TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- President Is Denied Executive Privilege

President Is Denied Executive Privilege

quote:

President Is Denied Executive Privilege By Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, May 6, 1998; Page A01 A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday. In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton's interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said. The decision made Clinton the first president to take a claim of executive privilege to court and lose since the dramatic Watergate showdown in 1974, when the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Richard M. Nixon to turn over the secret Oval Office tapes that ultimately led to his resignation. Clinton's case also seems headed for the high court as sources indicated that the White House likely will appeal. Johnson's ruling could amount to a significant political as well as legal setback for Clinton, lending ammunition to Republican critics, such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who have charged that Clinton is trying, in Nixonian fashion, to impede Starr's investigation with invalid privilege claims. Clinton invoked both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege to prevent Starr from asking deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey, communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal and other top officials about conversations regarding the Lewinsky case. According to the lawyers, Johnson also dismissed the attorney-client privilege claim on the grounds that Clinton could not use government-paid White House lawyers to aid his defense in a criminal probe. The executive privilege dispute has been one of many legal hurdles erected in Starr's path as he investigates whether Clinton lied under oath about having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky and asked her to do so as well. But Starr has won a string of victories in recent weeks. Johnson has also sided with Starr by ordering Lewinsky's first attorney to comply with a subpoena and by rejecting the former White House intern's claim of a binding immunity agreement with prosecutors. Word of the decision overshadowed other important developments yesterday in Starr's multi-faceted investigation into the Clinton White House. A day after charging former Clinton business partner Susan McDougal with criminal contempt and obstruction, the Little Rock grand jury that has been investigating Whitewater for 4 1/2 years disbanded without issuing more indictments. While the White House took that as a hopeful sign that the long-running Whitewater investigation is nearing its end without producing charges against the president or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, officials were careful not to read too much into it, at least publicly. Indeed, a parallel Washington grand jury can still take testimony or issue indictments and Starr's spokesman suggested that he still could impanel a new Little Rock grand jury. Johnson's executive privilege ruling came as prosecutors yesterday infused new energy into their Lewinsky grand jury investigation, bringing back one of the central players in that saga, Clinton confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr., to testify. Another key witness, presidential secretary Betty Currie, is slated to return today. Jordan, a prominent Washington attorney, arranged job interviews in New York for Lewinsky at Currie's request and found a lawyer to help Lewinsky draft an affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton in the now-dismissed Paula Jones case. But Jordan has denied that he was trying to encourage her to lie. "Today, as twice before, I answered all the questions completely, truthfully and honestly and to the best of my ability," Jordan said as he left federal court after his third appearance before the grand jury. A Jordan associate said prosecutors yesterday asked him about the timing and substance of telephone calls he made to the president, as well as calls he made to various prospective employers on Lewinsky's behalf in December and January. Many of the questions went over ground covered in previous appearances, but Jordan was told he will have to return again. In another legal judgment related to the investigation, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District yesterday upheld Johnson's decision to keep secret the hearings related to executive privilege and other disputes. Citing grand jury confidentiality rules, a three-judge panel unanimously rejected a motion filed by news organizations, including The Washington Post, seeking access to the proceedings. The continued secrecy surrounding the dispute over executive privilege has meant that both sides have not publicly explained their arguments in a high-stakes constitutional struggle, just as the White House and Starr's office offered no official comment on Johnson's ruling. While presidents have claimed a form of executive privilege to shield their internal deliberations since George Washington, the Nixon ruling in 1974 was the seminal case establishing that such a privilege exists and setting the broad parameters of White House secrecy for the modern era. At the time, Nixon was defying special prosecutors seeking Oval Office tapes that implicated him in the Watergate coverup. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that the president does have a right to confidentiality, particularly in national security or law enforcement situations, but that it must be balanced against the need for disclosure. In Nixon's case, the court judged that the interests of the Watergate probe outweighed the privilege. Two weeks later, Nixon resigned. Judge Johnson applied a similar test in the Clinton case, according to lawyers familiar with her ruling. While she found some validity to the argument for confidentiality of the disputed conversations, she concluded that the prosecutors' needs were more compelling, the lawyers said. She also relied heavily on an earlier appeals court ruling involving another Clinton White House claim of attorney-client privilege, citing a decision that called the use of White House lawyers in Whitewater criminal matters affecting the Clintons a "gross misuse of public assets." That case involved Starr's efforts to subpoena notes taken by White House lawyers in discussions with Hillary Clinton during 1995 and 1996. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Starr that government lawyers cannot be enlisted in private defense work and the Supreme Court refused a White House request to hear an appeal. The White House has 10 days to file a notice of appeal of the latest privilege ruling. If Clinton's lawyers seek a hearing in the appeals court, Starr likely would ask the Supreme Court to grant an immediate hearing instead, just as Watergate prosecutors did. The White House may decide to forgo an appeal rather than run the risk of a highly visible defeat on the executive privilege issue in the Supreme Court. While Starr has been criticized by the White House for spending four years and more than $30 million on his investigation, yesterday's ruling underlines how much of his resources have been absorbed fighting various court challenges. In nine instances, witnesses or defendants -- including the White House, McDougal and former Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker -- have challenged criminal convictions or court rulings, only to be rebuffed by the courts. But Starr's time has also been split between his private law practice and his public duties. Just yesterday, Starr argued at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Meineke muffler chain, which was appealing a $397 million judgment awarded to franchisees who claimed that the firm defrauded them of millions of dollars that were supposed to go to advertising. Clinton partisans seized on yesterday's argument to illustrate their contention that Starr has not devoted full energy to the taxpayers. "When he got up Tuesday morning, Mr. Starr had the choice to serve the public interest or his own," said White House spokesman James Kennedy. "He chose the latter course." Starr deflected questions about his work at Kirkland & Ellis, where he continues to earn up to $1 million a year, after the three-hour session in Richmond. Instead, he seemed to relish his brief furlough from government business. Far from appearing unprepared, Starr seemed sure-footed during aggressive questioning by judges seated at a wood-paneled dais in green leather swivel chairs. At one point, he complained "there has been a vilification" of his client. And in an allusion to a famous Watergate phrase, he waved a black binder of company letters and dismissed their significance, saying, "These are not smoking guns." If Starr has found a smoking gun against the first family in his Whitewater probe, he was not saying yesterday. The Little Rock grand jury disbanded two days before its official expiration date without any charges being brought against Hillary Clinton in connection with her legal work involving Whitewater. Starr and his deputies interviewed the first lady under oath for nearly five hours at the White House last month and presented a videotape of that session to the grand jury before closing it down. Starr could still decide to bring a Whitewater-related perjury or obstruction case in Washington, since the testimony of many witnesses, including Hillary Clinton, has also been given here, either before the grand jury or in depositions. While the expiration of the Arkansas grand jury signals Starr's efforts there are nearly at an end, his spokesman, Charles Bakaly, said he could not rule out the possibility another grand jury would be impaneled there in the future if evidence warrants. During 4 1/2 years of operation involving three successive groups of Arkansas citizens, the Little Rock grand jury handed up nine indictments, including charges against Tucker, McDougal and her late ex-husband, James B. McDougal. Starr's office also obtained several guilty pleas in the investigation. The latest group to serve on the grand jury celebrated the end of their two years on the job with a pizza party at the courthouse. The White House, by contrast, said the president was not ready to celebrate yet. "He's not expecting that it will fundamentally change things one way or another," said White House press secretary Michael McCurry. "The persistent quest for something in Whitewater will likely continue." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...starr050698.htm

Thanks for posting this...

It's an interesting look into the way we as human beings allow ourselves to embrace apathy, and how times can change so quickly and drastically.

lol, you made me think we were talking about Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton lol, you made me think we were talking about Bush.

I hope you are joking. The indirect reference to Bush is quite obvious.

Hillarious!

In a "It's so sad I better laugh because there's nothing else to do" kind of way

shucks! i was going to check the news sites for the breaking story.

is anyone here (namely the thread starter) intelligent enough to make a proper distinction from this and other examples of Executive privilege?

...or are we just gonna have another left-wing, emotive circle jerk and disregard the fundamental facts for the sake of blind hate?

you people are sheep.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo is anyone here (namely the thread starter) intelligent enough to make a proper distinction from this and other examples of Executive privilege? ...or are we just gonna have another left-wing, emotive circle jerk and disregard the fundamental facts for the sake of blind hate? you people are sheep.

It's always fun hearing that 26% minority crowd crying out towards everyone else when certain bouts of contradiction put his little dictator in question.

It's just too much a tickle to have you dwindling Bush supporters, especially you, Q, who've NEVER ONCE ON THIS FORUM demonstrate any dissent from this President, and has specifically claimed on one post not long ago that you have never disagreed with this president, find it worthy to point your little finger in a 360 degree direction at all those around you who no longer agree with your little Bush.

But you must forgive us little sheep for actually growing a few neurons over the past 6 years and come to realize that agreeing with your little dictator is not always in the best interest of our country. I do hope you find it somewhere in that little neocon heart of yours to have forgiveness on those who are not in your 26% minority. I absolutely beg of it from you.

Now, as to that "proper distinction", let us take a gander at the letter from Miers' Council, George Manning:

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Manning070709.pdf

Where he specifically noted that the WH asserted Executive Privilege on Miers that she cannot testify nor give any documents in question to the House Judiciary Committee. If that does not help you, allow your fingers to scroll further down and observe the note by Fielding, WH Counselor that specifically tells Manning that his client will not testify because:

quote:

"the President has decided to assert Executive Privilege with respect to the testimony sought from Ms. Miers concerning White House consideration, deliberations, or communications, whether internal or external, relating to the possible dismissal of United States Attorneys, including consideration of possible responses to congressional and media inquiries on the United States Attorneys matter."

Now if you want to play your cute semantics games on the differences between the charges on Clinton versus this US Attorneys case, you're more than welcome to do so on your own accord. But the point I believe Josh was making is that in both instances our Presidents are invoking Executive Privilege for questioning of their senior aides.

Your little President has covered up way too much bullshit, Q. He's throwing around Executive Privilege just a wee bit too much. It really does beg the question as to what on earth this Administration has to hide by not allowing Miers to respond or even be present during the hearing. I mean if this Administration was not involved in such efforts, I wonder why they won't allow Miers to respond?

I guess I'm not a good enough sheep like you, Q., who never asks such strange questions about our fearless leader. I will try harder. I will try harder.

I will try harder........

yes or no. is the President under oath?

EDIT> i'll answer for you since you took off on me.

no. President Bush is not under oath. but, thats irrelavent

Clinton, was, however, when he lied and obstructed in his sworn Grand Jury deposition regarding the Jones lawsuit. Clinton's attempt at Executive Privilege was desperate at best because he knew precedent was not on his side with his respect to the SCOTUS decision in US v. Nixon and he had actually broken the law. Clinton is that slimey. but again, Clinton is irrelavent as well.

what Bush is basically saying, since Executive Privilege has been determined by the SCOTUS as "not absolute", is that he knows his powers are fairly absolute in his authority over his Justice Dept. and that he is willing to take it and/or Congress to it's ultimate test in court. not only to protect his privilege, but future privileges as well.

he'll prevail under Separation of Powers but it probably won't go that far since everyone knows this is just a charade on the Democrat's part like a most crap they are involved in.

because, ultimately, this whole charade hurts the Executive, ultimately.

I know Q, it's real hard when the subject of dissent is blowjobs, you know, the topic Clinton couldn't claim executive privilege on. When it's actually some area that people care about, like leaking classified info, it's of no consequence and should be kept from the rest of the world, particularly the segment funding it.

I really have no clue how in years of seeing your views on here, you have never dissented from what Bush has said once. I know you have served in the military, but that shouldn't have turned you into a conscript that was forced to accept every comment until your death.

My father, a 3 tour Vietnam vet, prays for guys like you and he's far from a religious man. I still vividly remember the day when I was at home going through my job search and Colin Powell spoke to the UN. My dad came home from work during the speech to the UN and both of us got to call "bullshit" on how we sold this war. He watched us lie our way through Vietnam and this was par for the course. By the way, what ever happened to those mobile chemical weapons labs? Did they fail to exist, just like everything else we spoke against?

Nixon was a saint compared to these assholes. At least he was responsible enough to accept his losses and mistakes. It's too bad that we don't live closer to the Bushido code..

Excellent post Groundhog Boy. Nice to see you post after a while too btw .

