Americans: Better to let the rich keep their money than to have it benefit economic and social inferiors

a remarkably thoughtful piece from the guardian's peter wilby on why there isn't more populist anger over the obscene amounts of money and power accruing to our super-rich elites...

Between 1996-7 and 2007-8, the earnings of someone in the middle of the income distribution rose (1997 prices) from £16,000 to £17,100 - barely £100, or less than 0.7% a year. Even the increase for those quite near the top of the income scale, better off than 90% of their fellow citizens, was unspectacular. Their inflation-discounted pay crept up from £36,700 to £41,500, or less than £450 (1.2%) a year. The top 0.1% scooped the jackpot. They got a £19,000 pay rise every year, taking their incomes to £538,600, a gain of 67% over 11 years. The commission gives no figures for the top 0.01%, but we can be confident they did even better and dramatically so.

That is the most important point about what has happened to incomes in Britain and America during the neoliberal era: the very rich are soaring ahead, leaving behind not only manual workers - now a diminishing minority - but also the middle-class masses, including doctors, teachers, academics, solicitors, architects, Whitehall civil servants and, indeed, many CEOs who don't run FTSE 100 companies, to say nothing of the marketing, purchasing, personnel, sales and production executives below them. That is why, over the past decade, some of the most anguished cries about high incomes and inequality have appeared in the Telegraph and Mail.

The commission describes levels of top pay as an instance of "market failure" because most arguments used to defend it just don't stack up. For example, despite claims that pay levels are dictated by global competition, the majority of FTSE 100 CEOs are British, promoted from within their companies. Only one CEO has been poached in the past five years - by a British rival. But top pay also suggests political failure, particularly on the left. To put it crudely, why can't leftwing parties harness middle-class anger against the super-rich? Surveys show a substantial majority of the electorate agree that differences in income are too large and that ordinary people don't get a fair share. Only one in eight disagree. Why is this so difficult to translate into a political programme that could command mass support?

One reason why the working classes so often disappointed the left was that, having little daily contact with the rich and little knowledge of how they lived, they simply didn't think about inequality much, or regard the wealthy as direct competitors for resources. As the sociologist Garry Runciman observed: "Envy is a difficult emotion to sustain across a broad social distance." Nearly 50 years ago he found manual workers were less likely than non-manual workers to think other people were "noticeably better off". Even now most Britons underestimate the rewards of bankers and executives. Top pay has reached such levels that, rather like interstellar distances, what the figures mean is hard to grasp.

But the gap between the richest 1% or 2% and everybody else in the top 20% or 30% is now so great and growing so rapidly that, one might reasonably think, it should change the terms of political trade. The income distance may be huge but the social distance is not. Those in the top 2% and the next 28% have often been to the same schools and universities. More important, they compete for scarce resources: places in fee-charging schools, houses in the best areas, high-end personal services. The super-rich have provoked raging inflation in the prices of these goods. Many of the not-so-rich were born into the professional classes and high expectations. Now, to their surprise, they find themselves struggling. In income distribution, their interests are closer to those of the mass of the population than to people they once saw as their peers.

They are not, however, imminently likely to join a crusade for equality. This generation of the middle classes has internalised the values of individualist aspiration, as zealously propagated by Tony Blair as by Margaret Thatcher. It does not look to the application of social justice to improve its lot. It expects to rely on its own efforts to get ahead and, crucially, to maintain its position.

As psychologists will tell you, fear of loss is more powerful than the prospect of gain. The struggling middle classes look down more anxiously than they look up, particularly in recession and sluggish recovery. Polls show they dislike high income inequalities but are lukewarm about redistribution. They worry that they are unlikely to benefit and may even lose from it; and worse still, those below them will be pulled up sufficiently to threaten their status. This is exactly the mindset in the US, where individualist values are more deeply embedded. Americans accepted tax cuts for the rich with equanimity. Better to let the rich keep their money, they calculated, than to have it benefit economic and social inferiors.

and to those who say there's no class system operating in the united states, what are you guys smoking...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sic 'em, Bob

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), one of Floida's few Patriotic Politicians.

This is in response to George W Bush's personal attorney, Michael Mukasey.





