Fired Prosecutors’ Controversy Is Continuing To Grow
The controversy surrounding the purge of U.S. attorneys is starting to grow — not dissipate.
Three signs:
(1) The White House is letting it be known that political maven Karl Rove and President George W. Bush’s former counsel Harriet Miers will be allowed to testify — but not under oath:
The White House will allow the president’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing of several U.S. attorneys was handled, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.
But Rove and Miers will not testify under oath in the matter, Cannon added.The announcement came after current White House counsel Fred Fielding met with members of the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, who had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.
Not under oath — no matter what the justification — will not be sufficient for many Democrats and many voters regardless of party.
(2) Despite an increasingly-bipartisan belief that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign and news reports indicating the White House is already putting out feelers for a replacement, Bush made it be known today that he continues to support him no matter what:
President Bush sent a powerful message of support Tuesday for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, calling his longtime friend to express unwavering support in the face of calls for his resignation.The White House also denied reports that it was looking for possible successors for Gonzales. “Those rumors are untrue,” White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.
Bush called Gonzales from the Oval Office at 7:15 a.m. EDT and they spoke for several minutes about the political uproar over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, an issue that has thrust the attorney general into controversy and raised questions about whether he can survive. The White House disclosed Bush’s call to bolster Gonzales and attempt to rally Republicans to support him.
“The president reaffirmed his strong backing of the attorney general and his support for him,” Perino said. “The president called him to reaffirm his support.”
This raises the possibility that the earlier reports were either (a) totally wrong or (b) reflected a move by some in the White House to begin looking for a replacement.
But it also reflects Bush’s typical style which is to dig in his heels and brush aside the concerns of critics in both parties on issues. Question: is the GOP ready to fall on its sword for Gonzales if this controversy continues to have “legs” with new revelations in the news media and/or in Congress?
(3) The Washington Post reports that U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was one of those on a list of attorneys who could have been fired due to poor performance:
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had “not distinguished themselves” on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.The ranking placed Fitzgerald below “strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty” to the administration but above “weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.,” according to Justice documents.
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had “not distinguished themselves” on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.
The ranking placed Fitzgerald below “strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty” to the administration but above “weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.,” according to Justice documents.
All this taken together continues to portray a portrait of an administration almost giddy with power after the 2004 elections and now battling a rear-guard action to protect the way it has operated before.
But have some things ALREADY changed?
Most certainly yes.
One sign: by a whopping BIPARTISAN majority the Senate moved to revoke one of the executive branch’s new powers, one slipped into a bill almost unnoticed by many lawmakers:
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration’s ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ firing of eight federal prosecutor…….[The] Senate by a 94-2 vote passed a bill that would cancel the attorney general’s power to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists.
“If you politicize the prosecutors, you politicize everybody in the whole chain of law enforcement,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt.
The bill, which has yet to be considered in the House, would set a 120-day deadline for the administration to appoint an interim prosecutor. If the interim appointment is not confirmed by the Senate in that time, a permanent replacement would be named by a federal district judge.
Essentially, the Senate returned the law regarding the appointments of U.S. attorneys to where it was before Congress passed the Patriot Act, including the unilateral appointment authority the administration had sought in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.
And so all of this is operating in two areas: on the institutional level (Congress versus the Executive branch) and on the political level (how long will GOPers to go the mat in defending an administration that is even ignoring the preferences of some members of its own party?).
It’s a controversy that shows no sign of abating….but, rather, one that will grow before it starts to recede. And, more than ever, it appears as if the Bush White House is relying and depending on loyal support from its base in another Us Versus Them political battle.
26 Responses to “Fired Prosecutors’ Controversy Is Continuing To Grow”
Its good to see the Senate move to correct the excess power that was given to the AG in the name of fighting terrorism . There is no reason that the president should not be able to submit a name to the Senate for approval within 120 days; thus the unlimited period an interim prosecutor may serve is unnecessary. There is also no evidence that anyone in the Senate was aware of the provision.
The offer to have Miers and Rove testify in secret without being sworn in is as useless as the paper it is printed on. There is a crisis of confidence with DOJ and WH versions o fthe firings, so only sworn testimony will help to clear this up. Maybe Leahy could offer to limit the questioning to the matter at hand.
I’m also glad to see those powers revoked. The appointments have to be approved for a reason. Without that step it is too easy for the process to be abused.
