posted
I'm a news junkie and have been following this slow-moving train wreck unfold.
I've been waiting for the topic to turn up here on Hatrack, but since I'm stuck at the office while Diane does a board meeting, I guess I'll be the one.
Is his departure inevitable? Will this scandal finally take down Rove?
quote: Two new revelations about alleged misconduct by the Justice Department kept the U.S. attorneys scandal roiling on Capitol Hill Thursday, with a second Republican senator calling for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In the most stunning turn, ABC News disclosed a new round of internal emails - slated for release to Congress as soon as Friday - that show senior White House adviser Karl Rove closely tied to the January 2005 genesis of a plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, in direct contradiction to statements made by the White House. The emails also reveal that Gonzales was aware of the plan before he moved from the White House counsel’s office to the Justice Department in early 2005.
“It is now imperative that [Rove] testify before Congress and give all the details of his involvement,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee with jurisdiction over U.S. attorneys.
Schumer said DoJ sources have confirmed the veracity of the Rove report to him, but could not confirm ABC News’ accounts concerning Gonzales. White House Counsel Fred Fielding has told senators he would report back to them with more documents and a response on testimony requests on Friday.
Also Thursday, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), running for reelection in 2008 in a reliably Democratic state, became the second GOP lawmaker to openly call for Gonzales to resign. Schumer said he believed the White House was in the thick of considerations over whether Gonzales should go.
Another explosive report in National Journal charges that Gonzales advised President Bush to bar investigators for the Justice Department inspector general from receiving the security clearances needed to probe Justice’s use of information from the government's warrantless wiretapping program. According to National Journal, Gonzales urged the denial of those security clearances, which halted the inspector general's work until a similar probe was restarted last November, after hearing that the attorney general would be among the inquiry’s targets.
quote: One curious aspect of yesterday's document dump is that it shows e-mails from J. Scott Jennings, who is Karl Rove's deputy at the White House, coming from an e-mail address at gwb43.com -- a domain owned by the Republican National Committee.
It makes some sense that White House officials might have and use such accounts when they conduct party business, rather than White House business. But the distinction between party and government business seems to have been forgotten here -- which I guess is exactly the point.
Eggen and Kane write in The Post: "Democratic congressional aides said they will investigate whether using the private address for government business violated laws against using taxpayer resources for political work or signaled that White House officials considered the firing of U.S. attorneys to be primarily a political issue. Jennings did not return a call to his office seeking a comment.
"'As a matter of course, the RNC provides server space and equipment to certain White House personnel in order to assist them with their political efforts,' RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said."
I have asked a White House spokesman to answer the following questions:
1) Does White House policy allow White House staffers to use non-White House e-mail addresses for official White House business? Does it prohibit it? What is the policy?
2) Would these e-mails be treated any differently from official White House e-mails when it comes to archiving or subpoena purposes?
3) Does it create either impropriety or the appearance of impropriety that gwb43.com is a domain owned by the Republican National Committee?
4) Do other White House staffers regularly use non-White House e-mail accounts for White House business, and if so, why?
posted
A lot of the stuff being dredged up is stuff that Gonzales has already gotten away with. Bush has refused to fire him before and he won't quit. In fact, Bush has highly supported all the stuff he's come up with.
He has nothing to lose, the White House loses political clout every day. I won't be at all surprised if he stonewalls and continues business as usual. Bush thinks he can do pretty much anything, and there's yet to be anyone to tell him that isn't true.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing can really be done by Congress to counteract Bush's war policies as long as Republicans are able to stonewall Iraq War legislation in the Senate. Besides, Bush will use his presidential veto even if by some miracle it does make it onto his desk. So basically, the almost even division in the Senate allows Bush to do whatever he wants since 1) not enough votes to send the legislation to him and 2)there aren't enough members of Congress in favor of the legislation to override the veto.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 1993, just after taking up the Presidency, Clinton fired 92 federal attorneys. It was mentioned in the media, but there certainly weren't any calls for him to resign (or for anyone else to). Plenty of people remember.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why they both did it makes a big difference, to me anyway. If it's for the same reason, then they both should be criticized for it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a confusing standard. If it's possible for a reason to be legitimate, it could be legitimate even if two Presidents share the reason. I must not understand.
I'm sure I never heard any reporter inquire into why Clinton fired the federal prosecutors en masse. With either President, the reasons will just be us speculating. Unless we decide to believe any explanation they give.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In 1993, just after taking up the Presidency, Clinton fired 92 federal attorneys. It was mentioned in the media, but there certainly weren't any calls for him to resign (or for anyone else to). Plenty of people remember.
