From <a href="http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/09/ted-olson-as-ag.html">The Next Hurrah:</a>

September 12, 2007
Ted Olson as AG = no Congressional subpoena power

by Kagro X

NBC's Chuck Todd <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/08/352351.aspx">notes:</a>
<blockquote>According to the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702560.html?wpisrc=newsletter">Washington Post</a>, former Solicitor General Ted Olsen is viewed as the leading candidate to become the nation's new Attorney General. Why Olsen? His reputation is top-notch and he should have little problem getting through the confirmation process. Oh, and conservatives love Olsen.</blockquote>

Well, here's a little problem that should give Olson a little problem getting through the confirmation process: He's one of the chief architects of the White House strategy that seeks to render Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (who sits on the front lines on this nomination) utterly powerless in pursuing his investigation of the very scandals which led to Gonzales' resignation in the first place.

As we're all aware, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are still awaiting "administration" compliance with numerous subpoenas and other demands for documents and testimony. But standing in the way is White House counsel Fred Fielding, who insists that the officials and former officials subpoenaed by the committees are shielded from having to testify, under claims of executive privilege.

The House Judiciary Committee, having found no basis for such a claim, recommended in late July that the full House adopt resolutions finding former White House counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress.

By law, however, once adopted by the House, such charges are referred for prosecution to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Yes, the prosecution would fall to the same U.S. Attorneys whose politicization by the White House sparked this controversy in the first place. And the "administration" has been clear: they will not permit such a prosecution to go forward.

Unprecedented? Unfortunately not.

The <a href="http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/03/looking_ahead_w.html">exact same scenario</a> played itself out in the early 1980s, when EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch refused to provide documents subpoenaed by the House, invoked executive privilege at the direction of the White House counsel, was held in contempt, and the U.S. Attorney not only refused to prosecute, but in fact sued the House of Representatives.

Who was the White House counsel who devised the plan? <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republican-sens.-may-back-contempt-charge-2007-07-03.html">Fred Fielding.</a> Yes, the same.

Fielding's assistant in running the gambit? Well, he's now Chief Justice of the United States, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101782_3.html">John Roberts</a>. Yes, the same.

Again, the aim of the plan? To neuter the ability of Congress to enforce its oversight powers against the executive branch.

And who established this plan as administration policy by authoring a 1984 memo as head of the Office of Legal Counsel? <a href="http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.print_pub&amp;doc_id=269493&amp;group_id=180829&amp;topic_id=1412&amp;stoplayout=true">Ted Olson.</a> Yes, the same.

How much more of a pattern do the Senators need to see, do you think?

Why would any Senator in his or her right mind vote to confirm as the new Attorney General one of the three chief architects of the plan to render them powerless?

Ever get the impression the inception of Democracy was also the beginning of its endings?
It seems as if we have enough freedom to hang ourselves with, and the US government wishes only to create new rules to restrict powers or protect themselves.

Yes, I'm totally hating because I want to be a member of Congress.....

Western democracy has only ever existed as a way for the elite to maintain power and order over the rest of us. No big surprise. The US was founded by a bunch of rich, white, male aristocrats who had their pantaloons in a bunch because the British aristocracy didn't give a cardboard shit about them, so they riled up some people to grab power. If they could've had the same influence and maintained the colonies as part of the British Empire, they would've done so without question.

And the past 100 years or so have just been one big power-grab by the money whores because they have enough of an ignorant population that democracy no longer functions, so they can get away with whatever they want, as evidenced above.