Mikey Isikoff's Old Lovers Cite New Privileges
I guess Mikey Isikoff is on a roll with his old lovers. First Dick Cheney and Isikoff’s super secret legal source–Dick Cheney’s lawyer. And now Rove and Isikoff’s super secret "White House source," Rove’s lawyer. (h/t lllphd)
But then why should Isikoff feel any shame at carrying water for his old lovers?
In any case, Isikoff is doing just that, as for the first time, Fred Fielding (without any specific review from DOJ) is declaring Executive Privilege for Rove’s testimony. You’d think a hotshot reporter like Isikoff would note that this is a new stance from Fielding’s previous stance–which extended exclusively to "absolute immunity." But then, you wouldn’t be talking about Mikey Isikoff, then, would you?
To be fair, the bulk of Fielding’s letter still focuses on absolute immunity (otherwise known as "blow off Congress for free"). But when Isikoff claims in his "reporting" that,
A nearly identical letter (.pdf) was also sent by Fielding the day before to a lawyer for former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition with the House Judiciary Committee.
He of course is spinning in precisely the manner that Luskin and Fielding would like him to spin. (Mwahhh!!!)
The difference between the two letters is this paragraph, which appears in Miers’ letter, but not Rove’s:
In letters dated June 28, 2007 and July 9, 2007, I notified you of the President’s direction that Ms. Miers was not to provide documents in this matter and not to provide testimony to the Committee.
That is, whereas Fielding cites his earlier letters to Miers–in both of which he explicitly invokes Executive Privilege, with the support of a Paul Clement letter (which seems to ignore the Constitution, but nevermind)–he does not cite his earlier letter to Rove, which makes no mention of executive privilege (and which certainly doesn’t include a review of whether or not Rove’s role in both firing the US Attorneys and pursuing a witch hunt of Governor Siegelman constituted privileged advice). Indeed, had Isikoff referred to that earlier letter he might have noticed ("might") that this letter is "almost identical" to this one–except in this one he has added the language of Executive Privilege.
Which is, of course, a notable addition, coming as it does without any review by DOJ.
But which is, of course, consistent with Luskin’s attempt to pretend that his client has had the same kind of privilege invoked as has Harriet Miers. To be fair, in a way, Luskin’s client has, finally. But this time without the review by DOJ that even Miers got, adding another layer of impropriety to Rove’s privilege claim that is not there in Miers’.
But then why would Mikey Isikoff want to report that?
Since Freddy is no longer a USG employee, with what authority is he currently jabbering? Who’s paying Freddy?
Also, too, as well: Is Rover trying to arrive late for any particular train, SoL-wise?
Freddie did this while he was still WHCO.
The closest thing to get out of subpoena free his stingy boss woudl do for the old Turd.B.
the newest “Douchebag Of Liberty!”
Did you think Isikoff was equally ambiguous on Rachel tonight? I was a bit distracted, but it sounded like he was talking about absolute immunity.
And FWIW, Luskin is not ambiguous–he mentions EP, in a way he didn’t in his last formal letter to Congress. So it is not Isikoff’s fault for mentioning it–it’s his fault for not calling out the dodge here.
I didn’t see it. I guess I should go dig up a copy, huh?
Though maybe in Rachel’s towering presence Isikoff feels some shame….
if that don’t work, they can always get joe the nada-plumber to say it too
do the repuglitards know they’re dancing on the the edge of a cliff right now
apparently they’re one commerce secretary from irrelevance
they better start clapping a whole lot louder, or they might realize they got screwed by an Illinois community organizer
fucking bastard organized the whole community against their sorry repuglitarded asses
YES HE DID
I guess maybe the zero votes for stimulus might turn out to be overkill…
That Zero vote was a big mistake. It showed they’re true colors loud and clear. Who doesn’t work with the other side — ALL of those bastards.
Even my “can’t let go of the conservative moniker” friends were not too impressed with that.
