posted by Damozel |
Oh dear: it's a constitutional crisis and it's heading for a showdown! It's like Watergate all over again, only with a much less lovable Administration. After all, as The Crux points out, the late Elder Statesman Nixon seems to have pardoned fully 50% (almost 51%) who petitioned for clemency, more than anyone since. (Someday, when I'm feeling stronger, I shall have to look into those Nixon pardons; for now, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming hat it was a Quaker thing). Besides---setting aside details such as the Watergate break-in and the secret bombing of Cambodia ----the goal of the Nixon Whitehouse (it says so right here) was "reconciliation." See?: "Reconciliation was the first goal set by President Richard M. Nixon. The Nation was painfully divided, with turbulence in the cities and war overseas. During his Presidency, Nixon succeeded in ending American fighting in Viet Nam and improving relations with the U.S.S.R. and China." (Biography) Damn, that sounds so...so .appealing. I'm getting all nostalgic. Tricky Dick, we hardly knew ye. I'd rather have a...Reconciliator? Reconciler?...than a Decider any day, even a sort of cagy, paranoid one.
Back to the present day: the White House has decided to deny Congress's most recent request for yet more documents in the "Attorneys Probe," as The Washington Post nicely puts it. If you haven't been keeping up with the story, The Crux has covered the general background here, and specifically here, here, and here. The Bush Administration will make a Democrat of her yet, I keep telling her.
According to The Washington Post, the White House is fully fed up with all the requests for things like " a detailed justification of his executive privilege claims and a full accounting of the documents he is withholding." Fred Fielding, White House counsel, has already given them everything they need; he's finished with the grudging compliance and prepared to "defy" Congress. (The Washington Post) You go, girl! Let the judiciary call it! Congressional Dems are considering criminal contempt charges "which could result in a protracted court battle over the contours of the president's power to shield White House deliberations. Both sides insist that the other's legal position is weak and argue that this could be one of the most important test cases in years." (The Washington Post) I'm sure. After all, we don't have any more pressing problems than resolution of the game of "rock, scissors, paper" the Bush Administration has been playing with Congress. Sheesh.
You may be thinking: GIVE CONGRESS THE DAMN DOCUMENTS AND LET'S GET BACK TO BUSINESS, Fred Fielding! After all, you've nothing to hide! But wait, there are other issues at stake.... The White House has already cooperated with congressional investigators and is getting tired of it----"the White House...is now standing on principle." (The Washington Post) (But which principle?) Besides, says White House spokesman Scott Stanzel, IS THE CONGRESS FOR INVESTIGATING OR LEGISLATING? Using the ever popular "argument ad hominem" to refute these constant oppressive requests, he said:
We've turned over 200,000 pages of documents as an administration," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said last week. "And in that time, what they have to show for it, if you're taking a generous look at it, is six bills, six major bills passed. . . . What does Congress want to do? Do they want to pass legislation for the American people, or would they rather investigate and have politics be the course of the day?" (The Washington Post; link in original)
Speaking as one of the American people, I'm in favor of less---not more---legislation and it does seem as if the executive branch could do with a touch more oversight than they had before the Dems took over. But hey, I'm a Dem myself. Do you think it's a partisan thing? And if so, should it be?
In the meantime, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) is unfazed by this attack: ""This latest stonewalling attempt raises troubling questions about what the White House is trying to hide by refusing to turn over evidence it was willing to provide months ago, as long as the information was shared in secret with no opportunity for Congress to pursue the matter further."" (The Washington Post) Even that takes me back, back to the days when Doonesbury was still fresh and a famous strip featured workers building a wall around the Nixon Whitehouse as Nixon talked on behind it....
Speaking of the partisan divide, and speaking also of the Administration's motives for stonewalling, former White House special counsel under Clinton "during many fights with Congress and special prosecutors over executive privilege" says that the Administration's position is extremely weak. To refuse to provide a log of withheld documents describing the basis of the privilege claimed for it is, he says, "highly unusual." ""You can invoke privilege if it's honestly believed, but Congress has an absolute right to understand the basis on which you're claiming privilege. . . . I think the administration has decided that, at this point, they want to fight it as long as they can. It may go to court."" (The Washington Post)
In the other corner, David B.Rivkin, a senior lawyer under Reagan and Bush v.1, doesn't think so. He thinks the Administration's position is extremely strong. Congress hasn't much of a claim to "demand documents and testimony from the executive branch," given that the executive branch may fire U.S. attorneys without Congress's input. ""The president has pretty much absolute power in this area,"" he said, which makes me feel a bit shivery. He agrees that the Administration may be eager to go to court. After all, they have a strong case.