His attitude IS rubbing off on his fellow-congressmen. Will it be too little, too late? Will it be before the Cabal takes up residence in Paraguay?

Lord, Help Us.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Because executive privilege is also a law, it's sometimes necessary to violate the law in order to uphold the law"

jonathan turley describes the catch-22 of the bush administration, perfected by its newest criminal cabinet member, michael mukasey...

In his twisting of legal principles, the attorney general has succeeded in creating a perfect paradox. Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers.

[...]

Mukasey's Paradox appears designed to play tricks with Congress. Its origins date back to Mukasey's confirmation hearings, when he first denied knowing what waterboarding was and then (when it was defined for him) refused to recognize it as torture. In fact, it is not only a crime under U.S. law, it is a well-defined war crime under international law.

The problem for Mukasey was that if he admitted waterboarding was a crime, then it was a crime that had been authorized by the president of the United States -- an admission that would trigger calls for both a criminal investigation and impeachment. Mukasey's confirmation was facing imminent defeat over his refusal to answer the question when Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) suddenly rescued him, guaranteeing that he would not have to answer it.

Once in office, Mukasey still had the nasty problem of a secret torture program that was now hiding in plain view. Asked to order a criminal investigation of the program, Mukasey refused. His rationale left many lawyers gasping: Any torture that occurred was done on the advice of counsel and therefore, while they may have been wrong, it could not have been a crime for CIA interrogators or, presumably, the president. If this sounds ludicrous, it is. Under that logic, any president can simply surround himself with extremist or collusive lawyers and instantly decriminalize any crime.

[...]

When reduced to its purest form, Mukasey's Paradox is that government officials cannot violate the law -- but that because executive privilege is also a law, it's sometimes necessary to violate the law in order to uphold the law.

[...]

Consider that Mukasey took an oath under which he swore to uphold the laws of this country -- even if the violator is the president of the United States or his aides. That oath means that all laws must be upheld without exception. Except, according to his interpretation, that executive power is a form of constitutional law that creates exceptions to the enforcement of laws.

all of which only serves to tell us what we already knew, that, for george bush and his merry band of outlaws, the rule of law is only a subject for the history books...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Our most powerful and well-connected elite are free to break the law with impunity"

as an appropriate follow-on to the previous post (or perhaps, more accurately, a good lead-in), glenn has this to say...

[W]e have a perfect oligarchical system in which, literally, our most powerful and well-connected elite are free to break the law with impunity, exempt from any consequences. While exempting themselves, these same figures impose increasingly Draconian "law and order" solutions on the masses to ensure that even small infractions of the law prompt vigorous prosecution and inflexible, lengthy prison terms.

As Matt Stoller recently noted in an excellent post on the bipartisan orthodoxies that are untouchable in political debates, "there are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done" (buying and consuming illegal drugs) and "2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world." It's almost impossible for the non-rich to defend themselves effectively against government accusations of criminality, and judges have increasingly less sentencing discretion to avoid imposing harsh jail terms. Punishment for crimes is for the masses only, not for members in good standing of our political and corporate establishment.

Where our political elite break the law, our leading media stars and pundits fulfill their central purpose by dutifully arguing that establishment figures who have broken the law have done nothing wrong and deserve protection, even our gratitude, when they do so. In the view of our establishment, even mere civil liability -- never mind criminal punishment -- is deeply unfair when imposed on lawbreaking corporations, as we see in the "debate" over telecom immunity.

[...]

Naturally, our establishment sees itself as Good, and thus, whatever their most powerful leaders do -- even when illegal -- is never really bad. It can't be, because they do it. Hence, George Bush's and Lewis Libby's felonies aren't really like the felonies of the "drug dealers" and the other street dirt. Neither the Law nor Jail are for the clean, good, upstanding establishment members, so sayeth Jay Rockefeller and Fred Hiatt and Joe Klein and David Ignatius and the rest.

[...]

There is a mildly increased desperation that is palpable among our political and media elites to protect and defend their system. The extent of their wrongdoing over the last several years -- political, legal and economic -- is so extreme that the potential for upheaval in the event of accountability is extreme as well. Their chief weapon to protect those privileges is immunity from the rule of law, and most of our political controversies -- over presidential power and state secrets and executive privilege and torture and eavesdropping and these CIA videos -- really share the same root: the effort of the establishment to maintain their immunity from impropriety-exposing legal proceedings and, thus, from political consequences.

