NY Times calls for Attorney General's dismissal.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability.

 

I think Tony needs to take a Civics class.

 

But, I take back what I said about Snow not having yet internalized the expansive, sweeping Unitary Executive mindset yet

[kapkomet]

According to the CONSTITUTION, he's right. Some case law may be different, but if it's challenged, I think the White House would win this argument. The legislative branch is under no authority to oversee the executive branch. (That one word is important).

[Balta1701]

I'll fire back with a recent Congressional Research Services report on exactly this matter. Pretty good summary of the Legislative Branch's power, and I believe it strongly argues that the legislative branch has implied authority for oversight of any power not solely given to the President. In a 2004 case, Judicial Watch brought suit against the White House seeking some 4000 documents related to pardons granted. The White House claimed they were private on much the same grounds as is being used here, and Judicial watch won the case.

 

The understanding as I see it is that Congress has a right to any information or documents that can be remotely related to anything Congress has legislative authority over, including information solicited by or given to the President. And given that the Congress has the ability to bring impeachment against the President, and anything the Congress wants to know about the President could be viewed in that light, I think the current case law suggests that the impeachment authority gives the Congress inherent power for oversight of the President.

[FlaSoxxJim]

According to the CONSTITUTION, he's right. Some case law may be different, but if it's challenged, I think the White House would win this argument. The legislative branch is under no authority to oversee the executive branch. (That one word is important).

 

But the fact that Congressional oversight derives from implied rather than implicit Constitutional powers is because oversight authority was seen by the framers as in inherent power of representative assemblies, NOT because they didn't believe representative assemblies should not wield such power.

 

Also. the Constitution does expressly grant some oversight authority to Congress, including the right to impeach and remove from office the president. If that authority is explicitly granted, than certainly broader oversight was implied because Congress had to know what the Executive was doing if it was to be able to exercise these express powers responsibly.

Edited March 22, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[kapkomet]

Then bring on impeachment. Seriously. That's what they have wanted since November 10, 2000.

[Balta1701]

Then bring on impeachment. Seriously. That's what they have wanted since November 10, 2000.

Just as Congress does not have to create legislation in order to hold hearings on an issue, Congress does not have to bring on impeachment in order to hold hearings on actions of the White House. Think about the Steroid baseball hearings...big deal, televised all over the place, Congress clearly has authority because the government has interest in drug use and in baseball's antitrust exemption, but so far not a shread of legislation has come out of it.

[Rex Kickass]

Then bring on impeachment. Seriously. That's what they have wanted since November 10, 2000.

 

Impeachment in the current climate is not what the Dems would want. Impeachment in a climate similar to 1974 is what the Dems would want. Remember, successful impeachment proceedings will only take place when the movement to oust the President comes from the grassroots. The movement to get rid of Nixon didn't start in Congress.

[Texsox]

Then bring on impeachment. Seriously. That's what they have wanted since November 10, 2000.

 

I'm not certain who you are considering as "they".I wanted "Compassionate Conservatism". I wanted 7 more years of the guy I saw on TV at ground zero, bullhorn in hand. I wanted a continuation of the secular grass roots that was going to take center stage in social help. I didn't want to be mired in a worthless war brought on by false statements and bad intel. I didn't want to abuse prisoners. I didn't want to run up a huge public debt.

[kapkomet]

Impeachment in the current climate is not what the Dems would want. Impeachment in a climate similar to 1974 is what the Dems would want. Remember, successful impeachment proceedings will only take place when the movement to oust the President comes from the grassroots. The movement to get rid of Nixon didn't start in Congress.

Now THAT's insightful!!!! Remember, these Democratic f***tards are trying to do exactly what you're suggesting by screaming SCANDALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! every 30 seconds on Capital Hill - they are trying like hell to create a "grassroots" movement. They want it really, really, really bad, and it's clouding their judgement bigtime.

 

Of course, some of us knew this was the climate we were going to get, not the "we want to work on behalf of the American people" bulls*** we were promised before the election. Now that they have the "power" back, they just can't help themselves taking a run at everything they can at the BushCo administration.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Now THAT's insightful!!!! Remember, these Democratic f***tards are trying to do exactly what you're suggesting by screaming SCANDALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! every 30 seconds on Capital Hill - they are trying like hell to create a "grassroots" movement. They want it really, really, really bad, and it's clouding their judgement bigtime.

 

Of course, some of us knew this was the climate we were going to get, not the "we want to work on behalf of the American people" bulls*** we were promised before the election. Now that they have the "power" back, they just can't help themselves taking a run at everything they can at the BushCo administration.

 

Do you believe that all of this (US Atty firings and DOJs possible obstruction of justice on multiple fronts) fralls beneath the threshold that would require investigation?

 

Do you believe that the White House's "extraordinary gesture" to answer questions off the record, not under oath, and with no transcript or recording so that they can disavow themselves of anything people thought they said/meant is a reasonable concession?

 

If so, discussion over. If not, what is the appropriate route forward?

 

For 6 years the GOP Congress abdicated any sort of oversight position and let the White House and DOJ do whatever it pleased. But trying to correct that gross negligence in Congress now is the real scandal for you?

 

Seems to me for the first time in a long time, Congress actually is working on behalf of the American people.

[southsider2k5]

Do you believe that all of this (US Atty firings and DOJs possible obstruction of justice on multiple fronts) fralls beneath the threshold that would require investigation?

 

Do you believe that the White House's "extraordinary gesture" to answer questions off the record, not under oath, and with no transcript or recording so that they can disavow themselves of anything people thought they said/meant is a reasonable concession?

 

If so, discussion over. If not, what is the appropriate route forward?

 

For 6 years the GOP Congress abdicated any sort of oversight position and let the White House and DOJ do whatever it pleased. But trying to correct that gross negligence in Congress now is the real scandal for you?

 

Seems to me for the first time in a long time, Congress actually is working on behalf of the American people.

 

Let me ask you this. Do you think there was any evidence that the Attorney General broke any laws before the investigation started? If no laws were broken, than what were they investigating?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Let me ask you this. Do you think there was any evidence that the Attorney General broke any laws before the investigation started? If no laws were broken, than what were they investigating?

 

It was an inquiry into whether 8 fired US Attorneys were actually fired for performance-based reasons as officially stated, or for political reasons as some preliminary evidence as well as testimony from the dismissed attorneys suggested.

 

Sounds like an evil Liberal plot to me.

[Texsox]

Now THAT's insightful!!!! Remember, these Democratic f***tards are trying to do exactly what you're suggesting by screaming SCANDALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! every 30 seconds on Capital Hill - they are trying like hell to create a "grassroots" movement. They want it really, really, really bad, and it's clouding their judgement bigtime.

 

Of course, some of us knew this was the climate we were going to get, not the "we want to work on behalf of the American people" bulls*** we were promised before the election. Now that they have the "power" back, they just can't help themselves taking a run at everything they can at the BushCo administration.

 

So your suggestion is Dems should just look the other way as a way to work with Reps?

[southsider2k5]

It was an inquiry into whether 8 fired US Attorneys were actually fired for performance-based reasons as officially stated, or for political reasons as some preliminary evidence as well as testimony from the dismissed attorneys suggested.

 

Sounds like an evil Liberal plot to me.

 

If nothing illegal happened, why the inquiry in the first place? When people started asking questions about Monica, I can't tell you how many times I heard that it was legal, and that is a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" to be asking questions about something that does not matter if it happened or not. So now when the same type of situation pops up on the other side of the aisle, its suddenly the duty of all mankind to investigate it? Bush could have fired these guys because they wore blue ties to work. Karl Rove could have told Bush to tell Gonzales to fire them. None of that would have been illegal. Nothing illegal happened until after the investigation started, just like with Clinton. Except in one case its due dillegence, and in the other its a grand waste of taxpayers money. I know none of you guys will ever see hypocracy in the people on your own side of the aisle, but this is exactly what happened to Clinton. Its a partisian witch-hunt. Period. If you guys can't see that, that's fine.

[Rex Kickass]

Now THAT's insightful!!!! Remember, these Democratic f***tards are trying to do exactly what you're suggesting by screaming SCANDALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! every 30 seconds on Capital Hill - they are trying like hell to create a "grassroots" movement. They want it really, really, really bad, and it's clouding their judgement bigtime.

 

Of course, some of us knew this was the climate we were going to get, not the "we want to work on behalf of the American people" bulls*** we were promised before the election. Now that they have the "power" back, they just can't help themselves taking a run at everything they can at the BushCo administration.

 

Now please remove the GOP colored glasses Kap, because I honestly can't tell if its you or Sean Hannity speaking.

