Congressional bad faith in request for administration testimony

Congress knows that the Bush administration can fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason. Since they know this and they generally know why the eight US attorneys were fired it should go without saying that the attempt to subpoena administration figures for testimony is done in bad faith in hopes of getting a process crime indictment in the future. It is also done to advance the political agenda of Democrats as part of their attempt to cover up vote fraud cases they do not want investigated and prosecuted.

The NY Times explains executive privilege:

...

Executive privilege protects confidential deliberations within the executive branch in some circumstances, even in the face of a subpoena from the courts or from Congress. It is meant to ensure that the president receives candid advice from aides, without fear that they will be hauled before Congress or a grand jury to explain themselves. The Bush administration has few equals in its commitment to a broad conception of executive authority, and it has on several occasions argued for an expansive understanding of executive privilege and similar protections. But legal scholars said that President Bill Clinton asserted the doctrine of executive privilege more often and more vigorously, including in the investigation of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

“Clinton clearly was more aggressive in using executive privilege than any of the modern presidents since Eisenhower,” said Mark J. Rozell, a law professor at George Mason University and the author of “Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy, and Accountability.” “Bush has been somewhat reluctant to use it.”

...

The court, in a unanimous decision by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, also said the case for executive privilege was strongest where there was a need “to protect military, diplomatic or national security secrets.”

The interest asserted in the current dispute — the need to protect confidential personnel decisions — is less strong but hardly frivolous. “It’s not a silly area in which to assert some kind of executive independence,” said Vikram Amar, a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

But the administration’s argument is not helped by the fact that it has already disclosed thousands of pages of documents on the subject. In the context of other protections for confidential information like the attorney-client privilege, a partial disclosure can waive the privilege.

...

What is frivolous is the congressional interest in the firings of people it knows the President has the authority to fire for any reason. Because the congressional interest is frivolous it is clear that the subpoena request is being made in bad faith by Democrats for purely partisan political motives. The President has already offered them more than they are entitled to. He should fight on this ground.