criddic3 wrote:Unlike Richard Nixon, President Bush still has enough support to avoid an impeachment proceeding.
English translation: the Republican party of today is so much more corrupt and/or delusional than the one 30 years ago that they'll let a corrupt and incompetent president finish out his term no matter what he does.
But, as I've long said, screw impeachmnent: I want realignment. 55-60 Senators, 250 House seats and the presidency are better than any old impeachment trial. (Not to say I don't worry about what imbecilic things the Bush-Cheney will try between now and January '09)
Not to mention that he wouldn't resign. Unlike Richard Nixon, President Bush still has enough support to avoid an impeachment proceeding. Besides that, nothing has yet been found that could be proven to be a high crime & misdemeanor to impeach him with. The Democrats don't have enough power, as we have seen, to follow that path through even if they thought they had the time.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Nearly all the damage is done, Cam. With less than a year and a half left in the administration, there's just not enough time to get enough to force him to resign.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings.
"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning.
Manning, in turn, notified committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., that Miers would not show up Thursday to answer questions about the White House role in the firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter.
Conyers, who had previously said he would consider pursuing criminal contempt citations against anyone who defied his committee' subpoenas, revealed the letters after former White House political director Sara Taylor testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Taylor said she knew of no involvement by the president in the firings of the U.S. attorneys.
She irked senators by refusing to answer many questions from a panel investigating whether the firings were politically motivated. She said she was bound by Bush's position that White House conversations were protected by executive privilege.
Conyers said of Miers, Bush's former White House lawyer, "As a former public official and officer of the court, Ms. Miers should be especially aware of the need to respect legal process, and we expect her to appear before the committee tomorrow as scheduled."
Fielding said the Justice Department had advised the White House that Miers had absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony.
"The president has directed her not to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2007," Fielding wrote.
And this one is going to court. Not even the weak-willed Democrats are backing down on this one.
White House Asserts Executive Privilege
Jun 28, 9:29 AM (ET)
By TERENCE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.
"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."
Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.
In his letter, Fielding said Bush had "attempted to chart a course of cooperation" by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts. Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Conyers of Michigan, the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have rejected that offer.
On the other hand, Fielding said Bush "was not willing to provide your committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings.
"The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch," Fielding said.
"The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications," Fielding said.
"Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas," Fielding said. "Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue."
It was the second time in his administration that Bush has exerted executive privilege, said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. The first instance was in December, 2001, to rebuff Congress' demands for Clinton administration documents. in federal court over separation of powers.
Tensions between the administration and the Democratic-run Congress have been building for months as the House and Senate Judiciary panels have sought to probe the firings of eight federal prosecutors and the administration's program of warrantless eavesdropping. The investigations are part of the Democrats' efforts to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Democrats say the firings of the prosecutors over the winter was an example of improper political influence. The White House says U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be hired and fired for almost any reason.
Democrats and even some key Republicans have said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign over the U.S. attorney dismissals, but he has steadfastly held his ground and Bush has backed him.
Just Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, demanding documents pertaining to terrorism-era warrant-free eavesdropping.
Separately, that panel also is summoning Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters - including the prosecutor firings - that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs.
Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's chairman, raised questions Wednesday about previous testimony by one of Bush's appeals court nominees and said he wouldn't let such matters pass.
"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress issued subpoenas Wednesday for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and political director Sara Taylor, reaching directly inside the White House for the first time in the probe of the firings of federal prosecutors.
The Bush administration appeared in no hurry to encourage the pair to testify, as the subpoenas demanded. Complying could set a precedent for testimony by another adviser not yet on the subpoena list: presidential counselor Karl Rove.
The Democratic chairmen of House and Senate committees implicitly threatened a constitutional showdown if the White House does not comply with the subpoenas - or strike a deal.
"The bread crumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. "This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner so that we may get to the bottom of this."
"The White House cannot have it both ways - it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses while claiming nothing improper occurred," added Senate Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
White House officials pointed out that White House Counsel Fred Fielding already has offered a compromise by suggesting that Miers, Taylor, Rove and their deputies be interviewed by committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts. Leahy and Conyers have rejected that offer.
"The committees can easily obtain the facts they want without a confrontation by simply accepting our offer for documents and interviews," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday. "But it's clear that Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers are more interested in drama than facts."
Leahy's subpoena compels Taylor's testimony on July 11, while Conyers subpoenaed Miers to appear the next day. Both panels also subpoenaed White House documents relevant to the investigation.
