Bush defied Congress today, telling them that he would not let the Department of Justice enforce contempt charges after he claimed executive privilege.
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
Bush is claiming that the US Attorneys cannot and will not be allowed to enforce contempt charges following his declaration of executive privilege. In effect he is declaring that Congress only has the oversight powers that he is willing to give it.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.
But because the Democrats kept their powder dry on Roberts and Scalia, judges who support authoritarian executive power, the courts will be more receptive to supporting executive power than they were in the Reagan years. If this case goes to the Supreme court it will likely be a 5-4 decision one way or the other. Justice Kennedy would likely decide.
In effect, Bush is saying fuck you to Congress.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
The Bush administration justified its position based on an interpretation of the unitary executive theory that denies the accountability of individual government employees to the Constitution. In the administration’s view, government employees now swear allegiance to the President Bush, not the Constitution of the United states of America.
David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."
While Harry Reid declared "nobody is above the law" Scooter Libby walked free.
Meanwhile, Don Siegelman is still in jail after being tried by a corrupted juryand prosecuted by a Karl Rove directed US attorney's office.
In one message included in the text of the motion, one juror says, "I was confused between all the evidence and other Internet stuff and information that some jurors brought in and was talking about... They were pulling stuff out of files and some were talking about have Internet information and talking about that too."
Evidence is presented that at least two jurors admitted searching the World Wide Web for information on the case in the news media online, and tried to use that information to pressure other jurors to come to a guilty verdict on that basis - not on the basis of evidence presented at trial.
The motion asks Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller to hold a hearing and examine the jurors under oath about their online media consumption and discussing the case via e-mail. It asks that all juror computers be preserved as evidence to prevent the destruction of documents and that jurors provide all of their e-mail addresses and IP addresses to the court.
According to the motion, the judge was in error when he "never asked a single juror if he/she received or sent any of the e-mails as they appeared" in the exhibits presented at trial.
As you know, justice is blind. She makes an easy victim. Bush smirked.