 

The truth is, this is a shady situation, the AG office has even admitted as such. However, there is the issue of whether or not the AG has lied to Congress about matters of government business. I realize that for some people, this doesn't raise itself to the level of a President getting a hummer - but its worthy of some investigation.

 

If there was really nothing here, why is the White House fighting the subpoena? Why is the only offer to Congress in terms of any kind of investigation is an off the record closed door interview? This is a personnel review. Exactly what about this is covert or classified? Exactly why isn't transparency appropriate in this situation?

[StrangeSox]

Now THAT's insightful!!!! Remember, these Democratic f***tards are trying to do exactly what you're suggesting by screaming SCANDALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! every 30 seconds on Capital Hill - they are trying like hell to create a "grassroots" movement. They want it really, really, really bad, and it's clouding their judgement bigtime.

 

Of course, some of us knew this was the climate we were going to get, not the "we want to work on behalf of the American people" bulls*** we were promised before the election. Now that they have the "power" back, they just can't help themselves taking a run at everything they can at the BushCo administration.

 

Just like with the Libby case, the cover-up wound up being worse than the original incident.

 

If the White House would stop trying to play CYA and just making s*** up all the time, maybe they'd stop perjuring themselves to Congress and the FBI.

 

Why is it so hard for them to just go there and tell the damned truth?

[kapkomet]

Now please remove the GOP colored glasses Kap, because I honestly can't tell if its you or Sean Hannity speaking.

 

The truth is, this is a shady situation, the AG office has even admitted as such. However, there is the issue of whether or not the AG has lied to Congress about matters of government business. I realize that for some people, this doesn't raise itself to the level of a President getting a hummer - but its worthy of some investigation.

 

If there was really nothing here, why is the White House fighting the subpoena? Why is the only offer to Congress in terms of any kind of investigation is an off the record closed door interview? This is a personnel review. Exactly what about this is covert or classified? Exactly why isn't transparency appropriate in this situation?

If I recall, there was a very similiar situation with the Clinton Administration, and Clinton offered the same "Deal" Bush is offering, and the Republicans took it because they wanted to know the truth without all the grandstanding. Of course, THIS is different. It always is.

[Texsox]

Of course, THIS is different. It always is.

 

On both sides.

[Rex Kickass]

If I recall, there was a very similiar situation with the Clinton Administration, and Clinton offered the same "Deal" Bush is offering, and the Republicans took it because they wanted to know the truth without all the grandstanding. Of course, THIS is different. It always is.

 

Please cite the situation, because to my knowledge, the Clinton administration never fought a subpoena to testify before congress. In fact 31 aides testified nearly 50 total times during the Clinton administration by subpoena to Congress. How many aides have the Bush administration sent to testify before Congress by subpoena?

 

According to the Congressional Research Service, not a single request for Congressional testimony was turned down during the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 or Clinton administrations.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf

[kapkomet]

Please cite the situation, because to my knowledge, the Clinton administration never fought a subpoena to testify before congress. In fact 31 aides testified nearly 50 total times during the Clinton administration by subpoena to Congress. How many aides have the Bush administration sent to testify before Congress by subpoena?

 

According to the Congressional Research Service, not a single request for Congressional testimony was turned down during the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 or Clinton administrations.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf

Because it never HAD to get that far. Congress, back in the "old days" (hehe) accepted the fact that they could have hearings that aren't "under oath" (aka in front of the cameras grandstanding about how everything's WRONG in the Bush administration).

 

Come on Rex, the Dems have been slobbering for a chance to get Karl Rove for 6+ years now. They see a crack, they're capitalizing on it for the camera spectacle that's sure to follow.

[Balta1701]

If nothing illegal happened, why the inquiry in the first place? When people started asking questions about Monica, I can't tell you how many times I heard that it was legal, and that is a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" to be asking questions about something that does not matter if it happened or not. So now when the same type of situation pops up on the other side of the aisle, its suddenly the duty of all mankind to investigate it? Bush could have fired these guys because they wore blue ties to work. Karl Rove could have told Bush to tell Gonzales to fire them. None of that would have been illegal. Nothing illegal happened until after the investigation started, just like with Clinton. Except in one case its due dillegence, and in the other its a grand waste of taxpayers money. I know none of you guys will ever see hypocracy in the people on your own side of the aisle, but this is exactly what happened to Clinton. Its a partisian witch-hunt. Period. If you guys can't see that, that's fine.

