Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Makes Big Hoo-Ha About How Actually Getting Truth From Rove, Miers Would Be "Infringement" Of Executive Powers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321...s&printer=1;_ylt=AmoOw45q643ZoTk_ieOO0mIGw_IE

Flexing their political muscle against the White House, Democrats in the House and Senate are insisting that President Bush's top aides describe their roles in the firings of eight federal prosecutors on the record and under oath.

A House committee was to vote Wednesday to authorize subpoenas for political director Karl Rove and other administration officials despite Bush's declaration a day earlier that Democrats must accept his offer to allow the officials to talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

"Absolutely," Bush declared Tuesday in televised remarks from the White House.

Democrats promptly rejected the offer and announced that they would start authorizing subpoenas within 24 hours.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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

If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court — ultimately the Supreme Court — in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the Senate panel's former chairman, appealed for pragmatism.

"It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation," Specter said.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in "a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

"It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available," the president said.

Bush defended Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys' firings over the past year.

"He's got support with me," Bush said. "I support the attorney general."

Democrats say the prosecutors' dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

In his remarks Tuesday, Bush emphasized that he appoints federal prosecutors and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

Nonetheless, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,'" said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney.

The White House had signaled last week that it would not oppose the legislation if it also passed the House and reached Bush's desk.

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers Tuesday that they could interview Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a deputy to political director Sara Taylor — who in turn works for Rove.

Any such discussions would occur on the president's terms, Fielding said, in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, dismissed the White House offer.

"It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here," Schumer said.

Even I didn't think Bush would be stupid enough to make headlines about how he doesn't want his aides testifying under oath

That's what The Experts call a lose-lose-looooose situation.

As always, people in Washington never learn. Come out and tell the story the right way - the truthful way - the first time, and it'll make a big stink for three days then fall off the front page. Obfuscate, block, stonewall, invent a patently ridiculous lie, be forced to backpedal on your previous story, invent a new lie, that gets torn to shreds too, then publicly debate on whether or not you can afford to tell your next story under oath - in short, cover up - and you provide the newspapers plenty of material for a continuing saga.

 

[Maimonides]

Does this really suprise you? We've seen enough of this administration to know by know that it's corrupt, irresponsible, nepotistic & entirely self-intersted. The only reason Bush has managed to avoid impeachment by now is because the Democrats lack good leadership & honest Republicans are afraid to piss off their boss.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Not the first time. Remember the 9/11 Commission? Rice, Bush and Cheney refused to testify and when the latter two did eventually agree to do so it was together only, without being under oath and without any record of their statements.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm sure President Bush is doing this purely to preserve the precedent of Executive Privilege.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Clinton was a dope, this is what he should have done when they asked him personal questions about his sex life. Simply said that he refused to comment under oath and in public. Republicans wouldnt have had a problem with that, Im sure.

 

[carlosMM]

Great, nbow it is the what? Fifth time? Sixth time? I can't even remember... that Bush tells the American people that he cares sod all for the law!


Super, the most powerful country is in the world is led by someone who appears to have as much respect for the law as any tinpot dictator. Disgusting!

 

[Taliesin]

"I support the attorney general."

I'm glad that's on record. It doesn't seem the wisest thing to say, though ...

 

[Phlegmak]

Bush Refuses To Let WH Officials Testify Under Oath

That is a surprise to no one.

Oh well. Let's wait for the positive spin from the Bush supporters on the forum.

I think Hannity called Bush's decision to not let WH officials testify under oath "outstanding".

 

[MobBoss]

This whole thing is a big whoop. Clinton fired ALL, repeat ALL of his US attorneys. Bush fires 8 and the world goes bonkers, despite the fact that he totally had the discretion to fire them at will.

Non-story of the year.

So what if he fired them for not doing what he wanted? I sure as hell would fire an employee of mine if they didnt do what I wanted.

 

[Taliesin]

This whole thing is a big whoop. Clinton fired ALL, repeat ALL of his US attorneys. Bush fires 8 and the world goes bonkers, despite the fact that he totally had the discretion to fire them at will.

Non-story of the year.

As has been posted before, Clinton replaced his attorneys when he gained office, as per standard practice. He certainly didn't fire them midstream for any reason, let alone to cover up corruption in his party.

So what if he fired them for not doing what he wanted? I sure as hell would fire an employee of mine if they didnt do what I wanted.

So, say one of your employees caught you embezzling, or looking at pornography on a government computer, or something-- you'd be right to fire them for your own protection? Is CYA a valid justification for firing in the U.S. military? Cause I'm pretty sure it is the opposite of valid in public service positions.

 

[MobBoss]

As has been posted before, Clinton replaced his attorneys when he gained office, as per standard practice. He certainly didn't fire them midstream for any reason, let alone to cover up corruption in his party.

Thats not what Bush did either. But dont let that stop you. Plus these folks were fired after his first term was done and the next four years were starting.

So, say one of your employees caught you embezzling, or looking at pornography on a government computer, or something-- you'd be right to fire them for your own protection? Is CYA a valid justification for firing in the U.S. military? Cause I'm pretty sure it is the opposite of valid in public service positions.

Again, these folks were not simply fired for that reason. Your imagination is running away with you just like the democrats want.

 

[IglooDame]

Again, these folks were not simply fired for that reason. Your imagination is running away with you just like the democrats want.

Okay, why were they fired?

 

[MobBoss]

Okay, why were they fired?

My understanding was that in a couple of cases they were not emphasizing investigating alleged voter fraud like the White House wanted them to. I know for a fact here in Washington State there were a LOT of issues over the last Governors election that the US Attorney declined to look into and the White House couldnt have been happy about that.

I mean we had a general election in which the Republican won, and recount that the Republican won..another recount that the democrat won...thus now we have a democrat governor. In the midst of all that were huge allegations of wrongdoings that was just never looked into that in my opinion, very well should have been.

 

[El_Machinae]

This whole thing is a big whoop. Clinton fired ALL, repeat ALL of his US attorneys. Bush fires 8 and the world goes bonkers, despite the fact that he totally had the discretion to fire them at will.

So did Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., if I'm correct. Bringing up Clinton's activity as an attempt to tu quoque - when the events are not similar enough - is worse than the tu quoque fallacy, it's deliberate obfuscation.

A purging is very different from selectively firing people whose successful performance of their job would hurt your party.

Seriously, what's wrong with actually calling a spade a spade?

Spoiler :

Are you afraid that you're going to get fired for using a government computer to complain about the government?

 

[IglooDame]

My understanding was that in a couple of cases they were not emphasizing investigating alleged voter fraud like the White House wanted them to. I know for a fact here in Washington State there were a LOT of issues over the last Governors election that the US Attorney declined to look into and the White House couldnt have been happy about that.

I mean we had a general election in which the Republican won, and recount that the Republican won..another recount that the democrat won...thus now we have a democrat governor. In the midst of all that were huge allegations of wrongdoings that was just never looked into that in my opinion, very well should have been.

And in the other six cases?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

MobBoss is totally wrong as usual.

Long fact-laden rebuttal ahead, becuz I'm that kind of gui.

I'll let one of the fired attorneys do the talking for starters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.


David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Now some stuff from me.

MobBoss says this is a "big whoop over nothing." That is bullfeathers. There are two stakes in this game, and they are both the highest stakes possible.

The first stake is a potential conspiracy to obstruct justice in the investigation of the most corrupt congressman ever caught. Carol Lam was fired in the middle of her investigation of Duke Cunningham's allies and their sleazy doings (I'm not kidding, there were literally hookers and limos involved). One of the trails of the investigation led to the CIA, where it had already caused the #3 (Kyle Foggo) to resign in embarrassment and would eventually result in his indictment on fraud charges. A second trail led to the office of Jerry Lewis who was at the time the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee aka THE Committee of the House for doling out the moolah.

Carol Lam was fired so abruptly that she filed two indictments the day before she cleaned her office out.

The President has refused to release emails from the several weeks leading up to the firings themselves. I am guessing that is because some very incriminating emails from a staffer at the CIA, a staffer in Jerry Lewis' office or a rich Republican military contractor were sent to somebody at DoJ. Allowing Congress much less the public to see those emails would uncover a conspiracy to obstruct justice which, if you remember, is exactly what Libby was put away for.

The Carol Lam firing reeks of politics and influence-peddling and involves two parties (the CIA and the House Republican Party) which have every expectation that the Preznit will struggle to C their As. Congress is wise in judging that any "concessions" the President makes in order to find a "compromise" are just document dumps of everything BUT what he wants to keep hidden - and what is at the center of this case.

Congress needs to get to the bottom of this NOW.

I'll go over the second stakes in the next post.

 

[Phlegmak]

I don't know if this has been covered yet:

If Bush and his guys did nothing wrong, then why is Bush so adamant against his people being subpoenaed? If no crime was committed, then what's the big deal?

 

[skadistic]

Whats the crime hear again?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The second stake is a Constitutional crisis over Bush's adherence to the BS notion of a "unitary executive."

This is legalspeak so I'll make it short and sweet. The concept of a unitary executive started with Nixon and was more fully developed in the Ford and Reagan administrations. The Bush WH, being filled with refuse from the Ford-Reagan era (Cheney and Rummy for starters) has developed this concept to its peak.

The euphemistic way of describing a unitary executive is that a law isn't broken if a President chooses to waive it. (in other words, the very Nixonian "it's not a crime if the President did it").

The more factual way of describing a unitary executive is that the Ford-Nixonites had an epiphany that two of the branches of government are no longer balanced. Congress holds the money, but the Executive holds the guns. The growth of the federal government has made it exponentially more powerful. The executive is charged with enforcing and upholding the statutes passed by Congress. But what if the executive decides NOT to do what Congress charges it with doing, or even to BREAK the laws and rules Congress passes? Whaddaya gonna do, Congress?

In other words, the unitary executive = "The President IS The State."

It's not delusions of grandeur either, because he has the power.

Signing statements are one example of how this has poked out into the public eye. Congress passes a law saying "the US Government can't allow torture." Bush signs the bill then adds a little appendix at the bottom which adds up to "yes I can when I decide I want to."

Whaddaya gonna do, Congress?

Take another example. Suppose Rove and Miers are not allowed to testify under oath. They can't be subpoena'd. What happens? It goes to court, where Bush is hoping he can run out the clock of his Presidency. But if the courts rule, quite justly, that there is no constitutional basis for Bush's stonewalling and his officials MUST be subpoena'd, what then? Bush continues refusing. The next step is for Congress to find Rove and Miers guilty of Contempt of Congress. This is a legal charge - it's a request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the people named.

Ironic, heh? What are the odds that the DoJ (which is part of the EXECUTIVE branch) would agree to prosecute?

Let me be more specific. The call on whether to prosecute or not rests with the atty for DC. Who is he? He's a POLITICAL APPOINTEE named by President Bush! What's more, he was Alberto Gonzales' former lead counsel!

Yep, he doesn't have a lot of conflicts of interests pressuring him in this case!

The above was pretty complex. Let's simplify. Bush is playing a dangerous game of chicken with the Constitution. He is attempting to abuse executive authority to stonewall an investigation into the executive's misdeeds. The last time this happened, President Nixon took the stonewalling all the way and fired investigators when it looked like they were going to get to the bottom of Watergate. That was called the Saturday Night Massacre and it led directly to Nixon's impeachment. It could be that we are about to see a repeat of the SNM. Bush's White House is filled with people from the Nixon and Ford eras who believe that Watergate set the wrong precedent instead of the right one. They may be DELIBERATELY working towards creating a Constitutional crisis just so they can get a Republican-packed Supreme Court to say that it's OK when the President abuses his authority and essentially tells the other two branches of government to go pound sand.

If that happens, we will not be living in a democratic republic any more.