SubpoenOWNED

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1>Tony Snow...He coulda starred in "Flipper"</h1></center>

The latest volley from the White House over the US attorney sackings involves executive privilege. Firstly, as a CNN reporter pointed out, if the President hadn't been briefed on the matter of the attorney sackings, their was no communication on the matter. There was no 'privileged' communication to shield.

Secondly, Tony Snow, as well as a number of Republicans, have done such an abrupt 180 on the issue of executive privilege that I'm amazed they didn't break their necks. Let me offer you a little gem from Tony's column in 1998:

<blockquote>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. <b>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.</b>

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&#8217;s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: <b>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 &#8212; <i>the rule of law.</i></b> - Tony Snow, <b>Executive Privilege is a Dodge</b>, 03/29/1998</blockquote>

This sentiment was echoed by many Republicans in their, what I thought entirely justified, criticism of Goatboy and his administration. That Republicans now whole-heartedly embrace the concept of executive privilege, for the reasons thus far enumerated by the Bush administration, is simply hypocritical.

As for going through the courts, this SCOTUS has already established legal precedent regarding this issue. In the case of <a href=><i>United States v. Nixon</i></a>, the Supreme Court found that there are very definite limitations on claims of executive privilege.

<blockquote>The President&#8217;s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. <b><i>Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection</i></b> with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. <a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683>United States v. Nixon</a>,Section IVb, para 3</blockquote>

There are clearly no "military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets" at stake here. In fact if, as the White House claims, the President was not briefed on this matter at all, no claim of executive privilege exists. The White House hasn't a legal leg to stand on in this matter.

 

[glockmail]

Actually, I did. But, you obviously couldn't manage the mechanics of clicking the link. So, to make it easier for ya, Click on the link below.

<center><h1><a href=http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47782>HERE</a></h1></center>

whaaa thaa faaaa?

1. What link before?
2. Did you check this link?

 

[pegwinn]

Let's assume a few things for the sake of argument.

Let's assume that congress issues the summons and the president ignores them.

Let's assume that it goes through the courts and he (GWB) loses every step of the way.

Let's assume the USSC issues a ruling similar to what BP posted.

The question remains. Who is going to enforce it?

 

[jillian]

Let's assume a few things for the sake of argument.

Let's assume that congress issues the summons and the president ignores them.

Let's assume that it goes through the courts and he (GWB) loses every step of the way.

Let's assume the USSC issues a ruling similar to what BP posted.

The question remains. Who is going to enforce it?

Great thing about this country is it's a very rare thing for the president to ignore the Supreme Court. Has only happened a couple of times in our history. I don't think much of Bush, but I don't think even he would add his name to that list.

 

[maineman]

Let's assume a few things for the sake of argument.

Let's assume that congress issues the summons and the president ignores them.

Let's assume that it goes through the courts and he (GWB) loses every step of the way.

Let's assume the USSC issues a ruling similar to what BP posted.

The question remains. Who is going to enforce it?

methinks that if the attorney general will.... or risk impeachment for him and his boss...defying the will of congress and the USSC certainly falls under my definition of a high crime.

 

[jasendorf]

Secondly, Tony Snow, as well as a number of Republicans, have done such an abrupt 180 on the issue of executive privilege that I'm amazed they didn't break their necks. Let me offer you a little gem from Tony's column in 1998:

<blockquote>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. <b>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.</b>

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: <b>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 — <i>the rule of law.</i></b> - Tony Snow, <b>Executive Privilege is a Dodge</b>, 03/29/1998</blockquote>

In the spirit of this thread I think that's

TONY SNOWNED!!!!!!

 

[pegwinn]

Great thing about this country is it's a very rare thing for the president to ignore the Supreme Court. Has only happened a couple of times in our history. I don't think much of Bush, but I don't think even he would add his name to that list.

methinks that if the attorney general will.... or risk impeachment for him and his boss...defying the will of congress and the USSC certainly falls under my definition of a high crime.