I am also disappointed in the very idea of only allowing Rove and Miers to testify if it is not under oath. It just screams of wanting to hide something, whether or not that is actually true.
Bush administration: “Not under oath”
The universe, then: “WHY NOT?”
Than the Senate needs to read what it votes for. Doesn’t get any simpler than that.
It was snuck into the bill at the eleventh hour, Ya Sure. Maybe I’m old-fashioned but I actually think it would be nice to think that we could trust our Justice Dept not to take craven political advantage of the terrorist threat.
How often do you sign stuff you do not read, do you then try to escape culpability?
Think your plea of “They should have been nice” would stand very long?
Ya Sure- If the bill is hundreds of pages long and the clause is slipped in after most members of the Senate have read the legislation, I could understand why this would happen. How often do you read every word of the fine print on your closing documents when you buy a house??
Maybe you don’t remember a time when the AG was not a political hack, but served the country, but I certainly do. What is inexcusable is using a terror attack as a crass political opportunist.
You didn’t answer the question
I didn’t say they should have been nice. I said we should have been able to trust our own justice system not to screw us over. That would have been nice. But knowing the type of scoundrels we are dealing with, it is too much to expect. A president that can’t or won’t distinguish between politics and policy and who brings his dirty trickster into the WH as a senior advisor should never have been elected in the first place.
You’ve still yet to answer the question.
The answer is – you bet you would be held liable.
If Congress doesn’t want to vote for whatever reason – they do not vote or they vote no. It’s that simple. Why should they be given a “well it was late” excuse when you and I cannot. Your just signing a mortgage, they’re creating laws to run a nation.
You ought to know simple responsibility Kim.
Legally you are bound by what you sign- I’m talking about ethics here. Of course snakes don’t have any.
In any case looks like the error was corrected, and now we are learning a whole lot about the character and daily operations of this white house. I actually will be highly entertained if Mr Rove, Ms Miers and Mr Gonzales are subpoenaed and force to testify under oath. Then we’ll see who takes the gloves off and gets down and dirty, lol!
“Its good to see the Senate move to correct the excess power that was given to the AG in the name of fighting terrorism . There is no reason that the president should not be able to submit a name to the Senate for approval within 120 days;” — kritter
Such a wise ‘kritter.’
Say, did you know . . . ?
No? I didn’t think so!
The following post to Captain’s Qurters is a wonderful illustration of the situation that the Dems are blowing so out of proportion solely to make trouble for the President.
Gotta love it.
To all the wingnuts parrotting the Republican meme, Reagan also replaced the US Attorneys. Was Reagans motives any different than Clintons, both replaced the other parties USA at the start of their administrations, not in the middle of a second term. Actual links to this is limited, Gore hadn’t invented the web in 1980, but this is from the W administration in 2001.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm
Sounds like “transition process” is the same as replacement or firing at the change over of administrations is a common practice.
Here is an interview of one of the Attorneys from Monday afternoon. The Attorney is Bud Cummins.
Source Site
Cummins, a Republican (like the other 7) doesn’t like the way the situation has been handled….especially in terms of the “performance” excuse.
Here they talk about (with stats) how unusual it is to change attorneys in midstream….as opposed to at the start of an administration.
mms://realserver.bu.edu:554/w/b/wbur/onpoint/2007/03/op_0316a.wma
Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stepehens.
Actually I did know- that’s the excuse for an overly aggressive executive branch? What a joke. Clinton was replacing prosecutors appointed by Reagan. Bush also replaced all of Clinton’s appointees. You guys don’t get it. Rostenkowski was convicted by the Clinton appointee- so obviously that wasn’t the point.
The issue here is not “but Clinton did it too!” but the fact that Tree Shrub wanted to use the Patriot Act to subvert the constitutional role of the Senate . He replaced a few key prosecutors who were doing their jobs too well, thus politicizing the entire Justice Dept. Now we can see the wheels coming off an administration that obviously can’t get its alibi straight. The next president will have a precedent for whatever unethical activity it desires thanks to Rove and Miers. Heckuva job, Bushie!
