[The admistration doesn't just have contempt for Congress, the constitution and the law -- they have contempt for contempt! This is where that 2nd generation impeachment idea comes from. They really are asserting they are above all law.]
[One last little fillip of contempt: later in the article it becomes clear that the administration hasn't officially even seen fit to inform Congress of its view -- they decided that would be beneath them, and so told it to the WaPo instead. This is contempt served up with style!]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html
Friday, July 20, 2007; A01
Washington Post Staff Writers
Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of
executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine
U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be
allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White
House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for
congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for
contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials
in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.
Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate
must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia,
"whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for
its action."
But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no
power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases,
such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared
that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive
privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion
during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a
case that was never resolved by the courts.
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or
convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior
official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the
administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue
against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department
provided. No one should expect that to happen."
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was
not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been
understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional
prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely
political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S.
attorneys."
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University
who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the
administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this
system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is
saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
<end excerpt>
Rest at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html