• news
  • WEDNESDAY MARCH 21 2007 6:00 PM

2007 Constitutional Showdown!

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Bush, Gonzales, Rove, US attorney purge, Congress



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.

Bush said Tuesday he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.


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:

"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.”

"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.''


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.

“If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness."


“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.

“I’m sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are — I put them in there in the first place; they’re decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they’re being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it’s just — what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I’m sorry that the situation has gotten to where it’s got. But that’s Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there’s a lot of politics in this town.”


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

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
Skydds

Skydds

Edmonton, AB
February 2007

MAR 21, 2007 07:16 PM

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"?

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

MAR 21, 2007 07:21 PM

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.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 21, 2007 07:25 PM

Uncognitive said:
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.

ItwasDuke

ItwasDuke

New York, NY
March 2004

MAR 21, 2007 07:53 PM

NickFaust said:

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



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."



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

Priest_

Priest_

USA
January 2007

MAR 21, 2007 08:31 PM

sulares said:
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.



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.

Priest_

Priest_

USA
January 2007

MAR 21, 2007 08:33 PM

Skydds said:
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"?



Cause they tell us we have such purdy moufs.

brett54

brett54

Australia
November 2004

MAR 21, 2007 08:34 PM

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 !!!

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 21, 2007 08:37 PM

oyaji said:
The part that is so absurd is that we may have a constitutional crisis over something so inane. Fire Alberto already and make an end to it.



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.

Saphira

Saphira

Baltimore, MD
June 2006

MAR 21, 2007 08:42 PM

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

lawber

lawber

I'm lost
May 2006

MAR 21, 2007 08:53 PM

Didn't Clinton fire all of them in 1993? I wonder why that never got the attention that this one has? Can anyone say liberal media?

Thank GOD for Fox News!!

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAR 21, 2007 08:54 PM

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



This really has nothing to do with that. At all.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAR 21, 2007 08:59 PM

lawber said:
Didn't Clinton fire all of them in 1993? I wonder why that never got the attention that this one has? Can anyone say liberal media?

Thank GOD for Fox News!!



This has nothing to do with firing US attorneys in the abstract. This is about lying, bad politics and the implication that our executive is actively involved in a systematic policy of obstruction of justice. Clearly, you're not paying attention enough to have picked up any of those nuances. Thanks for playing.

saltonsea

saltonsea

Toronto, ON
July 2004

MAR 21, 2007 09:06 PM

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



florida scores again! .... whatever

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 21, 2007 09:14 PM

lawber said:
Didn't Clinton fire all of them in 1993? I wonder why that never got the attention that this one has? Can anyone say liberal media?

Thank GOD for Fox News!!



Boy, I'm glad you came in and cleared that up for us. I was really wondering about that. whatever

Okay, seriously though. It's common for a changing of the guard to go on when the Presidency changes hands. What raised eyebrows about these firings was that they happened in the middle of Bush's term in office, what raised suspicion about these was that they were loudly challenged by some of the people who were fired, and what brought the media and the whole thing to a head were e-mails that suggested that Alberto Gonzales had lied about having nothing to do with the firings, and that the firings may have been in response to thwarted efforts by Republican Senators and perhaps even members of the Bush Administration (this is what the investigation is trying to find out) to direct prosecutors' investigations for political ends.

It has been implied that there has been misconduct by the President's staff. No such implication or any reason for suspicion has been present following previous staffing changes.

Edit: Damn you, 'brosa! Saying what I said more succinctly while I was away from the computer! wink

lawber

lawber

I'm lost
May 2006

MAR 21, 2007 09:20 PM

Humm, "it happened in the middle of the Bush term", lets see, he has just over a year left as commander and chief.

"Its common for the changing of the guard", that makes sense too, Clinton was in office for 7 years after he fired them.

It sounds like most of you have Bush and Clinton mixed up.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews