Blahblahexecutiveprivilegeblah:
President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers’ demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Bush’s attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor in a fight that centers on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ stewardship of the Justice Department.
In reaction, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy accused the administration of shifting “into Nixonian stonewalling” and revealing “disdain for our system of checks and balances.”
“With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation,” White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to Leahy and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion.”
Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.
Someone needs to explain why this entire concept — that the president has the power to respond to reasonable requests with “Nah, I don’t feel like it an’ you can’t make me, cuz I’m prez! Nyah!” — isn’t so discredited by now that it draws laughs.
Oh yeah, speaking of the fired prosecutors, a former guest-blogger of Radley’s site found out something they had in common. All emphasis mine:
The eight U.S. Attorneys fired by the Gonzales justice department differed markedly from the average prosecutor in their handling of the war on drugs. On average, the eight attorneys prosecuted about a third as many small crack cocaine cases—18—as their colleagues—48—in fiscal year 2006, an analysis of federal data compiled by the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows. But the attorneys were much more vigorous than their non-fired counterparts in pursuit of large powder cocaine dealers.
The eight attorneys pressed forward with 0.5 percent of all crack cases, though they represented 10 percent of all U.S. Attorneys. Carol Lam, the attorney for Southern California, prosecuted only two crack cocaine cases. Paul Charlton of Arizona pressed four and New Mexico’s David Iglesias 23, meaning the three border state attorneys averaged just one fifth of the number of cases their colleagues pushed.
Crack cocaine cases can bog down the federal system because of their small size: the median bust is only 51 grams, more than a hundred times smaller than the median powder bust. Though the fired attorneys placed a low priority on small crack cases, the numbers indicate that they were better at snaring large powder cocaine dealers.
Not to go all tin-foil hat on this, but considering this common factor, ponder the following: Who tends to be caught with crack rock?
