quote:

Gonzalez was the predetermined fall guy in the decided course of action by Rove

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Gonzalez was the predetermined fall guy in the decided course of action by Rove

I saw this meme somewhere else, earlier. Hi-Larious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

That is just the problem, GW won't allow them to testify under oath, nor will he allow any public records of their testimony, nor will he allow them called back at a later point (should inconsistencies with their statements arise with the sworn testimony of others, or as more doumental evidence is admitted... so that even if they perjur themselves, they will not be held accountable), no will he allow for any transcript of the testimony be taken (no record).

quote:

ORIGINAL: puella

Better start programming my Tivo for more C-SPAN!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

When Push comes to Shove, the Wimp will fold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well this is a little stickier to muck around in and everyone can be thrown to the wolves if need be, takes everybodies mind off of Haliburton and outsourcing seaports and the wars and the terrorists not getting hunted down.....change of focus----just wagging the dog.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Did you know it is physically impossible to fold a piece of paper in half, no matter what kind, more than 7 times?

Sinergy

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
 
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law....) ironic.

However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]  
 
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill.

White House Counselor Dan Bartlett: I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly to these matters.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): No, I think you’re violating a precedent there that should not be violated. … I believe that under the separation of powers, there are limits to the extent to which Congress can subpoena or demand testimony from those who were closest to the president.

quote:


Q There is one email from November 15th from Mr. Sampson to Harriet Miers, I believe, "Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q And then there's a gap in emails. Was there any -- perhaps any emails about the President in there? And did the President have to sign off on this? Because the question was raised --

MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.