Just as the warrantless eavesdropping revelations did, the CIA video scandal presents an extremely clear and straightforward case of serious lawbreaking by our highest government officials. It's far less complex and far more serious than the scandals that brought down Richard Nixon. That a rational person would be highly skeptical about the prospects that we will find out what happened, let alone that there will be consequences for any of it, is pretty compelling evidence of the kind of country we are becoming.

we're in such deep shit as a country, and sitting around watching our elected leaders DO NOTHING is crazy-making in the first degree...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Ummmmmmm... No...........

a question is posed in the last sentence of this nyt op-ed excerpt, the answer to which i offered in the post title...

President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, was asked an important question about Congress’s power at his confirmation hearing. If witnesses claim executive privilege and refuse to respond to Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal — as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have done — and Congress holds them in contempt, would his Justice Department refer the matter to a grand jury for criminal prosecution, as federal law requires?

Mr. Mukasey suggested the answer would be no. That was hardly his only slap-down of Congress. He made the startling claim that a president can defy laws if he or she is acting within the authority “to defend the country.” That is a mighty large exception to the rule that Congress’s laws are supreme.

The founders wanted the “people’s branch” to be strong, but the Bush administration has usurped a frightening number of Congress’s powers — with very little resistance. The question is whether members of Congress of both parties will do anything about it.

clearly, the answer is "no..." congress has had ample opportunity to forcefully deal with this issue and, as should be obvious now, isn't going to do a goddam thing... the better question is when and if the american people are going to do something...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

I'm with Kagro X... Article I is dead so let's have a funeral...

we are so screwed, and anybody that thinks congress is going to do a goddam thing to protect and preserve our constitution is smoking some high quality shit...

Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. intelligence agencies access to Americans' phone and computer records without court orders, citing White House objections and national security.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell "formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying" any details about intelligence programs, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts wrote in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Qwest and Verizon also declined to answer, saying the federal government has prohibited them from providing information, discussing or referring to any classified intelligence activities.

"Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities," Watts wrote.

The White House declined to comment on the matter Monday.

kagro x at daily kos, in full...

Did you catch that?

Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress. Citing White House objections.

First, the White House says it can use executive privilege to prevent former employees from testifying before Congress. (And Congress does nothing.)

Now, the White House says it can use the state secrets privilege (normally something invoked in the courts, not in Congress) to prevent corporations from testifying before Congress.

Any guesses on what Congress will do with this one?

Note, too, that the companies say "the federal government" has prohibited them from providing this information.

Has Congress removed itself from "the federal government" since we last checked?

Congress now demands the right to inform itself about the subject matter on which it legislates, and the executive branch says no -- and not only no, but that any bill not containing the provisions it demands but will not permit the Congress to inform itself on will be vetoed.

Article I is dead, and the least concerned with the death, astoundingly, is the Article I branch.

just in case you forgot, here's some selected Article I items...

The Constitution of the United States

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 - The House

[...]

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3 - The Senate

[...]

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[...]

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

[...]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[...]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[...]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

[...]

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

i think we should have a full-blown funeral with a military honor guard and a 21-gun salute...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" not required to start an impeachment inquiry

if what bush has done already doesn't warrant an impeachment inquiry, then, according to fein, impeachment as a constitutional remedy is meaningless...

bruce fein in slate...



he continues...

The House does not require, nor should it await, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of misconduct. To wait for such proof subverts the whole purpose of an impeachment inquiry.

[...]

Impeachment precedents fortified by the original intent of the Constitution's makers provide ample justification for a House judiciary committee impeachment inquiry targeting President Bush for—among other things—multiple criminal violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and frustration of legitimate congressional oversight with preposterous claims of executive privilege.

FISA makes it a federal felony for the president or vice president to "intentionally engage … in electronic surveillance [to gather foreign intelligence or otherwise] under color of law except as authorized by statute." A companion provision provides that the FISA's procedures are the "exclusive means" for conducting electronic surveillance.

