For Quite Some Time Now We've Wanted A Constitutional Showdown. Well Here We Go. Buckle Up Tight,

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

it's gonna be a hell of a ride.

And when I see 'WE' I am also including those from the other side of the aisle. Both sides have anticipated a showdown like this for quite some time now. Both sides want it. Our side wants it in order to show that the Executive branch can't just do whatever they want whenever they want; and the other side wants it in order to show that the Executive branch has such power to deny what they consider 'congressional meddling'. Well, it appears the battle is here and it's gonna be quite some ride. How will it turn out? I have no idea. Chances are it will drag on and have many unforeseen events unfold. We'll just have to wait and see. But I am in firm belief that the battle will begin and we will witness the official clash of the three co-equal branches of government.

What does it all mean? Who will win? What will come of it?

Well, with all the things I've run through my head I'm convinced it comes down to one thing and one thing only: The public.

See, this is going to grow much bigger than what it now represents. It will take on a life of its own and the majority of the public will be aware to the battle. People will choose sides. People who may not normally get involved with day to day politics will undoubtedly end up choosing sides as well. I think at the end of the day what it comes down to is how many congregate to each side of the battle. Will the majority of the public side with the Executive and believe the Dems are on a political witch hunt and the President is acting honorably in defending himself? Will the majority of the public side with Congress and believe that the Executive is corrupt, hiding things and is acting completely inappropriately by bringing us into a constitutional crisis that could've been avoided merely by being transparent and honest?

Fact is, there is much yet to unfold and I have no idea which side will win the masses. What I do suspect, is that in the end of it all this very one thing may be the biggest factor in 08. If this battle rages on with longevity and people choose the right, then in my opinion we'll be thrashed in 08. But if the masses believe the left is acting honorably while the executive is power hungry, corrupt and playing the role of blockers, then I think they'd be thrashed in 08.

But I do believe this can turn out to be far more important in the overall scheme of politics moving forward. The battle is about to commence. Once it does, whichever side speaks the loudest, the most often and with the most support; wins. We need to make sure that's us.

Buckle up indeed.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. But don't forget about the 4th Branch.

etc.

[PreacherCasey]

6. Indeed. The media is the frontline in this war. eom

[NMDemDist2]

2. Andrew Sullivan on KO said that the GOP is all but dead

and I quote "the only candidate that can save the GOP is Hillary Clinton" but he did say Rove's legacy is the GOP as a permanent minority for the next generation.

[yardwork]

3. As Plaid Adder said the other day, most Congress critters are lawyers

This particular issue, while it may seem dry to a lot of sheeple, is very close to the bone for most folks in Congress. No matter what side of the aisle they're on, they aren't going to be happy about the White House firing lawyers for investigating crimes. That just won't sit well.

I think that Rove touched the third rail this time.

[mloutre]

14. good point about that. they'll circle the wagons against the anti-lawyer actors.

(and then sue the wagon manufacturers for letting the wheels fall off in the first place)

[Bucky]

17. How sad that, despite ruined schools, devastated army, flooded city, broken budget...

...Congress only goes into action against the weasels when they double cross fellow Republican lawyers.

What a sad state of affairs.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. And far more Democrats than Republicans are lawyers, too.

They tend to be smarter. A lot of non-lawyer politicians write bad laws. And they wonder why they get struck down, because they think they can legislate anything.

[Kool Kitty]

35. I agree.

And the media (and the rest of us) must stress that these lawyers were FIRED. Bush kept saying that they resigned. Not true.

[Grandrose]

4. Works for me.

:popcorn:

[tridim]

5. My current Watergate relativity factor is about 100.

That is, all these scandals taken together (not including MIHOP/LIHOP) are worth about 100 Watergates.

That aint good. Add in LIHOP and the number doubles, add in MIHOP and it's practically infinite.

[Trekologer]

26. It may parallel

Tonight may have been Bush's "I am not a crook" moment.

[Beetwasher]

7. Bring It On

n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

8. I agree and this is my kind of ride. :)

And at least this is something that the public can get outraged about as opposed to who touched who and where.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Let's Just Hope The Outrage Goes In The Right Direction. :o)

[karlrschneider]

11. It's the prelude to a game of "chicken" on a grand scale.

Which side will blink? I wouldn't EVEN make a guess.

[kestrel91316]

10. OK Corral, here we come. I'm completely on board.

BRING IT ON.

[troubleinwinter]

34. Hah! Perfect. "OK Corral". I'm in AZ & my grandson's name is Wyatt. Bring it on. BRING IT ON.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Maybe some of us will never find victory in our local battles against

the cronies, but, maybe, just maybe, we can win this one because our country's integrity depends on a win.