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes or no. is the President under oath? EDIT> i'll answer for you since you took off on me. no. President Bush is not under oath. but, thats irrelavent

You're right, under the context in question it is absolutely irrelevant. Does he have to be put under oath in order to have the identical parallel of claiming Executive Privilege in order to protect his senior aides in the same manner as Clinton? Of course not, because in both cases there were possible underlying crimes that needed further investigation via testimony and documentation.

For Clinton, it was clear that he lied under oath to the grand jury, and that further testimony about the actions of Lewinsky was necessary. For Bush, his DoJ officials (i.e. Gonzales) have sworn testimony that directly contradicts documentation documentation that demonstrates he has not been as forthright to Congress. Furthermore, there is conflicting testimony with his former staff officials, which makes the water even murkier (I would argue done deliberately so).

This goes beyond what Gonzales or what the WH has said publicly. Trying to believe a freakin' word any of them say to the public or press is beyond difficult in its own right, but in terms of case law it's unfortunately not relevant. So although it may speak volumes about their ethical lapses to the public, that's not relevant as is sworn testimony and documentation.

And as a side event that became related to this case once the investigation was underway, we may also have a possible violation of the Hatch Act in regards to emails being sent by Rove and others in the WH via RNC email accounts, which is also a big no-no.

So while your attempts to separate the two cases are fun, the underlying issue of claiming Executive Privilege during an investigation with conflicting and contradictory testimony either to the grand jury (Clinton) or to congress (Bush/Gonzales/DoJ) are quite similar and cannot merely be hand waved away by you.

quote:

what Bush is basically saying, since Executive Privilege has been determined by the SCOTUS as "not absolute", is that he knows his powers are fairly absolute in his authority over his Justice Dept. and that he is willing to take it and/or Congress to it's ultimate test in court. not only to protect his privilege, but future privileges as well.

Oh please. What a heap of bullshit. Whatever you're smoking, please for the love of God put it away. Stop trying to sell us your absolute bullshit about Bush trying to protect future Presidential privileges and legacies with his incessant Executive Privilege actions. His actions have ALWAYS been for Bush and his legacy alone. Your president gives not a fucking whit about any future president (or future generation for that matter), so you can stop with that slapstick comedy right now.

Really now, should we really be so thankful that our President is claiming Executive Privilege on cases like Tillman?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

This is beyond the point of absurdity as to how much they are claiming secrecy. We're talking about one man who died three years ago in Afghanistan, and we have to, actually people like YOU buy into the bullshit that our WH can effectively block investigations into such transparent wrongdoing on the flimsy basis that their actions are confidential? Take a read at Waxman's note:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070713115949.pdf

As is noted, the Committee already has in its possession documented evidence that the President KNEW in advance before giving his big speech in honor of Tillman that it was "highly possible" Tillman was killed via friendly fire.

But what's painfully obvious is people like you just simply don't question him, NOT AT ANY COST. Not even for simply curiousity. I haven't once seen one argument from you here that demonstrates any possible questioning of your fearless leader, not just on his incredibly shoddy Yoo/Addington theories of Absolute Executive Authority (heaven forbid you actually question your Commander in Chief), but on anything.

Such is life for the dwindling neocons, I suppose.

quote:

he'll prevail under Separation of Powers but it probably won't go that far since everyone knows this is just a charade on the Democrat's part like a most crap they are involved in.

I can't even imagine what kind of psychological and emotional torture you will be in if your little leader doesn't prevail, as you predicted.

But I must say, I'm more than happy to take you up on that bet, not because I believe in the Democrats (that's admittedly hard to do these days given they've lost their backbones years ago), but because the record of neocons like yourself making predictions (i.e. Iraq) really isn't in your favor.

Hate to say it, but on that alone, odds are heavily in my favor.

Regardless, if there ever does come a day that the Dems. find their spine, I'm curious as to what you think about Inherent Contempt? And before you say "no fucking way", here's Conyers last Wednesday:

quote:

"A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. � 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives." http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=571

That would be quite a tall step, admittedly. But it is completely within the rights of Congress to do so (and by my contention, they must).

quote:

because, ultimately, this whole charade hurts the Executive, ultimately.

What hurts the Executive more is a failure to question the Executive when we believe they are abusing their powers, just as you questioned the Executive for lying about a fucking blowjob to a grand jury. Excuse us for questioning on matters that appear to be a bit more important and relevant to this country.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Excellent post Groundhog Boy. Nice to see you post after a while too btw .