[...]

An impeachment inquiry should further examine Bush's repeated assertions of executive privilege to operate a secret government eavesdropping program.

[...]

If what Bush has said and done falls short of warranting an impeachment inquiry, then impeachment of the president has become a virtual dead letter.

yeah, this criminal cabal needs to go, no doubt about it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers

this surprises me not in the least... it's perfectly in keeping with the road we've been marched down for the past 6 1/2 years, only instead of it being conducted under cover of darkness, in no media coverage signing statements and executive orders, unfettered executive power is now being baldly unveiled as the overarching imperative of our near-totalitarian state...

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

[...]

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

[...]

[T]he administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power," [Rozell continued]. "Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

congress had better act fast... time's running out...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why is Congress pussy-footing around about issuing contempt charges for Harriet Miers?

huh...? inquiring minds want to know...

Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers has again rejected calls from the House Judiciary Committee to comply with a subpoena for her testimony on the firing of 9 US Attorneys in 2006 and 2007. The Committee had set a deadline of 5 PM for Miers to explain how she would comply with the subpoena.

"In light of the continuing directives to Ms. Miers and as previously indicated to your Committee, I must respectfully inform you that, directed as she has been to honor the Executive privileges and immunities asserted in this matter, Ms. Miers will not appear before the Committee or otherwise produce documents or provide testimony as set forth in the Committee's subpoena," wrote Miers' attorney, George Manning, in a letter delivered Tuesday to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

HELLO...? HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE...? GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND SLAP HER WITH INHERENT CONTEMPT CHARGES, WILLYA, FERCRYINOUTLOUD...?

yeah, i know she's not the big fish we all want, but, for god's sake, show some spine and start asserting your constitutional power... i'm sick and goddam tired of watching you fiddle-fuck around...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Sara Taylor's testimony

TPMmuckraker is staying abreast of sara taylor's appearance today before the senate judiciary committee... this about sums up how it's going...

[T]aylor has actually answered a number of questions that would seem to be covered by privilege, but not others. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) later remarked that Taylor's willingness to answer certain questions had "weakened" the White House's claim of privilege.

sounds to me like she's been coached...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Will Fitz testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

according to cliff schecter...

Just now on Face the Nation, Chuck Schumer said that the Judiciary committee was considering calling Patrick Fitzgerald to testify about the Plame leak.

would fitz be subject to having his testimony prevented under a claim of executive privilege...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Of COURSE he will...! Denying and defying IS the strategy...!

once again, context-free journalism rises to an art-form under the expert hands of the wapo...

White House Will Deny New Request In Attorneys Probe
Bush to Defy Congress, Sources Say

The White House has decided to defy Congress's latest demand for information regarding the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys, sources familiar with the decision said yesterday. Such an action would escalate the constitutional struggle and propel it closer to a court showdown.

Senate and House committees have directed President Bush to provide by tomorrow a detailed justification of his executive privilege claims and a full accounting of the documents he is withholding. But White House counsel Fred F. Fielding plans to tell lawmakers that he has already provided the legal basis for the claims and will not provide a log of the documents, the sources said.

The standoff suggests that neither side is prepared to budge in the fight over documents and testimony in the widening U.S. attorney investigation. Officials in both camps said no serious negotiations are taking place to resolve the dispute. Fielding plans to follow up his letter by further asserting executive privilege later this week, the sources said, directing former White House aides Harriet E. Miers and Sara M. Taylor not to testify in response to congressional subpoenas.

i wish to hell everybody would stop pretending the white house is doing anything other than what they said they would do... back in october, even before the november elections (as i've pointed out again and again and again), the white house told us what they were going to do (*see below), and they're doing it, just exactly like they told us they would... they also said that we would remain in iraq forever, and we're doing that too... let's stop dicking around with these stupid games, putting out headlines and sub-heads like it's some goddam surprise, breathlessly announcing "White House to Deny," "Bush to Defy..." how about something like this instead...?

