US attorneys showdown

Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:06 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: White House, Congress

The White House most likely did itself little public good with its decision yesterday to keep Karl Rove and Harriet Miers from testifying under oath in the US attorneys controversy. That said, history has shown that whenever presidents stand up to Congress, they usually -- in the long run -- receive some political benefit. Meanwhile, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales isn’t out of the woods just yet. To the lose support of a GOP stalwart like Rep. Adam Putnam (R) isn’t good news for him. Per the Washington Post, Putnam “said the attorney general's ability to lead the Justice Department has been ‘greatly compromised. He himself should evaluate’ his future.”

A New York Times analysis looks at the history of clashes between the White House and Congress over executive privilege. “The Bush administration has few equals in its commitment to a broad conception of executive authority, and it has on several occasions argued for an expansive understanding of executive privilege and similar protections. But legal scholars said that President Bill Clinton asserted the doctrine of executive privilege more often and more vigorously, including in the investigation of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.”

One of the US attorneys who was dismissed, David Iglesias, pens a New York Times op-ed entitled “Why I Was Fired.” He writes, “I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.”

The Democratic House campaign committee, meanwhile, starts running a radio ad today against Rep. Heather Wilson (R), who Iglesias claims pressured him to take up a corruption case against a Democrat. “A phone call is made ... a scandal begins,” the ad goes. “According to testimony from the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Congresswoman Heather Wilson called U.S. Attorney David Iglesias and pressured him concerning a federal corruption investigation… Serious questions remain about Heather Wilson and violation of Congressional ethics rules. It's time for Heather Wilson to release her phone records and come clean. It's time for Heather Wilson to tell the full truth.”

And this harks back to another scandal/controversy/investigation, but the New York Post writes that Cheney appears to back a pardon for Lewis “Scooter” Libby. “Cheney spoke to Hudson Institute members Monday at the Union League Club. Asked about a possible pardon for Scooter Libby, he smiled and said, ‘You can imagine how I feel about that.’ Libby himself was seated in the front row.”

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Quote... "It's time for Heather Wilson to release her phone records and come clean. It's time for Heather Wilson to tell the full truth." A republican tell the truth, I don't believ that's possible.

Marty in Kansas City (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:24 AM)

I just don't understand why Republicans have such a double standard when it comes to investigating possible wrongdoing. I seem to recall the Clinton administration being harangued by a Republican led mob in congress, about the firings of people in The White House Travel Office. The travel office for God's sake! This time we're talking about federal prosecutors who were let go because they wouldn't engage in political witch hunting against Democrats. Isn't THAT a hell of a lot more important than a travel office? .....And what's the big deal about tetsifying under oath? If Rove and Miers have done nothing wrong, and if they tell the truth, they have nothing to fear from anyone. Isn't that right? I mean, even if they aren't under oath, they intend to tell the truth anyway, don't they? So why not swear in, with confidence, and assure The American People that there was no political trickery intended or involved in the firing of these prosecutors. See.....the thing is, that this White House has gotten away with doing whatever it wanted to do,..... whenever it wanted to do it,.....with no congressional oversight.....for so long, that it's throwing a tantrum now when checks and balances are applied. Too bad! We live in an open Constitutional Society where the people rule and the truth takes precedence. It's time for Bush and Co., to come clean and face Congeress and The American People under oath. Let the chips fall where they may. All they have to do is tell the truth. Now that's not so hard, or is it?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:14 AM)

What amazes me is that Bush actually thinks he is making a reasonable offer. Sure, you can talk to the key people involved, but you can't make a transcript and they won't be under oath and it won't be in public. I mean, if they can lie behind closed doors with no record of it, and thus no fear of being held accountable in the courts for anything they reveal, is that really offering anything at all?

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:17 AM)

I don't know why the dems won't accept Bushies offer after all they are all accomplished liars.

Rufus Gibbons, Kennett, Mo. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:20 AM)

What I find amazing about this is that this should be a non-story. If it wasn't for the White House bungling its release this would've never happened. Presidents can hire or fire whichever US Attorney he wants. He can be as partisan as they want. Often times as tenures run out US Attorney's are replaced with "party people". The president can fire an attorney for tying their shoes wrong if he wanted to. No crime has been committed here. The only thing wrong is the fact that the White House can't seem to put out a half way decent press release. I will give the Bush critics one thing, this administration has bungled so many stories. They are in desperate need of a PR person. From Dubai Ports to Plame...Valerie Plame and from the War on Terror to Katrina, this administration has a major communication problem.

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:24 AM)

I just loved Bush's assertion that the Democrats were 'playing politics' with this issue. First of all, everything in Washington is played for maximum political gain by both sides. Apparently, Bush believes that the Republicans make every move with purely altruistic motives. As has been said before, if they have nothing to hide, why not testify in public and under oath? That's the same argument that has been used to justify their domestic spying campaign. The only people that should be concerned are the 'evil-doers', not the average citizen who has nothing to hide.

James, downstate Illinois (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:29 AM)

Bush has come up with something that could put an entirely different spin on the Gonzales flap. Quoth Bush: "...we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants." So far, he hasn't informed us of which honorable public servants he may be talking about. The ones who were fired? This makes the most sense, but he could surprise us and bring a half dozen or so honorable public servants out of the closet and into the sunlight. We don't know. But gosh oh gee, why are we just now hearing about these people? Are they interns? There is one other consideration that may need to be factored into the equation. The fact that Bush in a no good, stinking, rotten, lying wad of armadillo road kill vomit. So when you add that into the mix, you could come up with the very high probability that A. Bush is lying as usual. And B. Just like always, Bush doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I tried to get some news about this on Good Morning America, but two minutes after they came on, they interrupted the Gonzales thing to bring us wall to wall coverage on the boy scout that had been found in the woods. With that going on plus all the Anna Nicole Smith foo-foo-rah, the Iraq war could be over before we know whatever happened with the Gonz. I urge all reasonable people, (excluding any reasonable Republican that may have sneaked under the wire), to write your congressman and tell him to please try to do something about the boy scout story that has taken over the liberal-biased media.

JIrby, Colorado Springs (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:29 AM)

"I Shot the Sheriff.But I Did Not Shoot the Deputy"-Eric Clapton

Still Crazy After All These Years (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:31 AM)

History has shown that Executive Priviledge is a tightly interpreted concept where a President's broad interpretation of it is seldom honored by the courts or Congress. Nixon claimed the priviledge with his tapes and lost. Yesterday, Dick Armey, the former Republican House leader said if he were in the same position as Leahy (the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman), he would issue subpoenas and reject Bush's offer. Armey was also one of the leading advocates against Clinton. The President does not want his people testifying because he knows Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this fiasco. He wants to protect his strategist, his hatchet-man, and his friend. Who says there is no honor among thieves? This being said, even if Congress does subpoena the White House aides and ultimately cite them for contempt if they do not appear, the man who has to decide whether or not to prosecute would be the US Attorney in the District of Columbia who, incidentally, was appointed by Gonzalez. I am just wondering if this US Attorney will do his job or fall back to the kind of political loyalties which started this mess in the first place.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:34 AM)

Ryan - It may or may not rise to the level of a crime, but that's not the only issue. If these firings happened to either thwart active investigations against Republican allies or to punish attorneys for not fast-tracking investigations that would help Republicans in the November '06 elections, this would compromise the independence of the US Attorney offices. The US Attorneys should not be political operatives to be manipulated for the gain of the President and his allies.

James, downstate Illinois (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:34 AM)

"What we have here is a failure to communicate." ..."Thank you sir. May I have another?" Both, CoolHand Luke.

Flat-earther, Georgia (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:38 AM)

Ryan - note what you said - as tenures run out. That's not the situation here. People were fired, and the reason given was incompetence. What about the careers of those that were fired for being incompetent? Do you not think it is wrong that someone who has been appointed to office to uphold the rule of law is fired because he won't prosecute the right people to suit the president's political agenda? They are NOT political appointments, not in the same way many other appointments are. We are talking about the justice system. If political agendas are allowed to dominate the justice system, we are seriously screwed. This is a country of laws, not men.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:39 AM)

Ryan,Mich.---We just won't know if a crime was committed or not unless there is an investigation with all involved sworn to tell the truth. You tell me what is wrong with testifying under oath,in public and with a transcript. My common sense says if they don't want to testify under oath then they are planning to lie. Remember it was Scooter that lied under oath (his choice)and is faceing jail time. Please don't tell me that no law was broke in the Plame case because prejury is a crime. Apparently a crime or ethnics are based on the firing of these USAs. I know Bush/Cheney doesn't believe in testifing under oath as they refused to do so before.

Seattle Sue (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:43 AM)

While it is true that the firing of the US Attorneys is within the purview of the President, the complete lack of inquiry by the previous Repub-controlled Congress into such fiascos as the Iraq war, the FEMA ineptitude in New Orleans or the nomination of Harriet Myers (!!) to SCOTUS has only whetted the Congressional appetite for some actual oversight. It's time this imperial administration realized just what sepapration of powers means. I approve of the valid actions of the Judiciary Committee.

nc, new hampshire (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:50 AM)

The White House credo as practiced by Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of that crowd: Always tell the truth. Even if you have to make it up. ~Author Unknown

R.Merrell (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:52 AM)

Ryan, what you say is true, but there is a big difference in that Senator Spector slipped into the "Patriot Act" a provision to do away with Senate confirmation. (And shame on the Democrats for not catching this when it was voted on.) Then Karl Rove, a political advisor, starts a process to get rid of US Attorneys who won't initiate political prosecutions and replace them with political hacks who don't have to be confirmed by the Senate. So in the past, a President could be as partisan as he wanted IF he had Senate confirmation. Why would you, as a conservative, be in favor of such a radical change to confirmation procedures? Once again, I ask the question that I've so often heard neocons ask: "If they don't have anything to hide, why are they so afraid of testifying in public and under oath?" And I wonder, if everything is normal and proper, why does the White House story change so frequently? The administration has a problem alright, but it involves a lot more than just communication.

rick (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:59 AM)

Ryan- "...this administration has a major communication problem.". CNN's report last night on "Illiterate America" could be the answer to that prob in this administration. They reported that one in three people in Washington,DC are "functionally illiterate". Now...out of these three, i.e. Bush, Cheney, Rove, any idea who the "one" is?

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:01 AM)

Well I really don't know who Heather Wilson is, but that's an easy one to bat down. Just make an ad with Schumer's letter to James Comey on January 22, 2004 interfering with the Plame Leak case. A privilege for democrats is a crime for Republicans.

Dave, Tn (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:01 AM)

I have a question that I have not seen addressed in the media. Does the Congress' revocation of Gonzales' authorization to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation apply to those who were dismissed in December? That is, will those who are chosen to replace the fired U.S. Attorneys have to obtain Senate confirmation or are they already in place? It is relevant because I think it curious that the Attorney chosen to replace Bud Cummins in Little Rock was "important to Rove and Miers." It has been widely reported that regardless of their personal opinion of her, GOP operatives roundly acknowledge her formidability in a general election: as Clinton herself said, she knows how they [the GOP] thinks, how they fight, and how to beat them. Rove too has said she is a "formidable candidate," and as such, it would not surprise me if he (as the White House's political guru responsible for recouping Congressional losses in 2008 and avoiding the reality, perceived or otherwise, of Bush presiding over the demise of the GOP) pushed to install a hand-selected partisan in Little Rock in order to dredge up further mud related to Whitewater, etc., in order to assault her candidacy as the campaign progresses. I, personally, think the GOP is terrified of Hillary and not so much of Obama.

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:04 AM)

Ryan - Should justice be partisan? What I'm getting out of this story is that they are trying to determine if these people were fired for poor performance or because they weren't doing what the prez wanted. If this is a partisan fishing expedition, the original firings were based on a partisan fishing expedition - part of the criteria for staying or going was whether or not they were "loyal Bushies," per Kyle Sampson. If justice is supposed to be about justice, how does "loyal Bushie" fit into the scenario? Something smells fishy and I'm betting Gonzales resigns before long because of it.

jeani o, saint inigoes md (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:07 AM)

I should add to my previous comments that the dredging up of Hillary and Bill's Little Rock past would be damaging not only because it would call into question their integrity in the minds of some, but much more importantly, would play to American's desire to leave that era behind them. It would basically remind them of the baggage Hillary brings to office, a politically shrewd move, on Rove's part. Let's just see if, given the publicization of the firings, they get away with it. Remember, we were never supposed to know that Cummins in Little Rock was replaced with hand-selected choice of Rove. This revelation by McNulty to Congress in February, these new documents reveal, incensed Gonzales and it is now widely known that it was a political appointment. We'll see.