Of course, they still have their fat-cat friends on wall street, and you can bet there are back door commitments to try to sink this ship on Obama’s watch, so they can say how right they were not to vote for it. Obama better take a damn strong hand with corporate america.
Those guys are looking a whole lot like the bankers in the Wa-mu commercials right now, and we know what happed to Wa-mu.
I know I’m off-topic, but jeezo freezo
First Obama, now Olbermann sucking up to Tomlin? Freakin’ Front-runners!
Go RedBirdz!!
maybe it’s just that a surfer like you just can’t unnerstan the appeal of a “shot an a beer” town like pittsboro
I kinda got a problem bettin against Palamalu myself. The guy’s a frickin magician
lol… did you just call me a coastal elitist??
I don’t remember using the word “elitist” exactly
but sumptin like that …
yeah
now get off my lawn, ya wave hugging hippy
(wink)
Look, all Team O has to do is put up a couple Ross-Perot-style graphs showing how deeply wrong the economy has gone during every R administration for the last 40 years. The people will quickly understand that the Rs in Congress are just going to have to be ignored for a while, while the grownups pick the toppled economy up and put it back on its feet.
Hey now.
There was a superb article the other day describing Tomlin as a weedy trash talker.
Who could root against that?
Interesting take on the Superbowl for troops in Iraq: http://washingtonbureau.typepa…..-bowl.html
And FWIW, I’ll probably have a Heineken.
Which is nothing compared to the full bottle of good wine that I’ll open when Rove finds himself arrested by Federal Marshalls.
hmmf. I bet a bunch of Cleveland/Baltimore/Cinncinnati fans would disagree with that…
the link goes to… a signin page. ah well, maybe someone will read it to me…
here’s the relevant data
No review by DoJ?
None?
No fig leaves left for Rove…? Awwww… 8^)))
I think the Maddow clip you want just showed up here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..8#28922469
That was helpful. It looks like Isikoff is saying that Rove has a letter giving him absolute immunity. Rachel, of course, makes that clear by her questioning.
Wait.
Tehre’s Mikey’s article, where he mentions EP without talking about the AI distinction.
And the letter, where Fred/Luskin mention, for the first time, EP.
And then Rachel’s interview of Mikey.
Suffice it to say Mikey’s on his best behavior with Rachel.
“suffice it to say …”
And is it ever refreshing – plus, I get the impression that from some point last year [can’t even imagine what day it was] she’s been pulling a lot of women in the MSM along behind her.
Meanwhile, on the bull mastiff side, in general the men still haven’t advanced beyond entre nous crap – like the Lehrer twinkly-eyed stare and the Schiffer jaw-dropping “really?”. Asshat Gregory won’t even try to clear the kiddie bar set by the late Russert; Georgie S is still trying to figure out the right odds to set on Klugman – -Sunday was 5 on 1; soon he’ll be tiering the Royal Opposition. Eccche homo!
[Sorry; my weekly miscog-y from the Swedish prime minister]
Hmmm
I thought you might like that.
I’m sure he’s a great guy… but when I was a kid, the Stillers were like the Yankees are now. Hated ‘em on principle. Still hate ‘em. Really hated Mr. Mug For the Camera Cowher. Would love to have Mr. Polamalu playing safety over here, but that don’t mean I like ‘im now.
It’s an AFC thing… you wouldn’t unnerstan’
We’re skipping the game. Birthday breakfast with mom, then off to some hot springs in the desert.
In these parts, you HATE the Yankees, not the Steelers.
As a kid, I can’t ever remember hating any NFL team, maybe
cuz we never had a franchise until Butch Songin and Babe Parilli came passing along.
Until 1960, the nearest team was the New York Football Giants.
PS, I do hate those fucking towels.
Man, I just need to get me a lawyer to write me some opinions that make it legal for me to do whatever the fuck I want – or, in the alternative, to avoid doing whatever the fuck I don’t want to do. Screw that, I’ll just get myself a law degree, cut out the middle man, and write my own damn legal opinions.
