# Bush orders ex-counsel to defy congressional subpoena **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 12, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438 "2007-07-12T00:15:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2007, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/81 "2007-07-14T23:49:17Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] As always, your cites are impressive, almost impeccable! Not. You’re citing “emailer”? Try again. [/QUOTE] [shrug] The text of the statutes is in the link. Argue your interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2007, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/82 "2007-07-14T23:59:03Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Because the law is not definitive, for the simple reason that there is none. Your own “suggestions” are no more definitive than mine own. [/quote] Yes, given the paucity of case or statutory law on this issue, I am forced to agree. My rebuke against the OP, **Cartooniverse** , is based precisely on that: the OP suggests that this issue is cut and dried, with no question that the actions here are illegal. The OP laments that “…Apparently the only Rule Of Law is that which eminates [sic] from Kennebunkport, Maine.” Truth is, I agree with you in no small wise. I’m more comfortable with a scheme that lets the elected representatives in the Congress probe the minutiae in the White House than I am with a scheme that lets the White House shield itself. I’d rather have it for a Travelgate as well as for an Attorneygate. But it’s by no means settled law, and the President’s position isn’t crazy. Knowing what we know right now, if I were a judge, I’d rule that Miers must comply with the subpoena, and any specific claims of executive privilege must be made for specific questions, after they are asked. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/83 "2007-07-15T00:15:28Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Yes, given the paucity of case or statutory law on this issue, I am forced to agree… [/quote] Your groveling submission is noted with approval. > [@](#): > > …Truth is, I agree with you in no small wise… I’m getting a bit dizzy, over here. Can one actually overdose on smug? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/84 "2007-07-15T00:23:20Z")
Yet another thread in which I am very grateful for the input from **John Mace** , **Bricker** , and **Mr. Moto**. It is so easy for me to get swept up in outrage, and I don’t have the legal or political education to know if outrage is legitimate or if it’s just another extension of my fervent hatred for that man and his administration. (It’s gotten to the point where if he said his administration is going to proceed under the assumption that the sky is blue, I’d have 19 serious objections to the assumption and another 34 to the arrogance of proceeding without consulting folks who have been out beyond the atmosphere). There are loads of places I could find people who would offer opinions of a more conservative and/or pro-Bush-administration perspective, but it’s the ones on the Straight Dope who I rely on to have based their perspective on established law and principle, and who will be ready with cites and expository paragraphs. As one of the teeming liberal-radical horde-members, I don’t know as how I say often enough how much I value the SDMB “loyal opposition”. Keep fighting ignorance. To the issue at hand, I am swayed that, viewed as a tactical and political maneuver, GWB is enacting a strategy that any admin of either party, if under seige, would be inclined to enact. And I agree that it is reasonable, politically and pragmatically speaking, for the Bush administration to regard itself as under seige. Although there’s a huge part of me that wants to shout out “You ain’t seen nothing yet and you deserve it and then some”. I question (as I have often questioned w/regards to this administration) the extent to which they are tone-deaf as to how their behaviors are going to play out in the world of public (therefore political) relations. I don’t think there’s ever been an administration as maladroit at spin control as this one is. On both domestic and international theatres the Bush admin seems to excel in making their behaviors look heavy-handed, stupid, imperialistic, arrogant, and oblivious. Could I see Bill Clinton utilizing such a tactic if the Republican Congress in the late 90s had been subpoenaing his counsel? Yes, point taken. But is there a difference? Yes, IMHO: The Clinton Administration had not at that time been painted (or painted itself) as having a massive tendency towards Imperial Presidency, and did not have a significant portion of the electorate (or Congress, Republican though it was) worried that the Executive Branch a la Clinton was contemptuous of checks and balances. Bush and his administration should be quite aware that (again, in part as a consequence of truly abysmal public rel, i.e, they act that way and make no useful attempt to soften the image AFAICT) they _ARE_ perceived as arrogant imperialistic unchecked and unbalanced “we can do as we damn well please” executive branch folks, Thus, the strategy, while not a major departure from things one would consider tangentially appropriate for executives in general, strikes me as bad politics, tone-deaf, stupid, and once again arrogant as hell. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/85 "2007-07-15T00:52:51Z")
[QUOTE=AHunter3] Thus, the strategy, while not a major departure from things one would consider tangentially appropriate for executives in general, strikes me as bad politics, tone-deaf, stupid, and once again arrogant as hell. [/QUOTE] I agree completely. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/86 "2007-07-15T01:31:50Z")
