Comments (50)

Rebel wrote on August 2, 2007 12:12 PM:

Scott Jennings today showed everyone in the U S A the proper and legal way to exert educative privilege.

All the more reason to hold Meirs in Contempt of Congress.

Nestor wrote on August 2, 2007 12:15 PM:

It seems to me that executive privilege doesn't cover his job description, it was designed to protect unfettered advice from subordinates to the president. I didn't hear a question about what he had advised the president, only about what he did, and if he attended any meetings with the president.

chicago recluse wrote on August 2, 2007 12:17 PM:

He won't even answer a question about his job! I can't wait for 2009 when all these bums get shown the door.

RSchewe wrote on August 2, 2007 12:21 PM:

That was just plain funny.

Hoppy wrote on August 2, 2007 12:23 PM:

Congress loses any oversight ability, as far as the executive branch of the government is concerned, unless they follow up with contempt citations for all of these twirps who are treating them with contempt. It takes a bit of courage to cite them for contempt, I suppose, although I think it would take more courage to eat in a restaurant. I'm really puzzled by the hesitation to act.

EH wrote on August 2, 2007 12:23 PM:

I hope I wind up being glad that Congress is touching all of these bases.

Jack Flash wrote on August 2, 2007 12:23 PM:

They need to start using the Constitutional power of Congress to jail those who refuse to provide information Congress requires under the scope of its Constitutional powers - as recognized by the courts. Yeah, it'll push Bush closer to declaring martial law; but better for the Constitution to go down fighting than to fear the altercation, and merely slip away.

Won't tell ya - claiming executive privilege! wrote on August 2, 2007 12:24 PM:

Seeing this reminded me of watching a hearing involving a Mafia kingpin repeatedly "taking the 5th" over and over again, but that's the case, isn't it? NExt up, look forward to people like letter carriers refusing to tell you if you've got any mail, because they claim executive privilege. This may also become the primary answer everyone receives when calling a customer service number, after "press 1".

Casam wrote on August 2, 2007 12:24 PM:

Wow, they are all telling Chairman Leahy what Cheney told him to do.

ITMF'sA

beth in cary wrote on August 2, 2007 12:25 PM:

The President cannot claim Executive Privilege for the entire world can he? Yet that's what he's doen. where in the Constituion does it say a Pres. can do this? there have been cases which show that when the Executive Branch exerts EP to hold up the investigation of another branch of govt. it is obstruction of justice.
Just slap them all with Contempt charges in the House. Just do it already-start with Rove.

kcr wrote on August 2, 2007 12:28 PM:

It’s much, much worse than anyone could imagine.

The Democrats are damn fools if they believe they’ll have the White House in 2009. But they’ve clearly put all their eggs in that basket. Damn.

judyinnm wrote on August 2, 2007 12:29 PM:

Wonder if he'd even answer how much he is being paid??? Georgejr gets to have people on the Federal payroll whose function is nobody else's business - Shouldn't Georgejr be paying him out of his own pocket???

judyinnm wrote on August 2, 2007 12:30 PM:

Wonder if he'd even answer how much he is being paid??? Georgejr gets to have people on the Federal payroll whose function is nobody else's business - Shouldn't Georgejr be paying him out of his own pocket??? Cut off the funding...

bobh wrote on August 2, 2007 12:30 PM:

do any of you see this as a last straw defense?

as in, once the dems batter down this door the hareem will be fully exposed and vulnerable?

ahem wrote on August 2, 2007 12:32 PM:

"Wonder if he'd even answer how much he is being paid???"

Or who's paying his legal bills, since he relied so much on lawyer huddles this morning.

litigatormom wrote on August 2, 2007 12:35 PM:

Leahy: "Let's not be too contemptuous of this Committee...."

Why tolerate ANY contempt of the Committee?

gcs wrote on August 2, 2007 12:45 PM:

Leahy: "Where is the White House, Mr. Jennings?"

Jennings: "Senator, I respectfully decline to answer that question."

kentuck wrote on August 2, 2007 12:47 PM:

What a loser! I detect a weak link somewhere between Ol' Scotty and his Attorney? Specter realized how much he was in over his head and attempted to get the hearing behind closed doors to protect him but he chose to evoke "executive privilege" in public.

It was obvious that he was attempting to protect Karl Rove as much as George W Bush, as in the one instance where he tried not to confirm that kr@gwb43 was the RNC email address of Rove.