[heatstreak]

13. kick - good stuff

[mloutre]

15. yup. deja vu all over again. 34 years later, specifically.

I've been watching this twister coming across the plains for the last year, and it looks like it's turning into a perfect storm now right on cue. It's near totally in synch with this point in the process at this time of year, way back in the deep dark ages of 1973... and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch o' fellas, neither.

[onenote]

16. could be, but I'm betting it ends with a whimper not a bang

and that the Congress and the administration work out a compromise -- rove and miers appear, not in public, and maybe not even under oath, answer questions, a transcript is recorded and released (subject to some additional conditions that I haven't taken the time to think through).

I worry that DUers are getting worked up and are going to feel very let down. But the fact is that this case is not as clear a slam dunk for Congress as people are assuming (and I've talked to Democratic judiciary staffers and they recognize the risks as well).

In particular, the courts have taken the position that when executive privilege claims involve the deliberative matters within the WH, particularly over "core" powers such as the power to appoint, there is a presumption that executive privilege applies. Now, I think that there are any number of good arguments in rebuttal, including the fact that the assumption regarding the appointment power being sacrosanct also assumes that it is a non-delegable power, and its clear that in this instance, the power has been delegated to someone other than the president himself.

Nonetheless, I predict a compromise.

[Bucky]

18. You're saying we're expecting a late Fitzmas, but we'll only get April Fitzool's Day?

Okay, that was stupid. But I know there's a pun in there. We just gotta tease it out.

[onenote]

19. something like that

there will be much anguish and beating of breasts around here, largely because of assumptions made without attempting to understand the complexities and history of executive privilege law.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

21. Go to thinkprogress.org Clinton staffers testified to Congress many tiumes.

Forty-seven times to be exact, by senior White House staffers.

[onenote]

22. right and Clinton also invoked executive privilege several times

before compromising -- its the way it usually works, and I'm guessing its the way it will work out here as well.

[Oilwellian]

24. The history of executive privilege law?

Looking at recent history when Clinton tried to invoke executive privilege, it didn't work so well. I'd love to see where in the Constitution it gives the president the right to claim "executive privilege" when he's questioned about possible illegalities. If indeed the Constitution allows the president to claim executive privilege whenever he wants, doesn't that mean he could never be touched for breaking the law? Of course it does. It's absurd.

Once a party demonstrates a propensity to issue false explanations and refuses to tell the truth voluntarily, no rational person would trust that party to make voluntary disclosures. One could trust (if at all) only on-the-record testimony, under oath, where there are criminal penalties for lying (if they have questions about that motivational dynamic, they can ask Lewis Libby).

Second, it is crystal clear (just as it was when Bill Clinton sought to invoke "executive privilege" to resist Grand Jury subpoenas to his aides -- Sidney Blumenthal, Bruce Lindsay and Hillary -- in the Lewinsky investigation) that the narrowly construed doctrine of executive privilege does not entitle the President to shield the communications here from compelled disclosure. When the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974) rejected Nixon's invocation of that privilege to resist a Grand Jury Subpoena for the Watergate tapes, this is how the Court defined its scope (emphasis added):

The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. 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.

Similar reasoning was invoked by District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson in her decision denying Clinton's attempt to rely on this privilege to resist Ken Starr's subpoenas.

Finally, Bush followers are gearing up to solemnly lecture us all on how profoundly vital "executive privilege" is and how terrible it is that Democrats are trying to invade it by demanding that political advisor Karl Rove and Harriet Miers testify under oath. But that, of course, is not what they were saying -- at all -- when Clinton attempted to use that doctrine to prevent the compelled testimony of his aides.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

[onenote]

25. here's a history written by the CRS in 1999

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Can't Argue With A Thing You Said.

Not sure it'll go down like that, but it absolutely could. If it doesn't and there is a clash, it's probably gonna be one hell of a battle. As far as your objective and clear thinking insight as to the situation itself, I appreciated it. I agree with you in that this is by no means a slam dunk for Congress and if the likelihood of who would be the ultimate victor was to be assigned right now I might have to put the chips more on the WH than Congress to be quite honest. But I also think it's about more than just which side pulls away with the inner win. I'm thinking more about the outer win, which would be the impact on political sentiment overall going into 08. I think this has the potential to turn into a huge lasting impression within the minds of voters and regardless of who wins the inner battle, it is about which side wins the outer battle; the public battle; that I think will determine the shape of our next Congress and Presidency.

