Bush Invokes Executive Privilege to Shield Cheney’s Role in Outing Valerie Plame

[kpete]

Bush claims executive privilege on CIA leak
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

"This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person," Waxman said. "If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?"

There is a key document that could explain what the Vice President knew and what he
did: the report of the Vice President’s interview with FBI officials working for Mr. Fitzgerald.

If there is one document that could pierce the cloud hanging over the Vice President, this is it.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/16/did-bush-invoke-executive-privilege-to-shield-cheneys-interview-with-fitzgerald/

....................

WASHINGTON - President Bush has asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House panel subpoena for material on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

A House committee chairman, meanwhile, held off on a contempt citation of Mukasey — who had requested the privilege claim — but only as a courtesy to lawmakers not present.

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, rejected Mukasey's suggestion that Vice President Dick Cheney's FBI interview on the CIA leak should be protected by the privilege claim — and therefore not turned over to the panel.

"We'll act in the reasonable and appropriate period of time," Waxman, D-Calif., said. But he made clear that he thinks Mukasey has earned a contempt citation and that he'd schedule a vote on the matter soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak;_ylt=Av0RsrStcyeNeS44SXUFs_ys0NUE

.......................

Update: Waxman hits the right notes:

The claim of executive privilege is ludicrous.
We are not seeking access to the communications between the Vice President and the President. We are seeking access to the communications between the Vice President and FBI investigators. The Vice President talked with the FBI investigators voluntarily and he did so knowing that what he said could be disclosed publicly in a criminal trial. Mr. Fitzgerald told us that "there were no agreements, conditions and understandings" that limited Mr. Fitzgerald's use
of the interview in any way.

This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person.

The President is wrong to shield Vice President Cheney from scrutiny. In our system of government, even the Vice President should be accountable for his actions.

more here:
plus docs:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080716104053.pdf
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080716101908.pdf

[Sanity Claws]

1. If there was a privilege, it was waived

First, this is not privileged. Second, if there was a privilege, it was waived by speaking to the DOJ.

[kpete]

2. Hmmm…from Mukasey’s letter to Bush:

Hmmm…from Mukasey’s letter to Bush:

“Other portions of the documents fall “within the scope
of presidential communications component of the privilege because they summarize deliberations among your most senior advisers in the course of preparing information or advice for presentation to you, including information related to the preparation of your 2003 State of
the Union Address and possible responses to public assertions that the address contained an inaccurate statement.”

[JDPriestly]

3. The next president will have to send federal marshalls to

get the Bush documents so they can try him.

It is time to impeach. The executive privilege is worthless in an impeachment trial.

At 65, I cannot remember any president who invoked this purported executive privilege in this way. Bush is simply holding himself above the law and refusing to take responsibility for his actions. He is an irresponsible man. He is a criminal. He should be impeached.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Even Nixon, who used it to hide Watergate, did not use it to protect

Agnew from prosecutors seeking criminal indictment.

[kentuck]

4. I thought Cheney was not part of the Executive Branch ??

How can he get executive immunity??

[ljm2002]

10. Exactly what I was thinking...

...Didn't Cheney recently refuse some sort of executive oversight by claiming that his office is *not* part of the Executive branch? Which was the source of an amusing comment in a recent hearing, that the office of the vice president is sort of a "barnacle" on the executive branch? heh

But of course this is nothing new. These criminals have been trying to have it both ways for years. And, sadly, succeeding.

[leveymg]

16. Depends upon whether it's morning or night, cloudy or bright, upside or downunder.

Go ask Alice, I think she'll know.

[librechik]

5. You are so wrong. Only DEMOCRATS deserve scrutiny.

Because Republicans are above the law. It's been a party platform since 1972.

Maybe the Democrats should adopt it too!
:sarcasm:

Or teach the Republicans how wrong that is. Trouble is, we just have too many people who just don't want to bother opposing those lunatics. It is a big headache. And over time they've re-educated most of us to not even understand the dispute.

I just don't see how we're going to get out of this one.

[wildbilln864]

6. k&r. nt

[cascadiance]

8. The Dems should strongly WARN the Supreme Court of their sworn duty to the Constitution!

And remind them that the SCOTUS of Nixon's time understood that role, and knew they couldn't stand in the way of subpoenas on his administration when they were trying to use executive privilege to block investigations, etc.

They should be reminded that THEY could be impeached as well, and if they want to think strategically, them being impeached would cost "their side" (yes, some of them ARE partisan, no matter what they might profess to be) a lot more than having Bushco impeached.

And it seems like obstruction of justice, which is what I think clearly could be charged against them if they stand in the way of subpoenas with no substantive reason to do so, would be a pretty appropriate charge to impeach them with!

[The Stranger]

9. Why doesn't George W. simply have Nancy Pelosi invoke executive privilege for him?

She'll do it and save him the trouble.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

11. NIXON, REAGAN, BUSH I ALL SHOULD HAVE GONE TO PRISON

WATERGATE, IRAN CONTRA

[Johonny]

12. but he isn't part of the executive branch

he said so...

[Raster]

13. Treason.

–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
-----------
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
-----------
noun
1. a crime that undermines the offender's government
2. disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
3. an act of deliberate betrayal

Are we there yet?:kick:Wake up America!

[tblue37]

14. Besides, Cheney has already claimed that the OVP is NOT part of the executive branch.

It's part of the executive branch if he wants executive privilege, but not part of it if he doesn't want to comply with record keeping rules that apply to the executive branch.

I am reminded of those people who think Obama is a Muslim, but that he should be condemned because the pastor in his Christian church said something they don't like.

[dsotm-wywh]

15. I bet Clinton is kicking himself over this

If only he had known he could use "Executive Privelege" to get out of anything.

*start Bill Clinton expression now*

"Hill, dammit, why didn't tell me about this Executive Privelege thing? You'd be the President right now if we had gotten through 1998 with that excuse. I'm sorry your honor but I am invoking Executive Privelege on my pants, therefore anything in or around my pants can not be on the record."