Will B,
that didn't get a lot of discussion at the time because it's pretty customary for a president to do that at the beginning of his first term.
Firing these attorneys so late in the second term for anything other than criminal negligence, misconduct or incompetence is almost unheard of. And originally Harriet Miers was pushing for all of them to be replaced. That would be pretty much unprecedented.
And then there's the issue of how the "story" (some of it in testimony before Congress) keeps changing.
It really is bad - that's why there are so few defenders in the Republican ranks of Congress right now.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as email goes: it's a barely-concealed "secret" that the administration strongly urges the uses of anonymous email accounts, including accounts on Hotmail and Gmail, to avoid the archiving requirements on "official" addresses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will B: Clinton did it, Reagan did it, and Bush Sr. did it with almost all attorneys -- at the beginnings of their terms. Its customary to do it at the beginning of your term.
Doing it with only a few is very unusual, and when those few have good performance reviews and are involved either in investigations of Republicans or have chosen not to investigate Democrats, its extraordinarily troubling. Federal attorney positions being used for political ends is an awful thing, as the facts so far suggest someone in the Bush administration was trying to do.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nothing can really be done by Congress to counteract Bush's war policies as long as Republicans are able to stonewall Iraq War legislation in the Senate. Besides, Bush will use his presidential veto even if by some miracle it does make it onto his desk. So basically, the almost even division in the Senate allows Bush to do whatever he wants since 1) not enough votes to send the legislation to him and 2)there aren't enough members of Congress in favor of the legislation to override the veto.
jh, what does your post have to do with this topic? Could you clarify whether you are trying to establish a link between the firings and Bush's "war policy" or whether your just using this thread as a convenient place to make a random observation about Bush?
One thing to keep in mind is that it is proper for Bush to fire U.S. attorneys who do not conduct law enforcement in the manner the President wishes them to. In fact, he has a duty to do so. If, for example, he did fire the San Diego U.S. Attorney because he didn't like the way she handled immigration cases, his exercise of the power to fire was appropriate. (By that I don't mean his desired vision of the proper way to prosecute such cases is proper, but the use of firing to conform the office to his overall policy is a proper use of firing.) Nor is there anything inherently wrong with the chief of staff being involved in the decision. There is, by design, a political check on the federal prosecutor power.
What would be inappropriate is if the firing was in response to the U.S. Attorneys' refusal to do something unethical. Had Bush been totally up front - "I'm firing these U.S. Attorneys because I don't like how they handle X," or "because their performance is not accordance with my policy preferences" there'd be no need for an investigation. But the changed stories and stonewalling lead me to want some kind of investigation.
Just remember that "dumb reason to fire prosecutors" is not the same as "improper reason to fire prosecutors."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And originally Harriet Miers was pushing for all of them to be replaced. That would be pretty much unprecedented.
There would be almost no problem with that except from an efficiency standpoint - a four-year turnover happens whenever a President doesn't go four terms, and a clean sweep would have exerted almost no "prosecute whom we say or be fired" pressure.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is not that they were fired. It is the President's and the Attorney General's job to hire and fire Federal Prosecutors.
It was the fact that lies were told to Congressmen, and yes to us.
It was the fact that the administration assured everyone that nobody needed to be "under oath" during the hearings when the lies were told.
Its just one more place where a few more people, and especially a few more powerful people are losing faith in the spin-lords that were trying to run the Government in the name of President Bush.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, what does your question to me have anything to do with this topic? I see no reason why I should respond to it.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I was replying to Lyrhawn's comment that no one has told Bush that there are things he cannot do. Now, I believe my response is rightly placed in this thread.
Why don't you tell me how your question to me has anything to do with this topic other than picking at me for no apparent reason?
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, your question to me has nothing to do with this topic either.
I see no reason why I should respond to it.
jh, I didn't say you shouldn't post it in this thread, and I explained why I asked in the very next question.
If you don't want to respond to it, fine. I'm sorry I tried to figure out what the hell you were saying. I won't bother any more.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I was replying to Lyrhawn's comment that no one has told Bush that there are things he cannot do. Now, I believe my response is rightly placed in this thread.
Why don't you tell me how your question to me has anything to do with this topic other than picking at me for no apparent reason? It must annoy you somehow when I make comments on Bush, particularly when they're not even negative. And I suppose if the moderator feels my post does not belong in this thread, he will remove it. No need for you to be the thread police.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's clear you didn't understand mine, anyway, since I never told you not to post it here, did not in any way attempt to be the thread police, and I've already explained why I posted it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would be inappropriate is if the firing was in response to the U.S. Attorneys' refusal to do something unethical. Had Bush been totally up front - "I'm firing these U.S. Attorneys because I don't like how they handle X," or "because their performance is not accordance with my policy preferences" there'd be no need for an investigation. But the changed stories and stonewalling lead me to want some kind of investigation.
