Expert: Rove Executive Privilege Claim Won't Stand Up In Court

[Segami]

Its amazing that this administration can continue to break the laws of this country and still walk around with safe immunity. The rub here is that all indicators continue to point to reckless, law-breaking activity by the usual suspects and NOTHING more is being done about it except pacifying the public with a lot of fiery rhetoric, animated gestures and NO RESOLVE.I wonder what would happen to any of us if we were accused of the SAME crimes? Would they idly sit on it and just let it slide or would they indict the perpetrators? The proof of justice for all is a dish best served cold.


"....NYU professor says Bush power claims 'wider than Nixon'


New York University law professor Michael Waldman told Abrams Congress' threats were becoming "hard to believe" and he worried about the extent to which Congress was willing to recognize Bush's claims of executive privilege. Abrams qualified the restrictions as "no one is allowed to testify if they work for the president."

"It's much wider than previous administrations have claimed, even than Nixon claimed," Waldman said. "And the fact of the matter is I think something like that will not stand up in court."


"If I was the president I wouldn't be too worried about this Congress either," Abrams scoffed. "The fact that they have taken no action against Karl Rove -- almost a week after he refused to even show up to assert his privilege -- sure makes it seem like they're willing to take it on the chin and avoid taking any action to enforce these subpoenas."



<http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Lawyer_Bush_claims_more_executive_power_0717.html>

[napi21]

1. There's no doubt in my mind that it wouldn't hold up in court, BUT

6 months is a very short time in our court system, and I suspect even if the case were filed today, you'd most likely not get a ruling until Shrub was long out of office.

[Segami]

3. Sounds very much like the way THEY planned it. When you're ahead in the 4th quarter with minutes to

play, the safe bet is to keep possession and run out the clock.

[Winterblues]

15. You forget who controls the court

The Extreme Court will rule with this Administration without any doubt..I am sure that is why democrats are so afraid to take it to the courts for a ruling..

[tridim]

2. Inherent Contempt doesn't require a court, correct?

[AndyA]

5. Correct.

With inherent contempt, the House Sergeant At Arms just goes out and brings the perp to the House jail cell.

Congress needs a shot of Viagra, they are totally flaccid.

[Segami]

6. I'm not a lawyer but I came across this WP article that might shed some light on your question.

"...Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.


<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html>

[pnwmom]

8. I also heard on TV somewhere that the Congressional "jail" was remodeled

out of existence decades ago, because there was some kind of agreement that Congress would go through the Courts, instead. Now, of course, the Justice Dept has reneged on this agreement -- but there is no physical jail any longer.

[annabanana]

16. I'm sure there must be some closet in the basement with a key.

...some supply closet that can be locked.

[EOTE]

4. Yeah, but he actually needs to be in court first.

If no one is going to force him to show up, why would he even bother?

[Segami]

7. Thats the rub! THEY aren't bothering at all.

[tblue37]

9. Also, the Republicans have packed the courts with their friends,

so there's no guarantee that a judge would rule according to the law at all. Conservative judges are almost always willing to rule in favor of their buddies, without regard for the actual legal principle involved.

[EOTE]

10. Ahhhh, so that's what a "strict constructionist" is.

I've been looking for a definition for a while, but haven't found one that makes sense until now.

[Segami]

13. A ' STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST ' is defined in the Gore/Obama endorsement.

Al Gore - About 1,000 burgers ago. Mere moments after formally announcing his backing for Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama in an email to supporters, former Vice President Al Gore's endorsement was blocked and reversed by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, handing the Nobel Prize winner's full throated support to Republican nominee John McCain.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that regardless of who Gore intended to support, a strict constructionist reading of his statement made it clear that, from a legal standpoint, his endorsement must be awarded to the GOP candidate.

"It is plainly obvious, by reading Section One, Clause Four of Article Two, that the framers, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, were firm in their resolve, that in the 2008 Presidential election, 219 years after ratification, former Vice President Gore, who the constitution also stipulated must lose the 2000 Presidential election regardless of the voters' wishes, would be required to hand his endorsement and considerable public influence to John McCain, who was himself one of the original framers of Constitution," Scalia wrote.

Seconds after the ruling, Charlie Black, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said that "Senator McCain is gratified and humbled by the support of Vice President Gore, and he urges the American people to unite behind him for the good of the nation."

Black also called any possible attempts by Gore to challenge the ruling "extremely divisive," stating that "any type of debate or divergence would be extremely dangerous in the face of the impending election this November."

