Bush Vows To Block Efforts To Subpoena Staff

Bush Vows To Block Efforts To Subpoena Staff

www.msnbc.msn.com

Calling the Democratic response to the firing of eight federal prosecutors a "partisan fishing expedition," President Bush rejected lawmakers' call Tuesday to subpoena White House staff for testimony related to the matter.

Bush's public statement came hours after the White House offered to make political strategist Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers available for interviews — but not testimony under oath — before congressional committees investigating the firings.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said in a statement from the White House. "I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is the President afraid that if White House staff are put under oath they might just tell the truth, or be caught in a lie ?

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Youve got to ask yourself, is this the action of an innocent man/group??

Why hide, when you have nothing to hide, especially when its in the public forum.

It HURTS you to hide, so you only hide if the truth will hurt you more.

I find this extremely hypocritical. After all... Aren't these the same people who, citing the Patriot Act, tell us that if we have nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about?

House Panel OKs Rove, Miers Subpoenas

A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote and without dissent, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
...
"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?'' Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.

Another source for perusal.

NBC's Gregory omitted White House preconditions for Rove, Miers interviews

In addition to insisting that Rove and Miers not be interviewed under oath, Fielding laid out the following demands in a March 20 letter: that interviews be conducted behind closed doors, that they not be televised or transcribed, that no subpoenas be issued following the interviews, and that questions may not concern internal White House communications.

I wonder what they would approve talking about... The weather?

/flagged

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

BBC's Article

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the House demand for testimony under oath sets up a constitutional battle between the president and Congress which could end up in the Supreme Court.

I think that would be an interesting court case to follow.

-ONIAG

The only thing hypocritical about this is in 1993 when alleged rapist Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys, not a word was said about it.

Come on! 93 fired by Clinton and 8 fired by Bush, and Bush is getting raked over the coals? Hypocracy!

Can a President fire U.S. Attorneys or not? If Clinton had the right, then so does Bush.

INTERESTING ARTICLE

The American people deserve Washington reporters who report the news in full historical context, not Democratic Party context. Every so-called "objective" reporter who reproduces Senator Chuck Schumer’s talking points about how this is an unprecedented Gonzales outrage without remembering Reno’s March Massacre is making a mockery of journalism, and history.

That is absolutely correct. That's why Americans should read different newspapers or online websites for news. I don't trust my local newspaper anymore on giving me the right information. All I read is Bush bashing and it's really getting aggrivating.

-ONIAG



[edit on 21-3-2007 by Oh NO ITs AL GORE]

What the hell is going on here?

Are we being taken for complete Idiots?

The firering of these attorneys is very very worrying.

The patriot act, with all its flaws and fantasies, has been used to exercise the moral righteous from the whitehouse, and purge anyone looking for signs of curroption in the administration.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — Internal Justice Department performance reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been dismissed in recent months rated them “well regarded,” “capable” or “very competent,” a review of the evaluations shows.

The performance reviews, known as Evaluations and Review Staff Reports, show that the ousted prosecutors were routinely praised for playing a leadership role with other law enforcement agencies in their jurisdictions.

www.nytimes.com...

These were good men, They were hard working legal reps that were doing their job.

You don’t let go competent, capable workers.. you don’t let go men who have been praised for leadership and morals…

And you don’t make such a loose statement like this

The officials have repeatedly cited poor job performance to explain their decisions to oust the eight prosecutors, all of them Republicans appointed by President Bush in his first term.

This seems like a more likely reason:

Two months after the firings first began to make waves on Capitol Hill, it has also become clear that most of the prosecutors were overseeing significant public-corruption investigations at the time they were asked to leave. Four of the probes target Republican politicians or their supporters, prosecutors and other officials said.

The fact that so many of these attorneys, all of whom were appointed by President Bush (and thus are not susceptible to charges of liberal bias), were investigating corruption among the GOP caucuses on Capitol Hill raises some serious questions about the motivations of the Bush administration.

"There always have traditionally been tensions between main Justice and U.S. attorneys in the districts," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But it does seem like there's an effort to centralize authority in Washington more than there has been in the past and in prior administrations."

www.washingtonpost.com...

Washington, and the hawks in the whitehouse are making moves to ensure no one comes between them, and there plans.

Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Bush and Co believed that the patriot act would enable them to purge and dismiss any worries.

They were mistaken……. You don’t fire 8 experts on law and ethics, believing you can dupe them.

I feel this will be the first card to fall in the house of white.

U.S. Attorneys are political appointees and they can be dismissed by the President at any time for any reason, and it's always been that way. Unfortunately things weren't handled very well here that's given the Dems yet another thing to try to make political hay out of.

