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

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia --- "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." LOL... Yes, you have said it all. Jesus! give it up. LOL LOL LOL. The President of The United States was re-elcted to a second term confirming that the votes in the first election were EXACTLY RIGHT! Do you have any other cospiracy? "Stay in school or go back" !

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:09 PM)

Coy Reese: Best post I have ever read here. Bravo! It should be published more widely in some form or another.

Mark Thieme (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:20 PM)

Vridar, last night Sen. David Pryor from Arkansas stated that Gonzalez lied to him concerning tne fired US Attorney Cummins who was to be replaced by Rove's protege. He was told by Gonzalez that the replacement US Attorney would be submitted to the Senate for confirmation. The e-mails released by the White House and the DOJ said they intended to appoint the replacement under the provision of the Patriot Act which allows the DOJ to appoint US Attorney's without Senate confirmatiion. Yesterday, the Senate repealed that provision of the Patriot Act and soon the House will probably do the same which means all of the replacements for the fired US Attorney's will have to be confirmed by the Senate. The reason Bush does not want Rove under oath is because it appears, even to Bush, that Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this. Bush is trying to save his friend, advisor and hatchet-man from the possibility of criminal charges. Also, Bush said yesterday he was going to allow Gonzalez and other DOJ officials to testify under oath. The truth of the matter is Gonzalez is required to testify before Congress because they confirmed him to his job. However, presidential aides, like Miers and Rove, are not confirmed by the Congress so they are not required to appear unless subpoenas are issued to them.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:21 PM)

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:26 PM)

Edge - I hate to admit it, but that gave me a chuckle. I can just picture Rove being treated to a little waterboarding. Like you said...it's not really torture. Ironically enough, if the police did that on domestic crimes, any confession would be tossed out before the ink on it was even dry. Under the Constitution at least, an incriminating statement is not valid if it can be established that it was extorted from a defendant by coercive means. I would think waterboarding would be a little coercive. But what the heck...let's try it anyway!

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:35 PM)

John - I'll make a deal with you. We will stop talking about the 2000 election when you stop blaming Bill Clinton for everything that goes wrong. Deal?

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:36 PM)

Mark Thieme -- Don't you two kids have a video game to play or something? You have no point! Your comment is mute!

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:04 PM)

John Stout and Dave are your typical angry right republicans. They have no facts to fall back on, so they make it up as they go along. All the while blindly and fiercly defending their president. They will say and do anything to protect W. Facts are meaningless to them, they would rather use fear and smear than debate with facts. Nice try Dave with the Schumer letter. Distract, attack, and deny facts. This should be the new republican motto. Just read John's response to Coy. He avoids the 2000 election problems and says they do not matter because he got elected in 2004. What the hell does the 2004 election have to do with the 2000 election. Wait the republican motto: DISTRACT, ATTACK, And DENY FACTS. You do all 3 in 1 article. I want to thank you John for proving my point.

bobf (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:10 PM)

Carrie, NW Iowa --- Why not just fund the terrorists. Maybe you could cook them dinner? Hey, don't worry about them cutting off your head...all those things were lies anyhow. They are just simply poor, misunderstood, caring people being put down by "THE MAN". Let all those terrorist go! Stop being neocon nazi's Mr. President.

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:11 PM)

Carrie, NW Iowa -- OH MY GOD!!! and I could leave it at that but... DO YOU KNOW AT ALL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? Who is blaming President Clinton for anything going on right now? TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK?

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:14 PM)

John Doe I don't think you are right |(or I could be wrong) about them being threatened. I believe they said in the hearings "they felt pressured" That "I felt pressured" excuse as been used a lot in the last 6 years by political cowards for all sorts of things they voted on. I don't like where we're headed as a country either with all this BS of who did it first, who did it worse. I blame the networks for not doing their jobs and setting the record straight. Turn off the networks & cable, and watch only the News Hour on PBS and we'll all be better off.

