congress or a grand jury

[knight_of_the_star]

48. If he ruled that the executive privilege invocation is illegal

Then does that mean he committed what would qualify unquestionably as a high crime or misdemeanor?

[HuffleClaw]

49. well, the white house has had plenty to time to hide/destroy evidence

so who knows how this will progress, but i've gotta say i just don't get all this tiptoeing around EVERY FUCKING investigation of the white house and its minions. its always 'so and so requests...' or 'investigation has been delayed...' enough already. investigate and impeach. NOW.