Jillian, you punted instead of running with the ball. Maineman, perhaps the AG will, but I doubt it.

Answer, the DOJ is the enforcement arm whenever Congress issues a subpoena. The DOJ works directly for the President. Congress is attempting to go from Co-Equal to Superior. I really doubt it will work. Bush is a lame duck, and he can really be an arm twisting vindictive son of a bitch if he wants to.

Legally speaking, Bush can simply tell Congress to kiss his ass because he was well within his authority to fire the attorneys. This particular lil war is nothing but a tempest in a teapot.

BTW, If I was Bush I would fire the AG simply because if he cannot accomplish the firing of employees without it becoming a "federal case" then he isn't competent to run the entire DOJ.

 

[maineman]

Maineman, perhaps the AG will, but I doubt it.

wanna put some money on it?

 

[jasendorf]

I double dog dare the President to not send his aides to Congress to testify if the USSC decides they must.

Those aides will be there. It won't need enforcing if the USSC decides they have to appear before Congress... if they balk, it will be the end of the Republican Party. When 7 of the 9 USSC Justices have been appointed by Republicans it's tough to say, "Well, it's the liberal Supreme Court which is playing politics over this!" (But, rest assured that the rightorepubliblogowhackos will say exactly that.)

 

[jillian]

Jillian, you punted instead of running with the ball. Maineman, perhaps the AG will, but I doubt it.

Answer, the DOJ is the enforcement arm whenever Congress issues a subpoena. The DOJ works directly for the President. Congress is attempting to go from Co-Equal to Superior. I really doubt it will work. Bush is a lame duck, and he can really be an arm twisting vindictive son of a bitch if he wants to.

Legally speaking, Bush can simply tell Congress to kiss his ass because he was well within his authority to fire the attorneys. This particular lil war is nothing but a tempest in a teapot.

BTW, If I was Bush I would fire the AG simply because if he cannot accomplish the firing of employees without it becoming a "federal case" then he isn't competent to run the entire DOJ.

I think I merely stated the political and factual reality. His party has an election coming up. I don't think he wants to leave behind another mess for them to clean up. The truth is that the DOJ won't have to enforce an order of the Supreme Court. If, and that's a big if, Bush's court does find against him, he'll have no choice. I don't see this as Congress upsetting the balance of power, I see Bush's actions as having done that.

What I find truly interesting is that the White House brought in one of the lawyers today who worked on Watergate. Fascinating from an observer's standpoint.

 

[pegwinn]

wanna put some money on it?

Interesting. Terms?

I am a lousy gambler. Normally teams call me and offer to supply the cash if I will place a bet on the opposing team to win. That normally clinches it. Besides, betting with beer is better. Loser buys and both go home happy, drunk, or happy drunks.

I double dog dare the President to not send his aides to Congress to testify if the USSC decides they must.

Those aides will be there. It won't need enforcing if the USSC decides they have to appear before Congress... if they balk, it will be the end of the Republican Party. When 7 of the 9 USSC Justices have been appointed by Republicans it's tough to say, "Well, it's the liberal Supreme Court which is playing politics over this!" (But, rest assured that the rightorepubliblogowhackos will say exactly that.)

You've missed the point entirely. So, let me spell it out for you. This is unenforceable. The DOJ cannot compel the President to do anything. If he sends his aids it will be because he chose to, not because anyone was able to twist his arm. And, I disagree that it would be the end of the GOP. Hell Nixon didn't end them, neither did Clinton end the DNC.

I think I merely stated the political and factual reality. His party has an election coming up. I don't think he wants to leave behind another mess for them to clean up. The truth is that the DOJ won't have to enforce an order of the Supreme Court. If, and that's a big if, Bush's court does find against him, he'll have no choice. I don't see this as Congress upsetting the balance of power, I see Bush's actions as having done that.

