Executive Priviledge doesn't exist if crimes are being investigated.

[King Coal]

I Bush were to be investigated for illegal wire-tapping he could not claim executive priviledge. That is what happened to Nixon and the SCOTUS ruled on it. So why won't the start a criminal investigation? This what Jonathon Turley was saying two nights ago on Count Down. What's up with that?

edit for spelling

[Ian David]

1. We don't need documents, just "aggressive interrogation." n/t

[King Coal]

2. Thom Hartman and Randi were screaming this at the rooftops

yesterday.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Isn't this the circulatory reasoning that you can't prove a crime without

the evidence being withheld under the guise of executive privilege?

[King Coal]

4. Here is a transcript of what Turley said:

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT, GEORGE WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The White House responded to the subpoenas by saying, It‘s unfortunate that congressional Democrats continuing to chose—choose the route way of confrontation. But without a confrontation, was the White House simply going to comply with this? And if the White House now does not honor the subpoena, is it not being confrontational constitutionally?

TURLEY: Well, there‘s a lot of people chuckling when the White House said that, because it has literally been years. The members of Congress have demanded information about the domestic surveillance program. There have been hearings. I testified at some of those hearings, others have. And no information has been forthcoming.

Even allies of the administration, such as I—Senator Specter, and Senator Feinstein, who‘s been very cooperative with the administration in the past, they were stonewalled on many of these points.

And so there was a great deal of laughter when they said that, because there has been literally no avenue that has been found to get this information out of the administration.

OLBERMANN: What sort of time frame? Do we have any idea that—what we‘re looking at for a court fight between the White House and the Senate? Is it possible the White House could just run out the clock until its administration is over here?

TURLEY: They could. I mean, they could do a sort of Tai Chi of litigation and just move incredibly slowly. This president doesn‘t have long to go.

But there is one thing that might concern them about the court, and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was clearly criminal act that the president called for, that under federal law, it‘s a federal crime to do what the president ordered hundreds of people to do.

Now, if we‘re right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense. Now, both sides, both Democrats, Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor. They don‘t want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses. But they may now be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say, We‘re investigating a potential crime. And if they do it here, that crime was ordered by no one other than George Bush.

OLBERMANN: About the Addington letter regarding the vice president, it‘s beginning to sound like a game of 20 questions, like the old “What‘s My Line?” Is he, is he an agency? No. Miss Kilgallen. Is he part of the executive branch? Does Addington‘s argument now have any merit, or is it mere legalese, and are they trying to hide the definition of what he actually is, what the vice president actually is?

TURLEY: Well, I think we have a pretty darn good idea what the vice president is constitutionally. He happens to be found in Article II of the Constitution, where other executives, including the president, are found. And his duties are laid out. There‘s never been a question about that.

The position adopted by Mr. Addington and Mr. Cheney, to put it bluntly, was absurd. I mean, it was—I had—it was completely frivolous.

And what really is striking about this is the lack of coherence and control within the administration. The vice president‘s office is a true center of gravity unto itself. I mean, in past administrations, if someone like Mr. Addington made such a moronic argument as this one, they would be out of a job the next week. I mean, he started this huge controversy. Everyone that of any credibility said that it was a ridiculous argument.

And now they‘re trying to backpedal and say, Well, we‘re going to go with a different argument.

I think that what it really shows is the lack of sort of adult supervision within the administration of somebody to come up with a coherent and single position for the president.

OLBERMANN: So that would be a no, that‘s $25, turn the cards over, and we‘ll turn to Bennett Cerf.

Last question, Jon. Some senior officials in the administration were trying to claim today that all this, this letter, everything else, amounts to the vice president‘s office throwing in the towel on the argument that he—that it‘s not part of the executive branch. But it‘s still not going to comply with the order. Is it really just a—what is—I mean, is this an attempt to stop what Congressman Emanuel talked about yesterday, cutting off the funding? Is it just more smokescreen? Is it just more delay? What is it?

TURLEY: Well, frankly, I think that it‘s opportunism. This administration, I have to say, has a certain contempt for the law. They treat it like some of my criminal defendants used to treated it, you know, that they come up with any argument that might work, and they want you to try it out with a court of law.

And it‘s a sort of shocking development, you know, it shows not just a contempt for the law, but a contempt as well for a co-branch of the legislative branch.

But at the end of the day, they will lose, and they‘re making the situation worse. They‘re giving Congress all the power it needs to push executive privilege right out of a courtroom.

OLBERMANN: Wow. The constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley, who should know. As always, sir, great thanks for joining us.

TURLEY: Thanks, Keith.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19482765/

[G_Leo_Criley]

5. Executive Privilege

Executive privilege does not apply when a criminal matter is being investigated. No one can withold evidence from the investigation of a criminal matter, and this is exactly what Turley was talking about on Countdown. (Great appearance by Turley that night by the way...)

Now, it needs to go to court (probably the Supremes) to present evidence that there is an underlying criminal investigation driving the demand for documents from the White House. If successful, the court will order the White House to turn the documents over. (We should have a special counsel -- anybody know one? -- or a special prosecutor to front the effort.)

glc

[King Coal]

6. That's right, and illegal wire tapping is a felony.

[G_Leo_Criley]

7. yep...

And any time you have a crime that has a name and a penalty attached to it, you have yourself a case.

This is the thing that will lead to the Supreme Court. Their only argument is that it's not illegal when the president does it.

Shades of Nixon!

Thanks for putting up the Turley transcript above. Quoting Turley... "But at the end of the day, they will lose, and they‘re making the situation worse."

glc