People in Washington are beginning to connect the dots. Two weeks ago I stated that in his investigation of the Valerie Plame CIA leak, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was getting close to something important but never discovered what it was. In fact, it is my belief the reason he prosecuted Scooter Libby for perjury (all the while knowing that Libby was not the leaker) is precisely because he knew he was being misled about "something" but never quite stumbled across whatever it was. Two developments this week in the Congress vs. White House saga are surely the result of some very smart people connecting the Fitzgerald dots to the email dots to the Karl Rove dots. However, government investigators are not the President's worst nightmare.
This week, when congressional investigators requested emails regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, they noticed a 16-day gap in relevant emails from November 15th to December 2nd, 2006. Further, when House members requested White House staffers to testify on Capitol Hill under oath, President Bush stonewalled by asserting executive privilege. So what is he trying to hide?
If this were about firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons, Bush could make all of this go away by simply cutting ties with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and letting him take the blame for mishandling what is a common presidential practice. However, Bush chose to take the difficult road, not because of his fondness for Gonzalez but because Karl Rove has an albatross tied around his neck that threatens to sink the entire administration. Bush plays his hand cool as a cucumber right up to the moment investigators start looking at Karl Rove. When prying eyes turn to Rove, Bush panics and pulls out all of the stops. His latest panic attack came in the form of claiming he has an executive privilege which allows him to keep Karl Rove and others from testifying under oath to Congress.
Briefly, executive privilege has its roots in the Constitution. Although not explicitly stated, the clauses relating to the balance of power between the three branches of government suggest that:
1) The President (Executive Branch) has the right to private and candid conversations with their advisors;
2) The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) may restrict that right and request private documents or testimony in the interest of getting to the bottom of a criminal trial.
CNN Legal Correspondent Jeffrey Toobin believes this tact will be successful for two reasons. One, there is no criminal trial going on, thereby no reason to trump executive privilege. Secondly, federal cases take a long time to wind their way through the court system. Bush only has 21 months left to serve in office. Toobin is right on both counts. However, I believe Bush's attempt to close ranks will not unravel at the hands of the official legal process, but under the weight of the most savvy, Internet-fueled press this country has ever seen.
The President's ability to fend off legal subpoenas is formidable. Nevertheless, he has a bigger problem on his hands. A prying Washington press corps now knows where to look for answers to all of the questions swirling around this White House. More importantly, the 16-day gap in White House emails smells a lot like 19-minutes of blank tape during the Nixon administration. This is going to invite lots of comparisons between the two scenarios and the suggestion that what Bush is trying to hide is as damaging as the Watergate break-in. Nixon's attempts to hide evidence of wrongdoing led to his resignation and the country's loss of trust in the office of the president. At this stage in the current investigations, there is not merely blood in the water - there's a dead body out there and the sharks know it. It's no longer a matter of "IF" the press finds it - it's simply a matter of when.
» left by Robert Melaccio, Sr.(5,282) Robert Melaccio, Sr. (2 years 201 days ago.)
Once again an excellent article. However, what troubles me deeply is the need to write, question and examine which is of itself a blot and sin on the government and this nations highest office. I also have to ponder why so long in coming and “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”! Joe correct me but we have a professed Christian in the White House and it is evident he believes in what he is doing to the extent he does not seem concerned and forges right ahead no matter what is going on around him. However, in my opinion in the approach taken and in the trust he places in others of wealth and big business I feel he has been either used, duped, just plain incompetent, or a liar or those around him are. It could be the entire bunch on both sides of the isle? In the fight against terror I sincerely understand that we must take the fight to the enemy but win! We do not have that capability in the current force or assets. In Iraq and in the case of Illegal Workers, I see nothing but ideology and quite frankly the breaking of law and the abuse of power. However, I try to outline where in my opinion the problem begins in my article "What Can We Do". We all realize this man grew up in the halls of the privileged and powerful. Wheeling and dealing is a way of life and the concepts he relies on and the wealthy he trusts in have in my opinion failed him miserably. Yet this is how he we grew up and this is in reality all he knows. He never had the concerns average Americans had or have, or face. In my opinion he places so much blind faith in free market concepts without so much as a fear of greed and exploitation that he is blind to all else. Rhetorically it seems so bad to the point of corruption or stupidity and one cannot figure which?
» left by Joseph Collins(366) Joseph Collins (2 years 201 days ago.)
Robert, thks for commenting! It is troubling that a professed christian has so little regard for the will of the people he pledged to serve. Have you noticed that many people in his administration served his Dad, yet they never got into trouble working for Bush Sr?
Woodward and Berstein (Watergate journalists) recently stated that one of the traits Bush shares with Nixon is a psychological unfitness for the presidency. His Dad grew up in a world of privilege, but never exhibited this behavior. Respond to this comment
» left by Jeff Pitts from Omaha, NE (2 years 201 days ago.)
Wow, that last comment was a whole lot of ideology with dash of bitterness towards people simply for having money! Anyway... I appreciate you pointing out that the president does have some allowance here with executive privilege. Imagine a presidency, completely transparent. I don't think anyone would like to see how THAT sausage is made. I think there are a lot of people who forget that executive privelege is not soley for unpopular Republican Presidents! But I have to challenge one notion. This whole Watergate comparason. The only reason the Nixon tapes were relevant was because a crime was committed. There still is no evidence of one so the whole missing 16 days of emails is a mute point. At least if you are comparing it to Watergate. Respond to this comment
» left by Joseph Collins(366) Joseph Collins (2 years 201 days ago.)
Jeff, you got the cart before the horse. The 19-mins of missing tape was the destruction of crime evidence. In this case, the missing 16-days of emails may also lead to a crime. In any case, it is a crime to mislead Congress. How you can say that is moot is beyond me.
We will not know if this is Watergate all over again until people start singing, but given this admins' record, 21 months is not too short for a fed trial - it is too long for a prez addicted to lying to the American people. Respond to this comment
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