KR – The issue is that Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton replaced US Attorneys at the start of their terms and then didn’t replace any unless of criminal activities or promotions to judgeships or such. Bush 43 is the first to fire his own appointments. Searching the Library of the Senate will verify this.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/nomis.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
Thanks, Rudi- I already knew that. Republican talking points point to Clinton’s action as being even worse than 43′s, but it was standard practice , as he naturally would not have wanted to keep Reagan-era USA’s in place. Clinton’s replacements were not based on loyalty lists, which the WH e-mails have shown were used to replace the 8 USA’s in question. Under Sampson’s evaluation even fearless Pat Fitzgerald scores a subpar rating, and could have been fired. Makes me wonder if Rove ever considered this when the plan was dreamed up. The replacement of Cummins with Griffin could have been a means of digging up new dirt on Hillary.
I am heartened by some of the Reagan-era conservatives coming forward and calling for a strengthening of the constitutionally mandated checks and balances. It is up to Congress to reduce some of the excesses of the Patriot Act, as this fiasco has shown that an unethical administration will abuse any extra power for political gain.
It was said:
> Dems are blowing so out of proportion solely to make trouble for the President.
This is routine. That’s been standard operating procedure for the Dims since they have nothing positive to offer as an alternative. The Dims are probably desperate that post-2006 they are not winning. Their motive here is an eagerness to see the Bush administration and by association, the GOP, lose more prior to the 2008 elections.
Note they shouldn’t be too complacent in expecting Hillary Clinton to easily win in 2008 (with out without Obama as VP). Gore was strongly positioned in 2000 and then proceeded to lose to DUBYA. In fact, Gore was leading strongly all the way to the debates, then gave anti-Dim (normal) voters some hope that Bush might win after all, once Gore proceeded to lose the debates(!!!) to … DUBYA(!!!). (hahahahahaha)
It would be sweet justice if Hillary was complacent as well as her arrogant and conceited self and turned off so many voters that even one of the GOP lightweights won in 2008.
DLS- It will be sweet justice after Hillary wins, and can use W’s screw-ups to hide her own. ha ha
K. Ritter said:
> DLS- It will be sweet justice after Hillary wins,
> and can use W’s screw-ups to hide her own. ha ha
She won’t make as many screw-ups as W, either.
Her competence as well as ambition coupled with the serious lefty underneath her current electoral disguise is what worries those of us who aren’t left of Nanci Pelosi.
“The issue here is not “but Clinton did it too!â€? . . . ” — kritter
That’s right.
But you misconstrued my point. It isn’t that it’s ok because “Clinton did it too.” It’s that the President, whoever he is, has the right to do this. The fact that nobody criticized Clinton of Regan for doing it is that it was their prerogative. This is a witch-hunt, pure and simple.
“Now we can see the wheels coming off an administration that obviously can’t get its alibi straight.” – kritter
The only “wheels coming off” are the ones the Dems are deliberately knocking off in their use of this as a political weapon against Bush. It isn’t that Bush was angry with the AG’s because they weren’t nailing enough Dems for vote fraud, it’s that they weren’t going after whoever committed that crime. It’s not Bush’s fault that vote fraud is a nearly wholely owned Dem franchise. And they are angry with him because they’re been caught and the source of their power is drying up.
The Dem’s attitude seems to be . . .
“what’s jettisoning a couple of hundred years of traditional governance and crippling the presidency in perpetuity, as compared to the opportunity of possibly indicting Karl Rove? We must keep things in perspective!”
They don’t care if they sink the ship of state, as long as they get to be in charge as it goes down.
Here’s another example [or at least it will be if my last gets posted] of the what Bush wants the AG’s to go after, and why the Dems are angry with Bush (cause they are much worse than Reps)
http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=434
It’s not about the AG’s. It’s about the Dem gravy train coming to an end.
Allowing them to testify but not under oath is basically saying they can talk but only if they can lie through their teeth. Anyone who still has a shred of respect for this administration at this point is a complete moron. How blatant does it have to get?
And Bush offering “Strong Support” for anyone is the kiss of death. I had thought that Bush would keep Gonzales on for awhile since he will have trouble getting another constitutional hatchetman thru a democratic senate confirmation. But now I’m beginning to wonder.
“She [Hillary] won’t make as many screw-ups as W, either.” — DLS
Say what?!
“Hillarycare” was a disaster.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005987
And what about the Clinton’s use of IRS audits to silence their opponents?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14702
The “abuses” of the Patriot act are childs play by comparison.
Oh, and let’s not forget vote fraud.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=list_pages_categories&cid=24
That’s sure to go up with a Dem in the White House and AG’s instructed not to worry about the problem.
Oh, wait. Those last two would be in the “deliberate” category, so unless she gets caught, they wouldn’t technically be “screw-ups,” would they?