Bush sticks to October Plan

or

White House No-Compromise Strategy Rolls On

why pretend that there's anything the white house or president bush would even CONSIDER doing besides denying and defying...? stick it in our faces - which is exactly where it belongs - that this administration's bottom-line strategy for avoiding oversight and accountability IS denying and defying, and that we've had six and one-half friggin' years of it...

* from time magazine, october 2006...

"In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as 'a cataclysmic fight to the death' over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is 'going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.'"

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

True BiPartisan Political Theater?

I know many will see this as an encouraging development, but I am a pessimist regarding our elected officials.
I think that this is political theater to keep us all amused while Congress and the White House continue with business as usual. I am not going to single out the Democrats as the Republicans do, I see it as bipartisan political theater.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong, I really do, but I have no respect for any of the vermin in DC. Full article from the A.P.

Dems call White House out on subpoenas

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer

Dems call White House out on subpoenas
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats took the first steps Friday in what could be a long march to court in a tug-of-war between the White House and Congress over subpoenas and executive and legislative branch powers.

In a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, the heads of the Senate and House Judiciary committees demanded an explanation in 10 days of why the White House claimed executive privilege on subpoenaed documents and vowed to invoke "the full force of law."

The White House - echoing the senior Republican on the Senate panel - urged the chairmen to accept the administration's earlier offer to allow private, off-the-record interviews with current and former aides to President Bush.

"If the committees just want the facts, then they should withdraw the subpoenas and accept the president's offer, instead of this continued pattern of gross overreach and confrontation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Here is the "out" for the Dems. After a lot of fist pounding and rhetoric from both sides, Leahy will cave and allow useless testimony without oaths or transcripts. It will be hailed as a great victory for Congressional over site, but it will be hollow. Democrats can't afford to set the precedent against executive privilege on the eve of their re-occupation of the White House.

[...]
They gave the White House until July 9 to furnish the factual and legal bases for the executive privilege claim and documentation that President Bush personally signed off on it.

Whether or not the White House meets the deadline, "we will take the necessary steps to rule on your privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law," Leahy and Conyers wrote.
[...]
Throughout the nation's history, presidents have repeatedly asserted executive privilege to keep secrets from the courts, the Congress and most anyone else.

Like I said, the Dems. need executive privilege to protect their illegal, unethical rape of the Republic just like Repubs.

Over the years, Congress and the White House have avoided a full-blown court test about the constitutional balance of power and whether the president can refuse demands from Congress.(emphasis added) Lawmakers could vote to cite witnesses for contempt and refer the matter to the local U.S. attorney to bring before a grand jury. Since 1975, 10 senior administration officials have been cited, but the disputes were all resolved before getting to court.
[...]
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., urged a pragmatic response to Fielding's claim of privilege, saying that if the committee accepted the private-interview offer it could always issue subpoenas later.

Arlen, my Senator, is one of the biggest scumbags on Earth. The only time he ever actually opposed the White House was on stem cell research, and he has even backed off of that position.
This statement is, in my opinion, the actual outcome that will be allowed by our treasonous, elitist elected leaders.
Again, I hope I am wrong about all of this, but hope is all I have left.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Dan Froomkin supports Larisa's perspective of a trapped White House

i posted yesterday on larisa's perspective that the white claim of executive privilege on attorneygate has left them without a constitutional argument to thwart the subpoenas for information on domestic spying issued wednesday... it appears that froomkin agrees...

"The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications," [White House Counsel Fred Fielding] wrote.

Making that latter argument in response to yesterday's warrantless wiretapping subpoenas will be vastly harder.

There is no way that yesterday's request can be dismissed as a partisan fishing expedition. The subpoenas were approved by members of both parties. They call for basic information about the legal reasoning behind an important government program that appears to violate federal law. They request information that is necessary for the committee to assess the administration's requests to rewrite the applicable laws. And they properly ask for some explanation of why the president blocked an inquiry by the Justice Department's own ethics office.

For six years, the White House has simply waved off pesky questions from the media and Congress. And it is the wiretapping subpoenas, more even than the U.S. attorney subpoenas, that may bring that period to an end.

let's see what happens...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Larisa's take on today's goings-on

golly, i sure hope she's right...

I would like to officially welcome you to Watergate. Please buckle up for the festivities of executive abuses and prepare to watch as Rove, in panic mode, begins to throw people under the bus - who in turn, along with so many other enemies made already, will reveal much more than anyone thought to even look at.

As a chess player, who once had a more than average ranking (if I do say so myself), this was exactly the move that Congress wanted and why it waited until it became undeniably clear that the White House was not remotely interested in protecting the integrity of private council, but rather, protecting its own hide and covering possible crimes. The White House taking this position on attorney-gate is the trap. It is one thing to claim EP [executive privilege] when talking about national security documents, but with attorney-gate, their position has rendered them with no legal or arguably Constitutional leg to stand on.

It would have been far easier to throw Rove and Miers to the curb. Such a move would have been seen as a major effort on the part of the White House to work with Congress. By bringing out the big argument, the only argument, that the White House has in defense of these two - Rove and Miers - they have lost the center of the board - or in non-chess terms, they have lost the advantage and likely, they will lose the game.

Karl Rove, however, will not remain loyal if his own ass is on the line - which it is. Mark my words, protecting Rove and Miers by bringing out the only argument the administration can make (instead of holding it for issues such as the wiretapping program) is not only a bad move, it is a mistake of serious and likely game-ending proportions.

larisa is one of the more astute observers on the scene besides being a crack investigative reporter... i wouldn't dismiss anything she has to say out of hand...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Political appointees, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the common good

the la times, no doubt reflecting its further-to-the-right ownership (see tribune.com), offers this in today's op-ed section on the alberto gonzales/justice department scandal...

Attempting to resuscitate a rapidly expiring "scandal," congressional Democrats have issued subpoenas to former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers and former White House political affairs director Sara M. Taylor, demanding their testimony regarding the administration's 2006 decision to replace eight U.S. attorneys. [...] The president, however, should stand firm and refuse to permit his subordinates' compliance. He can, and should, claim executive privilege.

From the start, this affair has lacked legal substance. There is no evidence that firing these U.S. attorneys was unlawful or inappropriate. Chosen for political reasons, they can legally and morally be fired for political reasons: insufficient loyalty, a perceived failure to pursue administration priorities or that someone with better political contacts has come along. Politics is not always a pretty business, and anyone seeking job security should not take a political appointment.

Moreover, there is a core constitutional principle at stake here. Political appointees like U.S. attorneys exercise the president's authority, and they serve at his pleasure.

[...]

The Democratic leadership understands very well that the president was entitled to fire these individuals for political reasons. It knows how little job protection political appointees have; the very same rules apply to congressional staff. The newly emboldened Congress is on a grand fishing expedition, hoping to uncover something to weaken and discredit the administration and the presidency itself.

Because there is no legitimate congressional concern here to weigh against the president's clear interest in keeping White House political personnel deliberations confidential, a claim of executive privilege should be upheld by the judiciary. The president's answer to both House and Senate subpoenas should be "See you in court."

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, [both of who] served in the Justice Department under presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

while i do whole-heartedly agree with the "see you in court" suggestion, i must point out that there are two truly astounding assumption that pervade this op-ed by messrs. casey and rivkin... the first is that appointing justice department officials to serve purely POLITICAL purposes is O.K. and that giving them the ax for NOT serving purely political purposes is equally O.K... the second, equally troubling assumption, is that these appointees serve entirely at the PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT... there is absolutely no mention anywhere of honoring the fundamentals of the constitution, observing the rule of law, or serving the common good... none... (and may i point out that the "constitutional principle" of serving at the president's "pleasure" does NOT include negating the OTHER constitutional principles...)

i seriously don't know how any discussion of the ins and outs of presidential appointments could, in all conscience, NOT mention the constitution, the rule of law, or the common good... of COURSE political appointees are expected to follow the policy guidelines set down by the president, guidelines that are, presumably, crafted to serve the common good, observe the rule of law, AND uphold the constitution, but they are also required to do so within the very clear guidelines set forth in that document and the body of law that supports it... when the president's agenda is crafted solely for the aim of accruing more power and money for the political party and financial backers that the president represents, often in contravention of the constitution those political appointees were sworn to uphold and in violation of the rule of law, serving AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT is no longer a valid mandate...

what has taken place in the bush administration is a complete and total perversion of the political appointment process, an abandonment of the principle of serving the common good, and a willful negation of the constitution... THAT'S the "scandal," messrs. casey and rivkin... when you find it in your hearts to point out that our president and everyone in the executive branch must be devoted to upholding the constitution, acting in accordance with the rule of law, and serving the common good, i will be willing to listen... not before...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Let the constitutional crisis begin

there's another one of these (PDF) with sara taylor's name on it...



from think progress...