In a statement, Taylor's lawyer did not rule out her appearance but suggested it depends on agreement between the White House and Congress.
"Ms. Taylor takes her responsibilities as a citizen very seriously and she is hopeful the White House and the Congress are quickly able to work out an appropriate agreement on her cooperation with the Senate's proceedings," said her attorney, W. Neil Eggleston.
Miers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The investigation by majority Democrats is fueled by their contention that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has, in effect, allowed the White House to make major political decisions for the traditionally independent Justice Department. The firings of eight federal prosecutors over the winter, Democrats say, was an example of improper political influence.
Though widely unhappy with Gonzales' conduct, congressional Republicans have pointed out that U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be hired and fired for almost any reason.
Some in the GOP have said it would be improper if any of the eight were forced out because they did not pursue corruption investigations that might have helped Republicans. Gonzales and the White House have denied that took place, but the attorney general also told a Senate committee dozens of times that he could not recall key details of the firings.
E-mails released by the Justice Department show that Rove, Miers, Taylor and other White House officials were connected to the decision-making process that led to the firings.
Miers left the White House Jan. 4. Taylor's last day was May 30.
If the showdown between the White House and Congress is not resolved, the matter could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a session in federal court.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., pointed out that a resolution without a constitutional showdown is in the interests of all sides.
"I don't believe in threats," he said in a telephone interview, adding that he hoped to negotiate with Fielding. "I believe in taking it a step at a time."
Many Democrats have demanded that Gonzales step down over the firings and his general stewardship of the Justice Department. Seven Senate Republicans voted with Democrats Monday on a no-confidence resolution against Gonzales and many more members of the GOP have called publicly for a new attorney general. The resolution fell seven votes short of the 60 required to advance it to a formal up-or-down vote.
For his part, Gonzales has said he plans to stay until the end of Bush's second term, and the president continues to stand by his longtime friend.
The subpoenas came a day after newly released Justice Department documents revealed that Taylor was closely involved in the firings. In a Feb. 16 e-mail, she described a U.S. attorney in Arkansas who was fired last year as "lazy" - "which is why we got rid of him in the first place," according to the documents.
Former prosecutor Bud Cummins, reached Tuesday night for comment, responded: "I'm sure I have some faults, but my work ethic hasn't been one them."
Taylor also complained that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told senators that Cummins was replaced at the urging of Miers, then White House counsel.
criddic3 wrote:There are far more important things to discuss in this country than a witch-hunt,
Well, we're trying. I've been asking you for a week how we are suppossed to gauge "success" in Iraq, if not through the levels of market bombings and deaths of soldiers. But all you want to do is natter on about Firing-gate.
Or have the blogs you appropriate your responses from not come up with that answer yet?
By the way, could you explain why Gonzales' two top aides stepped down? (This'll be good.)
I am not defending Mr. Gonzales in any major way, except to to defend his right to a presumption of innocence.
From what I have read and what I have heard, Mr. Gonzeles did nothing legally wrong. That includes Mr. Damien's cynical posts from the non-reproachable NY Times.
I have read similar articles that make an argument FOR the firing of some of these attorneys. So I guess my wait-and-see attitude is more sensible than the rush-to-judgment angle some people take or the rush-to-defend attitude that a few others have taken.
If I had to make a judgment now, though, I would say this whole thing is nonsense and is meant to distract us from real news. The Democrats are trying hard to make it look like they are doing something noble, but they haven't convinced me that this is it.
But I think that if Mr. Gonzales acted out of political reasons, than that is a wrong decision. I don't think he did..yet. People are making assumptions that don't necessarily add up to evidence, and the NY Times isn't exactly trying to uncover truth here. They hate this administration and will do whatever they can to make sure we do, too. So I will wait and see what happens.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
criddic, this editorial from the NY Times might convince even you of why Firing-gate is a big deal, though I doubt it:
Congressman Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican, was locked in a close re-election battle last fall when the local United States attorney, Paul Charlton, was investigating him for corruption. The investigation appears to have been slowed before Election Day, Mr. Renzi retained his seat, and Mr. Charlton ended up out of a job — one of eight prosecutors purged by the White House and the Justice Department.
The Arizona case adds a disturbing new chapter to that scandal. Congress needs to determine whether Mr. Charlton was fired for any reason other than threatening the Republican Party’s hold on a Congressional seat.
