Wilson Statement on Bush’s Invocation of Executive Privilege to Protect Cheney

/in /by

Joe Wilson sent the following response to Bush’s invocation of executive privilege to hide Dick Cheney’s involvement in ordering the Plame leak:

Today the president took the unprecedented step of asserting executive privilege to thwart congressional efforts to review Vice President Cheney’s interview with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concerning the betrayal of Valerie Wilson’s covert CIA identity. We agree with Congressman Waxman that the position taken by the president is ludicrous.

The American people have a right to know what role the vice president played in the leak of Ms. Wilson’s covert identity for political purposes. The fact that the Attorney General is recommending the assertion of executive privilege reveals that this Department of Justice is as beholden to the White House as that run by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Given the White House’s continued efforts to cover up the truth and subvert legitimate congressional inquiries, our civil suit may be the only way the American people will learn the truth. We seek to hold those public officials responsible for this serious breach of national security accountable for their actions, and to ensure that future generations of public servants are not tempted to engage in similarly despicable behavior.

Here’s an update on the status of their case with a link to support the suit.

image_print
  2. darclay says:

    Mukasey is as bad as gonzo, the HJC sould bring impeachment to the floor of the House and add Mukasey and dark lord to it

  3. KestrelBrighteyes says:

    IIRC, Fitzgerald “suspended” the Valerie Plame investigation, he didn’t close it.

    IF he “unsuspended” the investigation, would the interviews then fall out from under the EP umbrella, a la Nixon?

    Could anything – possibly the info in Scott McClellan’s book – be construed as reason to reopen the investigation?

  6. garyg says:

    Mukasey is far worse than Gonzalez . . . he does the same evil, only competently. Worst of all possible worlds.

  8. Jim Clausen says:

    You are linked by Froomkin in his chat today. Last question from San Fran sounded like one from Teddy?

    Congrats Marcy. You are receiving the homage due to astute analysis,tireless effort, and passion for what you do. Thanks.JLC

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01642.html

  9. Jim Clausen says:

    Sorry about being OT

    The quote from Froomkin’s Q&A:
    “San Francisco: Now that the president has invoked executive privilege to protect Cheney’s conversation with the FBI about the Valerie Plame Wilson leak, is there any circumstance to which executive privilege cannot be applied? It’s pretty clear that a presidential conversation, consultation or advisement is not a criterion any longer — the president doesn’t even need to be in the picture for executive privilege to be invoked by this crew (see emptywheel this morning).

    Dan Froomkin: Here is the emptywheel post of which you speak.

    • Leen says:

      Like undermining National Security? Does Executive privilege apply when the President and Vice President undermined National Security

  11. shawnfassett says:

    Mukasey is covered by this privlege even though he wasn’t in the office at the time of the “incident” ??

  12. Leen says:

    As James Joyce pointed out on the last thread . Call the White House. 202-456-1111 or
    202-225- 5126

    Call Conyers, Waxman and your own Reps? As Christy has repeatedly said “to the phones”. At least the operators know we are alive

  14. freepatriot says:

    why don’t we just wait until January 21, 2009, and conduct a real criminal investigation into this

    george ain’t gonna be presnit, so his claims of executive privilege can be tossed by the President

    what, is bush gonna invoke executive privilege without consulting the Executive ???

    appoint an attorney general who will laugh these farcical claims out of existence, and that changes the whole ballgame

    I give you this as an example of what could happen to george:

    Judge Davis turned to the defendants. The speech you just gave has no legal meaning whatsoever, he said sternly. They were words in the English language, but they have no meaning as a matter of law. If, in future proceedings, you persist—even politely—in making these speeches, you face a severe risk of being expelled from the courtroom.

    that quote is from a case where the defendants were trying to use “Posse Comitas” as a defense, but it will work against all farcical claims in a courtroom

    here’s a link

    oliely got laughed out of a courtroom, too

    instead of repeating the same stuff over and over, why not just wait, and let mukasy splain his actions to a grand jury, under oath, without immunities

    apply RICO, and burn these scabs off of the body politic

  16. oldtree says:

    It’s always funny when the president admits he has committed another felony. The people of the US are laughing it up. This makes 31 that legal representation of the government have acknowledged publicly. But that is my amateur count. I suspect there are some instances that congress knows of that they can’t talk about. The FBI knows of a few that have caused senior members to resign. A FISA court judge resigned in protest of the violation of a law, but none of his fellows have?
    Equal justice under law. Most amusing.

  17. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Yes.
    The news that GWBush admitted to him (offhandedly, at that) that he’d Pixie Dust Declassified the NIE. Without telling the CIA, or other relevant agencies.