Public Testimony For Rove and Miers

[ECW]

The days of the 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean' kind of testimony on Capitol Hill are gone, thanks to Pat Leahy. The secrecy shroud is being ripped away and not too soon. The behind-the-scenes machinations that forced eight USA's out on to the streets with battered reputations behind them is going to be fully investigated. This will be a lot of fun. Karl Rove isn't looking so special anymore.

WASHINGTON, March 18 — The Democratic senator leading the inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors insisted Sunday that Karl Rove and other top aides to President Bush must testify publicly and under oath, setting up a confrontation between Congress and the White House, which has said it is unlikely to agree to such a demand.

Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, is among the officials who may be subpoenaed to testify publicly and under oath.

Some Republicans have suggested that Mr. Rove testify privately, if only to tamp down the political uproar over the inquiry, which centers on whether the White House allowed politics to interfere with law enforcement.

But Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seemed to rule out such a move on Sunday. He said his committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas for Mr. Rove as well as Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William K. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel.

“I do not believe in this ‘We’ll have a private briefing for you where we’ll tell you everything,’ and they don’t,” Mr. Leahy said on “This Week” on ABC, adding: “I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this.”

Lawmakers in both parties agree that the fate of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales may rest on what happens this week, as the White House and Congress come to blows — or find a compromise — over the testimony lawmakers are demanding. With Mr. Bush at Camp David, the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, spent the weekend in Washington weighing whether to allow Mr. Rove and the others to talk and, if so, under what conditions.

In response to Mr. Leahy’s comments on Sunday, Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said the administration was standing by its earlier promise that Mr. Fielding would give Democrats an answer on Tuesday.

“Fred has been talking with folks on Capitol Hill, analyzing various statements and conversations with folks on the Hill, and we will get back to them,” Mr. Snow said in a brief telephone interview.

He would not say which way White House officials were leaning.

“This is a complex matter and deserves careful consideration,” Mr. Snow added.

Dan Bartlett, counselor to Mr. Bush, has said it is “highly unlikely” that the president would waive executive privilege to allow his top aides to testify publicly. One Republican strategist close to the White House, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to appear to be representing the administration, said: “No president is going to let their senior staff assistant to the president go testify. Forget that. They might agree to do an informal interview, but they’ll never testify.”

Democrats, citing a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, say presidential advisers, including 47 from the Clinton administration alone, have frequently testified before Congressional committees, both while serving the president and after they had left the White House.

Even so, legal experts say precedent does not play a role in decisions about whether to waive executive privilege; each administration, in effect, writes its own rules. The Bush administration has been particularly protective of executive privilege, and Republicans close to the White House say the decision about whether, or how much, to cooperate will come down to a calculation of the political risks and rewards.

Senior White House officials have given public testimony in the past, including before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. But more times than not, it has come on the administration’s terms; Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney agreed to appear before the Sept. 11 commission, but only in private and without being required to take an oath.

When Congress and the president have not been able to resolve fights over executive privilege, it has sometimes been left to the courts to decide — most notably during the Nixon administration and the legal battle over the White House tapes. But the courts have also tried to steer clear of the wrangling over executive privilege when it is deemed strictly political.


more...

~link~ (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/washington/19attorneys.html?hp)

[BoogyMan]

Even so, legal experts say precedent does not play a role in decisions about whether to waive executive privilege; each administration, in effect, writes its own rules. The Bush administration has been particularly protective of executive privilege, and Republicans close to the White House say the decision about whether, or how much, to cooperate will come down to a calculation of the political risks and rewards.

yawn

[Elrathin]

Sorry Boogy, but I agree with ECW on this one in the context that this administration is too private and needs to be doing some talking under oath.

[BoogyMan]

Sorry Boogy, but I agree with ECW on this one in the context that this administration is too private and needs to be doing some talking under oath.


This is a generated scandal. AG Gonzales may actually lose his job over doing something that previous administrations have had free reign to do. Will the hearings recognize such FACTS? No. They will be presented in such a way as to make it sound like no such activity has ever taken place. It is sad really.

[ECW]

Previous administrations never tried to sneak in appointments of USAs under the radar. This crowd tried to use an emergency provision of the Patriot Act to slip in more partisan USAs without Congressional approval. They terminated USAs that were following the law because they dared indict dirty Republicans as well as dirty Democrats. In other words, they were fired for doing the best job they could. I can see why that would bring a 'yawn' to you, Boogy, because your homies Al & George ain't interested in someone that can do the best job they can. They (and you) are interested in people who are doing the best job for the Republican Party, not the public of the United States. THAT'S what this all boils down to. When you understand the larger CONTEXT, you understand the problem. MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Karl Rove had his fat little hands right in the middle of this and now he's going to testify in public about it or face the consequences. I never bought that "conduit" line when they first advanced it and I'm not buying it now. Add to the mix that Rove's buddy was to be the new USA in Arkansas, former home of the Clintons, and the picture becomes real clear. Rove's flunky spends his time and energy digging up old skeletons in order to make trouble for Hillary and grease the skids for the no-name GOP candidate to ease his way into the WH and indebt him to Rove for the effort.

[Stoner]

Sorry Boogy, but I agree with ECW on this one

Now there's a shocker.

[Buck Laser]

Sorry Boogy, but I agree with ECW on this one in the context that this administration is too private and needs to be doing some talking under oath.


This is a generated scandal.


"generated" or not, it's got the administration in a genuine hand-painted Peruvian tizzy. Keep 'em coming!

But by "generated" scandal, are you implying that some scandals just sorta come up ex nihilo?

[ECW]

Sorry Boogy, but I agree with ECW on this one

Now there's a shocker.


Stricken as non responsive to the topic at hand.

ECW.....Stoner got the same warning. Feel free to debate anything, but do not change the poster's original quote.

[BoogyMan]

"generated" or not, it's got the administration in a genuine hand-painted Peruvian tizzy. Keep 'em coming!

But by "generated" scandal, are you implying that some scandals just sorta come up ex nihilo?

Hand painted Peruvian tizzy? Thats a great line that I will be using in the future and not giving you credit for! :D

I am saying that as long as these guys serve at the pleasure of the CIC, and they do, this is little more than the left being entirely hypocritical. What is worse guys like Chris Matthews who worked in the Whitehouse at one time and knows this is complete poo is beating the drum for the democrats on a daily basis.

[Buck Laser]

You use that Peruvian tizzy line without attribuition, and my father's ghost will kick your ass. He left that to me in his will.:P

Everyone knows the appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. But these 8 were selected out mostly because republican politicians in their regions wanted them out, and mostly because they were getting too close to some republican corruption. The fact that a US attorney serves at the pleasure of the president doesn't mean they're bound to be his political stooges.

The real problem is that Bush, Gonzales and their assorted cronies have really screwed up big time and consistently, and people are beginning to notice all of a sudden. I'm not even suggesting that some other US attorneys haven't been sacked for bad reasons. Clearly they have. And it's customary for all 93 attorneys to submit their resignations at the beginning of a new president's term. I think (but don't know for sure) that particularly effective attorneys may be kept on in a new administration in some cases.

I suspect that a great many republicans hate Fitzgerald, who not only sacked George Ryan, but got a conviction against Libby. They surely whine about him on the Freeper forum. But he, like the eight Little Al* tried to sack are all Shrub appointees.

*Before you ask me, I call him Little Al because he's short, and Shrub calls him Al--if he doesn't call him "Little Turdblossom."

[TheStripey1]

Sorry Boogy, but I agree with ECW on this one in the context that this administration is too private and needs to be doing some talking under oath.



I'd like to see bush testify under oath about this... without Dick by his side... and without that handy little receiver he alledgedly used during the debates...

[BoogyMan]

I'd like to see bush testify under oath about this... without Dick by his side... and without that handy little receiver he alledgedly used during the debates...


Oh boy Stripey1, I am going to enjoy your commentary.

[TheStripey1]

Sorry Boogy, but I agree with ECW on this one in the context that this administration is too private and needs to be doing some talking under oath.


This is a generated scandal. AG Gonzales may actually lose his job over doing something that previous administrations have had free reign to do. Will the hearings recognize such FACTS? No. They will be presented in such a way as to make it sound like no such activity has ever taken place. It is sad really.



Generated scandal? I bet you wouldn't think so if it was your career in the toilet... most of those fired attorneys had exemplary reviews... so were they fired because they WEREN'T as incompetent as the rest of bush's appointees?

[TheStripey1]

I'd like to see bush testify under oath about this... without Dick by his side... and without that handy little receiver he alledgedly used during the debates...


Oh boy Stripey1, I am going to enjoy your commentary.


Thanks... but I'm just getting warmed up... and obtw, my tip jar is on the piano... waggles paw in that general direction... no... over that other way... yeah... to the left... yeah, that's it...

thanks...

[BoogyMan]

What part of "serve at the pleasure of the president" don't you get Stripey1. How is this any different than the attorney losing his/her job when a new president is elected? There IS no difference.

[Buck Laser]

But Boog! These guys are all republicans, initially appointed by W.

[BoogyMan]

But Boog! These guys are all republicans, initially appointed by W.


But Buck! They serve at the pleasure of the president. :D

[lily]

Everyone knows the appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. But these 8 were selected out mostly because republican politicians in their regions wanted them out, and mostly because they were getting too close to some republican corruption. The fact that a US attorney serves at the pleasure of the president doesn't mean they're bound to be his political stooges.

The real problem is that Bush, Gonzales and their assorted cronies have really screwed up big time and consistently, and people are beginning to notice all of a sudden. I'm not even suggesting that some other US attorneys haven't been sacked for bad reasons.

Buck, I was debating this with an actual honest Republican on another forum and he brought me this little tidbit:
So, no it's not "natural" for this type of thing to happen, as some Republicans would like you to believe. I don't know, but I can safely guess that none of these 8 that got fired bit the arm of a topless dancer..and as someone, I think (again) Drocket pointed out, they may serve at the pleasure of the president, but Gonzales serves at the public's pleasure. (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/182)

48 of the 54 U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to pursue other jobs, such
as federal judgeships or more lucrative opportunities in the private sector.
Of the remaining eight, two were apparently dismissed by President Reagan
for specific behavior and three resigned after "questionable conduct" (our
favorite was Kendall Coffey, who quit "amid accusations that he bit a
topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big
drug case.")

[lily]

Generated scandal? I bet you wouldn't think so if it was your career in the toilet... most of those fired attorneys had exemplary reviews... so were they fired because they WEREN'T as incompetent as the rest of bush's appointees?


I don't think their jobs would be completly in the toilet, Stripey. If I recall correctly one of these attornyes didn't even know about the real reason until he applied for judgeship. With the press that they are getting, I doubt a job would be too hard to find. I'm leaving my outrage for the lies told.

While I would love to see Rove testify, I doubt it will happen. I also don't know how Bush could claim exucutive privlege, since Rove is claiming he had nothing to do with it......despite what the emails say.

I'd rather see him testify in front of the Plame committee...but if this is the first step to get him there........

[ECW]

The president can terminate the job of any USA except when doing so "corruptly obstruct(s), influence(s), or impede(s) an official proceeding." That's exactly what was done. Fire USAs in the middle of their prosecutions BECAUSE of their prosecutions. Go look it up. 18 USC, section 1512 ( c).

USA Carol Lam was in the midst of investigating Republican corruption in San Diego when she was terminated. Fred Black was investigating Jack Abramoff when he was let go. Both are violations of the law and, as such, prosecutable offenses. Maybe even impeachable offenses.

Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici could also be on the hook for attempting to impede an investigation under 1512 ( c) as well. Mike Elston, the chief of staff to Paul McNultey, a deputy AG under Gonzales, tried to put the arm on another prosecutor, H. E. Cummings, because Cummings kept talking publicly about his cases.

The cronyism here is thick and all of it is prosecutable under Sarbanes-Oxley. Safavian and Libby were just the tip of the iceberg. Pretty soon there will be ample reason to put the "con" back in conservative.

[Churchel]

Pat buchannon said it on Scarborough

If tony snow said they were fired and thats it, then there would be no cause for any additional questioning. The fact that they made up a story for firing them and shared it with everyone, and it was a lie makes a reason for this to become more than what it is.

I am somewhat astounded that the current administration feels they need to
lie and cover up what is by written law something that the executive branch has the authority to do. Nothing illegal, just a self-generated scandal.

[BoogyMan]

This is a scandal generated purely by the left for partisan reasons.

[Buck Laser]

This is a scandal generated purely by the left for partisan reasons.


Yes, and isn't it working nicely?:D

[Elrathin]

This is a scandal generated purely by the left for partisan reasons.


And what do you call investigating a blowjob in the white house Boogy?

[BoogyMan]

I call it investigating a lie under oath.

[ECW]

I am somewhat astounded that the current administration feels they need to
lie and cover up what is by written law something that the executive branch has the authority to do. Nothing illegal, just a self-generated scandal.


With the exceptions I noted above which makes it a scandal. Laws were broken in the dismissal of some of the eight attorneys. 18 USC, section 1512 ( c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is the underlying law. The president's perogative goes out the window when it comes up against the law.

[TheStripey1]

What part of "serve at the pleasure of the president" don't you get Stripey1. How is this any different than the attorney losing his/her job when a new president is elected? There IS no difference.



the part where they claim to have not fired them because of politics but when the contents of their very own emails are revealed, it's evident that they were caught lying yet again...

Do you always defend liars, boogy? why?

[TheStripey1]

This is a scandal generated purely by the left for partisan reasons.


want some brie with that whine?

[TheStripey1]

This is a scandal generated purely by the left for partisan reasons.


And what do you call investigating a blowjob in the white house Boogy?


that's different, El and you know it...

[TheStripey1]

I call it investigating a lie under oath.


Well, AG AG lied to congress when he said the USAs weren't fired for political reasons. Are you up in arms about that as well? Or does lying only count to you when it's about sex?

[TheStripey1]

I am somewhat astounded that the current administration feels they need to
lie and cover up what is by written law something that the executive branch has the authority to do. Nothing illegal, just a self-generated scandal.


With the exceptions I noted above which makes it a scandal. Laws were broken in the dismissal of some of the eight attorneys. 18 USC, section 1512 ( c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is the underlying law. The president's perogative goes out the window when it comes up against the law.


the republicans would have us believe that the president is above the law... except of course, when the president is a democrat...