In today’s news:
Fielding on Thursday explained Bush’s position on executive privilege this way: “For the president to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisers and between those advisers and others within and outside the Executive Branch.”
Really?
What are the possible reasons the President could refuse to reveal the content of conversations with his advisors? There are only four I can think of:
- The conversation involved classified matters, in which case redacted documents could still be released to Congress and to the public. The full documents, however, can be made available to Congressional committees whose members have the appropriate security clearances, such as the Intelligence Committee. None of this applies to the US Attorneys scandal, however.
- The conversation involved operational details and plans for ongoing military action. This is probably the strongest argument in the bunch, except that again, there are Congressional committees that should have access to this material on request. And again, none of this applies to the hiring and firing of US Attorneys.
- The conversation would be embarrassing to the administration. Of course, this is a non-starter; there is no presidential privilege to avoid embarrassment. I find it hard to believe that even this president would risk opening himself to an impeachment battle over mere embarrassment. It’s not like this guy has any shame to begin with.
- The conversation involved conspiracy to commit a crime. Again, the President is subject to much the same laws as anyone else, and refusing to cooperate with a Congressional subpoena is simple obstruction of justice.
In light of these considerations, the only reasonable conclusion is that Number 4 is at work. It cannot just be that the firings were politically motivated. That would indeed be embarrassing and unethical, but it is not, strictly speaking, illegal. As the talking meatsticks have been fond of noting, US Attorneys serve at the President’s pleasure. It must be the case that actual crimes were committed — and we can safely assume that the crimes in question were either the illegal manipulation of elections or obstruction of justice, or both.
Given that most of Congress consists of former attorneys, it’s safe to bet that they know very clearly what is going on, on both sides of the aisle. We are in for a very interesting summer, less from the Democrat side than the Republican side, as the rats place their bets on whether to abandon the sinking ship of the Bush-Cheney junta or to bail faster.