Looks like another case of "it's not the act, it's the cover up."
quote:Originally posted by Will B: That's a confusing standard. If it's possible for a reason to be legitimate, it could be legitimate even if two Presidents share the reason. I must not understand.
To clarify, I didn't mean it would be okay just because two presidents both did it. I meant there are right reasons, and wrong reasons, and if they both did it for right reasons, it was okay for both, and if they both did it for wrong reasons, then it's wrong for both.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Gonzalez' days are certainly numbered--less than three months probably, definitely before the end of Bush's term. He's become too much of a distraction and a political liability.
Of course, I made the same point about Rumsfeld and he held on with a deathgrip long after I was sure he was toast.
I think the quashing last year of the DoJ OPR's investigation into the NSA warrentless wiretapping program will get more play in coming weeks, and Gonzalez come off very poorly in that. Between that, the clumsy handling of the US attorney firings, and his pro-torture policy stands, I think his time is short. One more scandal will sink him, and once someone is staggering, other scandals always leak out. Here's a good recent story about the OPR investigation stonewalling.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no proof, but I believe Gonzales did everything he did at the direction of Bush. If Gonzales is offed as a scapegoat, and a new AG is brought in, and the same cases come before him and the same cases are leveled against Bush and the same thing happens, it's going to look pretty bad for Bush.
I think he will stay right where he is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Gonzales goes, it will begin to bring to a calamitous close a style of governing that hasn’t served the Bush administration well. Bush has overrelied on a team of loyalists — often from Texas — who weren’t always the best or the brightest. This hardly accounts for all his problems — Iraq was mishandled by heavyweights like former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — but it has lent added credibility to charges of incompetence.
The U.S. attorneys flap represents the perfect conflagration of Bush loyalists. It began with the asinine suggestion of then-White House counsel Harriet Miers that Bush begin his second term by sacking all 93 U.S. attorneys. Yes, President Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys when he took office, but they were all appointees of another president.
Miers is a Bush friend from Texas who was removed as White House counsel as soon as Democrats took control of Congress, because the White House realized it needed better lawyering. Never mind that Bush had tried to elevate her all the way to the Supreme Court. When administration officials finger Miers for her role in the U.S. attorneys controversy, you can almost hear the unstated addendum, “And we all know she really didn’t know what she was doing.”
***
Bush placed such trust in Miers and Gonzales because they passed his “good man” or “good woman” test. He got to know them and concluded they had good hearts. This might be true, but it says nothing about their ability to carry out high governmental functions.
This is deadly criticism. I lived through the Carter administration and there was never much doubt as to whether or not he was a "good" man -- but his management style, misjudgments and plain old bad luck left him wide open for legitimate attack by opponents.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Side note: I went to college with Rich Lowry and worked as Managing Editor on a magazine he was Editor-In-Chief of.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Among the gems that has surfaced in the document dumps from the White House was that Patrick Fitzgerald - the guy handpicked for his reputation to investigate the CIA leak case - was listed as "not having distinguished himself."
Here in Chicago, we know Fitzgerald pretty well since he's attacked corruption in both parties aggressively. He's popular with the public but not so popular with Democrat and Republican politicians here.
All of which gives me an excuse to share the latest from the Chicago Tribune's John Kass, a conservative columnist who holds the same standards on corruption for both sides of the political aisle:
(after first giving a full account of all the investigations of powerful political figures in Illnois under Fitzgerald's watch)
quote: Conventional wisdom from Washington is that Fitzgerald fell out of favor with the Republicans because of his pursuit of the CIA leak case, which led to the recent perjury conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
But why not consider an alternative?
Just as that March 2005 memo downgrading Fitzgerald was making its way to the White House, Fitzgerald's office in Chicago was proceeding in a fascinating political corruption probe involving alleged kickbacks requiring state approval for the construction of hospitals.
That case would mushroom into Operation Board Games, revealing bipartisan political influence in hundreds of millions of dollars invested through state pension funds.
There have been so many distractions that you're bound to have forgotten about Operation Board Games. The distractions include City Hall's Olympic dreams that won't cost taxpayers a dime and whether Lord Conrad Black's wife thinks reporters covering her husband's federal fraud trial are a bunch of vermin and sluts. With all this talk of Olympics and sluts and so on, you probably haven't had time to figure the Fitzgerald timeline.
