Comments on: Pat Leahy on Executive Privilege — From the Clinton Years!

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:24:30 +0000

Maybe I’m really confused? Clinton fired all but one of the US attorneys without cause when he took office. There was no Congressional investigation of Clinton doing that. Why? Because it was his executive privilege. The job of being a US attorney has always been a patronage job; it is expected to be one. What Bush did was UN-expected – he did NOT do that. He retained many of the attorneys who had been appointed by Clinton. But when he decides years later to let go of only 8 of them, Feinstein and this lame liberal do nothing Congress wants to make it some sort of ‘crime’. They don’t have a leg to stand on but continue spewing this ‘hate Bush’ / ‘hate USA’ rhetoric only because they like the sound of their own voices. All of it is circus act that gets our country NO WHERE.

By: Thinking Right » Blog Archive » Beneath Contempt

Thinking Right » Blog Archive » Beneath Contempt — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 04:33:03 +0000

[...] Just for the heck of it, here’s Leahy on Executive priviledge during the Clinton years. [...]

By: Michelle Malkin » The do-nothing Democrats throw a bone to nutroots: Contempt citations passed

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:14:38 +0000

[...] Flashback: Pat Leahy on executive privilege…from the Clinton years. Posted in: Democrats Send to a Friend Printer Friendly comments (1) trackbacks (0) [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:59:19 +0000

How can this issue be anything besides partisan politics? Maybe someone can educate me on any other reason Congress is “investigating” this. Does not the President have power to fire federal prosecutors, for any cause or none at all? Does he have to have a reason that is acceptable to the House and Senate? What of Clinton’s termination of every federal prosecutor? I’d love to administer a test on the Constitution to all of those yahoos at the Capitol, and be able to expel those that failed.

By: Thinking Right » Blog Archive » Ignorance, Executive Privilege, And Leahy’s Hypocrisy

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:15:55 +0000

[...] Patterico’s Pontifications has pointed out a couple of relevant items. First of all, Patrick “leaky” Leahy had an entirely different take on subpoenas during the Clinton administration. Here’s the take he had on them on ABC’s ” This week: Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee . . . [...]

By: Mark Levin Fan » Blog Archive » Don in Lake Ronkonkoma on Patrick Leahy

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:26:23 +0000

[...] Yeah, he’s a hypocrite! The White House and Republicans in Congress need to remind the country of his 1999 comments! by MLF @ 9:26 pm. Filed under Mark Levin Audio [link] [...]

By: DRJ

DRJ — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:57:26 +0000

Here’s the first link that comes up in the Yahoo search engine for “Senator Leahy hypocrite”:

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting On The Nomination Of Alberto R. Gonzales To Be Attorney General Of The United States (January 26, 2005).

Senator Leahy opposed AG’s confirmation because AG failed to “demonstrate a new openness, to provide a fuller examination of Administration policies and to back away from the Administration’s extreme views of virtually limitless Executive power..”

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

By: Biff

Biff — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 01:31:39 +0000

wls,

I don’t think the Congress has the right to conduct “oversight” of the WH and its staff. They have the right to conduct “oversight” of the federal agencies they fund, based on the fact that those agencies execute the laws as passed by Congress.

Congress explicitly has the right to conduct oversight of the executive branch in cases of impeachment; past that, I think you’re right that there is a line there, i.e., Congress doesn’t have an absolute right to investigate the White House and its staff for any reason. However, I think that generally they do have reasons that are tied to one of the many federal agencies or other entities that they oversee. And while we’re on the subject, don’t forget that Congress created the very office of US attorney, in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

the Presidency is a co-equal branch of government, and Congress doesn’t have the legal right to demand to hold a magnifying glass over the managerial decisions made by the WH.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t; I think it depends on the case, and on who (or which branch) you ask. Perhaps it would be more settled if Walker v. Cheney had been appealed. Then again, the judicial branch often just doesn’t want to get involved in such Constitutional clashes if it can help it, and I can’t say I blame them.

By: Another Drew

Another Drew — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:23:43 +0000

Pat: Thanks for the heads’ up, though I would have been here anyway. You’ve done yeoman’s work here.
And, to give the Senior Senator from Vermont his earned due; thanks to his stellar service on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (from which he was removed by a Dem Majority Leader), we respectfully address him as “Leaky Leahy”.

By: Mark A. Kilmer (the weblog) » Pat Leahy Favors Executive Privilege

Mark A. Kilmer (the weblog) » Pat Leahy Favors Executive Privilege — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:15:53 +0000

[...] Said Pat in 1999, when the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republicans wanted to talk to Clinton (Bill)’s peeps: I would also like to discuss with the Chairman about following the model we used in the Ruby Ridge hearings. As I recall, to ensure the bipartisan nature of the investigation, the Subcommittee Chairman issued subpoenas only with the consent of the Ranking Member. This is an issue that members from both sides of the aisle agree on, namely, that clemency should not have been offered to the FALN defendants. I see no reason to turn our legitimate oversight inquiries into a partisan battle. [...]