I doubt that we will see this witness in public again. It did not take long for him to embarrass himself and all his co-conspirators...

RLK wrote on August 2, 2007 12:55 PM:

Seems Arlene has "wussed out" on AGAG, not surprized though, he appears to be a staunch supporter of the constitution but allows a supreme court decision that contains just the right amount of weasel words to trump it. Why not let an investigation determine if perjury occurred? Time for the CMTE to get some cajones! Put a few admin lackies in the DC cooler (ask Judith Miller) for a while and let them think about what is important: loyalty to an imcompetent, dangerous president or preservation of this nation!

AJ wrote on August 2, 2007 1:00 PM:

I think the committee was very sharp today -- they wasted no time in getting to questions where this none-too-bright guy would have to decide whether or not to assert privilege. And then he over-asserted it, claiming it in instances where the privilege (if any existed) had already been blown (e.g. on merely setting up a meeting that was laid out in an e-mail DOJ had already turned over).

If everything is privileged then nothing is privileged. Very Darkness at Noon.

Code word brain -- as in what have they done with Fred Fielding's brain?

jeffgee wrote on August 2, 2007 1:03 PM:

Pull his string and out comes the recorded message, Executive Privilege, the variant of Monica Goodling's taking the 5th.

jeffgee wrote on August 2, 2007 1:04 PM:

Pull his string and out comes the recorded message, Executive Privilege, the variant of Monica Goodling's taking the 5th.

jeffgee wrote on August 2, 2007 1:07 PM:

Even his answer is a lie: "I respectfully decline to answer...'
The truth would be
"I contemptuously decline to answer, Senator. Now go fuck yourself."

LTO wrote on August 2, 2007 1:20 PM:

What is this guy's salary? I'd like all of our money back. The nation deserves answers.

Christian Speidel wrote on August 2, 2007 1:24 PM:

I am joking, well sort of, has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the use of hypnosis on reluctant witnesses? Maybe the CIA or Pentagon has an expert in this area that could be used to put Gonzo , Rover, et al under a trance of American Truthiness and finally get them to remember something, Anything! I am afraid that these guys might not remember where the live someday and end up homeless walking the beautiful streets of DC at night.

Citi92 wrote on August 2, 2007 1:27 PM:

@LTO

According to the National Journal, in an article last week:

Jennings, Jeffery S.
Special assistant to the president and deputy director of political affairs
$97,500.00

nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2007/whsalaries.htm

Jennings' own deputy, who was involved in the removal of Bud Cummins and installation of Griffin, Jane Cherry, just left the White House to become NASA's White House Liaision. She got bumped up to a salary between $110k-$140k. So far she's steered clear of testimony, but questions need to be asked...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/31/8364/55557

linda wrote on August 2, 2007 1:31 PM:

uh oh -- i bet chuck schumer will be so enraged by the condescension and contempt that he's gonna post another petition for peeps to register their upset...

their cowardice makes me sick as this country dissolves into muck.

cv wrote on August 2, 2007 1:36 PM:

Kinda wimpy to say "don't be too contemptuous." That's like saying, "you can show contempt for us, but please don't take it too far."

Jeffrey Brock wrote on August 2, 2007 1:36 PM:

This is exactly what Leahy should be doing. If the guy is being told to assert executive privilege, then they should just make him do it over and over again so it's blatantly clear what's going on.

Clearly the guy is a stooge...

ChrisNJ63 wrote on August 2, 2007 1:40 PM:

General Question; Aside from alot of huffing, puffing and outrage being expressed, what exactly can the Democrats do about this? My Sister and I have been debating whether there is really anthing the Dems could do or whether they are just a bunch of candy-asess afraid to upset the Washington bobble-head consensus that America wouldn't like such drastic action taken against Mr. 28% and his White House. Could the Sargeant at Arms be sent with a pair of handcuffs for these people or would a move like that that prove to be counter-productive?

LimaBN wrote on August 2, 2007 1:42 PM:

Since these people are not working for us, why are we paying them? Shouldn't the Royal Exchequer be responsible, rather than the United States of America?

Let BushCo pay their salaries. They sure as heck don't work for America.

