NEWS: 2007 Constitutional Showdown!

POLITICS: 2007 Constitutional Showdown!

The US attorneys purge scandal has been heating up for a while and now things are finally starting to get exciting. Today, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law voted to subpoena Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson for their role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors. They will be asked to testify under oath about their actions.

The “under oath” part is what the White House is worried about. The administration is attempting to paint the scandal as a “partisan” attack, but their constant changing of reasons for the firings does little to help their argument. Yesterday, Bush offered a compromise: His aides would come to meet with Congress, behind closed doors and not under oath. That’s a really super compromise when you are being accused of criminal activity. He only pissed off Democratic and some Republican members of Congress. Next the Senate will vote for subpoenas.

The White House has strongly indicated they will claim executive privilege and not allow aides to testify.

Uh huh. Well, I’m not going to argue that, instead, I’ll let White House Spokesman Tony Snow argue it for me. From the Chicago Tribune ten years ago, when Snow was upset that Clinton might not let his aides testify:

You’re a good boy, Tony, thanks. The subpoena question will most likely go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the majority of justices are Republicans. But the Court has already been injured by their actions in the recount decision of 2000. The justices are supposed to be above partisan politics and the recount decision was along party lines. The Supreme Court lost credibility in the eyes of many Americans. Will it self-inflict more damage to save an unpopular president?

Before any ruling the subpoena fight will be in the media and Bush will lose. The incredibly unpopular administration is already known for lying and if it chooses to fight a battle over whether or not aides should swear under oath, which is just telling the truth, it will lose. Editorials are already popping up.

“I don’t want to have to tell the truth” is not a good defense, but it is what the White House is going with. We can feel good about one thing during all this madness, Bush feels really bad for the folks who were unjustly fired under his watch.

Oversight’s a bitch, huh? Welcome to America, Mr. President.

Constitutional showdowns rock my fucking socks. Go conflict-based system go!

Still butt-hurt on that 2000 recount shoot down are we?

Bah, screw them all, they are Lawyers. Bush is just proving that the Dems in control are no better now then the Repubs were when they controlled the houses under Clinton in the '90's

They should move on, pass some useful legislation for health and education, instead of wasting money trying to continue smearing a president who can't run in '08.

Love the Tony Snow quotes. Thanks. In all my years in this country, I can't recall any administration where the opposing parties didn't just line up on opposite sides of the aisle and sling the same old shit back and forth at each other. What a nightmare, stodgy old farts preaching to us about adhering to principle, adhering to values, when all they adhere to is loyalty to their party.

The mess surrounding the Iraq War gives the Democrats enough ammunition to hold hearings and investigations. This "scandal" is nothng of the kind. While the dismissals of the US attorneys wasn't handled appropriately, it's not illegal. All political appointees "serve at the pleasure of the president", so they can be dismissed for being ugly if that's what he wants. Their insistence on putting Rove under oath (thereby allowing them to ask him anything about anything) makes this look more like like a partisan fishing expedition. If they were serious about this issue, they'd be looking to hold hearings on ways to shield US attorneys from political pressure.

This combines two arguments that I don't really get.

1. Of course this matters. We elect people to do a job - if they aren't doing that job or doing it badly, they need to be held accountable, if for no other reason than to send a signal to *future* office holders to not screw up.

2. I'm not clear what people mean when they say "Congress should get back to work." Part of what Congress does is check the executive. Further, part of how Congress does it's job is conflict - competing for votes over what *should* be done, and *how* it should be done is how the process operates. A sniping Congress is a working Congress - providing me with information, alternatives etc.

everything you say is truth.

this really IS Congress's job.

Lam and a couple of the other US attorneys were dismissed while heading up investigations into Republican corruption. Lam was actually going after the Vice President himself, so you are totally incorrect in stating it is not illegal. It's called obstruction.

If the reports are true - specifically the one today that came out about Cheney. A mysterious $140,000 that went from the Vice President's office (for computers and office furniture), to a company that had not made a dime all year or ever had a government contract, then said company bought Cunnigham a boat for exactly $140,000 two weeks later, it is indeed a scandal, one we haven't seen since Watergate.

Bush is in the middle of a media feeding frenzy, the kind he has never seen. Plame was nothing compared to the way the media is going after this one. New damning facts are coming from every region of the country every couple of hours.

Here's the link to the LA Times story.

The very next day an email was sent about a "situation" with Lam that had to be addressed. She was soon fired. Yeah, no laws broken there. Seems totally on the up and up. By the way, Cunningham is considered to be the most corrupt Congressman in the HISTORY of Congress.

The President has the power to fire his appointees at any time- they serve at his pleasure. End of story.

I've been thinking a lot about the government and its role, and the more I do, the more I think they should seen and not heard. The government doesn't control the financial market, though they do influence it, at times more and at times less. But their role in it has to be limited to creating boundaries, and to checking. Checking the other branches, and at times elements within the market.

With Health Insurance, we need a complete change, away from symptomic treatment in which pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers hold incomprehensible amounts of determination in the care people receive, to an emphasis on prevention and routine care. The government alone cannot bring this about. It must come from credible science (which exists) and a press on the part of both the citizenry and medical provider establishment. The governments role in this would best be served in re-determining public service and educational campaigns, not legislating.

I've come to believe it is a weak, lazy, and listless population we have. We want everything done for us. Instead of understanding an issue, we want to be told how to feel about it. Instead of taking action and applying ourselves, we want lawyers and politicians to pass laws giving us the world we want.

The government's role should be to do as little as possible, that they don't, and that they fail us, is our fault.

Um yeah, except that the Republican Congress was investigating Clinton's sex life, while the Democratic Congress is investigating the politicization of criminal justice. See the difference?

And since when is investigating the abuse of the Department of Justice "smearing a President?"

Wow. Bush's statement reads like one of those "Gee, I'm sorry YOU feel this way" appologies. I'm rooting for the so-called balance of powers to get back into balance.

scandal!

Yeah, heaven knows there's nothing wrong with lying to Congress.

Under oath.

About using the part of the Patriot Act that does and end-run around the Senate when it comes to appointing federal prosecutors.

And about the reasons for firing those federal prosecutors and replacing them with Bush loyalists.

Nope, nothing wrong with that.

Well, not quite. Traditionally presidents fire and hire at the beginning of their terms. They are political appointments yes. But, again, traditionally, once hired, they are allowed to do their jobs and not "fired" in midterm. And unless and until it is clear that they were fired for cause, it is by no means "end of story."

How are these guys still in power?

After the Iraq lie... after Val Plame... Cheney shooting someone in the face!... him being appointed by the supreme court... Rumsfield...

After a couple million dollars we're "lost" in Canada, we had a shift in power. How does America sit so still while they're being gang-raped by "neo-cons"?

Also, at this point I think Bush wants this current confrontation between his administration and Congress to escalate.

Bush has been hawking his "Unitary Executive" crap for years, and is itching to have his view of pretty much unlimited Executive power vindicated by the Supreme Court.

You mean by HIS Supreme Court.

Exactly, and they're not usually asked to perform investigations for political purposes.

Uh, the bullshit Clinton went through is nothing compared to the enormity of this scandel. Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. Big deal. Every man in the world would like about getting a blowjob from such a fugly woman if he were married.

In this scandel these fucks might have actually changed the proceeding of criminal court cases and/or tried to block new cases of wrong doing from ever seeing the light of day.

So... waste of time? Uh, not in my mind. Although, in my mind, Bush is already guilty. So fuck it.

Cause they tell us we have such purdy moufs.

Balance.

I'm not saying that the firings are "right" or am I placing support for the el-Presidente, but why fire these attorneys?

Because they are " 'agin us, not with us".

Bush has politicised the judiciary, because the the attorneys have possibly politicised the role they play (by being anti-bush).

Two wrongs don't make a right. That's politics !!!

That might have worked if he had done it last week. But the subpoenas are approved now and Bush has made his threats. No one can back out now without loosing face. And Bush is confident - having one Justice on the court who worked on the Unitary Executive stuff for Meese's Justice Department - that he will win in the end.

"well damn it all to hell. what have i done?"
"well Mr. President, frankly, you fucked up."