From the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal:
Subpoena Assault
Congress’s real goal is crippling the Bush Presidency.
Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDTOn 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.
Where is the crime?
And if it is a crime to fire 8 political appointees, is it not a crime to fire 93?
Why do Republicans think that lieing is not a crime. I guess only if you lie about a blow job is that a crime. Gonzalez said he was not involved, he did not speak to anyone about this matter. Well it turns out he chaired a meeting on this matter. It is a crime for a member of congress to presuure the US Attorneys on matters before the court.
These are charges not coming from Democrats these charges are by six Republican and 2 independents. How is this partisan.
Executive priveledge has always been ruled to exist as protection for discussions and advice given dierectly to the VP and the Presient. Actually nowhere in the constitution is Executive Privelege mentioned. All of Rove’s discussions with Miers and Gonzalez are fair game.
Do you really think that a qualification for being a US attorney is if you are a loyal Bushie.
Face it this is the same sleazebag patronage crap that has destroyed the reconstruction effort in Iraq giving no bid contracts to the VP’s old compnay. The same patronage that ganve Brownie the job to save New Orleans.
I am glad you brought this up HP. Because you have brought up that when Republicans like Macaca Allen lose close elections they don’t go throught the courts to ensure their accuracy. They take it as it is.
Well turns out you are wrong, what really happens is they try to pressure the US attorneys to create cases as in Washington’s Governor race in ‘04 and then when the Republican US attorneys determine their is no case they get them fired.
He did not lie under oath, besides, what does it matter if he was involved or not? Either way, he has every right to fire these justices for purely political reasons.
HP-
I have to laugh at your resoponse. Republicans like Tony Snow keep saying, whats the big deal if Gonzalez, Rove, Miers, et al testify under oath or not. Then when defending Gonzalez Republicans are the first to say, well he did not “lie under oath” You can’t have it both ways, this is why it is important for people to testify under oath. Some people do not feel it is necessary to tell the truth unless you are under oath.
Actually your statement is incorrect. He did apparently make false statement to a Senate Committee which is a felony:
Jan. 18, 2007: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons, or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation.” (Hear Gonzales’ testimony.)
Also it is illegal to hinder an active criminal investigation.
It remains to be seen whether his firing the prosecutors for political reasons would fall under the definition of hindering an investigation, but it needs to be investigated by the judiciary committee.
Another factual inaccuracy. The US attorney in Arkansas hired under George HW Bush had already ruled there was no evidience and killed the investigation into Whitewater, the investigation was dead before Reno fired the prosecutors.
Also, most presidents historically have replaced US attorneys upon entering office. It is extremely rare for a president to replace a US attorney in the middle of his own term.
Ahh yes, rule number 1 for the right wing spin machine, when all else fails in defending your own preisdent, you can always try to blame Clinton.
My point here is that the alleged lie, even if it was a lie which I am not granting, is a lie about nothing - it is perfectly acceptable to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
If I was Gonzales I would have said ‘yes, I did fire them for political reasons, so what’. Nothing wrong with that.
Obviously Gonzalez thought there is something wrong with firing the US attorneys for political reasons is wrong or else he would not have first stated that it was for performance reasons, a point he has later backed off from.
If your political reason is that the attorney is investigating too many Republicans and not enough democrats then there is something wrong with that. You should not get a free pass to commit corrupt acts because your party is in power.
Perhaps they were terminated for legitimate political reasons like not pursuing enough immigration cases as they state. That could be plausible, we will never know if the participants in this action do not testify under oath in public with a transcript. We seem to be learning more and more inconsistencies in there statements as more documents are released and as more officials give interviews. There seems to be some criminal activity now since one of Gonzalez advisors in the jstice department has taken the fifth for fear rhat if she testifies honestly under oath in front of congress she will have to admit to some kind of criminal activity she committed.
The US Attorneys themselves, as far as I know, do not claim to have been investigating Republicans, or conducting any serious investigation on the administration. That, in itself, is enough to convince me that no such investigations were taking place.
The reason the White House is refusing to testify under oath is principle - as the Wall Street Journal editorial said, “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”.
I would be very disappointed if the President gave in to any Democrat demands.
Duke Cunningham was investigated, tried and convicted by US attorney Carol lamb who was amongst the 8 terminated. Several others received pressure from the White House and Republicans Congressmen and Senators to investigate Democrats. They refused and were fired.
White House officials have testified hundreds of times under oath in front of congress. condelzza Rice did it for the 9/11 committee. Even a sitting President himself (Gerald Ford) has testified under oath. They are not testifieng to cover their asses.
But again, there is no evidence, speculation yes but not evidence, that these Attorney Generals were in the middle of any serious White House investigation.
Based on what we know now, what the Democrats are asking is to see the private executive privelage memos of internal White House deliberations…and that is a constitution separation of powers.
Again, Bush should not give in to any of the Democrats demands. The Constitution demands it.
There is also Congressional oversight in the constitution. There is evidence of possible hindering of investigations with phone calls coming from members of congress.
It also is clear that executive privielge does not apply to convesations where the VP or Pres are not involved.
No evidence, speculation only, and even then after Bush has already handed over thousands of emails and offered Democrats a chance to interview who they like in private. But Democrats don’t want that, they want to play politics, and politics on something so fundamental as constitutional separation of powers.
Which is why I would be very disappointed if Bush gave in.
If he (Bush) “gave in” wouldn’t that make him the bigger person? I’m so sick of this crap. I love my country, but I’m just over the games that both sides play.
If Bush gave in it would set a precedent where congressional authority erodes executive privilege. In other words, it would result in the (however slight) erosion of the separation of powers, the very foundation of the United States Constitution.
Also, read the editorial, Bush has already done more than he should and more than he is obligated to do yet that just makes Democrats hungrier for more.
In other words, it is Democrats that are playing politics with this, not Bush.