Yeah, i'm too busy and frustrated to post much anymore. By this point, all the arguments are being recycled because nothing has changed in years.

BTW, I'm surprised I could type a coherent sentence let alone that whole thing after getting home last night. If I'd have been remotely sober, I probably wouldn't have bothered...

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I know Q, it's real hard when the subject of dissent is blowjobs, you know, the topic Clinton couldn't claim executive privilege on. When it's actually some area that people care about, like leaking classified info, it's of no consequence and should be kept from the rest of the world, particularly the segment funding it.

i don't care about blowjobs you moron, i care about context. something this thread grossly lacks and something you people consistantly fail to grasp when it comes to breaking the law when it doesn't fit your particular political mold. thats exactly what Clinton did, he broke the law and used Executive privilege to conceal it. Nixon did the same.

it cant really be described better than this:

Of course, the concept of hypocrisy is inherently asymmetrical, the phoneme hypo- being the Greek prefix for �beneath.� A hypocrite is one who has acted beneath the level of judgment we would ordinarily expect of him.

There is no such thing as hypocrisy when one is a pragmatist, or nihilist, a post-modernist, or a Democrat. When you profess no absolute, enduring principles, it�s simply impossible to fall short of them.

That�s why the left harps on republican �hypocrisy.� They themselves are immune to the charge, and hence it�s a rhetorical advantage to them.

Nevertheless, the asymmetry of the weapon has the compensating benefit that every time it is hurled at republicans it is, or should be, a reminder that, unlike leftists, we still admit there are transcendent principles worth striving for.

Bush couldn't have broken any laws because Bush can fire prosecutors for refusing to wear funny hats to work if he chose to.

Bush has every right to take the challenge to court and thats what he's going to do.

quote:

I really have no clue how in years of seeing your views on here, you have never dissented from what Bush has said once. I know you have served in the military, but that shouldn't have turned you into a conscript that was forced to accept every comment until your death.

i can smell a Donkey party political shakedown from a mile away. they're dogs that will say and do anything to regain their power and tear down the Executive for their own partisaned gains. thats what this fight is about. thats what most of these fights are about.

i

quote:

My father, a 3 tour Vietnam vet, prays for guys like you and he's far from a religious man. I still vividly remember the day when I was at home going through my job search and Colin Powell spoke to the UN. My dad came home from work during the speech to the UN and both of us got to call "bullshit" on how we sold this war. He watched us lie our way through Vietnam and this was par for the course. By the way, what ever happened to those mobile chemical weapons labs? Did they fail to exist, just like everything else we spoke against?

touching. did your father vote for Clinton or Gore?

quote:

Nixon was a saint compared to these assholes. At least he was responsible enough to accept his losses and mistakes. It's too bad that we don't live closer to the Bushido code..

Nixon broke the law

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i don't care about blowjobs you moron, i care about context. something this thread grossly lacks and something you people consistantly fail to grasp when it comes to breaking the law when it doesn't fit your particular political mold. thats exactly what Clinton did, he broke the law and used Executive privilege to conceal it. Nixon did the same.

Nixon and Clinton merely got caught. If this president truly has not broken the law, then surely in all instances such as turning over RNC emails, allowing Miers and Taylor to directly testify in this particular instance, it begs the question as to the rationale of his actions and what exactly he is withholding from Congressional inquiry in the same manner as why Nixon and Clinton both claimed Executive Privilege and refused to allow their senior officials to testify.

quote:

it cant really be described better than this: Of course, the concept of hypocrisy is inherently asymmetrical, the phoneme hypo- being the Greek prefix for �beneath.� A hypocrite is one who has acted beneath the level of judgment we would ordinarily expect of him. There is no such thing as hypocrisy when one is a pragmatist, or nihilist, a post-modernist, or a Democrat. When you profess no absolute, enduring principles, it�s simply impossible to fall short of them. That�s why the left harps on republican �hypocrisy.� They themselves are immune to the charge, and hence it�s a rhetorical advantage to them.