What I find truly interesting is that the White House brought in one of the lawyers today who worked on Watergate. Fascinating from an observer's standpoint.

The question wasn't about reality I'm afraid, except as a teaching tool. I gave you a list of assumptions so that we could finally work our way to the bottom line. To wit: No one can compel the President. The enforcement agency works for him. Impeachment is possible. Removal from office won't happen.

How has Bush's actions upset the balance? This isn't a trap. I see it the other way around, but would be interested in your take. Might even be worth a fresh thread.

 

[Emmett]

I double dog dare the President to not send his aides to Congress to testify if the USSC decides they must.

Those aides will be there. It won't need enforcing if the USSC decides they have to appear before Congress... if they balk, it will be the end of the Republican Party. When 7 of the 9 USSC Justices have been appointed by Republicans it's tough to say, "Well, it's the liberal Supreme Court which is playing politics over this!" (But, rest assured that the rightorepubliblogowhackos will say exactly that.)

Man, you need to put down that crack pipe. You really don't like the president, do you?

Do you really feel the end of the Republican party is near?

Will you conceed now your confidence in the USSC's decision and except it when it comes down? Or...might I say will you whine and bitch if they decide not to?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Let's assume a few things for the sake of argument.

Let's assume that congress issues the summons and the president ignores them.

Let's assume that it goes through the courts and he (GWB) loses every step of the way.

Let's assume the USSC issues a ruling similar to what BP posted.

The question remains. Who is going to enforce it?

Given these assumptions I dare, dare the President to defy the will of the other two branches. Frankly, I don't think he has the balls to do it. It'd be the biggest scandal since Watergate, and would split the Republican party in half while guaranteeing that no moderate will vote Republican for a generation. So, to answer your question formally, the person who is going to enforce the order will be the President himself because he's not stupid enough to do otherwise.

Hell I'll bet on it too. Not only that, I'll give you 50-to-1 odds.

One thing you have to realize is that for all the talk about partisan divide, when the President- any President- openly defies Congress then those bastards all get together and fuck with him. Look and the signing statements, look at his Presidential Papers, look at what happened to Nixon and "police action". Sure, technically Bush can refuse to deliver, but you can bet your family that if he even thinks or dares to think about considering possibly pondering such a course of action Congress, the rest of the government and the media will be all over his ass until the day he is impeached, which, given those circumstances, he would be.

 

[Bullypulpit]

whaaa thaa faaaa?

1. What link before?
2. Did you check this link?

Since you, and others seemed to be having some difficulty, I moved it to this thread. SInce you're still having trouble, I'll edit it to include the original title.

 

[Bullypulpit]

In the spirit of this thread I think that's

TONY SNOWNED!!!!!!

Have you noticed...? The Bushies haven't even responded to the post.

 

[red states rule]

I think I merely stated the political and factual reality. His party has an election coming up. I don't think he wants to leave behind another mess for them to clean up. The truth is that the DOJ won't have to enforce an order of the Supreme Court. If, and that's a big if, Bush's court does find against him, he'll have no choice. I don't see this as Congress upsetting the balance of power, I see Bush's actions as having done that.

What I find truly interesting is that the White House brought in one of the lawyers today who worked on Watergate. Fascinating from an observer's standpoint.

The Attorneys Hubbub Print Mail



By John Yoo
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007

Once again, the Bush administration has shot itself in the foot. If the Justice Department had just removed individual U.S. attorneys one by one, just for a change, no controversy would have erupted. Since the very beginnings of the Republic, presidents have always had the constitutional right to remove their political appointees, for any reason or no reason at all.

Reading emails filled with what passes for colorful language inside the Beltway ("loyal Bushies"), watching Karl Rove squirm before a congressional committee and placing bets on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's tenure in office is great political sport. Democrats in Congress look even madder now than when they were complaining about President Bush's "excesses" in the war on terror.

They may even claim the scalp or two of a loyal Bushie. It seems like senseless partisanship, but it's Washington so what else is new? But much more than partisan circuses is at stake. Those who toss more fuel onto the fire threaten the nation's unifying force in law enforcement and well-run government--the president's core constitutional prerogative to fire his subordinates.

No doubt efforts to insulate U.S. attorneys from presidential control will soon emerge. At first glance, this seems attractive--U.S. attorneys are responsible for all criminal and civil actions involving the federal government within their districts. No one in this country wants the Justice Department to manipulate or tamper with cases for partisan gain.

But presidents need to have their own people in place in order to promote a consistent, national agenda. While U.S. attorneys can gather better information on, and react more swiftly to, local conditions, the Constitution still gives the president the responsibility to govern the activities of all U.S. officials. As James Madison said in 1789 in the first Congress, "no power could be more completely executive than that of appointing, inspecting and controlling those who had the immediate administration of the laws." Ever since, the Supreme Court has recognized that the power to remove is the power to control.

The president has no constitutional authority to order executive branch officials to obey his policies, except by removing them. If independence rules, the defense secretary could double the surge of troops into Baghdad to end the fighting there, the secretary of state could settle the Korean nuclear crisis on easier terms, and the attorney general could stop bringing drug trafficking cases if he disagreed with the war on drugs.

Critics want to insulate U.S. attorneys from political control by the president. Some have proposed over the years that the attorney general either be elected or chosen through some "neutral" non-political process. But how do you guarantee "neutrality"? Our Constitution's well-tempered system of checks and balances already does that quite well. Presidents are elected because of their political preferences and are expected to manage the executive branch accordingly. Congressmen do the same. Since when has a Democratic congressman, to be neutral and fair, had to hire Republicans on his staff?

Ultimately, the Constitution vests the president, not the attorney general or U.S. attorneys, with the responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Presidents, assisted by their attorneys general, must make the basic prosecutorial decisions about what resources to spend, and on which prosecutions--like getting criminals off the streets instead of setting perjury traps for White House aides. A president might decide that bringing more immigration cases nationwide will advance the public interest. But without the removal power he cannot force reluctant U.S. attorneys to follow such priorities that might be locally unpopular. Prosecutors tasked to go forth and prosecute with no guidance from above often lose perspective on the costs or the benefits to the whole nation of their choices.

Patrick Fitzgerald's pursuit of Scooter Libby shows us what happens when a prosecutor reports to no higher authority. He single-mindedly persecuted Mr. Libby, at great taxpayer expense, without any sense of the damage caused to the workings of our government in wartime--and over a confused sequence of misstatements later characterized all too easily as "lies" about a crime that Mr. Fitzgerald found had not happened anyway.

If U.S. attorneys are all turned into special counsels to set their own uncontrolled agendas, the more bad prosecutions we will see. The recent Nifong Duke case is an example of an out of control prosecutor playing to the press to build his own political career. Executive control is simply good management, ensuring that U.S. attorneys don't succumb to competing pressures that take their eye off national goals.

Both political parties allowed the Independent Counsel statute to die after the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. Republicans and Democrats came to their senses and swore off the Watergate-era reform of uncontrolled prosecutors afflicted with tunnel vision. The nation decided to re-establish political supervision over prosecution. To insulate U.S. attorneys from "political" direction from Washington--an about-face--would wreak chaos on national policy.

Unless there are more clear facts of interference with prosecutors for partisan purposes, Mr. Gonzales should keep his job. His dismissal wouldn't placate the critics anyway, and probably only whet their appetite for more. The president is in the last two years of a second term. He is going to be playing defense on Justice issues now to the very end. His administration will surely be subjected to an endless round of Congressional subpoenas and investigations. All presidents, regardless of party, need an attorney general and U.S. attorneys who share, rather than ignore, their constitutional, legal and law-enforcement priorities. The Constitution requires no less.

John Yoo is a visiting scholar at AEI.


http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25831/pub_detail.asp

 

[red states rule]

Have you noticed...? The Bushies haven't even responded to the post.