Mr. Renzi was fighting for his political life when the local press reported that he was facing indictment for a suspect land deal. According to The Wall Street Journal, federal investigators met unexpected resistance from the Justice Department in getting approval to proceed and, perhaps as a result, the investigation was pushed past the election.
Mr. Renzi’s top aide, Brian Murray, admitted this week that when reports surfaced that his boss was being investigated, he had called Mr. Charlton’s office asking for information. Mr. Charlton’s office did the right thing, according to Mr. Murray’s account: it refused to comment. Weeks later, Mr. Charlton was fired.
There is reason to be suspicious about these events. Last week, all Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could offer was weak excuses for the firing — that Mr. Charlton had asked Mr. Gonzales to reconsider a decision to seek the death penalty in a murder case and that he’d started recording interviews with targets of investigations without asking permission from Justice Department bureaucrats.
Beyond that, this story line is far too similar to one involving a fired prosecutor in New Mexico. Senator Pete Domenici, a Republican, asked the prosecutor there, David Iglesias, about the status of an investigation of prominent Democrats. If Mr. Iglesias had brought indictments before the election, it could have helped Heather Wilson, a Republican congresswoman locked in a tight re-election battle. He didn’t. Mr. Domenici reportedly complained to the White House. Mr. Iglesias was fired.
Since this scandal broke, the White House has insisted that the firings were legitimate because United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president.” They do. But if prosecutors were fired to block investigations, that might well be obstruction of justice, which is itself a federal crime.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
criddic3 wrote:There are far more important things to discuss in this country than a witch-hunt,
Well, we're trying. I've been asking you for a week how we are suppossed to gauge "success" in Iraq, if not through the levels of market bombings and deaths of soldiers. But all you want to do is natter on about Firing-gate.
Or have the blogs you appropriate your responses from not come up with that answer yet?
By the way, could you explain why Gonzales' two top aides stepped down? (This'll be good.)
criddic3 wrote:My experience is that people who rant on and on about how bad these people are, are people who think that going to Iraq was based on lies.
1: No WMD or WMD programs were found in Iraq despite Bush administration officials saying they knew Iraq had them.
2: After the war, even Bush43 admits there is no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11; however, before the war Bush administration officials constantly mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath.
3: The 9/11 Commission found no evidence linking Saddam and al Qaeda; but, to this day Cheney still claims a Saddam-9/11 link.
How are these not lies?
Greg, why do you even waste your time expecting logic and honesty from this person? I can tell you the lies he's been fed by his superiors at Fox News which he will regurgitate in response to you:
1. Based on the evidence provided by the CIA, EVERYBODY thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction -- including Bill Clinton!
2. President Bush NEVER said there was a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists. Still, you don't think the Butcher of Bagdad smiled when he heard about 9/11? If we don't stop them there in Iraq, they'll be back here with another 9/11-type attack. What 9/11 taught us is that we have to fight terror before it attacks us. We can't surrender to the terroriss in Iraq and look weak. Why don't you support our troops? Why do you hate America?
3. Some middle management guy from al Qaeda vacationed in Iraq.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
criddic3 wrote:My experience is that people who rant on and on about how bad these people are, are people who think that going to Iraq was based on lies.
1: No WMD or WMD programs were found in Iraq despite Bush administration officials saying they knew Iraq had them.
2: After the war, even Bush43 admits there is no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11; however, before the war Bush administration officials constantly mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath.
3: The 9/11 Commission found no evidence linking Saddam and al Qaeda; but, to this day Cheney still claims a Saddam-9/11 link.
cam wrote:Jon Stewart did a number on him--showed shots of every time that Gonzales "couldn't remember" or didn't "recall". Not very prepared, I would say.
Yes, criddic, he is being grilled mercilessly, but for a very good cause--he apparently let eight or so attorneys go for partisan reasons( I am Canadian and we don't follow every last thing that happens in the US, and am discovering this now that it is bigger news) and partisanship has no place on the bench. If those fired were good enough before, why did they wholesale knock them off now?
If you can get rid of one bad apple,(Gonzales) we will have discovered that maybe the whole barrel is rotten. Let's get rid of Paul W., Rove, Cheney, AND Bush, who should have been impeached years ago. Agnew, who resigned, was a babe-in-arms compared to this gang.
By "sacrificed" criddic, do you mean the way that Scooter Libby was "sacrificed" for Cheney?
I must thank those who write about these issues. Many of us outside the country( and I daresay that there are many IN the USA) do not know about some of things you guys write about.
