So, today an 'anonymous administration official' said to the Washington Post
"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."
If the contempt charge is legitimate, and Bush interferes in its prosecution by ordering someone not to prosecute, isn't that
by its definition, obstruction of justice?
In other news, Bush seems to think that by changing his executive order to forbid cruel and inhuman treatment, he'll protect himself from War Crimes and/or violations of the Federal anti-torture laws.
Is, "But I stopped?" a valid defense?
Crossposted at The New Down