And also, of course, the Supremes are now well stocked with Republican appointees. As Bush once [in]famously remarked in another context, "Bring it on!"
In the meantime, Bush, even while his erstwhile friends and supporters desert what they seem to think is a sinking ship, "has behaved in recent weeks like a man with political capital to burn." (The Washington Post) First, there was that whole immigration thing, where he wanted to give "amnesty" to illegal immigrants and ended up working with Senator Ted Kennedy. (The Washington Post) Then, in the Scooter Libby pardon debacle, he tried to slice the baby in half, "giving himself the worst of all possible worlds." Bush's supporters wanted "something like something like the impassioned statement President George H.W. Bush issued in December 1992, when he pardoned former defense secretary Caspar W. Weinberger, former national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane, former assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams and three other participants in the Iran-contra affair." The Washington Post; links in original) Ah yes, I remember it well: it was impassioned, being all about how if Administration officials and agents are "motivated by patriotism," a few trifling excesses and instances of overzealousness and even a possible violation of the law here or there is a "mere policy difference." Inspiriting!
But once again, Bush failed to take his dad as an example in a situation in which his "base" was looking for something rather special.
In the Libby case, there were no ringing declarations. Instead, this President Bush came up with a cramped, limited statement, commuting Libby's jail term while keeping (at least for now) his conviction, a $250,000 fine that he has already paid and two years of probation. One didn't have to read too far between the lines to guess that the president believes Libby to be guilty of perjury; just for good measure, Bush threw in some good words for Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Instead of pointing out that "Fitzgerald had gone on a three-year fishing expedition that netted only Libby, or that the Iraq war's foes were using the CIA leak case to rehash their grievances against the original decision to invade," Bush limply said that the sentence (which complied with the federal sentencing guidelines of which the Bushies are so fond) was "excessive."(The Washington Post) And thereby unleashed a shit storm among Democrats, while leaving his base "vaguely unsatisfied." (The Washington Post)
Meanwhile---getting back to the DOJ matter and the Administration's "defiance" in the face of continuing demands from congressional investigators---some Republican senators are apparently quite happy to let the judiciary resolve it. Said Senator John Cornyn (Texas), vice chairman of the GOP conference: “It’s just a formal process that sets up a legal challenge...We’ve got to cut out some of the politics and get this to the courts.” (The Hill) And he's not the only one. From The Hill:
“At the end of the day, this will be settled by the courts,” Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said.
“I think this is an issue that’s going to be handled by the courts,” agreed Senator John Thune (R-S.D.).
“In the end, the courts will decide this anyway,” said Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who has called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s resignation in response to the firings.
“We can’t have a Congress that’s constantly bringing administration officials in to harass them,” said Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “But it’s a matter for the courts.”
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called a contempt vote “the last thing the country needs,” but advised lawmakers to “let the courts fight this out.” (The Hill)
A contempt finding is just "a procedural step," temporized one one GOP Senate aide ("requesting anonymity"). (The Hill) This might well be true and it also may be that the Administration is destined to prevail against the "harassment" by Congress. They might also be looking ahead to the possibility of a return to dominance of their bete noir, Billary. If I were a Republican, I'd certainly be reflecting on how the Administration's expansion of executive power might look if the executive in question is a Democrat and particularly Hillary Clinton.
But on the face of it, nothing says "whatever, W", like a lot of senators from your own party refusing to block a criminal contempt charge against your administration. Even so, this is what may end up happening. (The Hill)
Poor W! What a long, strange trip it's been.
LINKED, CITED, OR QUOTED
- Peter Baker, White House Will Deny New Request In Attorneys Probe (The Washington Post)
- Elana Schor, Republican sens. may back contempt charge (The Hill)
- Byron York, Base to Bush: It's Over (The Washington Post)
- A Disappointing Term: President Bush's Appointees Give the Supreme Court an Activist Nudge to the Right (WaPo editorial)
Related posts at Buck Naked Politics
- The Crux, Enforcing Subpoenas: Congress Takes Next Step (Buck Naked Politics)
- The Crux, Bush Flips Off Congress re: Subpoenas (Buck Naked Politics)
- The Crux, Senate Committee Issues Subpoenas (Buck Naked Politics)
OTHER
Comments