• 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
steelcitytbirds

steelcitytbirds

Kansas City, MO
February 2007

MAR 22, 2007 07:56 AM

Uncognitive said:

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



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.



Sure, he should have just fired ALL OF THEM like Mr. Bill did. Again...end of story.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAR 22, 2007 07:59 AM

steelcitytbirds said:

Uncognitive said:

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



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.



Sure, he should have just fired ALL OF THEM like Mr. Bill did. Again...end of story.



. <---------- (The point)

SPOILERS! (Click to view)















































































































You ------------------------------------------------------------->

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 22, 2007 08:08 AM

steelcitytbirds said:

Uncognitive said:

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



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.



Sure, he should have just fired ALL OF THEM like Mr. Bill did. Again...end of story.



Why are you so anxious to get to the end of the story?

Okay, once more, for the idiots in the room. "Mr. Bill' (by whom I assume you the mean the 42nd President of the United States) cleaned house as all Presidents to at the opening of their administration. As Bush did, as Reagan did etc. etc.

What Bush 43 has done is to fire several Prosecutors in mid-term, possibly for reasons having to do with their refusal to do political prosecutions - we don't know that yet because Congress is in the middle of their inquiry and Bush is likely to stonewall.

In short - it ain't over, 'til it's over. So get over it.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

USA
OLD SKOOL

MAR 22, 2007 08:10 AM

spinhouse247 said:
I just decided to pop in and see how much further the degeneration has continued. Once again the lib majority has proven my point. Good day fellas, I owe you a cup of coffee for making me laugh once again.



God forbid you actually respond to any of the parts where your argument was completely dissected. That whole damage control thing's a bitch, isn't it.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

MAR 22, 2007 08:14 AM

steelcitytbirds said:
Sure, he should have just fired ALL OF THEM like Mr. Bill did. Again...end of story.



Remind when, exactly, Clinton's AG lied to Congress about the reasons for removing these federal employees.

There's also that whole "advise and consent of the Senate" thing, which Clinton went along with, and G.W. Bush decided to do an end-run around, also after having his AG lie to Congress about it.

Sorry, the usual right-wing reply of "Slick Willy did it too! Waaah!" is as completely fucking irrelevant here as it usually is.

Greybeard

Greybeard

Los Angeles, CA
December 2006

MAR 22, 2007 09:15 AM

spinhouse247 posted this as a comment to my blog:

You are that guy in the van with the tinted windows outside an elementary school. I fear thee.



I believe that's called an "ad hominem" attack. When you can't (or won't) address an issue, you instead make a personal attack, preferably one utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.. IMHO, that is intellectually impotent and morally bankrupt.

Not to mention using "you" and "thee" addressing the same person. That is a NO - NO.

For The Record: I don't even have a car, let alone a van.

swedrock

swedrock

Louisville, KY
October 2005

MAR 22, 2007 09:24 AM

Two simple facts:

1. The justice system is, and always will be, deeply prejudicial on the basis of the judges' and justices' political beiliefs.

2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.

saltonsea

saltonsea

Toronto, ON
July 2004

MAR 22, 2007 09:33 AM

swedrock said:
Two simple facts:

1. The justice system is, and always will be, deeply prejudicial on the basis of the judges' and justices' political beiliefs.

2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



and that's why there are other people of authority and avenues of appeal, so that prejudice is nullified as much as it can be.

saying, "oh well, that's just the way it is." is no excuse for gross misconduct.

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

MAR 22, 2007 09:59 AM

swedrock said:
2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



Federal judges, once appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, have those jobs for life.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAR 22, 2007 10:02 AM

saltonsea said:
saying, "oh well, that's just the way it is." is no excuse for gross misconduct.


Says the Canadian. You guys just don't understand how democracy works.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

MAR 22, 2007 10:07 AM

swedrock said:
Two simple facts:

1. The justice system is, and always will be, deeply prejudicial on the basis of the judges' and justices' political beiliefs.

2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



Ethics isn't your strong suit, is it?

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

MAR 22, 2007 10:28 AM

Greybeard said:
spinhouse247 posted this as a comment to my blog:

You are that guy in the van with the tinted windows outside an elementary school. I fear thee.



I believe that's called an "ad hominem" attack. When you can't (or won't) address an issue, you instead make a personal attack, preferably one utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.. IMHO, that is intellectually impotent and morally bankrupt.

Not to mention using "you" and "thee" addressing the same person. That is a NO - NO.

For The Record: I don't even have a car, let alone a van.



That's really interesting because about a month ago I looked at his blog and noticed that he had three DUI's. He was in the middle of one of his trolling sessions, so I pointed it out to his on the message boards. He flipped out, very hurt, etc. I guess it is okay to call someone a child molester in his world but to point out the truth is a horrible offense. Well done, spinhouse, well done.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

MAR 22, 2007 10:59 AM

Uncognitive said:

swedrock said:
2. Some judges serve at the discretion of politicians, those positions are not, and have never been, stable or safe careers.



Federal judges, once appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, have those jobs for life.



Shhh! Next Bush will have the NSA assassinating the ones he doesn't like.

Greybeard

Greybeard

Los Angeles, CA
December 2006

MAR 22, 2007 11:28 AM

Furthermore, there is nothing whatsoever in any of my blog entries or discussion posts to suggest an unhealthy interest in children. He simply made it up out of nothing. Maybe he's got three fingers pointing back at himself when he points at me.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

MAR 22, 2007 11:33 AM

Greybeard said:
Furthermore, there is nothing whatsoever in any of my blog entries or discussion posts to suggest an unhealthy interest in children. He simply made it up out of nothing.



Most of his posts on these boards are based on nothing, so really, is this surprising?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews