Last Friday, the Washington Post printed this pathetic justification from a Justice Department official for refusing to enforce Congressional subpoenas in the investigation into firings of U.S. attorneys.

"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 what if the president asserts executive privilege in the matter?

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case...And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who (not surprisingly) spoke on the condition of anonymity, 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."

Here is the only way to wrap your head around this.

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. (Lt.) Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. 'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' Yossarian observed. 'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed.'" Later, military agents explain: Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. A woman translates. "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing." Joseph Heller, Catch 22

Are we all clear now?