Snagged this one from AmericaBlog and it’s a doozie. Granted, Tony Snow is talking about Clinton, but that doesn’t make the following passage any less powerful.

“The wall of separation between Mr. Clinton and his deeds remains strong because minions have stuck to their alibis. But now comes an episode in which the Man from Hope stands alone. It is his recent attempt to claim executive privilege for counselors Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Mr. Clinton 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….

“Earlier in this 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. Clinton wants to protect conversations about a chubby intern from Hollywood. In so doing, he becomes the first president since Richard Nixon to use executive privilege in a criminal inquiry.

“Evidently, Mr. Clinton 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 Clinton 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. Clinton 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.”

Gorgeous.

I was wondering exactly what Bush was planning on doing when he said that he would resist any efforts to make Rove, Miers, etc to testify under oath. I may get to find out, since the House Judiciary Committee basically told Bush to cram it, they’re going to have their subpoenas.

The House Judiciary subcommittee vote was to authorize subpoenas. It does not mean that subpoenas will be issued; only that they could be if the four White House officials Democrats want to question do not voluntarily testify under oath.

But the act puts congressional Democrats on a collision course with President Bush. He said Tuesday that the four — top political adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and their two deputies — could be interviewed in the matter, but no oath could be administered and no transcript would be taken.

Not technically a guarantee, but it appears that we have an assurance that these four will give an official testimony.

What baffles me is how terrified Bush and the boys seem to be of testifying under oath and on the record. Whatever they want to be said, they don’t want it to have to be true and they don’t want it to be subject to fact-checking. Comments like this confuse me:

“I would strongly prefer that we postpone the issuance of subpoenas until we’ve had a chance to get the White House, who has made an offer to comply, to review the Department of Justice documents,” said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida.

I don’t see what the big deal is with a subpoena. It’s a document that means you have to get on the stand and tell the truth about something. Oh no, not that. You’d think simply telling the truth would be easy for these guys, if it’s true that they didn’t do anything wrong.

Chris Matthews said there’s a chance that Rove may fall subject to being asked about absolutely everything, which is a valid concern but certainly not enough to cause such a furor about having him on the stand. All that means is they’re afraid he may be asked to speak under oath about other instances of corruption. If they were all innocent across the boards it would just be a waste of his time to be asked about the other things. Or maybe I’m crazy.