Since the US Constitution and the Rule Of Law have been deep-sixed, all that any of us need to do is – well, whatever the fuck we want to do – provided always that we have a legal opinion to wave in the face of anyone who dares to question our authority to break the former laws of the former United States Of America.
Is this shit easy, or what?
Of course we’ll all need to carry side arms under this new program.
OT, but you know me…everything is connected to everything else if you look hard enough…from a high enough perspective…and it all connects to the banksters who call the shots:
JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, was interviewed by Maria Buttafucco of CNBS at the Global Economic Forum (Bilderberg Lite) in Davos last night, right after she had obviously given him a blow job.
She stated that it appeared that he alone had avoided the pitfalls and consequences that have befallen all the other banks. He immediately tried to push back from that statement so as not to attract too much attention to himself and his co-conspirators, but EVERYBODY knows who Dimon really works for (Rockefeller) and what the agenda REALLY is (New World Order).
JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs colluded with Geithner at the NY FED and Paulson at Treasury to take down Rockefeller’s competitors one by one – by any means necessary.
In the case of Bear Stears, it was a straight take down. With Bank of America, it was slight of hand – with Paulson giving the B of A CEO a reach-around while whispering in his ear to:
So – how to fix the completely bankrupt global economic system?
I would reveal the ENTIRE TRUTH about EVERYTHING, and I do mean EVERYTHING.
All of the co-conspirators at the highest global level have all of the money they’ve stolen somewhere. I’d reveal every overlapping conspiracy to the people of all countries and use the available laws in all countries to prosecute these criminals to the fullest extent of the law AND GO GET THE MONEY BACK THAT THEY STOLE or otherwise received through the terror they employ to start the wars we fund.
All of the “money” we need to pay off all our debts and provide wonderful lives for our people exists. It’s just in the coffers of the international bankers who’ve stolen it. Start by arresting David Rockefeller and proceed from there.
Follow the evidence to the money.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/18-Aug-2006.html
A TOP GLOBAL CONSPIRATOR CONFIRMS THE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
For the benefit of knee-jerk ’smart fellows’ whose minds are befogged by ’slides’ and who will be inclined to accuse the Editor of International Currency Review of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’, the following statement by one of the leading globalist strategists, Mr David Rockefeller, published in 2002*, will no doubt come as a shock:
As will be seen, David Rockefeller acknowledges that he is part of a secret cabal (synarchy) which works against the best interests of the United States. Why has he not yet been indicted, then, for conspiring against the United States under Section 371 of the United States Code, Title 18, ‘Crimes and Criminal Procedure’, which states that ‘if two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both’?
Judges caught taking $2.6 million in kickbacks as payment for wrongfully sending kids to detention facility they owned an interest in:
http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/
What justice system?
I think the Republicans learned something from the Iraq War. We invaded Iraq and thought we’d be welcomed with open arms. We threw out the Baathists, dissembled their Army, and settled in to be liberators. Bush ignored the growing insurgency until it was entrenched and a cancer on the whole enterprise.
Well Obama won, and now there’s an Insurgency. The Republicans in Congress are voting as a bloc. The former President is claiming Privilege in perpetuity. And their Media is responding with a frenzy of escalating activity. What else would you call such coordinated behavior? So the question on the table for our new Administration is do we continue to “make nice” like Obama would like to do, or do we supress the “Insurgency” before it gets out of hand.
I hope that Obama and the new Administration can learn from Bush’s mistakes in Iraq too. It’s time to change course [day 10] and bring in the troops early, rather than wait five years for a “Surge.”
as far as I can tell, and ianal, Rove’s lawyer is not telling rove not to appear, rove is asserting that privilege upon himself;
“the president continues to direct him not to provide information”
obviously bush is not the president but that’s besides my point, my point is no matter what assertions you want to make you MUST honor subpoena and make that assertion before the court
this is because you have NO idea what the court is going to ask and you have NO idea if privilege will be claimed once those questions are asked
I also want to see the president’s signature on that claim, if this president is to claim new powers I want it on the record, if rove is making claims that the president never agreed to then the president has to go on record as saying that as well
Bush Lawyer Fred Fielding Told Rove: Ignore Subpoena
There are two basic problems with this.
One, the common law privilege does not attach to the person, but to the office. It is like Fielding advising Rove he still has spousal communication privilege after his divorce is final – just damn incompetent lawyering.
Second, as an RNC operative working in the White House, every single act Rove undertook was a violation of law (the Hatch act, especially 18 USC 600 ). Hiding not only his own emails, but those of other White House staff on RNC servers is proof of a conspiracy to defraud the government while advancing Republican Party interests. Every paycheck he collected is a violation of 18 USC 1922, since he was not working for us, but for them (one year in prison per count). Executive privilege does not reach to the coverup of crimes (US v. Nixon).
Make him testify and put him in prison where he belongs.
I think the asserted privilege is Bush’s, not Rove’s. And the theory is that ‘former President’ is effectively an office.
“former President” is not an office in our Constitution. Mr. Bush is just that, nothing more. His privilege claim fails on the second ground anyway.
Yes. I was only communicating the theory, not endorsing it.
great points, both of them.
(or at least, the first one sounds good; ianal)
but the second one is something that goes unmentioned way too often
“the president directs [rove]…not to appear before congress”
based on [previous graf]:
“because subjecting a senio presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the president himself to appear before congress on matters relating to his constitutionally assigned functions.”
“asserting executive privilege”
Eric Holder, Leahy, Whitehouse etc etc “no one is above the law” Hogwash! How many of these folks have I heard repeat this weak line? Many.
The peasants know that many are “above the law”
Latest Action Alert from Don Siegelman
I need your help. Two important statements have been made this week:
— Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared on Fox News Sunday and said, “I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law …we cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed…I want to see the truth come forth.”
— Chairman John Conyers, Monday subpoenaed Karl Rove for the second time to testify before the House Judiciary Committee saying: “I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion…Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.”
Now we must also talk and act if we want to assure justice prevails!
Please call, fax, and/or email House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chairman John Conyers, Jr. thanking them for standing up to Karl Rove and seeking the truth about Rove’s involvement in the Siegelman prosecution and in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys who would not file politically motivated charges.
Speaker of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
Office: (202) 225-4965
Fax: (202) 225-4188
Email: [email protected]
House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
Office: (202)-225-5126
Fax: (202) 225-0072
Email: [email protected]
Thank you so much for your continued help and support!
Sincerely,
Don Siegleman
Done. Thanks for all you do.
Back at you. Thank you Just another cog in the justice wheel.
Hope we witness Conyers send out the Sergeant at Arms if Rove does not show
Unfortunately it is not that simple. First committee votes for contempt, then the entire house, then to AG who must take it to grand jury for indictment.
How long would it take them to send someone for me if I ignored a congressional subpoena? “no one is above the law” yeah right
exactly. this letter was designed to buy time.
wondering what luskin’s angle was in leaking to isikoff? the timing just after conyers’ subpoena seems obvious, but what does rove gain by leaking this letter, other than public debate, which is always repug advantage, given the msm’s payrolls?
but i’m curious what the leak provides – in terms of buying time in the courts – that just letting the letter emerge in the courts does not. other than, of course, that public opinion crap which they seem to believe they can still manipulate.
I would rather see the Obama admin continue to oppose the subpoenas, in direct violation of the “shall” clause mandatory duty in the law. Let them fight it all the way to the Supreme Court of the Republican Party. Then when the justices slap them down, there will be precedent and nobody else will try it.
Otherwise, Obama obeys the law, and the next guy is free to ignore it again.
and you don’t think luskin will NOT pursue this all the way to the supremes??
that is their double dare here. they’re banking on the supremes being in the bush/rove pocket. which seems pretty risky for them at this point. and especially on this point. my suspicion is that the supremes would not even deign to hear the case.
and further, i would bet big money no lower court will rule on this in rove’s favor.