AJ wrote on August 2, 2007 1:53 PM:

Chris - the committee needs to get these guys on the record (which they did today) asserting executive privilege in instances in which either it is clear that no privilege ever existed or that if it did, it has been blown by other events. They need to clearly show that the assertion is not based in law (hence the questions about the meeting Jennings set up that was discussed in an e-mail) but in political considerations. The stonewalling has to be so obvious that even the meanest intelligence (Orrin Hatch or Jeff Sessions take your pick) gets offended by the nose thumbed in their direction.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 2, 2007 2:01 PM:

Congress NEEDS to have the Capitol Police start escorting these farging jack_holes away in cuffs after testfying. Make the Attorney's General have to Habeus Corpus their flabby arses outta jail.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 2, 2007 2:02 PM:

Congress NEEDS to have the Capitol Police start escorting these farging jack_holes away in cuffs after testfying. Make the Attorney's General have to Habeus Corpus their flabby arses outta jail.

parrot wrote on August 2, 2007 2:12 PM:

Was Citizen Jennings attorney sworn in for this hearing. I believe that there are serious abuses of Attorney-client privilege going on here all over the place. Also, it is only a matter of time before Fielding is subpoenaed at this rate...and the Court has already ruled he does NOT have privilege.

What is really at question here is does the Congress have enough political clout to actually hold these guys in contempt. It seems afraid to use that power.

My guess is that Leahey doesn't know whether he has the votes to sustain a contempt vote, let alone impeachment of anyone. It is a sad day for the Constitution and hopefully, if a strong Dem majority is permitted to ever gain office ever again, there will be a Constitutional Amendment to rein the Bushites in next time...if there even is a Constitution worth more than being a yellowing piece of paper sitting in a dusty and ill-funded library somewhere.

ChrisNJ63 wrote on August 2, 2007 2:29 PM:

AJ; Thanks for the repsonse, but once everyone is on record and the litigation phase of the game starts, won't that basically run out the clock on Bush's term? That's obviously the game plan, and everybody knows it, but can the Dems do anything to short circuit the strategy? Waiting for Orin Hatch to finally come around is never going to happen. He was the only fool on the Sunday shows last week with a straight face trying to claim this whole affair was just politics and the White House are just the victims of it. Sorry for my cynicism.

johnnydoughey wrote on August 2, 2007 2:30 PM:

Public: "Help! We're under attack! What can we do? Senator! Congressman! What should we do?"

Congress: "Calm down, you poor souls. We don't want to do anything until we are absolutely positive that we will win.. and get reelected..."

impeach wrote on August 2, 2007 2:32 PM:

The president should be impeached for contempt of congress by invoking executive privilege in this case.

bugaboo wrote on August 2, 2007 2:42 PM:

Bush wants this fight. The White House is doing this most purposefully thinking that the Supreme Court will be called for a ruling which will a) slow things down a bit to push us all closer to the end of W's presidency with a chance to escape any punishment and b) possibly return a favorable verdict given the make up of the Court and the clear contempt of the Constitution exhibited in any conservative judge.

Congress needs to pull its authority trigger and order the sergeant at arms to arrest them but: don't do the woman as any of the first few arrests; keep building up the evidence to show the public how contemptuous the WH is to ensure they stay/get on your side; get truly nasty in grilling some of these people so that there is more exposure in the media of what these anti-Americans are doing when called to Congress; and, keep turning up the heat on more and more members of the Administration until they finally show their hand, lose it, and America looks at their TVs with wide eyes and open mouths thinking, "Wow! That president is not only an idiot but needs serious help!"

Peter Vander Arend wrote on August 2, 2007 2:50 PM:

Jennings is nothing more than a paid stooge, lackey, and loyal Bushie willing to impale his future on a sword and provide cover for his superiors.

As disgusting as this contemptuous behavior played, I wonder where the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will weigh in. There sat Arlen (The Ghost) Specter squirming & wondering how he can appeal to real conservatives who see "Executive Privilege" as nothing more than a masive smokescreen to whitewash wrong doing of the most greivous nature.

What about the rest of the Republicans who sit on that Committee: Kyl, Hatch, Grassley, Brownback, Coburn, Graham, Cornyn, and Sessions. MISSING IN ACTION.... that's the best way to describe these shills who are willing to eschew their solemn oath to defend the Constitution.

Protecting Bush, Cheney, Rove, and a whole host of lesser minions who have violated the very spirit of our judical system makes any American citizen wonder whether our system of justice means ANYTHING. We're on a slippery slope, about to slide into anarchy where rule of law means no more than it does in Iraq.

theWalrus wrote on August 2, 2007 3:05 PM:

We are moving from the sublime to the ridiculous. Jennings exerted Executive Privilege over documents the WH HAS already supplied to the committee!

We did find out, for sure, at this hearing that Specter really is totally full of it when speaks about holding this administration accountable for anything. I'm afraid this thing is lost. IF Leahy has the balls to go forward and press the case the clock will run out and nobody WILL be held accountable for the widespread lawlessness of the Bush administration.

jw1 wrote on August 2, 2007 3:18 PM:

Personally, I have no problem to letting these flagrancies play out past the end of W's term.

Then bring charges-- with no chance of pardons.

jw1

Shaker o salt wrote on August 2, 2007 3:47 PM:

So much for any loyalty to American citizens!

Wouldn't it be so nice if someone (anyone)from the bush admin could have an ounce of integrity, stand up and admit the truth.

Yeah, the honest ones have all been purged by loyal party apparatchiks.

AJ wrote on August 2, 2007 5:36 PM:

Chris,

I think the administration is hoping to run out the clock but 16 months (at the current pace of hearings) is a long time to ride it out. My feeling is that these claims on executive privilege are going to make it to court sooner rather than later unless the Dems become somehow convinced that they will lose in court. If that happens, I think the inherent contempt proceedings are the fallback option.

Roberts apparently worked for Fielding when he tried this same tactic during the Reagan years with Anne Gorsuch Burford ... so while at any other time in our history I'd expect the courts to sharply rebuke the administration for egregious over-reaching, I don't think the Dems should trust this court to do the right thing.

cecil wrote on August 2, 2007 6:32 PM:

Few outside the beltway care about this witch hunt. However, I am happy to see Leahy and Co. spinning their wheels in this farce as the longer it lasts the more silly it looks. All of which is plus for the Republicans.

db wrote on August 2, 2007 6:47 PM:

Leahy has some big decisions to make.

If he just throws in the towel and issues a report, he will have greatly diminished the power and authority of the congress while enhancing that of the executive. He will have failed to honor his oath of office to uphold the constitution. I can't imagine he could live with that. He takes that stuff very seriously, as he should.

So, he has to do something. The choices are pursuing contempt of the witnesses, or not, pursuing perjury investigation of Gonzales, or not, and pursuing impeachment of gonzales, or not.

He has to challenge this ridiculous assertion of executive privilege. The only way to do that is through contempt charges. It's a tough call on whether to use congress' inherent authority or go with the courts. I suspect he does not believe the circumstances warrant inherent contempt charges. He wants congress' power vindicated and the executive put in its place as much or more than he wants testimony.

As for AG's perjury, he will join the call for an independent prosecutor. If DOJ balks, he will sign on to the impeachment of AG, which originates in the house in any event.

He must be pretty disgusted. I sure am.

db wrote on August 2, 2007 6:59 PM:

"Few outside the beltway care about this witch hunt. However, I am happy to see Leahy and Co. spinning their wheels in this farce as the longer it lasts the more silly it looks. All of which is plus for the Republicans."

Of course, like all good bushies, you have to completely ignore reality to make this assertion, and you have to have zero regard for the rule of law or the integrity of the DOJ. If Leahy is just spinning his wheels, why are so many republicans calling for the AG to resign and expressing disgust at what the man has done.

If it's such a farce, why have seven of the top attorneys in ther DOJ resigned?

And if you think this is a plus for republicans, you must like being in the minority, a shrinking minority at that.

You republicans, with your vitters and foleys and abramhoffs and Stenens and Libbys and the list of criminals, perverts and crooks is so long I can't even remember all of them. Crook and liars, that's the modern GOP. And you, you pathetic soul, are proud of it. ROTFLMAO

heh wrote on August 2, 2007 8:19 PM:

Scott Jennings was the one having power point lunch sessions at the GAO and caused Lurita Doan to be investigated by Henry Waxman, remember those?

Why don't they ask him about that?

Mr. Jennings did you have a power point presentations for employees at the GAO?

If he asserts executive priv. cuff his ass and fire him on the spot!

Todd wrote on August 3, 2007 11:28 AM:

Interestingly enough, if this whole process drags out in the courts until after Bush leaves office there will be interesting issues. If Congress continues to press, and Bush continues to stall, then none of these hacks can be pardoned by and out-of-office Bush. Fine with me.

Todd wrote on August 3, 2007 11:28 AM:

Interestingly enough, if this whole process drags out in the courts until after Bush leaves office there will be interesting issues. If Congress continues to press, and Bush continues to stall, then none of these hacks can be pardoned by and out-of-office Bush. Fine with me.