Zippy's Column

Gonzogate Update - March 22:

Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow is still defending President Bush's right to executive privilege in press conferences. This is in stark contrast to his opinion of President Clinton's right to executive privilege in a March 29, 1998 Detroit News column, as reprinted by the Chicago Tribune on March 21, 2007 (link). I've decided to take out all references to Clinton, exchange them for Bush references whenever possible (bolded), and reprint the article below. Enjoy:

From Day One, the chief challenge facing this White House has been to place maximum distance between George W. Bush and his behavior. That strategy has succeeded, but only with the help of mighty assaults on our common sense.

In order to exonerate the chief, aides have made fantastic claims: that they lied to their personal diaries, that Velcro-brained lawyers couldn't recall crucial incidents, that e-mails vanished or moved from one place to another as if by magic, that scores of people with nothing to gain from lying nevertheless perjured themselves, and that this contagion of amnesia, sloppiness and venality was just the gosh darnedest series of coincidences ever witnessed by man or beast.

The wall of separation between Mr. Bush and his deeds remains strong because minions have stuck to their alibis. But now comes an episode in which the Man from War stands alone. It is his recent attempt to claim executive privilege for Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Mr. Bush can't blame his lawyers for this latest feint. He alone can assert the privilege. The maneuver places him at the heart of his administration's ongoing effort to use executive privilege as a way of concealing the truth about whether the president exposed himself. It is almost impossible to think of this as anything but a tactic to delay Congress long enough for Alberto Gonzales and other red-ant assailants to nibble at Congress and pump as much venom as possible into the political system.

Consider the key issues:

• Are former White House counsels subject to privilege?

*snip of Hillary Clinton material that doesn't sync up*

• What kinds of conversations does executive privilege protect?

The courts have said a president generally can shield communications that reveal fundamental deliberative processes. That includes communications between aides as they try to develop recommendations for their boss.

But protected conversations involve predictable categories: military, diplomatic or national security secrets or law-enforcement activities. Jurists haven't found a constitutional writ for protecting damage-control meetings involving allegations of using politics to fire attorneys. So unless Alberto Gonzales were ... advising the president on nuclear proliferation or the tobacco deal, the assertion of privilege seems highly suspect.

• What are the limits on privilege?

Earlier in the Clinton administration, then-White House legal counsel Lloyd Cutler decreed that the White House never would assert privilege in the face of a criminal investigation. He merely was reiterating long-standing executive-branch policy along those lines. President Ronald Reagan didn't invoke privilege in Iran-contra, and neither did President George Bush.

But precedent is gone, and Mr. Bush wants to protect conversations about subverting checks and balances. In so doing, he becomes the second president since Richard Nixon to use executive privilege in a criminal inquiry. (Deep Blue note on the "second": fair is fair)

Evidently, Mr. Bush wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Bush values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Bush will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Hypocrisy's a bitch, ain't it Zippy?

Aside from parts excluded about Hillary (which I almost could turn into a Harriet Miers comment if it weren't for the Kennedy Law), it translates perfectly.

Also of note is the comparison between Gonzogate and the -gate that started it all. In the 3,000 pages of e-mails released by the DOJ a couple of days ago, a 16-day gap was found, the loudest silence since the 18½ minute gap on the Nixon tapes. President Bush doesn't use e-mail (source), Alberto Gonzales doesn't use e-mail (source), and Harriet Miers has alleged that she doesn't use much e-mail (heard on Thom Hartmann show, 3-22-2007 9:17 AM PDT), so how do you think they communicated and why do you think the gap exists?

~ Deep Blue