Lower courts will cite US v. Nixon, and ask what diplomatic or military role Rove played. SCOTRP will take the case and hammer hard on the expansion of privilege. Years will have gone by and everyone will have forgotten what the point was.
this SCOTUS has not been altogether kind to the bush admin on all these matters. i think that they are not only cognizant of implications for other (read: NONrepug) executives having so much power, but also it is the very nature and responsibility of the judiciary to be fully apprised of all those precedents like us v nixon. aside from thomas, roberts and alito (and maybe scalio, but i don’t think so), it’s hard to imagine they’d ignore such precedent.
if you aren’t in her district, Nancy will just bounce your email back (you have to have been added to her Approved Senders list).
Please write to her at “Nancy Pelosi, Hon. Speaker” [email protected]
Thanks
Thanks for your comment that got me there in the first place!
I think congress should subpoena fielding to see if he actually advised rove to defy subpoena and not show up
I wonder if fielding would claim the same executive privilege
I want him to go on record claiming priviledge does not have to be asserted at testimony that a person can simply defy subpeona
Rep. Nadler hinted at that last nite on Olberman.
He’s willing to let the scenario play out, but I think he knows as well as everyone else that Holden’s DOJ would be more ameniable to following the rules than the previous Admin.
I think once the House sends the contempt citation over to DOJ, Rove will show and claim either EP or 5th Amendment.
OT – The Terrible Towel and it’s creator Myron Cope (RIP)
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/…..d20/garber
Read the history of the Terrible Towel and it’s creator, the late great Myron Cope. (Steelers fans will understand)
I now have more respect for the towel.
Cope is a legend, reminds me of our Johnny Most.
Thanks.
“OT – The Terrible Towel and it’s creator Myron Cope (RIP)”
Myron was very useful to me. If I needed some time away from my wife on a Sunday afternoon, all I needed to do is tune the radio to the Steelers Network. This would keep my wife at least two rooms away, since Myron’s voice did not become bearable (to her) until it had been filtered by at least four pieces of 3/4″ wallboard.
Is this the TRASH TALK thread? he he ;-p
i was wondering the same thing. also see my query above. can a lawyer actually advise a friendly witness in a way that jeopardizes his own client?
Yes, but it’s damn incompetent lawyering.
Really was superb. I wish I hadn’t forgotten to point it out to Mr. Cole, as well as the article on Pittsnogle.
(reply to 11. Am I hitting the reply button?)
Thank you, Marcy, for dealing with Isikoff in the right “tone.”
I get so frustrated whenever Rachel or Keith have him on, and wish they would preface their introduction with “fame whore Michael Isikoff is here to pimp his latest . . .”
by 2010, the repuglitard party is gonna be wearing lush limpbag
I’m not sure if the 177 no votes was too much
but the victory lap ???
who exactly were the repuglitards celebrating a victory over
America ???
now we get “repuglitarded for a reason”
sounds like a support group for people suffering from major head wounds
(Tomlin seems like a very quiet, self-contained person, so doing that profile required actual journalism)
Is there a lot of trash talking among ruggers?
Michael Is-a-hack.
He must be looking forward to getting back into the panty sniffing beat now that there’s a Democrat in the White House.
-G
Rove is in need of time for his tutoring sessions from Gonzalez.
It will be interesting to see what position the Obama administration takes on this issue- are they willing to contract presidential power at the beginning of an administration?
The courts already have this issue and we should finally get some resolution…Bush MAY have badly weakened executive privelege by his unprinicpled assertion of it-
i may be hoping against hope here, but i do hope that obama will indeed begin carving out his clear sense of executive privilege very quickly. it would seem pretty clear on many levels how he could easily say, look, i have no interest in asserting such bold powers. not in the constitution, not in the spirit of separation of powers, and not in the best interests of the country. we can hash out differences in the definition of executive privilege along other angles, but not this one. this one is just over the top violation of everything our system of government is supposed to be about.
on your second point, gosh i hope so. the way they are gaming the system to work in their favor is suggesting to me just how desperate they are about now. and to tie it in with your first point, i think obama may have had this very thing in mind in his pursuit of being a “great president,” and not just winning the election. at least in his rhetoric and demeanor, he seems very intent on reversing much of what has gone wrong, and he also seems pretty clear about what that has been.
and bmaz, if you chime in here that he’s not said enough on the torture stuff, i’ll suggest you go to the DN! interview with scott horton on this (from wednesday, i believe) where he points out – as i have done repeatedly here – that obama’s rhetoric on the prosecutions has left him very open for recognition that crimes have been committed that require justice in order for us to “move forward.”
patience, patience; it will come. but do keep the feets to the fires, dude; you’re so good at that.