A thought re the USA: from our visits, it seems that the malls and stores are busy--at least there are people milling around, but every last store has a "SALE 30-70% off" sign in the window. Maybe the wise ones have already bought and are going to wait out the recession which I am sure will occur soon. It cannot go on like it is. Some of the stores remind me of that old SNL skit about the Scotch Tape Store--the cutesy boutiques, for instance, that specialize in niche markets.
Not many Bush-Cheney bumper stickers any more.
Did I say sacrificed?
No, I'm not stretching and no, I'm not panicking. The fact is that if Mr. Gonzales has broken the law or defied the constitution, then he should resign. However, I've thus far seen no evidence of this and see this as a clearly political excercise. The Republicans who aren't supporting Gonzales see that he didn't handle the firings as well as he could have, especially the media frenzy that followed, and that is where they seem to have the biggest problem with his actions. So he didn't explain himself clearly. I can understand that, with all the pressure about something he certaintly didn't think was going to haunt him. I'm of the belief that Mr. Gonzales should only resign if it can be proved that he did something wrong, illegally wrong or if it can be proven that he cannot carry out his duties as Attorney General. That is something that has not been proven and at this point it is up to Gonzales to decide if he wants to voluntarily resign his post. If he truly hasn't done anything constitutionally or legally wrong, he shouldn't bow to political pressures. The appearance of impropriety does not make it so. Suspicion is not a reason for someone to resign. If he does resign, it will be up to the President to accept that decision.
All this over the firing of a handful of people who have no guarantee of keeping their jobs in the first place. Is the political climate really this desperate?
I don't see that word in this post.
My point, cam, is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on wanting to see someone be guilty of something. Don't even think of denying it. There are people, some on this board, who hate these people so much that they will willingly egg on other opposers no matter if the allegations are true or whether there were legal grounds for the actions taken by any top administration official. They just wanna see them sweat because of their own personal feelings towards these people. It's sick.
As I said, and you conveniently ignored, IF Gonzales subverted the law intentionally, IF he defied the Constitution, then yes by all means, he should resign. However, if he felt that these people, for whatever reason, should be let go - that's his decision. If that's all that happened, then we should move on. There are far more important things to discuss in this country than a witch-hunt, which I think includes the Libby case and Dennis Kucinich's silly "articles of impeachment" against Vice President Cheney.
My experience is that people who rant on and on about how bad these people are, are people who think that going to Iraq was based on lies. This opinion is shallowly held by people who like to think they are on-board with the "majority," but that doesn't make it true. This particularly dumb and, I believe, false assumption, has led to all sorts of salicious and hollow attempts to make a genuine corruption case of this administration. So far, no solid case has ever been made. It's a lot of smoke and mirrors that some people are foolish enough to fall for, because of their anger over perceived deception over Iraq, which in turn cut open an old wound going back to President Bush's perceived "stealing" of the 2000 election. So half the country who voted against him in the first election, along with people who view Iraq as a complete falsehood, have deep resentments that carry on through the political atmosphere we see today. Senator Harry Reid, while saying the Iraq war is "lost" made a special mention of how Senator Schumer showed him how well they will do in the next few elections because of Iraq, indicating to me that he thinks Democrats should make things look worse than they are over the next several months and possibly shut down the whole operation in an effort to cynically win over more voters. Thankfully, Schumer was smart enough to declare that the war is not lost and "still winnable," although it is still a fact that NO opposers of President Bush's plan has come forward with a viable alternative (and calling defeat is not a viable plan).
No, there are things far more important than the mess Gonzales has found himself in with Congress. They all, in their own ways, see a political angle in this story. Whether or not Mr. Gonzales has done anything unlawful, some see it to their advantage to tear him apart. Republicans see an advantage to opposing the administration because they are angry about the 2006 loss at the polls (for which the bulk of the blame should go to Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley, not Bush who campaigned hard for them and whose own approvals were at 44% a month prior to the election). And Democrats see advantages all over the place. They know that they need Republicans and right-leaning Independents to run from the administration so they can create a more friendly atmosphere for themselves in '08. It won't be enough to ride on the waves of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's popularity, or even Bill Clinton's popularity. If they thought they had a clear victory, they wouldn't even bother with all this nonsense in the first place.
Just remember, I said and repeated, I believe in innocence until proven guilty. If Gonzales acted unlawfully or unconstitutionally, then he should go. If not, it's just another political with-hunt that some Republicans have signed onto for fear of coming elections.
By the way, after two years, I wouldn't expect to find many Bush/Cheney bumper stickers either.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