The inquiry happened in the first place because something happened that might not have been illegal, but suggested a flaw in legislation. One of the things Congress does is hold hearings in order to investigate how legislation they pass is working and whether or not they need to amend things. The new provision in the Patriot Act was used to replace those people with no Senate confirmation, and the Congress has every reason to ask whether or not that was appropriate, especially since it seems that none of them were actually aware of the clause that was inserted when they voted on the final bill...even supposedly the guy who inserted it (Specter).

 

Either way, yes, it's partisan. Yes, they're going after Rove. Yes, it's also the right thing to do. Because that's the way things should be done in Washington to my eyes...if one side is acting in a way that seems underhanded, and does something that seems wrong, it should be looked into by someone. The only reason everyone is freaking out so much right now is that for the past 6 years, everything that would have spurred investigations during previous, divided governments was easily covered up.

 

I'm still not sure about whether or not there was any reason to investigate the whole Whitewater dealings, since that really, really seems in hindsight to have been nothing, but given the he/said, she/said nature of harrassment claims, there was fully reason to investigate a lot of the actions of the previous President as well. Investigation is important. Unbelievably important. If you want evidence as to how important, just look at the past 6 years. I'd much rather have investigation after investigation than coverup after coverup. A lot of investigations cost the Senate a bunch of hot air. A bunch of coverups cost the nation tens of billions of dollars and maybe even a lot of lives.

 

Because it never HAD to get that far. Congress, back in the "old days" (hehe) accepted the fact that they could have hearings that aren't "under oath" (aka in front of the cameras grandstanding about how everything's WRONG in the Bush administration).

I would imagine that if the White House was interested in making sure that didn't happen, they would offer testimony with transcripts and under oath but behind closed doors, and I would wager the Dems would have accepted that offer.

 

One thing that's worth noting...going along with what Rex pointed out...As far as I can tell, there have only been 3 administrations in history who have had testimony of their aides requested by Congress and refused. One person refused during the Truman admin. All of the rest come from the Nixon admin. and Bush 2. The Clinton Administration never appears to have refused testimony of any of its aides in any of the investigations done, including the campaign finance investigations and the whitewater investigation.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Balta1701

[FlaSoxxJim]

Here's the latest TP recap. Pretty much I'd agree that officially approving the firings and "not closely involved" are hard positions to reconcile.

 

BREAKING: Gonzales Approved Firings Of U.S. Attorneys

 

ABC News reports: “New documents show Gonzales approved firings of U.S. attorneys, contradicting earlier claims he was not closely involved.”

 

UPDATE: The AP reports:

 

Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting. …

 

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

 

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week in the wake of the political firestorm surrounding the firings.

 

UPDATE II: On March 12, Gonzales denied any involvement in the prosecutor purge:

 

I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on … That’s basically what I knew as attorney general.

 

UPDATE III: New documents released tonight, “including Gonzales’s appointment calendar, show that the attorney general and his deputy, Paul McNulty, participated in an hour-long meeting about the firings on Nov. 27. Seven of the eight prosecutors were let go on Dec. 7.” The meeting occurred during the 18-day gap in documents the Justice Department had previously released.

 

Also from TP. It's not a national security issue, so Kyle can't be gagged the way they tried to do with others, but will the White House instead try to force their extended view exec priv to former staffers to compel them not to testify?

 

Former Gonzales aide agrees to testify.

 

Kyle Sampson, the former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who resigned last week, has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year. “His appearance will mark the first congressional testimony by a Justice Department aide since the release of thousands of documents that show the firings were orchestrated, in part, by the White House.” “He was right at the center of things,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY said. “He has said publicly that what others have said is not how it happened. … He contradicts DOJ.” March 23, 2007.

Edited March 24, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[Texsox]

Bush is starting to seem paranoid and insulated to me.

[Mplssoxfan]

It seems that Karl Rove does most of his e-mailing from his RNC Blackberry. A new theory is that any correspondence from that device and his RNC e-mail account would not be covered by Executive Privilege.

 

Link.

[Balta1701]

It seems that Karl Rove does most of his e-mailing from his RNC Blackberry. A new theory is that any correspondence from that device and his RNC e-mail account would not be covered by Executive Privilege.

 

Link.

See, now that's fairly interesting, because IIRC, if I go back a couple of pages in this thread, I recall that CREW filed a complaint against the White House because it's in some way illegal for people within the White House to be using outside email addresses to conduct White House business because it circumvents disclosure requirements.