There is probably a decent argument that priveleged communication is still priveleged after a president leaves office. It’s interesting to see who defends the privelege. The current administration can hardly do it- because they don’t really know what the communication WAS.
This turns more, I should think, on just what communication is priveleged and what is not and how there can be a line distinguishing the two- as a practical matter- only the White House knows what was said and whether it should be priveleged- unless a court looks at it in camera.
(I’m just thinking out loud trying to figure this thing out)
If a court wants to limit executive privelege with a practical test- I’m not sure how it could be worded- and how can conflicts be resolved?
US v. Nixon set the groundrules for this.
seems to me you’ve summed up here just how tenuous the whole concept of executive privilege is.
nixon was moving on very shakey ground when he invoked it, and it has never been solid since.
it seems to me that whatever a president would not want to share with the legislative branch could certainly be shared with the judicial to act as a consulting and arbitrating party. that’s the way the system’s set up, after all. and on a case by case program, rather than having some blanket understanding of the concept. it’s just too dangerous for the executive to maintain that kind of power, as we see so boldly here, especially in comparison to its complete repudiation.
i mean, what would we lose really if such a thing were rejected? the courts are asked to review various demands on the executive on a case by case basis. lawyers, help us out here.
Lucianne Goldberg didn’t nickname him “Spikey” for nothing.
Rachel used the term ‘pre-emptive’ immunity as if bush were creating a new privilege, much as cheney asserted claims of executive authoriy. bush may be intentionally making new ‘law’, not just framing within existing law.
This is not making new law. This is the old Bush/Cheney tactic of claiming the law to be something other than what law and precedent clearly require it to be. It is the lawlessness of lawyers.
IANAL- but I agree. It’s just telling of their mindset that they won’t give-up trying to create a ‘new reality’.
You’re right, my email from Pelosi was kicked back, so I sent it to the American Voices address.
thanks for the h/t, marcy.
reading this now in full (too late last night to be thorough), invoking executive privilege in addition to absolute immunity seems a little precarious – and perhaps not legally wise? – for fielding to be advising rove to expose fielding’s own client (that would be bush, of course) to the jeopardy that executive privilege at least implies, namely (as has been copiously noted here) that bush was involved in discussions on these matters.
i mean, when does an atty advise a friendly witness to do anything that would jeopardize his own client? i suppose if the client ok’s it, but how could the atty pursue that in good conscience? oops, forgot again. these folks don’t traffic in conscience.
oh well; i suppose this covers all their last ditch protections, which assists in the design to just drag all this out in the courts.
i wonder if they have just completely abandoned consideration of how this is playing in the public eye. or if they are still convinced that the public can be swayed by their absurd and transparent dodges.
my suspicion is the latter, which is consistent with cheney’s and bush’s bizarre self-delusion that will follow them forever, even in the face of abject ridicule from all but their shrinking fan club.
jeesh, could this be any more pathetic?
so OK, I’m not a lawyer, but couldn’t conyers simply issue a new subpoena? the letter from george manning to mincberg asserting executive privilege refers to dates before obama was sworn in – i.e., january 9, 2009, subpoena; deposition january 16, 2009. couldn’t this whole legal logjam be sidestepped by issuing a new round of subpoenas? obama ought in any case to demur in rove’s shameless request for executive privilege shelter.
criminy, i am REALLY not a lawyer, so i can’t answer that with anything resembling cred.
