posted on March 21, 2007 08:41:05 AM
Hmmm. Who do you think will win a Constitutional battle on this one??? It appears Bush seems to think things haven't changed at all since last November. I would love to see the Bush Administration roasting over a Congressional fire.
House OKs subpoenas for top Bush aides By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
23 minutes ago
A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
By voice vote, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.
"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.
"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
The panel approved, but has not issued, subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week. The full Judiciary Committee would authorize the subpoenas if Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan chose to do so.
The committee rejected Bush's offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.
Authorizing the subopenas "does provide this body the leverage needed to negotiate from a position of strenghth," said Rep. William Delahunt (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.
Republicans called the authorization premature, though some GOP members said they would consider voting to approve the subpoenas if Conyers promises to issue them only if he has evidence of wrongdoing.
Conyers agreed. "This (authority) will not be used in a way that will make you regret your vote."
Several Republicans said, "No" during the voice vote, but no roll call was taken.
For his part, Bush remained resolute.
Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?
"Absolutely," Bush declared Tuesday.
Democrats promptly rejected the threat. The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to approve subpoenas for the same officials on Thursday.
"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true ccountability," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont.
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 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.
In an op-ed in Wednesday's editions of The New York Times, one of the eight, David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: "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."
posted on March 21, 2007 09:44:42 AM
""""Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true ccountability," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont.
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."""
LOL!
OK, first, he very obviously doesn't want the truth (does he ever?).
Second, HE is worried about the seperation of the branches of government !!! THAT'S HILARIOUS!
Third, if they have done nothing wrong why are they afraid to tell the truth ????
Fourth, if they have done nothing wrong why are they afraid to tell the truth?
Fifth, if they have done nothing wrong why are they afraid to tell the truth?
Just had a good idea !!
The repugs LOVE torture! Let's skip all that silly oath taking and just TORTURE them !
PERFECT way to get the "truth" (according to them).
posted on March 21, 2007 10:25:17 AM
Those of you waiting to taste the 'blood and guts' you so long for.....are going to be so very disappointed
It appears this President has made it VERY clear....CRYSTAL clear that he fully intends to not allow the wacko liberals to continue with their 'lust for blood' show.
Try and get your party to do something that you DEMANDED they do.....remove our troops from Iraq.
They don't appear to have the 'power' to even manage that project. So, they'd rather spend their time....taxpayer dollars ...to pretend they're actually doing something....anything. When, if fact, they can do NOTHING about his constitutionally protected POWER to get rid of anyone he wishes to.
And THAT is the crux of more liberal anger......they're impotent to do much of anything except whine.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
I see the Democrats working towards that very thing. What I see is a Republican controlled White House and Republican leadership shaking in their shoes.
I don't think impeachment is necessarily the best strategy for Democrats to pursue. All I can ask for is that they continue their quest for accountability. The Republicans seem to be doing a stellar job wrapping the rope around their neck and stepping off the box on their own. The Dems don't have to help whatsoever in those efforts. If the Republicans continue this downward spiral, there won't be much for the Dems to do to win in 08. This White House has brought this upon themselves and the Republican Party. If they actually practiced what they preached, we wouldn't be in such a mess. Corruption is corruption no matter who is in office. It does absolutely nothing but decay the little faith we have in our leadership.
posted on March 21, 2007 09:41:24 PM
Impeachment???? LOL LOL LOL IN YOUR DREAMS.
The dems will be fighting the constitutionality of what they're saying they're going to do for YEARS and years after this President is no longer in office.
Dream on, rusty. Dream on. lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 22, 2007 10:33:20 AM
LIAR_K said,"The dems will be fighting the constitutionality of what they're saying they're going to do for YEARS and years after this President is no longer in office."
Yes, BUSHY will be out of office living in the disgrace of a failed war and Presidency before he and his gang are forced to the truth about anything .
The republicans don't have the guts to let Rove and Miers go under oath.
posted on March 22, 2007 10:47:30 AM
LOL....and just WHAT would YOU know about having 'guts'???? ROFLMHO
Has nothing to do with 'guts' anyway...you dolt....has to do with Presidential privilege and what the president's advisor's can say and whether it will be kept private or not.
IF all should be public knowledge...no president would have ANY advisor speaking honestly to him because of the lack of privacy.
Secondly......it's nothing more than a constitutional issue between the executive brand of our gov. and the congress.
The dem congress is once again, TRYING to overstep their lawful boundaries.
Precident already set? VP Cheney's energy commission.....where it was decided by the SC that the public had NO right to know.
Try using your head for something other than sitting on.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
