A lot of ink was spilled by many writers, myself included, who were convinced that President Bush would pardon key members of his administration before he left office. We were certain he would protect Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others who were important architects of his expansion of executive power. As January 19th approached we beat the war drums ever more loudly, hoping to keep the issue in the public's eye. We believed that by publicizing the issue Bush wouldn't be able to hide in the shadows and sign pardons without public notice.
And then on January 20th Barack Obama was inaugurated as our 44th president. We took a collective breath and relaxed. Apparently Bush really didn't believe in granting pardons.
Think again.
Michael Isikoff reported for Newsweek that while many of us were fomenting about Bush preemptively pardoning at-risk members of his administration, he and his lawyer Fred Fielding (White House Counsel) were concocting one last expansion of executive privilege. Four days before he left office, Mr. Bush authorized Fielding to write letters to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove giving them "absolute immunity" from Congressional inquiry and prosecution. Preemptively. In perpetuity. Absolute and irrevocable.
The letters set the stage for what is likely to be a highly contentious legal and political battle over an unresolved issue: whether a former president can assert "executive privilege" -- and therefore prevent his aides from testifying before Congress -- even after his term has expired.
These letters were delivered before Congress or any prosecutor had initiated action against Miers and Rove. Clearly Bush sought to inoculate Rove and Miers from all attempts to prosecute them for their actions during his administration. Only when John Conyers (Chairman, House Judiciary Committee) subpoenaed Mr. Rove did the letters come to light. Waving his letter in the air, Karl Rove refused to appear before the committee.
In December while Bush was giving a round-robin of legacy interviews proclaiming his two terms as successes, Vice President Dick Cheney was taking his own victory lap. In two of those interviews he said something interesting: I authorized the CIA's use of torture and I did it because my boss wanted me to. The Vice President had pointed a smoking gun right at Bush's heart. Cheney was clearly prodding Bush to issue pardons to protect his underlings AND to protect himself.
Every protective measure by Bush is self-protective. If Karl Rove and Harriet Miers don't testify under oath, then they can't reveal what Bush agreed to and authorized. How many more such letters did Bush have Fielding write?
With so much public attention focused on whether Bush would pardon his associates, the ex-president did an end-run around the issue. Ultimately, his claim to broad powers of executive privilege may be overturned in the courts. But how long will that take? And at what expense? Clearly Bush hopes that by making inquiries so difficult, he will dissuade Congress and prosecutors from even trying to look into the dark recesses of his administration's activities.
Back home in Texas, surely Bush is having a good chuckle right now. He punk'd us again!
|
Bush Lawyer Fred Fielding Told Rove: Ignore Subpoena
Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into...
|
What I find most interesting is that many if not most liberals are willing to subjectively excuse Geitner and Daschle for what is clearly objectively criminal tax evasion; since they both have clearly have broken the same laws which Al Capone rotted in jail for breaking. These same liberals want to subjectively apply laws against Bush's minions and their executive actions that most if not all rationale people would objectively agree Bush had the executive authority to carry out as commander-in-chief. Especially since certain Democratic Presidents (FDR, LBJ, Kennedy) had commited some of the same acts. If the left disdains these acts so much why hasn't a Democrat congress passed explicit limitations? I'll tell you why, because that would really be unconstitutional. So, with that said, one could argue that what Bush did was push the envelope to the edge. the edge being that line that the founding fathers set. As to wheather he crossed that line is subjective at best.
This flaw in the prisim of liberals is a proven one and it blinds them!
That is his sole legal defense? Note - Just because Bush said it does not make it true. Hopefully our Courts will reject these 3rd grade rules and the rule-of-law will be re-established.
You should try writing comedy.
Meanwhile, not everything is new. Back comes the pathetic refrain, "Bu - bu - but... Clinton!" As if a President's personal life was in any way equivalent to 1) lying your way into a war that has cost $1 trillion and 4,500 American lives, 2) trampling civil liberties, and 3) violating international human rights treaties and destroying America's international reputation as a country of laws.
That's because he was the 43rd President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-latt/bush-punkd-us-again_b_162501.html?show_comment_id=20296720#comment_20296720
Neurogrl said: "It's just a matter of time til [Bush's executive privilege letter] is overruled."
I asked, how much time are we talking about?
MsLiz estimated three YEARS for this issue to make its way through the courts.
Well three years is a long time to play games, don't you think? How many bribes will trade hands for email records to be destroyed, and document to be shredded? How many Ken Lay-style, closed-casket funerals might take place? How many mysterious, face-lifted, wealthy Americans will appear on the beaches of Uruguay?
Kick me for saying this, Obama might have made the right call on the FISA bill. He needs to request some wire-tapping authority and, because of his vote, he won't look like a hypocrite when he does it.
Rove, Miers, and perhaps others are hereby under suspicion of being, at the least, material witnesses to crimes committed by the Bush Administration. Their ability to thwart a forthcoming investigation must be kept in check. Spy on the whole lot of them, I say.