Constitutional scholars have been abuzz since the decision was handed down, heatedly debating whether the court had the authority to overturn a personal opinion. Mercer Archwell, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that he thought that the court was well within its jurisdiction to do so.

"Of course they have every right to do it," Archwell wrote in an op-ed column that ran in Tuesday's edition of The Wall Street Journal. "This country was founded on people telling other people what to think and say. I think that the court was simply basing its decision on the best available precedents, from the Salem Witch Trials of 1693 to the Joseph McCarthy hearings of 1954. This is just pure American tradition."

Not so fast, said constitutional scholar Jason Derek. "This is an absolute outrage, a preposterous abuse of power that is not even endowed upon them by any document, constitution or legal doctrine otherwise. That this country now has a court that disregards the laws it is sworn to protect, it just sucks. I wish there was something we could do about it, but I guess we'll just take it on the chin again."

In response to Derek's allegations, a spokesperson for the court noted that the judges had seen precedent in a 2000 case that established judicial review over all actions taken by Al Gore. The former Vice President was unavailable to comment, as aides say he was in Greenland, eating ice cream sandwiches before they all melted.

In addition to Gore, thousands of elderly Jewish residents of Florida were dismayed at the news that they had each inadvertently issued endorsements of Pat Buchanan.


Somehow, this spoof is not too far off from the mark!

[Segami]

12. This administration has spent the last 7 1/2 years appointing their crony neocon friends to

strategic positional ' chokes points ' to be later used when situations be needed. Reminds me of a scene from the film ' The Godfather ' where the undertaker Bonasera asks Vito Corleone ( Marlon Brando )to murder someone who raped his daughter.

Bobasera: I ask you for justice.

Don Corleone: That is not justice your daughter is still alive.

Bonasera: Let them suffer then. As she suffers. How much shall I pay you?

Don Corleone: Bonasera. Bonasera. What have I ever done to make you to treat me so disrespectfully. If you had come to me in friendship then this scum that ruined your daughter would be suffering this very day. And if by chance an honest man like yourself should make enemies then they would become my enemies. And then, they would fear you.

Bonasera: Be my friend... Godfather.



Don Corleone: Good. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But, until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.

Bonasera: Grazie, Godfather.

[tblue37]

18. The Republicans have sleeper cells in all parts of our public and

legal infrastructure.

[Segami]

25. Make one wonder who the REAL terrorists are.

[paparush]

11. Well, lets get his flabby ass IN court !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Segami]

14. I think he's allowed one Blackberry text....lol!

<>

[pacalo]

17. Perfectly said.

I want to see his flabby ass in jail.

They're waitin' for ya, Turdblossom...

[Segami]

19. I was thinking more along this line of cell mates for Rove.

If I were him, I might try brushing up on some latino-lingo along with some homeboy call signs.

<>

[paparush]

21. Man, that tat around the eye musta hurt like a mofo!

[lovuian]

20. Congress is looking like a joke

there is No accountability so the stealing continues but the time comes soon that Americans will refuse to belong to this American Corrupt Government... when your poor you have nothing to lose... our children will not be settled with this debt...they will secede from this nation...and will refuse to defend it

Does Congress the Supreme Court and President want to see the downfall of this government... YES thats the plan

Make Americans realize its Useless... then they will want something else like the North American Union

[Segami]

23. Like a stock play, pump it up until it hits the resistance and then pull back the price and watch

the marks jump in and buy up more stock because they think its a bar-goon at the lower price while the REAL players are bleeding their cheap paper away. As I was filling my tank up with gas the other day, I watched rows of lineups behind me at every pump filling their tanks as if the gas were on sale. Thats right, it was on sale, it pulled back from $4.28 pg. to $4.11 pg. It would seem that everyone forgets that not too long ago, the price of gas was hovering under $3 bucks. Now $4.11 looks like a real deal and energy relief for the grumbling consumers. This is the tactic or ploy they continue using on the masses.....walk US up until WE resist, then pull back and watch the masses feel like they're getting a deal or relief of some kind. Its nothing more than a proven method of control to keep us from waking up and seeing their cheap bag-o-tricks.

[spanone]

22. they'll tangle this up in the courts forever....

[Segami]

24. Its all about timing. It always has been.

[Marr]

26. It'll hold up in a Bush court.

Some people still seem to think law means something here. It's almost cute.