News > Politics > 2007 Constitutional Showdown!

news
WEDNESDAY MARCH 21 2007 6:00 PM

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. Thats 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, Im not going to argue that, instead, Ill 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.''

Youre 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 dont 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.

Im 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; theyre decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now theyre being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and its just what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and Im sorry that the situation has gotten to where its got. But thats Washington, D.C. for you. You know, theres a lot of politics in this town.

Oversights a bitch, huh? Welcome to America, Mr. President.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Comments

Chainlink

Key West, FL

August 2005

MAR 21, 2007 09:51 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.

reading this thread makes me feel like . . . whoa.

BlastProcessing

USA

OLD SKOOL

MAR 21, 2007 10:03 PM

chainlink said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

Subrosa said:

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.

reading this thread makes me feel like . . . whoa.

It's a shame, too, because the actual topic is all kinds of relevant and important and potentially precedent-setting and whatnot.

It's almost like...you know how certain video game manufacturers were alleged to have employees whose only purpose is to establish identities on gaming message boards and pump their products? Take that, but make it here, politics, and poorly-executed.

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAR 21, 2007 10:24 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!!

Saying thank God for Fox News is literally like saying, "I know less than other people, yay!

October 02, 2003

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly depending on their source of news. The percentage of respondents who had one or more of the three misperceptions listed above is shown below.

Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.

Daarak

Houston, TX

October 2004

MAR 21, 2007 10:51 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!!

There being a small, insignificant difference, Clinton's appointments had to have that crazy little thing called Senate confirmation. A stellar quote from the above article states it best...

"Like President Bill Clinton before him, Bush removed nearly all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office and replaced them with his own Senate-confirmed appointments. Under previous statutes, the attorney general had the power to appoint an interim prosecutor for 120 days in the case of a vacancy, but then it was up to the local district court to make an appointment until the Senate approved a final pick.

Gonzales and many legal experts say that arrangement was a troubling intrusion on the separation of powers between the independent branches of government.

A new provision, which was quietly tucked into USA Patriot Act reauthorization legislation last year, allows Gonzales to appoint interim prosecutors indefinitely. Not counting the recent dismissals, there have been 11 vacancies since the measure was enacted, and Justice Department officials said they will provide nominations to the Senate for each position."

Now to break it down, change to Patriot Act passed in March of 2006, 11 fired since. But of course that bill was inserted incase terrorists killed US attorneys and we needed new ones fast. Giving that the terrorists must be winning because good Republicans (read: "Duke" Cunningham) were having their names dirtied by the likes of Carol S. (Bin Laden)-Lam, then the removals were in the spirit of this provision of the Patriot Act.

And yes it is true that Albert has been stating that they intend to seek Senate Confirmation on new appointees, but some emails from a recently resigned D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff tends to go against that idea.

Yes, yes thank god for fox news and NPR corespondents!!. Who else can you trust for outright lies and/or misinformation?

Greybeard

Los Angeles, CA

December 2006

MAR 21, 2007 10:55 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...

Say, what planet are you from?