• news
  • WEDNESDAY MARCH 21 2007 6:00 PM

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.

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.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

MAR 21, 2007 09:28 PM

lawber said:
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.



Uhhh, no it doesn't.

spinhouse247

spinhouse247

Punta Gorda, FL
December 2003

MAR 21, 2007 09:28 PM

Funny how the libs and mostly lib media forgot about Clinton firing 93 Federal Prosecutors. Maybe I just made it up...

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

MAR 21, 2007 09:30 PM

spinhouse247 said:
Funny how the libs and mostly lib media forgot about Clinton firing 93 Federal Prosecutors. Maybe I just made it up...



You saw how this point was shot down before you posted it, right?

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 21, 2007 09:30 PM

lawber said:
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.


Gonzales had these people fired shortly after the 2006 elections. It is common for an incoming President's appointees to make changes in staffing shortly after being elected.

What Clinton's team did was routine. What Bush's team did was fishy. And lo and behold! It turns out there was reason to be suspicious, as e-mails surfaced that directly contradicted claims made by Alberot Gonzales.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 21, 2007 09:31 PM

spinhouse247 said:
Funny how the libs and mostly lib media forgot about Clinton firing 93 Federal Prosecutors. Maybe I just made it up...



Wow. How does that punch taste? Suck it down, suck it down for the team. That's right.

spinhouse247

spinhouse247

Punta Gorda, FL
December 2003

MAR 21, 2007 09:35 PM

6 bills in the first 100 hours... What happened to that one Nancy? Slurp Slurp, shes definitely sucking it down...

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

MAR 21, 2007 09:37 PM

spinhouse247 said:
6 bills in the first 100 hours... What happened to that one Nancy? Slurp Slurp, shes definitely sucking it down...



WOO HEY EVERYBODY LOOK OVER HERE CHECK THIS OUT I'M GONNA DO A TRICK LOOK LOOK LOOK!

I mean, seriously. Is that what constitutes an actual attempt for you?

spinhouse247

spinhouse247

Punta Gorda, FL
December 2003

MAR 21, 2007 09:40 PM

I need not say anymore, its funny how I make a post and then you continue to embarrass yourselves with meaningless banter like a pack of imbeciles. Carry on now...

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAR 21, 2007 09:44 PM

spinhouse247 said:
I need not say anymore, its funny how I make a post and then you continue to embarrass yourselves with meaningless banter like a pack of imbeciles. Carry on now...


Uh huh. Right.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 21, 2007 09:44 PM

spinhouse247 said:
I need not say anymore, its funny how I make a post and then you continue to embarrass yourselves with meaningless banter like a pack of imbeciles. Carry on now...



surreal

READ. THE. THREAD.

Look, just a few comments ago I pointed out explicitly why the 1993 firings of 93 attorneys were routine, and why the 2006 firings were not routine. I'm done pointing that out. If you can't be bothered even reading that, let alone rebutting it, I'm not going to repeat myself again just for you.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 21, 2007 09:44 PM

BlastProcessing said:

lawber said:
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.



Uhhh, no it doesn't.



Seriously, does lawber have any fucking clue what he's on about? He's left me waaaaay behind.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Clearly spinhouse is spinning out of control.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAR 21, 2007 09:45 PM

lawber said:
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.



Actually, Clinton was in office for 8 years after he fired them. Because it was two months after he was inaugurated.

Thanks for keeping up.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 21, 2007 09:47 PM

Subrosa said:

lawber said:
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.



Actually, Clinton was in office for 8 years after he fired them. Because it was two months after he was inaugurated.

Thanks for keeping up.



The bizarre thing is that he thinks he's made some kind of point.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAR 21, 2007 09:50 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

Subrosa said:

lawber said:
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.



Actually, Clinton was in office for 8 years after he fired them. Because it was two months after he was inaugurated.

Thanks for keeping up.



The bizarre thing is that he thinks he's made some kind of point.



It's like a moron contest between him and spinhouse.

And in that contest, we ALL win.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

MAR 21, 2007 09:50 PM

spinhouse247 said:
I need not say anymore, its funny how I make a post and then you continue to embarrass yourselves with meaningless banter like a pack of imbeciles. Carry on now...



Google's image search for "carry on my wayward son" gives you some pretty random results.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next