Senate panel authorizes subpoenas for Rove, others http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/us.attorneys.firings/index.html
lets not forget, these aren't some robots who serve the president. these are people with lives, families, career ambitions. it may be the president's place to fire whomever he wants, but these guys were just doing their jobs. they didn't do anything unethical or illegal. they did their job, and they were fired for it. if anything, that's wrong. maybe not illegal, but it should be looked at.
Did he really mean what he said 9 years ago? Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 : (HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge") 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. Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time. 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. - - - - - - - - - - - Tony Snow's Show - Fox News - May 10, 1998 SNOW: Mr. Burton, back to your committee -- if you cannot immunize those witnesses, that's the kiss of death. You're not going to have any more hearings. . . . . BRIT HUME: And have you been assured, sir, that you will remain as chairman of that committee through the coming months. GOP COMMITTE CHAIR REP. DAN BURTON: Yes. I have no problem with that, and I don't think the speaker does either. We're going to continue on it until we get the truth for the American people, or at least do our dead-level best to get the truth for them. You know, the president could solve a lot of this problem if he wouldn't hide behind executive privilege, if he'd just come out and tell the American people the truth. So how is this different from Clinton? I'm sure basso will count the ways. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/20/executive_privilege/index.html
Gonzales' PR push to keep his job. This is funny too -- — Under fire in the Justice Department's botched dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is trying to leave the furor behind him _ literally. The embattled attorney general is reaching beyond Washington over the next week to try to soothe his remaining prosecutors and show the public he's still working hard to curb crime. He'll also talk with local media in dozens of cities Friday about keeping kids safe from sexual predators. "I can really honestly say it's good to be out of Washington and here in St. Louis," Gonzales said Thursday, in the Show-Me State for a round-table discussion on protecting children from sexual exploitation. The only questions he answered from reporters there, however, showed he hadn't escaped the scandal that has engulfed the capital for weeks _ and led to growing calls for his ouster. "I'm not going to resign," he said. "I'm going to stay focused on protecting our kids." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070322/gonzales-prosecutors
They will hang on to Al G as long as possible... and probably way past the politically astute time to cut him loose. All threads in this story and several others lead to Rove and Rove cannot be allowed to testify under oath. Period. We'll go through a series of episodes like this with folks like Al G going down (and rightly so... and I do blame the Dems for not filibustering the appointment) until it gets so close to Rove that he has to go under oath or Bush leaves office, whichever comes first. And I don't think the "Bush leaves office" timeframe is necessarily January of 2009. I could see a "deal" where Bush and Cheney leave office in return for not putting Rove under oath. I don't think that serves the interests of the country, but it would not greatly surprise me if this is where we end up.
I'll be surprised if Alberto lasts out next week. March 24, 2007 Gonzales Met With Advisers on Dismissals By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON WASHINGTON, March 23 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday. The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys. Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told reporters on Friday evening that Mr. Gonzales’s attendance at the hourlong meeting was not inconsistent with his past remarks. “He tasked his chief of staff to carry this plan forward,” Ms. Scolinos said. “He did not participate in the selection of the U.S. attorneys to be fired. He did sign off on the final list.” Ms. Scolinos said the meeting was in Mr. Gonzales’s conference room at the Justice Department. The meeting focused on “rollout” of the dismissals, she said, and from available records was not a meeting in which a final target list was determined. Another department official said that Mr. Gonzales did not recall the meeting and that his aides had been unable to determine whether he approved the dismissal plan then. The meeting took place as Mr. Gonzales’s aides awaited final White House approval of a detailed dismissal plan that had been drafted by D. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff. His plan was sent to the White House on Nov. 15, according to previously released e-mail. Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel at the time, approved Mr. Sampson’s proposal on Dec. 4, and the dismissals were carried out three days later. The calendar entry was among more than 280 pages of Justice Department documents released Friday night and immediately provoked further criticism of Mr. Gonzales in Congress, where the Senate and House Judiciary Committees have authorized subpoenas for sworn public testimony of presidential aides and senior department officials. Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who has led the Congressional investigation into the dismissals, said, “If the facts bear out that the attorney general knew much more than he admitted, he simply cannot continue as the attorney general.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24attorney.html?hp Lying to Congress isn't looked upon favorably by members of the body, Democrats or Republicans. It tends to piss them off. Alberto seems to have placed his head on a platter. It remains to be seen whether he is merely one remove, or the entire dinner. D&D. Indigestion.