Dave, tn (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:21 PM)

So John Stout, I guess you're saying the activities of our own government are OK as long as they aren't worse than the worst terrorists known to man? IMO pride alone demands that we expect more from the people who claim to be the leaders of the world's only super power. Certainly we should expect more if we're to deserve any respect from the people of any other nation.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:49 PM)

Dave - Even if "threatened" is a poor choice of words (and I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point), "preasured" is just as bad. The heart of this scandal rests on the possibility that the White House and prominent GOP members of Congress may have attempted to manipulate our justice system for their own partisan gains. This administration's handling of the scandal is increasingly convincing me that that is actually the case. I would suggest the following thought experiment: Imagine that President Clinton and top Democratic members of Congress had been accused of firing US Attorneys because when they asked them to indict Republicans at a state level they refused for valid reasons. In this hypothetical nothing has been concretely proven but the administration is acting incredibly guilty. You would want an investigation into that right? You would want top White House officials testifying before Congress under oath as to what happened. Or at least I would hope so, as the manipulation of our legal sytem for partisan gain is, I think, an incredibly serious charge and one that needs to have action taken on or publicly refuted. We CAN NOT have any doubts that the law is being applied in any manner that is less than fair. Our entire culture is based on the principle that everyone is equal before the law. That is why people like myself are so upset with this.

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:33 PM)

John B, Des Moines, IA --- That tired argument again ha? OK, tell us were the terrorist's "army and country" is so we can send our military to meet them? Maybe we should...do what we did in WWII and invade their country...hmmmmmm? No? Are you saying that we can't use regular military tactics to fight these people? What? You are saying the they could careless about rules of engagement and decency? Your not saying we stick our heads in the sand? Are you saying that your sorry and that you did not know what you were talking about? NO problem, it's OK!

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:38 PM)

John Stout WD, Do you even understand why people are upset re: US atty firings? It is the allusion the law is being enforced on a partisan basis. The memos that have been made public indicate these attorneys, despite good performance evaluations, were being let go for what they perceive as political reasons. It has nothing to do with what the Pres is allowed to do; it is the belief that partisan politics is in play in enforcing the law. The question is if/when the Dems gain control, would you want that same lack of oversight and partisan politics coming into play in law enforcement? Your tendencies to label people and name call without any hint of facts for support make you an easy target. However, your ignoring anything that goes against your beliefs make me think you are perfect in supporting this administration. Wish you could cite facts so perhaps more civil discussions would appear in these blogs. P.S.-your partisanship is worse than Darren Pope.

Mark Y; Westlake Village, CA (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:55 PM)

Rove: What you do is wait and see what happens. We fire the U.S. attorneys if they aren't going after the Democrats. Myers: You mean we shouldn't just fire all of them at the beginning of the President's new term. That's the way it's done. Rove: Harriet, Harriet, Harriet, you know we added the ability of the President to appoint U.S. attorneys in the middle of a term without Congressional approval. Myers: Is that legal? Is that what the most excellent President Bush wants? Rove: It's what he's got. That's all that matters. Legal Smeagle.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:39 PM)

John Stout, I have no reason to apologize, but if you have no idea what you're talking about so perhaps you'd like to consider the following. 1. The terrorists have no country or army so fighting them with conventional military forces is futile. 2. Afghanistan was the only place where the terrorists came close to having an army or country. Our esteemed leaders pulled most of the forces out of that country to attack a place that had not attacked us and was effectively weakened and attacked by prior and continuing actions. 3. As a result we are losing ground in Afghanistan. 4. The majority of the violence in Iraq is inter-sect civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. 5. That portion of the violence that is directed at the US is mostly a home-grown guerilla action against an occupying foreign power. 6. Conventional military tactics are largely ineffective against guerilla warfare, especially when the guerillas are masked by an overlying civil war. 7. Normal military convention would have it that a force approximately 4 times what we have on the ground, trained in police and counterinsurgency specialties, would be needed to control the violence. 8. The budget won't stand that. In fact what we're already doing is throwing a massive debt onto our children and grandchildren, all without effective results. 9. By the estimation of many experts within our military and outside the Army is already experiencing severe strain that renders it unlikely to be able to face additional threats should they occur. 10. All of this with a military budget larger than the rest of the top 10 military powers together, most of whom are our allies. 11. Nothing will ultimately keep us safe except old-fashioned police work. The Bush administration proposes combining a variety of anti-crime programs that have been proven effective under a single umbrella which will be funded at 1/3 the level of current funding. Because we can't afford it due to our military commitments. At a time when crime is rising nationally for the first time in over 10 years. I know better than to expect an admission that you were wrong, but if you think you can refute any of the above you're welcome to try.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:17 AM)