Assrocket? Malkin? Who said this tripe? How come you never quote your sources anymore?

quote:

Nevertheless, the asymmetry of the weapon has the compensating benefit that every time it is hurled at republicans it is, or should be, a reminder that, unlike leftists, we still admit there are transcendent principles worth striving for. Bush couldn't have broken any laws because Bush can fire prosecutors for refusing to wear funny hats to work if he chose to. Bush has every right to take the challenge to court and thats what he's going to do.

No one argues or denies that. Do you have a good quote about obfuscation and straw men arguments? You really need one inserted here, because you are continually creating them.

What is at the heart of this investigation is NOT whether Bush has the right to fire his attorneys at the blow of his fucking coke-littered nostrils, nor is what Bush or Gonzales has said publicly which albeit is flat-out bullshit is not on oath. What IS at the heart of this investigation, however, is conflicting testimony by Bush's AG and the AG's officials that needs further clarification from documents and testimony being withheld. Furthermore, the offshoot of this investigation also requires further documentation from the RNC email server as to whether or not Rove and others violated the Hatch Act or Presidential Records Act by governmental source email accounts to conduct political activities.

That is the heart of this investigation.

quote:

i can smell a Donkey party political shakedown from a mile away.

Wipe your neocon Bush-apologist ass for once and stop blaming everyone else of the stench.

quote:

they're dogs that will say and do anything to regain their power and tear down the Executive for their own partisaned gains.

The oversight really doesn't sit too well for you Republicans, does it? I'm sure sorry all this darn investigative stuff seems to make you all a bit uneasy, but considering you boys did jack shit of it over the past 6 years, it takes time to start cleaning up the fucking mess you created.

Unfortunately, the cleanup will last long after your leader whom you never question will be long gone.

quote:

thats what this fight is about. thats what most of these fights are about.

Hmmm, if you say so, champ.

quote:

Nixon broke the law

Nixon got caught.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Bush has every right to take the challenge to court and thats what he's going to do.

It's too bad that there won't be anything done until after he's out of office. To be honest, I'm all for them pressing this as far as they can, except that Bush stacked the court in his favor with Roberts and Alito (as shown by all of the recent decisions). So by the time that it gets to them and a Democrat is in office, they'll shoot it down to avoid precedent.

If you really think that what this administration is doing isn't illegal, I'll expect you to be awfully silent on here between 2009 and 2012 if a Democrat uses the power in even 1/2 as much force as this administration does.

This country needs strict constructionist judges, which is exactly who wasn't appointed, in order to stop the tyranny that is being spread through our country. I don't really give a shit which party is in power, as long as they don't have the power that Bush and Cheney thinks that a president should have.

BTW, Cheney, had no problem with Nixon, even though you deemed him a criminal.

quote:

Mr. Cheney�s Minority Report By SEAN WILENTZ Published: July 9, 2007 Princeton, N.J. Anthony Russo TWENTY years ago this week, Lt. Col. Oliver North testified for six days before a special joint House and Senate investigating committee. Permitted by the Democratic majority to appear in his bemedaled Marine uniform, and disastrously granted immunity, Colonel North freely admitted that he had shredded documents, lied to Congress and falsified official records. Colonel North justified these crimes as necessary to protect two of the Reagan administration�s covert policies: defying a Congressional ban on aiding the anti-Sandinista contra insurgents in Nicaragua; and selling arms to Iran � officially classified as a terrorist state � in order to free American hostages in the Middle East. Mixing bathos with belligerence, Colonel North played the incorruptible action hero facing down Washington politicians and lawyers. He also suggested that, under the Constitution, the president and not Congress held ultimate authority to direct foreign policy. Most of the Congressional committee members, Republicans and Democrats alike, expressed shock at Colonel North�s testimony. And despite the surge in Colonel North�s personal popularity, he failed to sway other Americans on the underlying issues. Clear majorities in opinion polls said that Colonel North had gone too far in his covert operations, especially in helping the contras. Roughly half of those polled believed that he had acted as if he was above the law. Sixty percent said that Congress was more trustworthy than the Reagan White House on foreign relations. And Mr. North was eventually convicted of three federal felonies � receiving an illegal payment, obstruction of a Congressional inquiry and destroying official documents, although an appellate court held that his testimony delivered under Congressional immunity may have affected jurors and reversed one conviction. (Prosecutors gave up on the other two.) But there were dissenters. A number of House Republicans on the committee cheered Colonel North on. One who led the way was Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who praised Colonel North as �the most effective and impressive witness certainly this committee has heard.� Mr. Cheney the congressman believed that Congress had usurped executive prerogatives. He saw the Iran-contra investigation not as an effort to get to the bottom of possible abuses of power but as a power play by Congressional Democrats to seize duties and responsibilities that constitutionally belonged to the president. At the conclusion of the hearings, a dissenting minority report codified these views. The report�s chief author was a former resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael J. Malbin, who was chosen by Mr. Cheney as a member of the committee�s minority staff. Another member of the minority�s legal staff, David S. Addington, is now the vice president�s chief of staff. The minority report stressed the charge that the inquiry was a sham, calling the majority report�s allegations of serious White House abuses of power �hysterical.� The minority admitted that mistakes were made in the Iran-contra affair but laid the blame for them chiefly on a Congress that failed to give consistent aid to the Nicaraguan contras and then overstepped its bounds by trying to restrain the White House. The Reagan administration, according to the report, had erred by failing to offer a stronger, principled defense of what Mr. Cheney and others considered its full constitutional powers. Not only did the report defend lawbreaking by White House officials; it condemned Congress for having passed the laws in the first place. The report made a point of invoking the framers. It cited snippets from the Federalist Papers � like Alexander Hamilton�s remarks endorsing �energy in the executive� � in order to argue that the president�s long-acknowledged prerogatives had only recently been usurped by a reckless Democratic Congress. Above all, the report made the case for presidential primacy over foreign relations. It cited as precedent the Supreme Court�s 1936 ruling in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, which referred to the �exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.� History, the report claimed, �leaves little, if any doubt that the president was expected to have the primary role of conducting the foreign policy of the United States.� It went on: �Congressional actions to limit the president in this area therefore should be reviewed with a considerable degree of skepticism. If they interfere with the core presidential foreign policy functions, they should be struck down.� These conclusions went beyond what had long been considered the outermost limits of presidential power � and they put a special twist on history. Hamilton certainly desired a strong executive, but warned that it would be �utterly unsafe and improper� to give a president complete control over foreign policy. The Curtiss-Wright decision actually concerned a presidential claim of constitutional power to act in the absence of an act passed by Congress, not in violation of such an act. One of the foremost constitutional scholars of the 20th century, Edward S. Corwin, stated in 1957 that the Constitution was �an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy,� and that in many cases �the lion�s share� of that privilege belonged to the president. But Corwin finally insisted that �the power to determine the substantive content of American foreign policy is a divided power.� The Iran-contra joint committee majority in 1987, including some Senate Republican members, charged that the minority report, with tortuous illogic, reduced Congress�s foreign policy role to nearly nothing. Senator Warren Rudman, a New Hampshire Republican and vice chairman of the Senate side of the investigating committee, paraphrased Adlai Stevenson and quipped that the minority report had separated the wheat from the chaff and left in the chaff. His comments did not lead Mr. Cheney to alter course, as Mr. Cheney�s actions as vice president demonstrate. Asked by a reporter in 2005 to explain his expansive views about presidential power, Mr. Cheney replied, �If you want reference to an obscure text, go look at the minority views that were filed with the Iran-contra committee.� �Nobody has ever read them,� he said, but they �are very good in laying out a robust view of the president�s prerogatives with respect to the conduct of especially foreign policy and national security matters.� In truth, as Mr. Cheney has also remarked, the struggle for him began much earlier, during the Nixon administration. A business partner says that Mr. Cheney told him that Watergate was merely �a political ploy by the president�s enemies.� For Mr. Cheney, the scandal was not Richard Nixon�s design for an imperial presidency but the Democrats� drive for an imperial Congress. Still, Mr. Cheney�s quest to accumulate unaccountable executive power � a quest that has received much attention of late � took a major turn 20 years ago. And part of Iran-contra�s legacy has now become a legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration. Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton, is the author of a forthcoming book on the Reagan administration and its legacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/o.../09wilentz.html

Oh, yeah, and my father sure as hell didn't vote for this corrupt administration, either time.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy If you really think that what this administration is doing isn't illegal, I'll expect you to be awfully silent on here between 2009 and 2012 if a Democrat uses the power in even 1/2 as much force as this administration does.

That's not how fundamentalism works.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.