Plus, the President is doing the right thing by refusing to allow his private staff members from having to testify under oath before Congress. It's a separation of powers issue.

Maybe one should look at the investigations/cases the 8 fired judges were involved in. Could it be that they were getting into more corruption of The Bush Whitehouse and needed to be silenced.

www.sourcewatch.org...

Out of all the federal judges why were only these 8 fired?

Nothing to see here move along!!

Originally posted by RRconservative
The only thing hypocritical about this is in 1993 when alleged rapist Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys, not a word was said about it.

Come on! 93 fired by Clinton and 8 fired by Bush, and Bush is getting raked over the coals? Hypocracy!

Can a President fire U.S. Attorneys or not? If Clinton had the right, then so does Bush.

The HUGE difference is that under the patriot act those U.S. Attorney's could be replaced without being confirmed by the senate circumventing the constituition. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that rr.

Bush claims that Congress wishes to politicize the decision to fire eight US Attorneys is pretty ironic, isn't it?

Considering that it was the USA's refusal to politcize their offices that got their resignations requested in the first place. Or they went after the wrong party--the one with the most corruption and evidence to convict.

What noive.

If subpoenas are ignored, fine. Get the court cases underway but in the meantime, Congressional committees should go forward with their findings WITH THE TESTIMONY THEY HAVE, not the testimony they wish they had.*


**reference to Rummy's 'going to war with the army we have'.

In the meantime, why hasn't Karl Rove's security clearances been suspended and him fired for not disclosing his contacts with the press in the Plame/Wilson affair? Shrub's been duplicious on that issue too.

When I heard Mr. Bush say during his press conference yesterday, "I have not seen anything that appears out of line" (paraphrase) it immediately reminded me of "I did not have sexual relations with that women."

Should be interesting.

Well, you see... it's like Karl's JOB to look at all WH ops and determine the political advantage. When he does and gives the nod to go the Shrub has to back him up. Has he ever not?

This, and his contributing to the Plame leaks deserves a perp walk, as far as I'm concerned.

He's no ho.

The sooner the Bushie gang is convicted the safer this world will be.

www.crooksandliars.com...

BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS AN UNPRECEDENTED RECORD OF CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

Democratic White Houses Have Historically Cooperated: A Congressional Research Service report identified 62 instances of Democratic presidential advisors testifying before Congress in recent decades, 54 of them during the Clinton administration. [CRS Report RL31351]

* 30 Clinton aides testified 54 times [CRS Report RL31351]

Republican Advisors Appear Less: In contrast, the CRS report found zero instances of such testimony during the Reagan or Bush I administrations, and nine in the first term of Bush II, all of which involved Thomas Ridge and homeland security before the formation of a cabinet department. The only three instances in the last 30 years of an advisor refusing to testify were since 2002, under George W. Bush. [CRS Report RL31351 (emphasis added)]

Why would the White House not want their staff to testify under oath unless they had something to hide? They dont want any transcripts either, they just want a little private closed door talk thats it, screw the judicial process. When will the White House start obeying the law?

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Why would the White House not want their staff to testify under oath unless they had something to hide? They dont want any transcripts either, they just want a little private closed door talk thats it, screw the judicial process. When will the White House start obeying the law?

Why take the risk? All this is is a perjury trap. That is all the Democrats are looking for. Why would the White House trust a D.C. Jury after the Scooter Libby abomination?

Look at the Valerie Plame incident. Scooter Libby didn't "out" her, she wasn't even a covert agent. They got him for perjury even though no crime was committed and there shouldn't have been a trial in the first place.

Can someone actually tell me what law was broken?

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Ask alleged rapist Bill Clinton, he fired 93 of them.

Originally posted by RRconservative

Why take the risk? All this is is a perjury trap. That is all the Democrats are looking for. Why would the White House trust a D.C. Jury after the Scooter Libby abomination?

Look at the Valerie Plame incident. Scooter Libby didn't "out" her, she wasn't even a covert agent. They got him for perjury even though no crime was committed and there shouldn't have been a trial in the first place.

Can someone actually tell me what law was broken?

It seemes to me if the neo-cons didn't play so fast and loose with the truth in so many things; there would be no need for a perjury trap.

And RR you post this same stuff about the Valerie Plame incident over and over. Rush has lied to you! Try another source of information for a change. Here ya go.

www.time.com...

RR, only perjurers need fear a perjury trap, as you put it.

Clinton didn't fire 93 US Attorneys, he replaced them as new administrations ALL do. Your present fearless leader included.

This was a PURGE of USA's who were appointed by THIS administration. They were eating their own, vanquishing Bush-appointed USAs who were just getting a little too good at fighting corruption.

Nothing to get outraged about there.