Mark Y; Westlake Village, CA --- You say; "Do you even understand why people are upset re: US atty firings? It is the allusion the law is being enforced on a partisan basis. The memos that have been made public indicate these attorneys, despite good performance evaluations, were being let go for what they perceive as political reasons". There is no proof of anything at all, there was no law broken, YOUR PEOPLE ARE FISHING !!! HELLO. Now they are wasting time and money to do it!!! HELLO. Alls you have heard so far is speculation!!!! HELLO. It does not matter how much you HATE, hatred does not make for proof or evidence!!! HELLO. None of us ever thought twice of this or knew of this even, until your "fishermen" brought it up!!! HELLO. Jesus you people lose every point. You know nothing other than what they are telling you to believe. NOTHING WRONG HAS HAPPENED - IT'S ALL ABOUT REVENGE! YOU ARE BEING LED AROUND BY THE NOSE. YOU ONLY BELIEVE THIS BECAUSE YOU HATE THE PRESIDENT!!! HELLO.

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:34 AM)

Mark - Clearly John Stout only cares about writing inflammatory responses. And John Stout - If you want to talk about a tired argument, it's that one you gave me about helping the terrorists. If you have some time, you might want to read the Constitution. In it, you will see something called the First Amendment, which gives me the freedom of speech. See, the founding fathers were pretty concerned that U.S. citizens would be able to voice their opinions re: government affairs without fear of retribution. In modern times, under the Bush Administration, that retribution is being labeled as someone who aids terrorists.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:46 AM)

This is a non-issue. Presidents have been firing their own for as long as I can remember. Clinton fired all of his people and I didn't see anybody get their panties in a knot over that. You serve at the plasure of the president and if he gets tired of you, then you are gone. It is the same in any business. Let's move on to other issues

Jerry corpus christi Texas (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:06 AM)

It's amazing how much hearing the truth hurts some of you! It's the accepting that will hurt even more! Stop smoking doobies and open your eyes. You are being foolishly led astray. You can matter or be irrelevant? That’s up to you!

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:34 AM)

Jerry corpus christi Texas --- Hold on one minute Mr. We still have to have an investigation for the firing of Rumsfeld. Why it was done, who was involved, Emails, testimony...the whole lot! This is not over! You hear me!

John Stout WD, IL. (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:38 AM)

"Jerry"- "You serve at the 'plasur'(sic) of the president and if he gets tired of you, then you are gone.". But John-John, "why" did he all of a sudden "get tired" of them? "Why" were they not "plasur"ing him any more? Read some of the testimony these un"plasur"able attys gave about the intimidation tactics they endured.

M.E., Albany, Ga. (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:21 PM)

Jerry, it would be a non issue if the evidence didn't point toward firing USAs who refused to discontinue legal action against Republicans or pursue action against Democrats for political gain. John Stout, interesting how you claim nothing has been proven when the investigation hasn't begun. Sorry buddy, following the evidence does not constitute a witch hunt.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:26 PM)

M.E., Albany, Ga.--- WOW! Revelation! YOU ARE RIGHT, OH MY GOD! IT'S A CONSPIRACY...THOSE BASTARDS!

John Stout WD, IL (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:14 PM)

Jerry corpus christi Texas --- You can not say that here! That is not allowed! Now you must be straightened out. Fall in line or else. We have conspiracies, revenge, bitterness and anger to be passed out. ~ "WE HAVE THE POWER OF THE POEPLE AND BELIEVING ANYTHING LESS THAN CRIMES AND CONSPIRACY WILL NOT AND CAN NOT BE PERMITTED HERE".

John Stout WD, IL (Sent Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:23 PM)

John/Jerry- "WE HAVE THE POWER OF THE POEPLE(sic)". Now...if you'll look back, I've never said the Pope has blessed me with "the power".

M.E., Albany,Ga. (Sent Friday, March 23, 2007 12:46 PM)

<< Previous

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