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:10 AM)

Ryan MI -whether this should be an issue or not is moot, it has become one. What the issue is now is 'If the administration has nothing to hide, why not provide testimony under, recorded and in public?' If everything is legit, aren't they incredibly foolish thinking it will all go away with such a suspicious offer? If there is something fishy, don't you think it will come out one way or another, with or without their cooperation? I feel as if they are trying to pull a fast one here, once again taking the opposition for fools. It won't work, this group has wasted any credibility they had by previous ducks and dodges. If this was totally above board, why not come out from the shadows and 'let it all hang out'? Ryan, if you were innocent of a perceived wrongdoing and could prove it, wouldn't you go on the record and testify to set the record straight? Under what circumstances would you take the 'backdoor' approach, talk off the record, with no witnesses(the media) and not be beholden to telling the truth(no oath)?? "Where there is smoke, there is fire"

Owen Vander, Evansville, IN (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:14 AM)

J.Merle it is extremely hard for anyone in this administration to tell the truth. If you try to put Karl Rove under oath and you say "do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" He would say I don't know how to do that.

Rufus Gibbons, Kennett, Mo. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:17 AM)

I really enjoy seeing this no-account President and his administration whining and squirming under their new lives with accountability. They'd better get used to it, they've got a lot to answer for and 2 years of more of the same. I strongly suspect that if they think they can get away with it, they'll somehow manufacture a big, fat terror crisis of some kind to divert the attention of the masses. How this guy still has an approval rating in the 30's amazes me.

Brian, Cedar Hill, TX (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:19 AM)

Ryan from Michigan, you're correct that Presidents can be as partisan as they want--George Bush has proven this resoundingly. They do not, however, do so in a vacuum and without oversight by Congress, unless, of course, you mean a GOP Congress. It is not clear, however--and will probably not become clear unless administration officials testify under oath--that the law has not been broken in this case, as you claim. If, indeed, certain prosecutors were forced out because they were prosecuting embarassing corruption cases involving Republican Congressmen and e-mails or testimony establish this evidentially, that's obstruction of justice, a felony, I believe. It's only a non-story if you care not for the rule of law, the foundation of American democracy.

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:20 AM)

NY Post said when Cheney was asked about a pardon for Scooter, "he smiled and said, 'You can imagine how I feel about that'.". It says "Scooter himself was seated in the front row.". What I'd like to know......Was the Scoot "smiling" back? Did they share a ride to the Club? AND, Has the dick invited him "hunting" yet?

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:22 AM)

It appears First Read didn' post the comment I referred to above. I'll repeat: Does anyone know if the Attorneys chosen to replace those fired in December will have to undergo Senate confirmation given Congress' revocation of Gonzales' authorization to appoint them without doing so? This is important because it is clear that Rove hand-selected a replacement for Bud Cummins in Little Rock, possibly an attempt to install a partisan who would dredge up Whitewater and such, reminding Americans of Hillary's baggage, if not actually resulting in charges. Why would Rove, the White House political advisor, care who is the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, if not to influence the politics of the 2008 election?

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:34 AM)

Ryan in Mich. I tend to disagree with you. If these prosecutors were fired specifically because they refused to investigate and persecute DEMOCRATS-ONLY for so-called election fraud; that is to say, if they were being pressured to fraudulantly make up charges against someone,.....it would indeed be a crime! I don't know the specific charge by name and statute. ("Filing false charges" or "making a false complaint" comes to mind.) But, this is still The United States of America. You cannot purposefully, or willfully, investigate or prosecute someone just because you "wanna'".....when you know damn well they have'nt done anything wrong. Furthermore you cannot coerice anyone else into doing it for you. Prosecutors and Presidents have to follow the law just like everyone else does, regardless of what party they belong to, or what they think the guy before them did. By the way, the notion that a good P.R. man could make all the problems that Bush has caused this country go away is absurd. Bush needs to start following the law and stop the political trickery. That, my friend, is the problem. Not "public relations."

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:35 AM)

Boy, haven't we inflated Ryan from Michigan's ego with our full-court press. Perhaps we First Readers should all take a vow not to respond to patently absurd comments. Unlikely, I'm sure.

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:39 AM)

"Yesterday, All my troubles seemed so far away, Now it looks as though there here to stay. I believe in yesterday"-Yesterday-Paul McCartney

Still Crazy After All These Years (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:39 AM)

Dave, Tn (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:41 AM)

Vridar, Seattle Well said! Isn't is amazing that even the Republicans voted to stop Gonzales and future AG's from making these appointment by removing this clause from the Patriot Act. Did anyone in the Bush Administration give one small thought about the reputation of those fired and how it would effect their ability to be hired by a good Firm? I think not. It is surprising though, that some of the fired attorneys were Republicans. Seems like they are eating their young!

Barbara, Dalls TX (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:48 AM)

Recognizing that executive privilege is necessary, and most probably does have merit, in that some advice given a President of the United States and those who give it, does not have to be shared with the Nation has a whole is justified. However, like everything else about the Bush Administration, the usual privileges, courtesies, and mundane policies, have been used as tools to prevent the Administration from having to tell the truth...and there is no question, that by and large the Bush presidency is populated by those with an aversion to the truth. If anyone thinks that inviting Karl Rove in for coffee, with no cameras, no recordings, and no legal obligation to be truthful, will result in the truth being told, than they have lived in a bubble since the day George W. Bush, unelected by the people, was handed the Presidency by a divided USSC. The threatre that is involved in issuing the supoenas, ignoring the supoenas, the legal battles, and ultimately the USSC once again coming down on the side of the Bush Administration, is probably an exercise in futility. The questioning of Rove and Meirs is very narrowly focused, on their involvement in firing US Attorneys, not for poor job performance, but because they apparently failed to aggressively mount investigations against the President's enemies, while investgating those the President and his Administration would seek to protect. Executive privilege was not designed to allow liars to escape the consequences of the lies...however, that is exactly, what Bush is seeking, and in all probabilty what the USSC will allow him, should it reach that stage. No one should be surprised with the actions of Bush, he resisted allowing Secy Rice being put under oath for the 9/11 Commission, an investigative body into the most egregious attack on American soil since December 7, 1941, and certainly warranting truth from anyone called to testify, including members of Bush's inner circle. Once again the "democracy" we hold so dear, is in fact a fiction. Hopefully, the horrors of the two terms of the Bush Presidency, from a war based on lies, to outing a covert CIA agent, will never, never happen again. Should our Nation ever end up with an immoral President like George W. Bush, by USSC appointment again...then we may as well burn the Constitution and admit to the world that our Nation is a fraud.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:56 AM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY--- Is that all the conspiracy you have? When are your great American Dems. going to actually start doing their jobs? Next month, next year...? Why not take your money and pay them directly and give us ours back. Fair is fair, I don't care if these guys are elected or not but for God sakes do the job you are elected for. This is a waste of time whether you care to admit it or not. The rest of us in the real world can only go fishing on our time - not our employers time. You don't leave work to go fishing! This will end badly for your 'hunters". Schumie will resign in disgrace! The only question now is how much and how long do you want to pay him, from your pocket, until this happens?

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:58 AM)

Barbara, Dalls TX-- No barbie, Whats anazing is how little you pay attention and how little you know. Now thats amazing!

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:00 PM)

RIGHT WING APOLOGIST AND OBFUSCATORS! YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE! If the attorneys were fired for not prosecuting Democrats, or for prosecuting Republicans ala PURE PARTISANSHIP, then it's WRONG, whether your leathery, sun-baked heads can absorb that, or not. Stretch your thinking process and imagine PRESIDENT EDWARDS dismissing, hell, TWO atterneys in '09 for not going after republicans - you'd squeel like STUCK PIGS even if the republican was a child molester. You lock-step automitons squeeled like stuck pigs over a BJ! "Obfuscate, Denigrate, Reiterate" - K. Rove

Some really stupid moniker (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:06 PM)

I find the role reversal very interesting. When the White House claimed that it has the right to read our mail and listen to our phone calls, they said that if we have nothing to hide then we shouldn't worry. We then said that it's a matter of principle that the government shouldn't spy on it's citizens no matter the circumstances. ....Now, Congress is trying to question the Administration's advisers under oath and saying that if the Administration has nothing to hide then it shouldn't worry. The Administration now says that it's a matter of principle that advisers shouldn't have to testify under oath no matter what the circumstances. ... "What goes around comes back around" - Justin Timberlake

Asad (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:07 PM)

Can you spell N-I-X-O-N

Al, Burlington KS (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:07 PM)

If Rove, etal are not allowed to go on the record, can Congress use our "it's-not-torture" techniques to extract the truth? Afterall, they were party to that bit of legal hopscotch.....

The Edge, Macon, GA (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:10 PM)

Senator Domenici (Republican) hired a lawyer after his phone call to the U.S. attorney in his state was revealed. He could possibly face an indictment,for pressuting a U.S. attorney about a possible grand jury case.

Desmond (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:14 PM)

Dam NEOCON-NAZI-BABY KILLER REPUBLICANS! Forget the investigations! We know they are guilty, arrest them all in the W/H and send them to The Hague. Kick Devil-Bush out of the W/H and put Pelosi in as President. She'll pull those killers out of Iraq. Send the troops home - we don't need them anyway. The troops are a waste of money. This whole lie of a war on terror is costing too much time and too much money. Anyway, what terrorist? that’s a lie too. No one is going to do anything to us! Bush-Devil knew about the attacks in NY before they happened, they were told exactly what was going to happen and when and deliberately let it happen to improve his popularity! Put them all in jail!

I'LL BASH IF I WANT TO (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:14 PM)

As expected, Congress is focusing on everything but the two issues that got the Dem's elected: the war in Iraq and Congressional corruption! This is a complete smoke screen to the American people! Ultimatly the President has the authority to hire and fire U.S. attornys as he pleases, just this President, as usual, decided not to let Congress know what he was doing and now they're whining about it!

Tim M, Ithaca NY (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:15 PM)

Bush has no choice but to offer to have Rove and Miers come before Congress in closed, secret meetings. If they were sworn in, he knows they would perjure themselves to avoid revealing the corrupt workings of his administration, and then there would be criminal activity to worry about. This way he can make it appear as though he wants to cooperate, but the Democrats are only after partisan gain. If Bush wanted the truth to come out, he could easily waive executive privilege, allow his aides to testify under oath, and the matter would be over. The fact that he is resisting, shows he has something to hide. Drawing up "loyalty rankings" of federal prosecutors undermines the basic fairness of the justice system in this country. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, you should recognize the threat this poses to our democracy.

kim, crofton, md (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:30 PM)

Dave - I googled Schumer's letter and I don't see what your point is. Schumer was asking for an update on a case. That is not what happened with Domenicci and Wilson's phone calls to the US Attorneys. Domenicci and Wilson threatened these attorneys with the loss of their jobs if they didn't stop investigating Republicans or fast track indictments (that never materialized -even after the new attorneys were set up in office) for Democrats so as to aide in the 2006 midterms. One is a request for a satus update, the other was a threat designed to influence our Justice System in for partisan gain. The right wing's lack of concern for the foundations of our justice system is really very concerning. Imagine what your reaction would be if the same situation had occured during the Clinton administration. Republican's would go through the roof. But, hey! When it's your side it's all fair play, huh?

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:33 PM)

This blog contains some thoughtful arguments, funny insights, and zingers...until John Stout WD...Dave-TN is not much better in contributing content and discussion points, either. As far as the subject, a President has the right to remove US attornetys, which supports Ryan-Michigan. What I object to, as with most others on this blog, is the selective way laws appear to be enforced. If you believe the President, Repub or Dem, also has the right to enforce the law in a partisan matter, then yes, the left is wrong on this issue. However, if you believe laws should be enforced regardless of political affiliation, then the bush supporters would be wrong. Just like the "nuclear option ", as a partisan, would you want that in your opponents' hands? If the firings were not policially motivated, this is a non-story. However, the persons fired and the disclosed memos would seem to indicate otherwise. Hope this stays civil...one of the better discussions of late.

Mark Y; Westlake Village, CA (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:52 PM)

right wing swiftboaters whinning and snivelling about anything and everything to try and change subject from bush incompetence and malfeasance.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:55 PM)

Vridar, there is a question as to whether the replacements would have to be submitted for confirmation as the old law (which is still in effect until the house passes the bill and W signs it) would still apply. I believe Gonzoles stated when this mess started that he would in fact submit the replacements for Senate confirmation but nothing has been said that indicates that he is doing that. Any bets that Griffin would be confirmed if in fact he is submitted for confirmation. One issue in this that does not receive a lot of press is when and at whose instigation was that clause inserted in the Patriot Act. I read that the Justice lawyer that did it claimed he did it on his own and without direction from higher ups. If you believe that I am sure you can believe that pigs can fly. More likely it is a part of Rove's plan for Republican domination by putting USA's in states where they can do the maximum damage to Democratic candidates. BTW John Stout, do you ever have anything constructive to say or is it your mission in life to denigrate anybody that does not agree with you?

Dennis E., Dallas, TX (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:58 PM)

I was going to add my arguments but realized that Coy Reese, West Virginia, said it all and said it well. Thanks, Coy!

Eileen, Navarre, FL (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:09 PM)

Recently, I retired after teaching preschool for many, many years. Frequently I run into former students and they thank me for teaching them that actions have consequences and they have to take responsibility for their decisions. The excuses, "Billy started it" or "Ronnie did it first" never worked in my classroom. If four year old children can grasp those concepts surely grown-up voters and politicians can do the same. And by the way, name calling gets you four minutes on the time out chair.

Mel, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:47 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=96486