Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries

[kskiska]

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON — When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.

“If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.

Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.

“The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.

Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/washington/13inquire.html?hp

[Bozita]

1. His presidency ends on 1/20/09

So do his "powers"

[DainBramaged]

2. Wit the way LIEberman is being treated, anyone think Ried or Pelosi has a spine?

[Festivito]

3. Ugh! Don't impeach, wait. Next, can't prosecute afterwards either.

I have to wonder. Was Truman being persued for crimial actions as would be Bush?

I think we need a constitution professor. Glad we just hired one.

[aquart]

11. Where does it say we can't waterboard him, though?

[formercia]

4. Not if he's Impeached

This is why the Impeachment process is so important.

We need 60 Senators to finish him. He needs to be tried in the Senate and stripped of any authority.

[mopinko]

5. iirc, he can still be impeached after leaving office

i think this might have been the topic of one of david swanson's excellent articles.

[formercia]

6. Agreed.

That was my thought as well.

[tomp]

7. truman: least popular president prior to bush. nt

[struggle4progress]

8. The context of the Truman subpoena:

Eisenhower's AG Brownell attempted to restart McCarthy's "Communists-in-government" claims, and the House Un-American Affairs Committee (HUAC) promptly jumped on the bandwagon with a subpoena for Truman. Truman considered HUAC a witch-hunt and wasn't inclined to cooperate; Eisenhower considered the HUAC subpoena an embarrassment. Truman won the political fight, and HUAC backed down (See p78 The Age of McCarthy by Ellen Schrecker http://books.google.com/books?id=Ysn9iZWJXKUC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=truman+HUAC+subpoena+1953&source=web&ots=kZmcW3tYqn&sig=rJA35mp7ipIS5fzIfT-l6CNkd-U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=14&ct=result )

There's no real legal precedent here: it's just political common sense that former Presidents shouldn't be lightly called before later Congresses to explain things. The Bush White House, of course, has cited the Truman incident before, in claiming Miers remained privileged after returning to public life; it's interesting that the most authoritative account, that The White House was able to give of the Truman incident, was simply to reference the 13 Nov 54 issue of NYT reprinting Truman's letter to HUAC. The lack of a more extensive record means that HUAC's Truman subpoena was simply a political salvo that promptly sputtered (See 10 July 07 Memorandum Opinion by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bradbury http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:6gcuXqAT24wJ:www.usdoj.gov/olc/2007/miers-immunity-Opinion071007.pdf+truman+subpoena+1953&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us )

[struggle4progress]

9. Conyers and Senator Whitehouse Claim They Will Pursue Subpoenas in January, Bush May Still Resist

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-11-13 15:52. Congress Criminal Prosecution
Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries
By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times

... In November 1953, after Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had appointed a suspected Communist to the International Monetary Fund.

Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel I. Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.

Edward M. Cramer, a young associate at Mr. Rosenman’s law firm, recalled being summoned with two colleagues to their boss’s office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, they helped dictate Truman’s letter telling the panel he did not have to testify — or even appear at the hearing.

“I think, legally, we were wrong” about whether Truman had to show up, Mr. Cramer, now 83, said in a phone interview from his home in New York ...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/37638

[Zorra]

10. "...may very well try..." - "try" is the operative word here. If Congress doesn't back down,

then what's the problem?

The "precedent" stated in the article is moot.

It is totally unreasonable for a President to be permitted to commit crimes during a Presidency with no possibility of being prosecuted for these crimes.

The "Doctrine of Seperation of Powers"(?) literally becomes a license to kill.