These are the first subpoenas delivered to the White House regarding the attorney firings. The House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to Miers, and the Senate Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to Taylor.

[...]

CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

fine... let's get the goddam show on the road... and this better not end up like condi's subpoena that's been floating around out there, unenforced, since april 25...

On a party-line vote of 21-10, the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved a subpoena for Rice, which was quickly issued.

and it, too, was accompanied by the same raft of executive privilege horseshit...

[T]he administration said it might fight the subpoena, citing a legal doctrine that can shield a president and his aides from having to answer questions from Congress.

"Those matters are covered by executive privilege," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, moving toward a possible legal showdown with the Democratic-led Congress.

no more screwing around, congress, and that means BOTH of you, patrick leahy and henry waxman... the time for niceties is long gone... we're in a constitutional war and the sooner we face that fact, the quicker we can get on with reclaiming our country...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Ok then, let's get this constitutional crisis party started

anybody who didn't see this coming, please raise your hand... hey, you... over there in the corner... wake up and pay attention... i asked you a question...

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Norway on Thursday appears to have rejected Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) subpoena compelling her to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the intelligence used to build the case for the Iraq war, according to the Associated Press.

In a press briefing in Oslo, according to the AP's Matthew Lee, Rice took the opportunity to state directly for the first time that she didn't see her testimony as necessary.

"I think I have more than answered these questions, and answered them directly to Congressman Waxman," she told reporters.

The Secretary of State also invoked executive privilege as a reason for not testifying.

after a few errands in town this morning, i'll be sure to stop on the way home to pick up an extra stock of popcorn...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

DOJ responds to subpoenas pretty much as expected

you didn't think they'd just send 'em right over, did you...?

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, "We still hope and expect that we will be able to reach an accommodation with the Congress," but signaled that Justice will consider opposing the congressional demand.

"Much of the information that the Congress seeks pertains to individuals other than the U.S. attorneys who resigned," Roehrkasse said. "Furthermore, many of the documents Congress is now seeking have already been available to them for review. Because there are individual privacy interests implicated by publicly releasing this information, it is unfortunate the Congress would choose this option."

one more time, but i suspect this will not be the last...

we MUST NOT FORGET the fact that the bush administration laid out its plan BEFORE the november elections...

In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."

make no mistake... bushco is prepared to run itself, congress, and the rest of the country right into the wall over this... people who keep chortling about how cool it is that the dems hold congress and have subpoena power had better gird their loins for a fight for the very soul of this country, because that's no more and no less what's shaping up, if the dems don't wuss out, that is...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Claiming executive privilege might lead the American public to suspect a cover-up

but, given the outrages perpetrated by bushco for over 6 years and the collective yawns elicited from the american public in response, i'm not so damn sure... yeah, for those who are paying attention, claiming executive privilege in the justice department scandal stinks to high heaven, but, for my esteemed fellow citizens...? unfortunately, most of them are still watching american idol and praying to win the lottery...

President Bush is not only taking on legal precedents, but historical ones as well. When Congress has pressed for testimony, presidents have generally agreed, however reluctantly. Bruce Fein, the conservative legal commentator, urged Mr. Bush to cooperate, noting that President Ronald Reagan waived executive privilege in the Iran-contra inquiry and let national security advisers and cabinet secretaries testify.

This administration could try to delay by challenging the subpoenas in court, a step that could be a drawn-out process. But it would then have another court to worry about: the court of public opinion. Monica Goodling, the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, has already invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination. If top advisers start to claim executive privilege, the American public is likely to suspect a cover-up.

if the "court of public opinion" wasn't asleep at the switch, bush and his criminal posse would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail a long time ago...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments