legal rationalizations…

Posted on Thursday 28 June 2007


I’m still obsessing about Paul Clement’s opinion on whether Bush can assert executive privilege over documents relating to the US Attorney purge. Here’s a little tidbit I find interesting.

Clement is discussing the third chunk of things Congress requested.

The final category of documents and testimony concerns communications between the Department of Justice and the White House concerning proposals to dismiss and replace U.S. Attorneys and possible responses to congressional and media inquiries about the U.S. Attorney resignations. These communications are deliberative and clearly fall within the scope of executive privilege.4
And here’s what that footnote says:

4 To the extent they exist, White House communications approving the Department’s actions by or on behalf of the President would receive particularly strong protection under executive privilege.
Does that make anyone think of the 18-day gap?
As usual, emptywheel is way ahead of the rest of us. She’s figuring out what they’re hiding. I read that thing by Clement and I was thinking, "What in the hell is he talking about?" But now that she mentions it, that 18 days was also the period during which they had figured out [by watching their t.v.’s and using the Google on the Internets] that they’d lost the mid-term elections. My guess would be that they were running scared. The U.S. Attorney Plan was their hope for 2008, yet the loss of the Congressional Majority made them vulnerable to exactly what is happening right now – Investigations. These "deliberations" were a time when they made a terrible [and hopefully fatal] call. As for what Clement is talking about, my aversion to legalese has me out of the running for interpretation. They’re not turning stuff over because they don’t want to, because it’s going to get them in some very hot water…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.