Bush, Congress And Courts Heading Towards Political High Noon
Get ready, because it’s going to be high noon at the political and judicial corral.
The ostensible issue: getting the bottom of what was behind the firing of Republican prosecutors who were either pursuing Republicans or wouldn’t be pressured to speed up cases against the Democrats right before the elections.
The scene is now set for the final two years of the Bush administration to be one of political and judicial confrontation and accentuated partisan polarization. It will provide lots of fodder for the news media and new media and be a boon to talk show hosts of the right and left. The players will include:
Just look at some of the more recent developments on this issue and it’s clear what is to come may remind some of the days of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate rolled all into one — all against the backdrop of a White House that seems to be getting ready to do what has worked so well for it in the past: frame the issue in terms of partisan Them versus not as partisan US…and move to activate its always-loyal political base:
(1) Bush threw down the political gauntlet to Democrats yesterday, framing the issue as one where if Congress accepts his plan it’s reasonable, and if they don’t it’s political partisanship, grandstanding and in effect political hackery. The New York Times:
President Bush and Congress clashed Tuesday over an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors and appeared headed toward a constitutional showdown over demands from Capitol Hill for internal White House documents and testimony from top advisers to the president.Under growing political pressure, the White House offered to allow members of Congressional committees to hold private interviews with Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.
Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.
“I don’t accept his offer,� said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “It is not constructive, and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation or to prejudge its outcome.�
Responding defiantly on a day in which tension over the affair played out on multiple fronts, Mr. Bush said he would resist any effort to put his top aides under “the klieg lights� in “show trials� on Capitol Hill, and he reiterated his support for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose backing among Republicans on Capitol Hill ebbed further on Tuesday.
“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants,� the president told reporters in a brief and hastily convened appearance in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.
(2) The Politico reports that the GOP is bracing for a long political and judicial fight over executive privilege and for the eventual exit of Gonzales on his own terms from the post.
(3) In the same article, The Politico notes that the materials sent to Congress have “gap” — one that if this missing segment remains missing will invariably be compared to the 18-minute-gap on the Watergate tapes:
In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary panel, noted that six of the eight fired prosecutors were involved in corruption investigations focusing on GOP lawmakers or officials, and she questioned whether the firings were an effort by Republicans to protect their own.
(4) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement demanding that White House political maven Karl Rove testify under oath: “After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.” He also issued a detailed fact sheet on the controversy.
(5) The AP notes that the Demmies are going to issue subpoenas and that the issue will snake its way through the courts:
A House committee was to vote Wednesday to authorize subpoenas for political director Karl Rove and other administration officials despite Bush’s declaration a day earlier that Democrats must accept his offer to allow the officials to talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas? “Absolutely,” Bush declared Tuesday in televised remarks from the White House.
Democrats promptly rejected the offer and announced that they would start authorizing subpoenas within 24 hours. “Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.
If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court — ultimately the Supreme Court — in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the “public spectacle” of the Justice Department’s firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Senate panel’s former chairman, appealed for pragmatism. “It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation,” Specter said.
Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, decried any attempts by Democrats to engage in “a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.”
“It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available,” the president said.
Bush defended Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys’ firings over the past year.
So what’s in store? A White House that digs in its heels, passionate sound bites from both sides, legal cases galore and a legal ending that means the legal arbiter is a Supreme Court with members sympathetic to Bush’s view of the executive branch. Plus, the concept of executive privilege is not a frivolous one.
In the end, though, just as it has on some many foreign and domestic issues, Bush has chosen to opt for the most confrontational option, couching his offer as reasonable while going on the political attack against those opposing him by saying if they don’t accept his solution they’re just indulging in sheer partisanship. Once again: the polarization card.
BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION OF SOME OTHERS:
One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that’s not right. It’s not that he hasn’t grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won’t see through his [B.S.}, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either…. Tonights performance lays to rest any notion other than the fact that he’s not a very bright man who has nothing but contempt for a world that refuses to dumb down for him.
–Newsbusters notes that the media’s attempt to draw a parallel with Watergate may have already begun:
Some journalists are starting to project parallels between the media-fueled controversy over the Bush administration replacing eight of 93 U.S. attorneys and Watergate, what many reporters see as their glory days of the early 1970s. A brief video snippet in David Gregory’s story on Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News showed Fred Fielding, Chief Counsel in the Bush White House who worked in the counsel’s office during the Nixon administration, walking down a Capitol Hill hallway as a male voice off-camera, presumably a reporter, asked: “Does this bring back memories of Watergate?â€? NBC didn’t play Fielding’s reply.
–Glenn Greenwald has a MUST READ POST HERE where he runs excerpts of what prominent conservatives said decrying executive privilege — in the Clinton era. (But then consistency in 21st century politics is meaningless since the goal is to defeat the other side and have your side win). He also writes:
Clearly, the U.S. attorneys probe is not the only investigation the White House fears — and almost certainly is not the one they fear the most.For that reason, it is important to them to establish principles which will prevent (or at least substantially delay) any meaningful investigations by Congress into the White House’s conduct over the last six years, and creating a privileged buffer around key administration officials and White House documents serves that purpose quite well. For that exact reason, it is absolutely imperative that Congress not acquiesce here, because genuine investigations — that which the country urgently needs — will, at some point, require this confrontation.
–The ever-independent John Cole:
Just watched Bush’s presser, and my first thought was that despite Rove’s alleged political genius, this group sure steps in it a lot. The party is in shambles, the administration is a bunch of bungling incompetent boobs and under fire, and they have no one to thank but themselves.My second thought is that I am siding with Bush on the subpoena nonsense (despite my snarky post last night, which was actually more about the other administration misbehaviors/power grabs and how they were excused), and so will the courts. They will not allow aides to come forward and testify, and the courts will side with him. The Democrats will have to use the document dumps and other means to find out what really happened, and I am not willing to throw aside a necessary precedent that has served previous Presidents well. That doesn’t mean I think the way this was done and the reasons for firing these attornies were legit- I don’t.
–Blogs For Bush’s Mark Noonan:
My view is that the Democrats – naturally – just want to completely encircle and then ruthlessly bombard the White House from now until election day, 2008. Democrats know they don’t have the votes to really enact any of their agenda items, so the whole plan it to just make it impossible for the President to do anything, and then wait until the inevitible election of a Democrat who will clear the way for a slew of Democratic laws come 2009…In service of this plan, the Democrats will push and push and push with their ability to investigate the White House via Congressional committees and their precious power of subpoena. By dragging aide after aide before the cameras for hostile interrogations (and we know how it works – if someone asks a quesiton or provides an answer Democrats don”t want, then the Chair will just talk all over it, and the MSM can be relied upon to cut away to a commercial whenever anyone looks like they are scoring points against the Democrats) the hope is that the works will be so gummed up that all President Bush and team will be able to do is fend off the attack…and, as an added benefit, start to look ever more guilty in the eyes of the American people (working on the “hey, if there’s all these accusations, some of them must be true” mentality of people who don’t pay close attention). The only thing needed for this to work is the cooperation of the White House, and the President is showing that he’s not going to play that game.
–The Drudge Retort (not Report): “One thing we should investigate is the softballing of Sandy Burglar and the Clinton admin record as well. Bring it on you weak kneed GOP party hacks.”
–Long’s News And Views: “In my opinion there is a major separation of powers issue here. Federal prosecutors serve at the will of the president. Let’s not forget that the Clinton administration fired all federal prosecutors and we didn’t here a peep from any of these senators.”
–Ed Morrissey has an extensive post. His conclusion:”The entire issue shows political hackery all the way around — and if the Democrats aren’t careful, they may come out as the biggest hacks of all.”
So far, no constitutional clash. Congress has requested the presence of some aides in order to look into (a) some apparent lying to congress, which is illegal and (b) appropriate legislative fixes for the institutional setup that let the purge happen in the first place. Bush has denied that request. The next step is for congress to subpoena those witnesses. I think it’s smart and proper to make a polite request first and try to work something out before reaching for the subpoena, but Bush isn’t making a good-faith effort to cooperate which is what subpoena power is for. The clash, if any, will come if and when Bush decides to just defy a properly executed congressional subpoena. There’s no political reason for congress not to use its legal powers to their full extent; the recent drop in congressional approval ratings is primarily driven by Democrats disgruntled by a lack of boldness.
It’s beginning to sound a lot like Nixon. Again. George Bush? He’s not worried about this investigation. Or others that could be even worse. No, Bush is being reasonable. Administration officials will be made available. Really. The White House wants to get to the bottom of this. Sort of.
For still more blog reaction see Memeorandum.
40 Responses to “Bush, Congress And Courts Heading Towards Political High Noon”
Bush has rendered is frivilous. This administration has gone beyond any level of reasonable secrecy. Everytime someone calls foul on the administration, Bush tells us nothing is going on. Then when someone proves something bad has happened, Bush tells us nothing bad happened and wants us to take his word for it.
Transparency is one of the corner-stones of an equitable government. If people aren’t held accountable for what they do, then there is no reason for them to act in an ethical fashion.
Everything depends on how this plays out in public, I suppose. There are many shaky republicans facing into re-election in 2008 and should they refuse to back the president and instead, for political expediency, back the dems, then its goodbye not just to Gonzales but Rove also.
Congress vs. a white house made up of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Snow, and the right wing shills at Fox, NRO and assorted other media has no credibility with the public and no chance whatsoever of being believed by the rest of the country.
Be still my beating heart.
Chris said: “Bush has rendered is frivilous. This administration has gone beyond any level of reasonable secrecy.”
