Griles, the former deputy Interior secretary, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Washington today to lying to Senate investigators when he was asked about the nature of his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was trying to help clients on matters before the Interior Department. Abramoff, in prison after pleading guilty to felony charges, has been aiding a wider investigation that has netted eight convictions or plea deals for the Justice Department.
A transcript of the Senate interview is what helped get Griles in trouble. (See the plea agreement.) Former White House aide David Safavian found himself in similar hot water, and was convicted earlier this year on charges that included lying to Senate investigators.
-- Wall Street Journal Blog [h/t TPM]
See also, Joe Conason, who notes that we simply can not trust Karl Rove. We really have not reason to trust the Bush Administration generally, and that is using the "politicians are be taken with a grain of salt liable to be bad for your health" standard. Thus, some of the critics of the criticism have a naive or "give me a break" flavor to them. As I noted earlier, they simply don't want to face facts. Reality based community anyone?
This begins with the smoking gun of that Patriot Act provision that in effect made this sort of thing seem possible. Actual investigation shows that the Congress and public were misinformed about various details. This leads even conservative knee-jerk types like Charles Krauthammer to want Alberto Gone-zo for negilence reasons alone. But, only the willingly stupid see not nefarious tendencies here. Surely, not a group usually a bit cynical about human nature. Admit -- as some conservative sorts as the Weekly Standard do -- that this bunch simply do not have a true courage of convictions. They rather not bluntly express their wishes. This requires bullshitting the public, to put it mildly.
Anyway, executive privilege -- at best implied in the Constitution -- is essential, but the clear matter of the appointment power is not? Or not committing illegal acts:
But that opens the way for Congress to ask for a special prosecutor to look into allegations that members of the Administration violated the law because they (1) lied to Congress, (2) tampered with ongoing criminal investigations, (3) tried to remove prosecutors who sought to investigate Republican Congressmen or White House friends for corruption, or (4) tried to remove prosecutors refused to generate trumped up charges against Democrats.
This is important, especially when there is a lot there to refute the "it's all political b.s." party, including those who must continue to hang on to the "well, they are bad and all, but just not as bad as the liberals make them out to be" life line. This sort of thing allows them to support their enablers, who allegedly are really the good ones, notwithstanding a few bad apples or such. But, perhaps the problem is deeper, huh? Suffice to say that even if there was no legal wrongdoing, all is not suddenly well. There is a reason (related in part to the need for confirmation, surely furthered by it) this sort of thing never really happened before. The talking point that it did notwithstanding.
Congressional oversight, so notes the Department of State, does have that end. But, we expect a bit more from our leaders than avoiding criminality. I would hope so. The fact they can politicize the justice department -- which in various cases is a dubious matter, surely given the presidential duty to enforce the laws, which has some meaning other than promoting neoconservative philosophy -- doesn't make it proper. They are allegedly public officials (see Nat's comment). The serve the public. Us.
If they can't defend themselves, don't use us (like those soldier props) as cover. Speaking of the "public interest" in keeping their lies secret. U.S. v. Nixon spoke of the interests of justice trumping absolute executive privilege. This seems to temper a comment in a D.C. ruling the year before, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, that "concluded that presidential conversations are 'presumptively privileged,' even from the limited intrusion represented by in camera examination of the conversations by a court" even if in camera hearings are involved.
The ruling is important since it is one of the few dealing with congressional subpoenas of executive materials. It was rejected in that case, but the Nixon ruling is but one reason that it doesn't really help the executive. The test: "[W]e think the sufficiency of the Committee's showing must depend solely on whether the subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee's functions." And, the material appeared to be held by another committee, by that time preparing impeachment charges. It bears noting that one of the judges thought the whole matter was a political question ... not suitable for the courts.
The evidence sought is not held elsewhere. There is no ongoing judicial process -- as there -- that complicated matters. Likewise, the matters at hand are in part separate from legal concerns per se, but surely "critical to the responsible fulfillment of the [Congress'] functions," including determining if they were lied too or appointment rules were played. In fact, the investigation has led to a movement to require confirmation of mid-term replacements. The ability of a Senate minority to block legislation underlines that this sometimes requires crystal clear evidence to push recalcitrant senators.
The bigger picture is that the purge opened up to public view, like the Plame situation, a crystal clear case of the level to which the executive department has sunk. Life will always leave a bit of deniability, especially for those who want to be misled, but only so much. Ultimately, it is about the sort of government we want to have. To the extend that this is not simply "legal" but "political," what of it? Is not that the nature of self-government?
Who is truly against American values?