That kind of plays into my previous post though... it doesn't matter to this administration whether a bunch of people call for his resignation. They will hang on to him as long as possible to use him as a buffer for Rove, regardless of the political costs because the political costs of Rove under oath are significantly higher. (If you're Bush and Cheney, you can't depend on Rove taking one for the team and opening himself up to perjury charges... that fat boy ain't going to prison if he can help it.) Besides, what's the worst that can happen politically if they hang on to Al G and force impeachment? Bush's rating go from 30% to 28%? They're already at a point where the normal political calculus does not carry any weight.
I understand your point, but I think they may cut him loose, hoping that by doing so, it will make keeping Rove from testifying as long as possible, and a bit easier in the court of public opinion. Totally agree that they will do what they can to keep Rove from testifying under oath, and drag it out as long as possible. We'll see this go to the SC before we see Rove raising his hand before a Congressional Committee. D&D. Courting Disaster.
There was no reason for the Dems to filibuster Gonzalez in 2005 and it would've precipated the adoption of the nuclear option regarding filibusters. Remember that Gonzalez was considered a welcome relief from the extreme ideology, and horrible singing, of Ashcroft. Given his past history he seemed like he was going to be a pragmatic AG. For that matter even if the Dems filibustered or defeated Gonzalez GW Bush would just appoint someone else who likely was more ideological or even more of a toady. Like it or not GW Bush is the President and while the Senate has advice and consent they cannot, especially the minority party, nominate. A situation like that could happen but is very far fetched. Rove won't testify under oath and even if he does an extremely tight deal with what he can testify about will happen because of executive privelage. While this principle is often abused it does exist and the Admin. will argue this until GW Bush is out of office and probably even after that.
There was every reason to filibuster. What you're saying is what his advocates said... he should have been filibustered just on his quote about the Geneva Conventions being "quaint." Everybody knew he wouldn't be an Attorney General in the traditional sense, but an adjunct of the WH Counsel's office. It was sort of like Iraq where a bunch of people knew it was the wrong thing, knew how it would turn out in a general sense, but went ahead and voted for it anyway. This administration truly lowers the bar... worst President, worst VP, worst DefSec, worst FEMA Director, worst Intelligence leadership, and most partisan in history, etc. Not to mention probable loser of two wars, one of which was necessary. And Dems didn't do everything possible to stop this even if it meant triggering the "nuclear option?" That was BS posturing by the Repubs anyway.
Where was all this fuss from the "unbiased" media when Bill Clinton fired all 93 justices back in 1993-94? There wasn't any! Or how about when he appointed a Clinton friendly justice to the newly made opening in Arkansas just in time for the White Water investigations? Just some factual observations... Short term memory is your worst enemy and being brainwashed by the constant sound bites helps you forget...
Yeah, and not understanding the full situation is even worse. Bill Clinton made no bones about what was happening when he replaced the attorneys. This time Alberto Gonzo claimed they weren't being fired for political reasons. IT was supposedly performance related. It turned out that we learned that wasn't true, and it was just another lie by this administration. Add to that Clinton's replacements weren't based on if they did their job too well against one party, and didnt' dig up dirt on the other party. In this case it looks that was the reason many of these folks were fired. Can you understand why that is a problem? Maybe if you have all the facts instead of just the ones that make it seem like the Clinton and Bush situations are identical it will change the way you see it as well. Or maybe not.