But having that said, that is obviously only if it does turn into a full scale clash which it very well may. But I also agree with you that it very well may end up with a give a little take a little compromise. We'll have to wait and see.

[onenote]

28. agreed -- the political equation is the key equation

I just started a new thread in which I tried to make that point -- that ultimately its the public's reaction to this situation that is most important. The more it appears that the public isn't buying chimpy's "fishing expedition" argument, the more pressure on him to compromise. More importantly, since chimpy's support is probably as far down in the toilet as its going to get (certainly this isn't going to turn around any of the true believers), the issue becomes one of whether congressional repubs see this as a losing cause to support and decide to jump ship. At the moment, they seem to be buying the party line, but the next 24 hours could tell, especially if some senior repubs like Warner etc start making the argument that the legislative branch has a role to play here.

[ProgressiveFool]

29. Respectfully, I don't agree

I was afraid they would, as soon as I heard the "offer". So many times we've been let down in the past, and I thought this might be another one.

But I don't think the Democrats had any choice in the matter either. This is what they ran against in 06, and why they won - to fight against corruption. Here it is wrapped up on a silver platter. If they didn't pursue it, they might as well throw all oversight out the window, because if they compromise even just once, they've lost their legitimacy. And the public is behind this. People have been beginning to wonder about the Bushies starting with the failure to find WMD, failure to respond in a normal human way to Katrina, the gross incompetence of the conduct of the war, and finally the insulting hypocrisy of Walter Reed.

I don't think the Democrats have in any way over-reached on this yet. Most of the impetus behind this scandal is coming from mis-steps on the part of Gonzales, and now Bush with his petulant rant tonight. You can't look at this thing without wondering what Bush and his people are hiding. Bush can't exert Executive Privilege without reinforcing that perception.

Will this one take him down? I can't bring myself to believe that yet, given the way all of the past scandals have failed to gain traction. I, too, have said "This is the one!" many times before, only to be disappointed.

I agree that the media is key in this, but I think they might be thinking that they ought to just get out of the way, that this thing has gained so much momentum they don't want to start spinning only to get knocked over. If we're lucky, sins of omission and sins of distraction (look-out if you're a hot blond girl!) will be the worst they commit, and that we see Faux finally unmasked as a propaganda machine as a bonus, as they're the only ones who keep trying to spin. And I bet there are more than a few real investigative journalists who will ferret out the truth of stories so compelling that their editors and publishers can't dare refuse to print them.

And it could all have gone away, if the Bushies had cauterized the wound by firing Gonzales from the start. They'll be hung with the noose of Bush's stubborn mis-placed loyalty.

[onenote]

31. I don't think the Democrats have overreached either

But I still won't be surprised if they work out a compromise rather than go through the time consuming process and the risk of fighting this in the courts.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

23. I don't know if Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia care a whit about the public

It looks like Bush is going to call in a few favors on the executive privilege issue if he tries to take it all the way (and I think he will). It will indeed be interesting to see how the new Supreme Court members take to the whip of BushCo.

[sampsonblk]

30. kick - good stuff

nt

[WHAT]

32. It depends, what do you mean by "the public"...?

In your closing paragraph, you say

But I do believe this can turn out to be far more important in the overall scheme of politics moving forward. The battle is about to commence. Once it does, whichever side speaks the loudest, the most often and with the most support; wins. We need to make sure that's us.

meaning?... "whichever side speaks the loudest, the most often and with the most support; wins." (?)What do you mean? the CPM? If so, who are you defining? If DU figures into your equation, does that mean being "loud", "most often" (frequent). ""with the most support" (most posters)? If so, I don't think you get it, "lost in translation" in other words.

The new political map incorporates topography, not just location. This allows more nuance at the expense of trajectory...meaning nothing is a "slam dunk". So, I'd surmise it is beyond the mere scope of experts to predict.

I'm not slamming you, just inserting the idea that prediction operates with-in the bounds of expectation (therefore) life is full of surprises.

"turning the volume down", and looking at the picture, realism in the form of individual narrative, and testimony in the form of individual perspective might be more defining of the future than noise and sentiment.

I hope so.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

33. Subpoenas going out on Wed and Thursday, House and Senate.

They aren't backing down.
Senator Leahy said he is tired of their dodging, etc.
But then he got told to go Cheney himself on the senate floor.

[understandinglife]

36. "We need to make sure that's us." For sure. For the sake of ALL HUMANITY.

You are bang-on.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. I Can't Help But Think That The Precedent That Will Be Set By Him Getting His Way Would Be

exponentially more dangerous than the supposed precedent that would be set by Congress getting theirs.