[QUOTE=AHunter3] Bush and his administration should be quite aware that (again, in part as a consequence of truly abysmal public rel, i.e, they act that way and make no useful attempt to soften the image AFAICT) they _ARE_ perceived as arrogant imperialistic unchecked and unbalanced “we can do as we damn well please” executive branch folks, Thus, the strategy, while not a major departure from things one would consider tangentially appropriate for executives in general, strikes me as bad politics, tone-deaf, stupid, and once again arrogant as hell. [/QUOTE] Sure. I’ll give you that. What’s more, the same charges were leveled at Bill Clinton when he invoked privilege - he was seen as arrogant by many. Furthermore, when Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi (among many other representatives) both asserted that the FBI raid on Jefferson’s office was unprecedented and likely unconstitutional - it was a public relations disaster that backfired on Hastert in a major way. Hastert had no interest in shielding Jefferson from anything, really, so his actions can be understood only as a zealous defense of legislative branch prerogatives. The same can be said about this action by Bush - it may look guilty as hell and play poorly in public, but if viewed through the lens of an executive branch protecting its traditional power, it makes perfect sense. (This should also, at least in part, answer **RTFirefly**.) Executive privilege is guarded zealously, which means two things. First of all, it will always be invoked whenever Congress or the courts intrude into the offices of the White House. Secondly, since the last thing any president wants is a court decision that might negate the privilege or restrict it into practical oblivion, the matter will usually be settled through negotiation before it gets that far. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/87 "2007-07-15T01:34:42Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] BTW: The “Yeah, well, but \*Clinton \* …” approach to debate has been trite for years now, friend. [/QUOTE] I said this above, but it bears repeating. When we are discussing the presidency, it is instructive at times to discuss how various presidents have actually done things. Now, Bill Clinton was president at one time, wasn’t he? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/88 "2007-07-15T01:38:30Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Sure. I’ll give you that. What’s more, the same charges were leveled at Bill Clinton when he invoked privilege - he was seen as arrogant by many. Furthermore, when Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi (among many other representatives) both asserted that the FBI raid on Jefferson’s office was unprecedented and likely unconstitutional - it was a public relations disaster that backfired on Hastert in a major way. Hastert had no interest in shielding Jefferson from anything, really, so his actions can be understood only as a zealous defense of legislative branch prerogatives. The same can be said about this action by Bush - it may look guilty as hell and play poorly in public, but if viewed through the lens of an executive branch protecting its traditional power, it makes perfect sense. (This should also, at least in part, answer **RTFirefly**.) [/quote] Other than as an “everybody does it” defense, glossing completely over any distinctions between one privilege claim and another, but rather treating them all as identical, I don’t see how. And that’s a one-size-fits-all rebuttal, so even that wouldn’t answer me in any particulars. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/89 "2007-07-15T01:49:08Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [shrug] The text of the statutes is in the link. Argue your interpretation. [/QUOTE] No, that’s not how it works. You made the claim; you back it up with a real cite, not “emailer” from “[tpm.com](http://tpm.com)”. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/90 "2007-07-15T01:50:33Z")
Niether that simple, nor that abstract. A defense of executive privilege in the abstract is all very sensible. Out of the abstract and into context, its a whole different kettle of piranha. What appears to have been afoot is an attempt to restructure the roster of USAs in an attempt to favor the Republican Party, even to the extent of using prosecutorial powers to affect elections. This is not a good thing. If it is not so, I would imagine they would be eager to have it known, eager to be vindicated, for once. It would be huge, it would be right up there with Dan Rather, they wouldn’t shut up about it _ever!_ But no. Whoever tries to conceal innocence? Now, I admit to a certain disaffection with the Bush admin, but I certainly don’t want to condemn them without the facts. I want to get the facts, and _then_ condemn them. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/91 "2007-07-15T01:54:40Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I said this above, but it bears repeating. When we are discussing the presidency, it is instructive at times to discuss how various presidents have actually done things. Now, Bill Clinton was president at one time, wasn’t he? [/QUOTE] You’ve pointed out that Clinton in fact claimed EP in a few instances (which you’ve been kind enough to enumerate) but lacking any discussion of the basis of the claim, and how it compares with current claims of EP. So all you’ve got is _that_ Clinton claimed EP too. That rebuts the claim that EP is solely a tool of Evil Republicans, but I think the debate has moved past that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/92 "2007-07-15T01:59:00Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] No, that’s not how it works. You made the claim; you back it up with a real cite, not “emailer” from “[tpm.com](http://tpm.com)”. [/QUOTE] Let me help you out, here, **Carol**. You really want to stick it to him? Prove the cite is bogus. Prove that “e-mailer” is making shit up, and ol’ **BG** fell for it, that’ll frost his ass but good! Of course, if you can’t, if it turns out that “e-mailer” knows what he’s talking about then what you got there is a vapid technicality, worth about one half a butterfly fart. But hey, you got it, bring it. Just be sure you got it. About all you’ve shown so far is an insinuation. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/93 "2007-07-15T02:15:52Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Let me help you out, here, **Carol**. You really want to stick it to him? Prove the cite is bogus. Prove that “e-mailer” is making shit up, and ol’ **BG** fell for it, that’ll frost his ass but good! [/QUOTE] No, it’s up to **BG** to prove his cite is legitimate, not the other way around. “emailer” is a cite? On the SDMB? in GD? Since when? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/94 "2007-07-15T02:20:13Z")
BTW, **AHunter3** , I meant to thank you for your kind compliment above. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/95 "2007-07-15T02:22:58Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] No, it’s up to **BG** to prove his cite is legitimate, not the other way around. “emailer” is a cite? On the SDMB? in GD? Since when? [/QUOTE] Mr. Moto already provided the requested cite to statute in Post #46. Interestingly, he also actually took the time to read it and point out a potential flaw in the argument made by “emailer”. Unlike you. > [@Mr Moto](#): > > Right. Let’s go to the code quoted. > > > [@](#): > > > > TITLE 18 \> PART I \> CHAPTER 73 \> § 1505 > > > > § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees > > > > Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or > > > > Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the **due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—** > > > > Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. > > Bolding mine. > > So it is a crime only if Congress has the power to call Harriet Miers. Since there is a notion of the separation of powers, and the presidency is an equal branch of government to the legislative, they may not have jurisdiction to do so. This is the essence of the executive privilege, and this law too recognizes that legislative power has limits. > > Now, I’m not an expert on executive privilege law. But since it hasn’t been invoked often, and tested in court even less, nobody really is. The exact limits of the privilege haven’t been established - they are understood in very general terms only. It’s telling to me that you apparently can’t even be bothered to **READ THE FUCKING THREAD** before spouting your bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/96 "2007-07-15T02:23:50Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] No, that’s not how it works. You made the claim; you back it up with a real cite, not “emailer” from “[tpm.com](http://tpm.com)”. [/QUOTE] [18 U.S.C. 1505](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001505----000-.html) [18 U.S.C. 1515(b)](http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001515----000-.html) Make your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/97 "2007-07-15T04:25:32Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [18 U.S.C. 1505](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001505----000-.html) [18 U.S.C. 1515(b)](http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001515----000-.html) Make your argument. [/QUOTE] But I read an email that says otherwise! My argument is equally strong as yours, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/98 "2007-07-15T05:18:28Z")
[QUOTE=Carol Stream] But I read an email that says otherwise! My argument is equally strong as yours, by the way. [/QUOTE] Please furnish a method whereby readers of this thread may judge that for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/99 "2007-07-15T05:24:25Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] Please furnish a method whereby readers of this thread may judge that for themselves. [/QUOTE] If you want to believe posters like **BG** who “cite” emails, for heaven’s sake, that’s your problem, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2007, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438/100 "2007-07-15T05:31:34Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Hastert had no interest in shielding Jefferson from anything, really, so his actions can be understood only as a zealous defense of legislative branch prerogatives [/quote] Dennis Hastert, like Colin Powell, got stuck with the shitty end of the stick. He should have had an opportunity to run as a national candidate. Yeah, sure, when called upon to do so, he echoed party and/or admin sentiment, and unfortuntely he was called upon in that manner in some situations that made him seem like a yes-man. Part of his job. Biut I always heard good things about him, and he was not (is not) a demagogue and in fact could reach across the aisle and would be a reasonable centrist politician for the Republican party to offer up. Tom DeLay he was not. There may be things I am not aware of that I should be aware of, but based on my limited field of knowledge, Dennis Hastert was one of the ones the Republican Party should have anointed as potential Prez candidate. He’d be doing well now against McCain and Romney. (Yeah, I’d rather see it between Domenici and Snowe, whatever) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-orders-ex-counsel-to-defy-congressional-subpoena/411438.md?page=6)