Well, you're right about that. Only the biased media tried to make an issue of it... The problem is it was a made up story, manufactured by the right-wing nuts to cast aspersions on Clinton. As has been said many times, the US Attorneys are political appointees. Reagan, Clinton, and W asked for the resignations of all the US Attorneys when they took office... something entirely appropriate and consistent with traditional practice. HW didn't replace them all because there was not a change in party, but he did replace many when their 4 year terms ran out. The problem here is a provision in the Patriot Act, now known to have been proposed by the Justice Department, that allows the appointment of US Attorneys without the approval of the US Senate... a process all of Clinton's Attorneys went through. That process is a check that acts to prevent the US Attorneys (even though they are appointed by the President) from acting in a political fashion and impressing upon them that they are to serve the country and the law, not party. So, all of a sudden, US Attorneys can be appointed without any say by the Senate and immediately after that we find that at least 8 US Attorneys have been fired in mid term for no reason beyond the political. One of the replacement is a Rove aid whose only job had been as an oppo researcher for the RNC and the Bush campaigns. Is this the kind of guy we want as a US Attorney? Would he have received Senate approval? Maybe, but the process is the thing and it would have shown a light on the guy's past and affiliation with the most partisan of political tasks. The combination of firing in midterm for political reasons and the appointment without Senate confirmation are truly without precedent. If you can't see the danger in having the prosecutorial arm of the United States government be subject to political operatives, I really don't know what to say. The first Bush administration really tried to get their appointed US Attorney in Arkansas, Charles Banks, to indict Clinton before the election. Then in October, a month before the election, Attorney General William Barr convened a joint Justice-FBI panel to put pressure on Banks. That pretty much sums it up doesn't it? So yes, Clinton asked for and received the Banks resignation along with all the other US Attorneys appointed by the previous administration. He did this at the beginning of his term and subjected all his appointments to Sentae confirmation. It is obvious he didn't remove Banks because of Whitewater. In light of your either stunning ignorance of the topic or deliberate misstatements, I find this a bit ironic. Listen to Right wing radio much?
See, this is what I love about the reactionist mentaliity of some people. All I did was make a statement, the media didn't cover the Clinton firings in the same way. Which is a true statement. And someone with a view different from mine comes along and accuses me of being ignorant, a liar and tries to label conservative talk radio as "Right Wing" (sounds scary ). Nice try though... On a side, its also interesting to watch the same type of attacks get launched on other posters that decide to chime in with differing opinions in your little virtual utopia known as the D&D.
Wait a minute. Rimrocker showed you that the media did in fact cover the Clinton firings showing the outrage the political machinations involved. The media covered it even though the situations between Bush and Clinton aren't the same. Clinton allowed all his appointments to go through confirmation from the Senate, and Bush didn't. Clinton didn't claim that they were being fired for poor performance only to have it discovered later that it was a lie. To compare two different situations and complain that the coverage is different doesn't really make sense.
Notice the first part of my post was agreeing with you... they weren't covered the same way because they were different. One was routine and done by Repubs and Dems alike, the other unprecedented and only attempted by the current administration. It's not that our views are necessarily different, though I suspect they are... it is that you have an opinion either based on facts that are wrong (which I pointed out) or because you want to score a partisan point. The tone of your posts lead me to believe it's the latter. Having different opinions is welcomed, but when you are relying on someone else's talking points, another poster is likely to call you on it. At that point, you either back up what you said, or, typical of the folks that would write a post like yours, you pretend the facts that shoot down your position don't exist and whine about your opinion not being accepted by people who live in a world where facts do matter... also known as reality.
So basically from your point of view everything the democrats do is justified somehow but when the republicans do the same thing it gets twisted and distorted to become some corrupt, horrible thing? Frankly it is within the power of the president to hire and fire attorneys to his liking. And no the non-stop media reporting and demoenizing wasn't the same for Clinton. It was reported, just not every freakin' day like its some sort of illegal act. Reno didn't lie? Please take off the rose colored glasses. The whole 8 years of the Clinton administration was ONE BIG LIE. I am not saying the current Bush admin. is not had its fare share of issues, thats just politics. It doesn't take much to see the hypocrosy.
It wasn't the exact same thing. If you think it was then you don't have all the facts. It is within the power of the President. The problem wasn't that Bush fired the attorneys. That was not the problem. You need to understand that. The Problem was that he hired new ones without the consent of congress.(that is one huge difference between what Clinton did and what Bush did. In addition Bush's administration lied about the reasons for the firing, and they got caught in that lie. The question is was the lie in regards to the hiring and firing of attorneys?
