Executive Privilege Claims for Rove and Bolton are Illegal

[Harry Hope]

From The Associated Press, 11/29/07:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Leahy_Bush_not_involved_in_firings_11292007.html

LAURIE KELLMAN
AP News

A Senate chairman acknowledged explicitly on Thursday that President
Bush was not involved in the firings of U.S. attorneys last winter and
therefore ruled illegal the president's executive privilege claims
protecting his chief of staff, John Bolten, and former adviser Karl
Rove.

Leahy directed Bolten, Rove, former political director Sara Taylor and
her deputy, J. Scott Jennings, to comply "immediately" with their
subpoenas for documents and information about the White House's role
in the firings of U.S. attorneys.

"I hereby rule that those claims are not legally valid to excuse
current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying
and producing documents related to this investigation," Leahy wrote.

The ruling is a formality that clears the way for Leahy's panel to
vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate.

The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the
significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no
involvement in these firings," Leahy, D-Vt., wrote in his ruling.

"The president's lack of involvement in these firings

 

[Taylor]

"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
newsp2uk35u3q081692453og2buek6moub2gf@4ax.com...
>
> From The Associated Press, 11/29/07:
> http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Leahy_Bush_not_involved_in_firings_11292007.html
>
> LAURIE KELLMAN
> AP News
>
> A Senate chairman acknowledged explicitly on Thursday that President
> Bush was not involved in the firings of U.S. attorneys last winter and
> therefore ruled illegal the president's executive privilege claims
> protecting his chief of staff, John Bolten, and former adviser Karl
> Rove.
>
> Leahy directed Bolten, Rove, former political director Sara Taylor and
> her deputy, J. Scott Jennings, to comply "immediately" with their
> subpoenas for documents and information about the White House's role
> in the firings of U.S. attorneys.
>
> "I hereby rule that those claims are not legally valid to excuse
> current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying
> and producing documents related to this investigation," Leahy wrote.
>
> The ruling is a formality that clears the way for Leahy's panel to
> vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate.
>
> The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the
> significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no
> involvement in these firings," Leahy, D-Vt., wrote in his ruling.
>
> "The president's lack of involvement in these firings - by his own
> account and that of many others - calls into question any claim of
> executive privilege."
>
> It was the latest salvo in a nearly yearlong controversy spawned by
> the firings of at least nine U.S. attorneys that ultimately cost
> former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales his job.
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Harry

They're illegal because Leahy deems it so? I'll wait for a court to
decide...

 

[zzpat]

Taylor wrote:

>
> They're illegal because Leahy deems it so? I'll wait for a court to
> decide...
>

The courts really don't have a lot of power when it comes to oversight.
- congress has sole authority to watch over the executive branch and see
to it that it follows our laws.

Congress also has the sole authority to investigate and impeach so any
information they get from Rove, Bolton or Libby that can be used to
impeach Bush can't be stopped by any court, not even the Supreme Court.

If the courts attempt to stop impeachment or oversight, the judges on
the Supreme Court who rule against the Constitution would be subject to
impeachment and removal from office.

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm