Leahy intends to subpoena Bush officials

[Straw Man]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 31 minutes ago
 
The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he intends to subpoena White House officials involved in ousting federal prosecutors and is dismissing anything short of their testimony in public.

The Bush White House was expected to announce early this week whether it will let political strategist Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other officials testify or will seek to assert executive privilege in preventing their appearance.

The chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., last week delayed a vote on the subpoenas until Thursday as the president's counsel, Fred Fielding, sought to negotiate terms. But on Sunday, Leahy said he had not met Fielding nor was he particularly open to any compromises, such as a private briefing by the administration officials.

"I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this," Leahy said. "I do not believe in this, we'll have a private briefing for you where we'll tell you everything, and they don't."

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), the top Republican on the committee, said he had a long talk with Fielding on Friday and was reserving judgment. Specter said he would like to see Rove and Miers' open testimony because there were numerous precedents for it.

"I want to see exactly what the White House response is," Specter said. "Maybe the White House will come back and say, 'We'll permit them to be interviewed and we'll give them all the records.'"

At issue is the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, dismissals that Democrats say were politically motivated. Such prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related and denied the White House played a role.

But e-mails released last week between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

Additional e-mails are expected to be released this week to the Senate and House Judiciary committees. Each committee planned votes on subpoenas for Rove and Miers.

Several Democrats and a few Republicans, including Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, have called for Gonzales to resign, saying he had lost the support and confidence of Congress and the nation.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said the Senate Judiciary Committee had a deal with Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, for him to testify voluntarily.

Sampson, who resigned last week, released a statement making clear that senior Justice officials were aware that the department and the White House "had been discussing the subject since the election" of 2004. Gonzales has said he was kept in the dark about the communications.

"The stories keep changing from so many people," Schumer said. "A good lawyer will tell you when the witnesses keep changing their stories, they're usually not telling the truth and they have something to hide."

Bud Cummins of Arkansas, one of the fired U.S. attorneys, said Gonzales should step down if it is proved that he was involved in the firings.

"They need to go around the room and say, 'Who knew about the bases for these decisions as they went along? Who knew that the White House had this much input, was able to inject this much improper political consideration into these decisions?'

"Because each of those people really don't need to be at the Department of Justice anymore. If he's one of them, then maybe he does need to resign," Cummins said.

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, cautioned against a "political witch hunt" and said Democrats "think Karl Rove is lurking behind every bush in Washington." But he said Gonzales needs to get his story straight — quickly.

Leahy and Cornyn appeared on ABC's "This Week," Cummins and Specter spoke on "Fox News Sunday" and Schumer was on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

[240 is Back]

If they have nothing to hide, testifying under oath shouldn't be a problem.

[Dos Equis]

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, cautioned against a "political witch hunt" and said Democrats "think Karl Rove is lurking behind every bush in Washington." But he said Gonzales needs to get his story straight — quickly.

I agree with Cornyn.  I'm more concerned about the underlying investigations/crimes that may have been impacted by these firings and whether someone lied to Congress.  If all we're talking about here are "politically motivated" firings, I could care less.  

What crimes/investigations were derailed due to these firings?  

[240 is Back]

Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all fired every one of the federal prosecutors upon taking office.

Problem here is that Bush did it right before the 2006 midterms, and in the vast majority, they were done to influence prosecutions of cases which hurt the White House/GOP. 

Then, Gonzalez took the stand jan 28 and testified to congress that the firings were completely based upon poor job performance.  So, they checked.  And the fired folks had execllent records.

Then, Gonzalez blamed it all on Hariet Myers, said it was her idea and White House had not idea.  So, they checked.  2005 emails from Rove got the ball rolling.

Now, Gonzalez is telling the world that his memory was "hazy" about the events. 

You can't lie to congress under oath, period.

[Dos Equis]

Problem here is that Bush did it right before the 2006 midterms, and in the vast majority, they were done to influence prosecutions of cases which hurt the White House/GOP. 

Namely?

[240 is Back]

Namely?

look em up yourself, man.  to me, it seems you just might hate america, as evidenced by your willlingness to boast about british polls, while calling US polls wrong, when both completed by reputable groups.

I'm not even trying to talk with someone who disrespects my country this way.

[Dos Equis]

look em up yourself, man.  to me, it seems you just might hate america, as evidenced by your willlingness to boast about british polls, while calling US polls wrong, when both completed by reputable groups.

I'm not even trying to talk with someone who disrespects my country this way.

Translation:  you have no factual basis for your unqualified statement:

Quote from: 240 is Back on Today at 06:30:21 PM
Problem here is that Bush did it right before the 2006 midterms, and in the vast majority, they were done to influence prosecutions of cases which hurt the White House/GOP. 

[240 is Back]

Translation:  you have no factual basis for your unqualified statement:

make it worth my while.

let's bet on it, and loser takes a week off the political board

[Dos Equis]

make it worth my while.

let's bet on it, and loser takes a week off the political board

 

[Dos Equis]

I just read a wiki article on this matter.  Assuming the facts in this article are correct, the "vast majority" of these firings did not stop ongoing investigations/prosecutions into either Bush Administration officials or Republicans in general.  From what I gather, these U.S. Attorneys were not loyal soldiers, didn't toe the party line, and lost their jobs.  As they should.  If you are a political appointee, you remain loyal to the person who hired you and for whose pleasure you serve, or you find another job.  And no, you don't compromise the law for loyalty.   

The lie, if there was one, appears to be this:

Continued press coverage ultimately led to Congressional involvement. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was called onto the hill. He underscored that the seven were fired for job performance issues, and not political considerations.

The next day, McNulty admitted that at least six of the seven had recently received outstanding job performance ratings, and that the United States Attorney in Arkansas (Cummins) was removed for no reason except to install a former aide to Karl Rove: 37-year-old Timothy Griffin, a former Republican National Committee opposition research director.[19] Cummins, apparently, "was ousted after Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, intervened on behalf of Griffin."[20] Less than two weeks after McNulty's admission, Griffin announced that he would not seek the nomination to be chief federal prosecutor in Little Rock.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Dismissal_of_U.S._Attorneys_controversy

If this is it, I will be one unhappy taxpayer if they have Congressional hearings, etc. over this. 

[240 is Back]

If this is it, I will be one unhappy taxpayer if they have Congressional hearings, etc. over this. 

So you're okay with the fact we're spanding $200 mil per DAY fighting in Iraq.

But looking into our Atty General lying to congress under oath... that's not worth a few days of hearings?

[Dos Equis]

So you're okay with the fact we're spanding $200 mil per DAY fighting in Iraq.

But looking into our Atty General lying to congress under oath... that's not worth a few days of hearings?

Who is talking about Iraq?   

I am opposed to wasting money investigating whether Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty lied, misspoke, misunderstood, or whatever when the underlying reason he may have given bad information (lied or whatever) amounts to nothing.  I am not happy about sending so much of my money to Washington D.C. as it is.  I do not support partisan witch hunts with my money, regardless of which party is doing it. 

And the story I read does not support your contention that "vast majority . . . were done to influence prosecutions of cases which hurt the White House/GOP."   

[240 is Back]

Who is talking about Iraq?  

I am opposed to wasting money investigating whether Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty lied, misspoke, misunderstood, or whatever when the underlying reason he may have given bad information (lied or whatever) amounts to nothing.  I am not happy about sending so much of my money to Washington D.C. as it is.  I do not support partisan witch hunts with my money, regardless of which party is doing it. 

And the story I read does not support your contention that "vast majority . . . were done to influence prosecutions of cases which hurt the White House/GOP."   

Should Clinton have been impeached for lying under oath, BB?

[Dos Equis]

Should Clinton have been impeached for lying under oath, BB?

LOL . . . . Typical 240 M.O.  Facts fall apart, change the subject. . . . LOL . . . .

Oh, and coming next, the absurd inference from my failure to answer your question, which has nothing to do with these U.S. Attorney firings. . . .   

[240 is Back]

LOL . . . . Typical 240 M.O.  Facts fall apart, change the subject. . . . LOL . . . .

Oh, and coming next, the absurd inference from my failure to answer your question, which has nothing to do with these U.S. Attorney firings. . . .  

i was curious why you don't consider the top lawyer in American committing a felony - and dissgracing the legal system by lying under oath - to be a problem.

I guess you don't respect the american justice system or the constitution.  it's a shame, really. 

[Dos Equis]

LOL.  On cue.  LOL. 

[Straw Man]

It looks like there's going to be lot's of info coming out in the next few weeks - old emails vs. recent public statement
testomony under "oath" or a fight to avoid it, etc....

plus let's not forget the Patriot Act angle which I think is the thing that people are going to focus on.

From what I've read, a law enacted in March 2006 as part of the renewal of the USA Patriot Act does allow an administration-appointed "interim" U.S. attorney to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation.

This is very different and has no precedent that I can see

I think congress is also embarrassed (being caught unaware of the fine details of  a bill that they voted on and signed into law)

keep in mind that there's been zero oversight on this administration and I personally think a lot of people on both sides realize that it's long overdue

Oversight is healthy

It's built into the system for a reason



 

[Straw Man]

the plot thickens:  Gonzales apologizes for handling of dismissals

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/gonzales.apology/index.html

[Straw Man]

"I've told the attorney general that I think this has been mishandled, that by giving inaccurate information ... at the outset, it's caused a real firestorm, and he better get the facts out fast," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/19/fired.attorneys.ap/index.html

[militarymuscle69]

LOL . . . . Typical 240 M.O.  Facts fall apart, change the subject. . . . LOL . . . .

Oh, and coming next, the absurd inference from my failure to answer your question, which has nothing to do with these U.S. Attorney firings. . . .   

that is typical for all libs on here. OamO, Beserker, 240..... you show them as worng and the subject changes. They are all bitches with no reall facts on anything. It is all a CT.

[ieffinhatecardio]

It looks like there's going to be lot's of info coming out in the next few weeks - old emails vs. recent public statement
testomony under "oath" or a fight to avoid it, etc....

plus let's not forget the Patriot Act angle which I think is the thing that people are going to focus on.

From what I've read, a law enacted in March 2006 as part of the renewal of the USA Patriot Act does allow an administration-appointed "interim" U.S. attorney to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation.

This is very different and has no precedent that I can see

I think congress is also embarrassed (being caught unaware of the fine details of  a bill that they voted on and signed into law)

keep in mind that there's been zero oversight on this administration and I personally think a lot of people on both sides realize that it's long overdue

Oversight is healthy

It's built into the system for a reason

This is what I'm thinking as well. I'm interested in seeing what effect The Patriot Act had on these firings.