But as that 2005 memo was sent to the White House, Fitzgerald was formally unmasking the Combine in what would later become Operation Board Games.
The FBI and federal prosecutors here investigated how hundreds of millions of dollars in public pension investments were made, and the influence exerted by political insiders who brokered ridiculously lucrative pension fund deals.
Fitzgerald characterized the scheme as "pay-to-play on steroids." The investigation began with hospital construction irregularities, and it led like a trail of bread crumbs to top Republican and Democratic insiders in Illinois.
Those who have pleaded guilty include senior Republican fundraiser Stuart Levine and Democrat Joe Cari, the former finance chairman for the Democratic National Committee. Cari and Levine are cooperating with federal authorities.
One of the first to be nabbed was P. Nicholas Hurtgen. He is a former top aide to Republican Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin governor and a secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Bush.
Hurtgen has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of extortion and mail and wire fraud in the hospital construction portion of the case and is awaiting trial.
One fellow in the federal documents of the Operation Board Games case was listed as "Individual K." And his buddy appeared several times in those same documents as "Individual A," for Alpha.
Individuals A and K have not been indicted. But the Tribune identified them as Big Bob Kjellander (pronounced $hell-ander) and his buddy, Big Bill Cellini, the political boss of Springfield.
Kjellander is the Republican committeeman of Illinois who flaunts his friendship with Rove and who recently resigned as treasurer of the Republican National Committee. Kjellander also represented the famous Carlyle Group before the teachers' pension fund board and he received $4.5 million in questionable consulting fees.
Did Kjellander discuss Fitzgerald with Rove? I don't know.
Only Rove can say, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, with a court reporter present, reminding Republicans that they once demanded that others respect the rule of law.
posted
Not going to happen. There are arguably a number of reasons to plead the fifth in this testimony, and all of them have serious implications of misconduct at the least, criminal behavior at most.
And just so we're all on the same page here, the firings were technically legal. The criminal behavior is in the cover-up and alleged perjury. Just like Watergate, just like Clinton, just like Libby.
The part I find interesting about this news is that the 5th Amendment protects one from incriminating evidence against one's self, not for incriminating others. They're going to be walking a very fine line if they decide to play the 5th Amendment game throughout the entire testimony.
Incidentally, can anyone point to me any hearing involving Congress or a congressional committee that Bush or Cheney have testified in that was not off-record, behind closed doors, and not under oath? And can someone point out to me why the Attorney General and his subordinates are being asked to be treated as if they were the president's own legal counsel (no transcript, no public testimony, and not under oath)?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The aides reasoning for not testifying was that the Judiciary Committee had already made up its mind that a crime had taken place, and therefore anything she said would just confirm their preconceived convictions.
Sounds like a cop out to me. And they can't ALL plead the Fifth to EVERY question. If they ask a question of someone about what someone else did, they have to answer. If someone asks "Did so and so do this?" They can't keep stonewalling with that. The Fifth wasn't meant to be a stonewalling tactic to protect a conspiratorial group of criminals.
This will be interesting as it plays out. And I'm thankful the Democrats did the investigations despite trash talk from the Republicans. This is the kind of thing I would expect a free pass for if the Republicans were still in charge. Congressional oversight is back.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best way to diffuse the tactic and still get to Gonzales: offer immunity in any past actions to a couple of the aides and publicize it. Then they have no reason to not testify, and the only ones in real hot water are Gonzales and Rove. Worked for Iran/Contra, and if it turns out the aides lie and it gets found out, they can still be held accountable for perjury in criminal court.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. I don't know as much about the news on these firings as I should, but the juxtaposition of the testimony as to why they were fired compared to their 2005 performance reviews (even though that was a year ago) sure seems smelly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And just so we're all on the same page here, the firings were technically legal. The criminal behavior is in the cover-up and alleged perjury. Just like Watergate, just like Clinton, just like Libby.
First off, it should be pointed out that in Watergate they were covering up breaking into the DNC offices to install wiretaps which is a crime. Clinton and Libby were accused of perjury. In Clinton's case, he was lying about his sex life which in and of itself wasn't criminal but still clear why he lied about it. In Libby's case, Libby was lying about disclosing the identity of a CIA agent which was a crime although it is still not clear who committed it in part due to Libby's lying. To say these are all case of it's the cover-up not the crime is a gross over simplification. Many criminals, particularly those involved in organized conspiracies, are convicted on charges that might be construed as "cover ups", but that is only because it can be easier to convict on those charges and not because more serious crimes haven't been committed.