all i know is the letter is dated 1/16, and conyers issued the subpoena on the 26th. typically, lawyers contact the recipients of subpoenas as a heads up (well, i dunno; is that correct??), so who knows how long ago conyers did that, if he even did so. in any case, conyers’ writing of the new rules right after the new congress was sworn in likely served as fair warning to luskin because they clearly included rove in the revision of the lawsuit to which the subpoena is pursuant.
or some such non-lawyerly legalese.
in any case, i don’t know what issuing new subpoenas would do about that 1/16 letter from fielding. rove will continue to hold that up as his fig leaf (giggles) regardless, forcing the whole matter into the courts, which seems to me to be the point of all this. buying time.
the spectacle of rove petitioning obama for shelter from the conyers storm is too precious by far. I’d be enjoying it, were the issues not so dire.
bushco changed so much of accepted law & due process, this run at precedent is just more of the same. except I thought it would be over on january 20.
all i can say is that hope was pretty naive. these suckers have been scheming for this level of power for decades (about 3 now, at least), and they’re clearly patient, and clearly good at leaving tons of viruses in place to screw the system.
all the more reason for persistent diligence. the only good thing to come of all this is that they really stuck their heads up on this one. if we can ever reverse the language to focus on what’s truly constitutional and what’s just so totally orthogonal to it, we might have a chance. but they have very successfully gummed up the whole debate with the petty and fear-mongering minutiae of what the executive OUGHT to be able to do in these extreme POST-9/11 hypotheticals that most of the populace has to be talked down before we can ever get to any real discussion again.
exhausting. and really really frustrating.
sorry; i really should have cushioned my “naive” comment about the jan 20 change. part of me was right there with you; hope does spring eternal. but reality is …what it is.
From the frozen, powerless wastelands:
A few kinds of Executive Privilege assertions –
*Absolutely exempt from any judicial process (and the courts lack power over Executive documents and personnel – S. Ct ruled to contrary in Nixon case)[this would be an absolute “immunity” argument in a judicial and production setting]
*Absolutely exempt from any congressional process (and that if there is a dispute it is between Congress and Exec and courts lack power to resolve – Dist ct, Bates, ruled to the contrary, Congress never took it’s own Congressional actions to impeach or detain)
*Presumptive deliberative privilege for judicial process compelling production (S. Ct in Nixon agrees privilege is presumptive and needs to be overcome by showing, but holds the strong judicial interest in criminal proceedings and the protections of initial in camera inspection overcome that presumptive deliberative privilege)
* Presumptive deliberative privilege for Congressional process compelling testimony with regard to investigation of bad acts in the Exec for which impeachment (the Congressional venue) is no longer an option (no final court rulings to my knowledge, several cases of accommodations between the branches while the Executive as still in power but Congressional interest in investigation after a point where it can no longer take impeachment action and where Congress has no independent power to make criminal charges may not be the same as Congressional interest where impeachment is an option.)
*Special cases privilege for military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets in a judicial, non-criminal setting asserted defensively (Reynolds case, which establishes a process for invocation by affidavit and makes statements that can be equally used for assertion of an absolute privilege from production in such a case or that requires court weighing and balancing even in such a setting)(a plethora of progeny in lower courts primarily, but not all, holding Exec absolutely privileged upon such invocation – lots of authority splits and fact pattern variation)
*Special cases privilege for national security secrets in a judicial, criminal setting, asserted offensively to attempt to prevent production to criminal defendants or adverse disposition of criminal case against Gov for bad acts (Keith case, Mitchell’s affidavit did not overcome court’s interest and information was not entitled to receive absolute immunity from production).
Etc.
There is indeed a difference between claiming a deliberative privilege to discuss contents of discussions or make contents of documents available, and a claim to be immune from having to make any response whatsoever to process issued by another branch of government, just as there is a difference between arguing confidential deliberations v. national security information, or making the assertions before a court in a criminal v. civil setting, or defensively v. offensively, but I don’t’ think it’s as simple as saying one is “absolute immunity” and another is “executive privilege.”