Silly. Just Silly. Honestly.
Today, while I was working, I had one ear tuned to the radio, and I heard a succession of ridiculous statements from DC Republicans. For example:
It's also interesting that he feels it important to "review" the investigation of a federal prosecutor and grand jury. As Josh Micah Marshall points out, he doesn't want to investigate what Fitzgerald is investigating, he's suggesting they investigate the investigation. (Does the Senator have information that suggests there's something wrong with it? Aside from the possible indictments of White House staffers, of course.)
I heard someone on the radio suggesting that these hearings were important, so that we could feel confidant that our system of "cover" was working to protect our agents. As if there was something wrong with the system that needing fixing. But, just as with pre-war intelligence, the biggest problem is not with the agencies or the systems, but with what the White House does.
If the White House wasn't in the hands of ambitious and vengeful men who put their own self-interests and power above national security and the nation's best interests, there would be no need to discuss "cover" at all.
Also in the silly season comes talk about whether the White House will turn over documents prepared by Supreme Court nominee Roberts (not related to Senator Roberts, as far as I know). The White House, as is typical for W.'s gang, is resisting such requests. Apparently, the talking-point-squad was off for the weekend, so today people were just recycling old rationales. Among the comments heard were that releasing the documents would have a "chilling effect", and that it would violate attorney-client privilege.
Which might make sense if, say, we were dealing with some kind of Congressional oversight hearing, or investigation. But we're not. It's a confirmation hearing. Presumably, the administration wants the Senate to see what a good guy Roberts is, and so does Roberts. They should be showing off, not trying to hide.
Just how would a "chilling effect" work? A future assistant Solicitor General, or Justice Department lawyer, will refrain from giving the President his real opinions because someday he might be nominated for the Supreme Court? And if he was, and he had written what he really thought, it might keep him out of the job? So we should allow them to hide what they think from the Senate, so we can have Justices who are secret nutjobs?
As far as I'm concerned, getting to be a Justice of the Supreme Court is an honor and a privilege, and you ought to have to prove yourself worthy. If you don't want people to see your earlier work, fine. You don't have to. But then you don't get to sit on the panel that determines what is and isn't constitutional in this country.
And as for attorney-client privilege, I'm still working on who the client is, when he was working as an assistant Solicitor General. Either it's the American people, or it's the President, and either way, I think we could arrange for a waiver. If it's OK with the client, he could reveal the communication, right? And if the President has any issue with revealing his privileged communications, fine. Maybe he should nominate someone else.
If Judge Roberts is really Supreme Court material, both the President and Judge Roberts should be proud of the work that he did, and there should be no issue about voluntarily, not obligatorily, sharing the documents with the Senate. If there are some warts, or controversial writings, Roberts should be able to explain them, convince the Senators why they are there, and make them realize why he should be given one of the most powerful roles in our government for the rest of his life.
If he can't manage that when the Senate is dominated by Republicans, he doesn't deserve the job.
Update: The Nitpicker has a post reminding us that the question of privilege was decided by the courts during the Clinton administration, at which time the Republicans were very happy to have documents released. Perhaps privilege applies only to Republican administrations?
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, intends to preside over hearings on the intelligence community's use of covert protections for CIA agents and others involved in secret activities.That would be the Senator Roberts who still has not started on the promised final phase of the hearings on pre-Iraq war intelligence, you know, the one where they were going to look at what the administration did with the intelligence...that whole fixing it around the policy part. Roberts said it was OK to not look at that before the election, because he promised they'd get to it right after. Now, though, it seems like he has time to go looking at something else.
The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence could hold hearings on the use of espionage cover soon after the U.S. Congress returns from its August recess, said Roberts spokeswoman Sarah Little.
Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.
It's also interesting that he feels it important to "review" the investigation of a federal prosecutor and grand jury. As Josh Micah Marshall points out, he doesn't want to investigate what Fitzgerald is investigating, he's suggesting they investigate the investigation. (Does the Senator have information that suggests there's something wrong with it? Aside from the possible indictments of White House staffers, of course.)
I heard someone on the radio suggesting that these hearings were important, so that we could feel confidant that our system of "cover" was working to protect our agents. As if there was something wrong with the system that needing fixing. But, just as with pre-war intelligence, the biggest problem is not with the agencies or the systems, but with what the White House does.
If the White House wasn't in the hands of ambitious and vengeful men who put their own self-interests and power above national security and the nation's best interests, there would be no need to discuss "cover" at all.
Also in the silly season comes talk about whether the White House will turn over documents prepared by Supreme Court nominee Roberts (not related to Senator Roberts, as far as I know). The White House, as is typical for W.'s gang, is resisting such requests. Apparently, the talking-point-squad was off for the weekend, so today people were just recycling old rationales. Among the comments heard were that releasing the documents would have a "chilling effect", and that it would violate attorney-client privilege.
Which might make sense if, say, we were dealing with some kind of Congressional oversight hearing, or investigation. But we're not. It's a confirmation hearing. Presumably, the administration wants the Senate to see what a good guy Roberts is, and so does Roberts. They should be showing off, not trying to hide.
Just how would a "chilling effect" work? A future assistant Solicitor General, or Justice Department lawyer, will refrain from giving the President his real opinions because someday he might be nominated for the Supreme Court? And if he was, and he had written what he really thought, it might keep him out of the job? So we should allow them to hide what they think from the Senate, so we can have Justices who are secret nutjobs?
As far as I'm concerned, getting to be a Justice of the Supreme Court is an honor and a privilege, and you ought to have to prove yourself worthy. If you don't want people to see your earlier work, fine. You don't have to. But then you don't get to sit on the panel that determines what is and isn't constitutional in this country.
And as for attorney-client privilege, I'm still working on who the client is, when he was working as an assistant Solicitor General. Either it's the American people, or it's the President, and either way, I think we could arrange for a waiver. If it's OK with the client, he could reveal the communication, right? And if the President has any issue with revealing his privileged communications, fine. Maybe he should nominate someone else.
If Judge Roberts is really Supreme Court material, both the President and Judge Roberts should be proud of the work that he did, and there should be no issue about voluntarily, not obligatorily, sharing the documents with the Senate. If there are some warts, or controversial writings, Roberts should be able to explain them, convince the Senators why they are there, and make them realize why he should be given one of the most powerful roles in our government for the rest of his life.
If he can't manage that when the Senate is dominated by Republicans, he doesn't deserve the job.
Update: The Nitpicker has a post reminding us that the question of privilege was decided by the courts during the Clinton administration, at which time the Republicans were very happy to have documents released. Perhaps privilege applies only to Republican administrations?
posted by Paul at 6:51 PM |
|
email this