Like the above mentioned scandals, there are serious reasons why the Bush administration would try to cover up these firings. These firings were made possible by the Patriot Act. Prior to the current Patriot Act there was a check against firing Attorneys General. That is, new appointees had to be approved by congress. That may sound like a minimal check but it has been sufficient to prevent this sort of mid-term politically motivated dismissal in the past. Without that check, the Bush administration was freed to fire as many attorneys as they liked for political reasons because they could quickly and easily reappoint anyone to those positions without congressional oversight.
While these firings may not have been illegal, they demonstrate that the Bush administration is abusing the powers granted in the Patriat Act for political gain rather than national security. Abuse of power is always very serious even if its technically legal.
[ March 26, 2007, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:While these firings may not have been illegal, they demonstrate that the Bush administration is abusing the powers granted in the Patriat Act for political gain rather than national security. Abuse of power is always very serious even if its technically legal.
Yet to be proven, Rabbit. But I would not be surprised if it bears out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right Rakeesh, at this point they are only accusations, I apologize if I implied otherwise. I was simply trying to point out why the accusations are serious even though they may not technically be criminal and why members of the Bush administration might be willing to commit crimes to cover this up.
When people say "It's the cover up", they are often implying that nothing seriously wrong was at the root of the cover up.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: First off, it should be pointed out that in Watergate they were covering up breaking into the DNC offices to install wiretaps which is a crime.
This is a ridiculous track to bother arguing. I am talking about the basis for the trial, so let's please get away from theoreticals that are not what the trials were about.
quote:To say these are all case of it's the cover-up not the crime is a gross over simplification.
No, it's a generalization, because the three trials I mention are very different semantically, but the main thrust of the hearings (perjury) are the same? Your "clarification" sounds more to me like the same "but, but" partisanship that dotheads use when they chant "but, but, Clinton!"
quote:Like the above mentioned scandals, there are serious reasons why the Bush administration would try to cover up these firings. These firings were made possible by the Patriot Act.
No they weren't! The president and Attorney General can fire and appoint counsel at will. The PA changed the need for congressional acceptance before the appointee gets the position. Honest. Go look it up.
quote:Prior to the current Patriot Act there was a check against firing Attorneys General. That is, new appointees had to be approved by congress.
Firing and hiring are not part of the same process. You are trying to equate different things. The difficulty would be getting someone the administration may want in there under the radar. You are assuming too much about the implications in the previous requirement. The approval process is a check in that it ensures counsel that gets the job is supposed to be considered acceptable to more than one branch of government, which is how it should be.
quote:That may sound like a minimal check but it has been sufficient to prevent this sort of mid-term dismissal in the past. Without that check, the Bush administration was freed to fire as many attorneys as they liked for political reasons because they could quickly and easily reappoint anyone to those positions without congressional oversight.
No, it means without the difficulty of having to pass an approval process, it was easier to replace the ones they didn't want in the positions. Actually firing the ones they wanted replaced wasn't any easier, getting new heads in there was. Two very different things.
quote:While these firings may not have been illegal, they demonstrate that the Bush administration is abusing the powers granted in the Patriat Act for political gain rather than national security.
The Patriot Act didn't make it legal to fire them, the legality was already there.
quote: Abuse of power is always very serious even if its technically legal.
I agree with this, but taking extreme stances that misrepresent the law and past events is just as bad conduct as the current abuses of power taking place, because it twists the facts in the same way. They's screwed up enough on their own, there is no need for over-dramatizing things.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really would like for someone to attempt to answer for me: can anyone point to me any hearing involving Congress or a congressional committee that Bush or Cheney have testified in that was not off-record, behind closed doors, and not under oath? And can someone point out to me why the Attorney General and his subordinates are being asked to be treated as if they were the president's own legal counsel (no transcript, no public testimony, and not under oath)?
There has to be someone who can justify these things to themselves, and at least put forth their thoughts on this.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really would like for someone to attempt to answer for me: can anyone point to me any hearing involving Congress or a congressional committee that Bush or Cheney have testified in that was not off-record, behind closed doors, and not under oath?
Outside an impeachment trial, how many vice-presidents and presidents have testified under oath in any hearing involving Congress or a congressional committee?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really would like for someone to attempt to answer for me: can anyone point to me any hearing involving Congress or a congressional committee that Bush or Cheney have testified in that was not off-record, behind closed doors, and not under oath?
Outside an impeachment trial, how many vice-presidents and presidents have testified under oath in any hearing involving Congress or a congressional committee?
Not many, from what I can tell.
That wasn't the point, though. Can you explain why we should now be extending this privilege to US attorneys? What I was getting at is that while those people serve at the pleasure of the president, they are not the president's counsel, and do not deserve the same leeway a president gets for... well, being president.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