Subpoena Assault
Congress's real goal is crippling the Bush Presidency.

Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

On Tuesday, White House Counsel Fred Fielding offered Congress a chance to question several top Presidential aides about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys--so long as the questioning was done privately, without a transcript, and the aides weren't under oath. Having thus been handed an olive branch, a House Judiciary Subcommittee promptly approved subpoenas yesterday for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other top current or former Presidential aides to testify before Congress, publicly and under oath.

The Beltway is now abuzz with talk of a "Constitutional crisis." We'd put it another way: What's at stake here is whether George W. Bush is going to let Congress roll up his Presidency two years early. Democrats are trying to use the manufactured outrage over the entirely legal sacking of Presidential appointees to insert themselves into private White House deliberations. Mr. Bush needs to draw a line somewhere, and fast, or Democrats will keep driving until the White House staff is all but working for Democratic Senate campaign chief Chuck Schumer.

These columns have long supported the principle of "executive privilege," though we realize it is not a blanket prerogative: Both the Burger Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon and the Rehnquist Court in Clinton v. Jones upheld the principle that a President cannot use the claims of his office to protect himself from criminal or civil legal claims.

But there's little doubt that this or any other President has the right--we'd say the obligation--to protect the confidentiality of internal White House discussions, especially over Presidential appointments. If Congress can solicit any email concerning advice to the President, or haul any White House official before Congress, then executive branch deliberations will soon be an oxymoron.




Mr. Fielding may already have been too generous in allowing Congress to question advisers, considering the core executive powers at issue. But let's assume that as the new White House counsel he was attempting to avoid a Constitutional showdown and show respect for Congress's power to conduct oversight. This week the Justice Department also turned over some 3,000 emails on the matter, and any number of Justice officials, including the Attorney General, have testified or soon will under oath. If this is a "cover-up," it is the most porous in history.
All the more so because the evidence so far suggests that this is a scandal without anything scandalous. Justice Department officials have certainly been the gang that couldn't get its story straight, and we can understand Congress's frustration with the evolving explanations. But the biggest blunder was for Justice to deny that the eight attorneys were dismissed for "political" reasons.

U.S. attorneys are "political appointees," and so by definition can be replaced for political reasons. If San Diego's Carol Lam was out of step with the Administration's priorities on immigration enforcement, or New Mexico's David Iglesias was judged insufficiently aggressive on voter fraud, then it was entirely appropriate for the President to replace them with officials more in line with his views. What's the alternative? Presumably, Mr. Bush's Congressional critics would have him--and his successors, Republican and Democratic--preside over political appointees who are unaccountable to anyone except Congress.

What would be genuine grounds for outrage is if a U.S. attorney were dismissed to interfere with a specific prosecution, or to protect some crony. This was the root of our objection, in 1993, to Janet Reno's dismissal (at Webster Hubbell's instigation) of all 93 U.S. attorneys in his Administration's earliest days. But there is no such evidence involving any of the eight Bush attorneys.

As for Congress's subpoenas, they are being issued largely for the political melodrama they create. Even if Congress serves the subpoenas, Democrats know that they can't be enforced without a long legal fight that would extend toward the end of the Bush Presidency. The point of this stunt isn't to learn what Karl Rove knows, or else Congress would accept the White House offer to interview him in private. The exercise is all about creating an aura of "cover-up" and "illegality," never mind the lack of any evidence.

Whether Attorney General Albert Gonzales or Deputy Paul McNulty now lose their jobs is a decision Mr. Bush will have to make. But no one should be under any illusions that their political sacrifice at the current moment would appease Democrats. Their real target is Karl Rove, and ultimately the crippling of the Bush Presidency. Whatever benefit Mr. Bush would gain by giving GOP Members a ritual sacrifice would be offset by the costs of putting even more Administration blood in the water.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009818

 

[jasendorf]

Man, you need to put down that crack pipe. You really don't like the president, do you?

Do you really feel the end of the Republican party is near?

Will you conceed now your confidence in the USSC's decision and except it when it comes down? Or...might I say will you whine and bitch if they decide not to?

If it goes to the USSC and they choose to ignore the Constitution's explicit duties of Congress... yes, I'll probably note that the USSC is made up of 7 Republican-appointed Justices... most certainly.

But, this has very little to do with the President. Tony Snow himself has said that he had no involvement in this. If that's true... then there's no executive privilege.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Subpoena Assault
Congress's real goal is crippling the Bush Presidency.

Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

On Tuesday, White House Counsel Fred Fielding offered Congress a chance to question several top Presidential aides about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys--so long as the questioning was done privately, without a transcript, and the aides weren't under oath. Having thus been handed an olive branch, a House Judiciary Subcommittee promptly approved subpoenas yesterday for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other top current or former Presidential aides to testify before Congress, publicly and under oath.

And this is a problem because...?

The Beltway is now abuzz with talk of a "Constitutional crisis." We'd put it another way: What's at stake here is whether George W. Bush is going to let Congress roll up his Presidency two years early. Democrats are trying to use the manufactured outrage over the entirely legal sacking of Presidential appointees to insert themselves into private White House deliberations. Mr. Bush needs to draw a line somewhere, and fast, or Democrats will keep driving until the White House staff is all but working for Democratic Senate campaign chief Chuck Schumer.

Indeed this, and other, attempts by the Bush Administration to subvert the rule of law do present a grave threat to the Republic and the Constitution which is its foundation. Several federal laws may have been broken in the process of these firings.

These columns have long supported the principle of "executive privilege," though we realize it is not a blanket prerogative: Both the Burger Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon and the Rehnquist Court in Clinton v. Jones upheld the principle that a President cannot use the claims of his office to protect himself from criminal or civil legal claims.

But there's little doubt that this or any other President has the right--we'd say the obligation--to protect the confidentiality of internal White House discussions, especially over Presidential appointments. If Congress can solicit any email concerning advice to the President, or haul any White House official before Congress, then executive branch deliberations will soon be an oxymoron.

Except during the Clinton administration. Then executive privilege was a "dodge" as Tony Snow and many other right wing pundits at that time were fond of pointing out. That aside though, according to the White House, Chimpy was not briefed on these firings. Therefore, no claim of executive privilege applies. Regardless even of that, referring to <a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683>United States v. Nixon</a>, Section IVb, para 3, there are clearly no "military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets" at stake here. Any claim of executive privilege would, therefore, have no standing.

Mr. Fielding may already have been too generous in allowing Congress to question advisers, considering the core executive powers at issue. But let's assume that as the new White House counsel he was attempting to avoid a Constitutional showdown and show respect for Congress's power to conduct oversight. This week the Justice Department also turned over some 3,000 emails on the matter, and any number of Justice officials, including the Attorney General, have testified or soon will under oath. If this is a "cover-up," it is the most porous in history.
All the more so because the evidence so far suggests that this is a scandal without anything scandalous. Justice Department officials have certainly been the gang that couldn't get its story straight, and we can understand Congress's frustration with the evolving explanations. But the biggest blunder was for Justice to deny that the eight attorneys were dismissed for "political" reasons.

All this simply begs the question, "If they have nothing to fear in testifying under oath, why is Chimpy so loathe to have them do so?"

U.S. attorneys are "political appointees," and so by definition can be replaced for political reasons. If San Diego's Carol Lam was out of step with the Administration's priorities on immigration enforcement, or New Mexico's David Iglesias was judged insufficiently aggressive on voter fraud, then it was entirely appropriate for the President to replace them with officials more in line with his views. What's the alternative? Presumably, Mr. Bush's Congressional critics would have him--and his successors, Republican and Democratic--preside over political appointees who are unaccountable to anyone except Congress.

What would be genuine grounds for outrage is if a U.S. attorney were dismissed to interfere with a specific prosecution, or to protect some crony. This was the root of our objection, in 1993, to Janet Reno's dismissal (at Webster Hubbell's instigation) of all 93 U.S. attorneys in his Administration's earliest days. But there is no such evidence involving any of the eight Bush attorneys.

David Iglesias was called by both Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Heather WIlson (R-NM) about issuing sealed indictments regarding Democratic officials before the November elections. Carol Lam was, following the conviction of Duke Cunningham, pursuing an investigation into Kyle Foggo, the CIA's #3 man and Brent Wilkes who was one of the two men accused of bribing Cunningham. This investigation had the possibility of leading straight to Cheney's office. But we'll never know now, will we.

As for Congress's subpoenas, they are being issued largely for the political melodrama they create. Even if Congress serves the subpoenas, Democrats know that they can't be enforced without a long legal fight that would extend toward the end of the Bush Presidency. The point of this stunt isn't to learn what Karl Rove knows, or else Congress would accept the White House offer to interview him in private. The exercise is all about creating an aura of "cover-up" and "illegality," never mind the lack of any evidence.

Whether Attorney General Albert Gonzales or Deputy Paul McNulty now lose their jobs is a decision Mr. Bush will have to make. But no one should be under any illusions that their political sacrifice at the current moment would appease Democrats. Their real target is Karl Rove, and ultimately the crippling of the Bush Presidency. Whatever benefit Mr. Bush would gain by giving GOP Members a ritual sacrifice would be offset by the costs of putting even more Administration blood in the water.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009818

The subpoenas could be avoided entirely if the individuals in question simply agreed to testify under oath before the House and Senate Judicial committees. But they won't so, what is the White House afraid of?

Any thoughts of your own...? Or are you simply content to parrot the GOP talking points? You don't have to answer, as we already know what it will be.

 

[red states rule]

There is nothing to go under oath about

Fox News has reported reason for three of the eight firings. They were NOT doing their job

From Bill O'Reilly;s talking points memo....................



The ultra-liberal Baltimore Sun says: "Either he," the president, "doesn't recognize the weakness of his position or he has something awful to hide."

Uber-left Newsday writes: "Gonzales wasn't telling the truth when he said the prosecutors were fired for poor job performance."

OK, Newsday, prove it. Prove it. Demonstrate the attorney general was lying. If you can't, close up shop.

And the absolute topper comes from The Brattleboro Reformer, which says: "This whole affair is too reminiscent of Watergate."

No, it's not. There's not even a hint of illegality in play. By the way, the radical left Vermont paper has also called for the president's impeachment.

Now, the only way this dopey story matters is if the Bush administration fired a prosecutor who was looking into political corruption. If that happened, the president is doomed. But there's no evidence of that. In fact, "The Factor's" initial investigation shows that at least three of the fired U.S. attorneys were controversial, to say the least.

In San Diego, U.S. attorney Carol Lam was under fire for failing to prosecute illegal alien criminals. On June 15, 2006, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein complained about Ms. Lam to Alberto Gonzales saying: "It is my understanding that Ms. Lam may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases."

That was Feinstein then. Here she is now.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: The White House is in a bunker mentality: won't listen, won't change. I believe there is even more to come out.



Yes. And then there's fired U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, who wouldn't prosecute pot-smuggling cases unless they were above 500 pounds. Wow.

How about San Francisco federal prosecutor Kevin Ryan? Here is what the liberal Los Angeles Times wrote about him today: "It was only when a Democratic judge threatened to go to Congress to raise a public fuss over Ryan's poor performance that Ryan was put on the termination list, according to e-mails released by the White House."

So, in 24 hours, we have come up with plausible explanations for the dismissal of three of the eight U.S. attorneys. And we only gave it a day. But, again, the White House should be doing this, not us. I'm going to send them a bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260665,00.html