Actually, Bush has invoked “executive privilege” far less than Clinton. This, from the NYT:
“Clinton clearly was more aggressive in using executive privilege than any of the modern presidents since Eisenhower,� said Mark J. Rozell, a law professor at George Mason University and the author of “Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy, and Accountability.� “Bush has been somewhat reluctant to use it.�
The Constitution saved the Republic from the bizarre foolhardiness of the GOP who were bent on hammering Clinton at all costs…and hopefully here it will save the Republic from the foolhardiness of the Democrats who are bent on hammering Bush at all costs.
As Joe says, “executive privilege is not frivilous” and easily set aside, as THINK PROGRESS and the folks raging on the Left are saying.
Just because one might hate Bush is no reason to rip into the Constitution. Remember, in a decade things might be reversed easily, and THINK PROGRESS will be screaming in FULL CAPS again about the need to protect the constitutionality of the presidency from the howling mob of wingnut GOPers on Capitol Hill.
Marlow- groan- another Clinton was worse defense. What would you have argued if Bush 43 had followed the icon of conservatism Ronald Reagan? I will say that if Hillary or Obama get in in ’08 the coast will be clear-as they will be able to blame every problem on Chimpy, lol!
BTW- Clinton staffers did testify frequently on the Hill-so I’m not sure that your point is valid.
Bush hasn’t used executive privilege because he had 6 years of no oversight, while during the Clinton years the GOP held hearings nonstop. When they couldn’t find anything definitive, they hired pit bull Ken Starr to waste 100 million of public funds. At the end we learned about a BJ and a little blue dress.
How low we have fallen. This nonsense about the Dem congress being percieved as being too partisan will no doubt be a much used GOP babbling point as this fight proceeds. Congress has to execute its oversight authority over a rampant presidency that is completely out of control. Habeus Corpus is gone, Bush can arrest, detain and torure anyone at will. We are spied on by our own governmnet for no reason other than a paranoid administration that accepts nothing but total control and now this, the entire politicization in the judiciary. And you’re yammering on about partisan fishing expeditions and further polarization? You’re not a moderate. You’re a buffoon. This is about the future of our nation and our democracy. And yes, the Democratic congress’ approval numbers are starting to slide but its not because of this “partisan” bickering as you would have us believe; it’s because of the percieved timidity and spinelessness they are displaying toward the imperial presidency. They were voted in last year to put the brakes on Republican corruption and overreach, not to play footsies under the table.
WOW – Rob – well, well, well said!!! I am not into name calling (buffoon), but the point is very well stated!
Particularly the last sentence!
Yes, the Clinton defense is rather weak, and really doesn’t work on me. I don’t support Clinton or his wife.
We need to remember that the President is our employee, and we need to know what he and his staff are doing so we can make informed decisions as a citizens.
Kritter…please note, the quote I cited was in today’s NYT…a paper generally friendly to your political persuasion.
Also, I was not saying Clinton was worse. I was saying that “executive privilege” is both important and nonpartisan.
I know you groan about any references to Clinton, but I make them to counter the cries from the Left that Bush is the singular most evil corrupt fascist dictator ever. Bush should be seen in context with other presidents. Yes, Clinton staffers testified on the Hill…voluntarily. Clinton regularly invoked Executive privilege in other areas.
But context is something hated by the Left. In re: today’s NYT editorial page:
“The Bush administration is trying to hide behind the doctrine of “executive privilege.â€? That term does not appear in the Constitution; the best Mr. Bush could do yesterday was a stammering reference to the separate branches of government. When presidents have tried to invoke this privilege, the courts have been skeptical.”
Another partison NYT editorial, leaving out, of course, the context that the Bush WH won on executive privilege at the Supreme Court when the Supremes found that Cheney did not have to testify in the energy probe.
It also dismisses the whole concept of “executive privilege” itself. The editorial is particularly bizarre as many of its key assertions are contradicted by a report on executive privilege in the same edition of the paper.
That is partisanship.
Komrad Marlow – Klinton used exec privilge to keep the Republican fanatics at bay. In Shaun’s post about Cheney I commented on the four staunch Conservatives who are attacking the W overreach. Are you telling me that Bob Barr, Bruce Fein, Richard Viguerie and David Keene are fellow Bolskies? These four have formed American Freedom Agenda.
Their site:
http://americanfreedomagenda.org/
Go to the site and tell me that Clinton was worse.
Marlowe the courts were skeptical before they were packed with Bush appointees, lol. SCOTUS put 43 in office based on a partisan decision. Now that he’s put two of its members in place, how independent do you expect it to be? The Cheney decision, while an outrage, does not particularly come as a surprise. As Nixon found out, executive privilege is not supposed to be used to avoid culpability for criminal activity.
I don’t even remember anyone on the right accusing Clinton of using expanded executive power to curtail our civil rights or politicize the USA’s. Some comparisons may be apt, but no one thought Clinton was a fascist dictator.
Don’t let Marlowe put you on the defensive. This is not about Clinton, this is about Bush who has a history of secrecy and denial. Don’t forget about the convicted felon that used to walk in the White House every day under the employee of Dick Cheney.
Kritter said: “As Nixon found out, executive privilege is not supposed to be used to avoid culpability for criminal activity.”
But where is the criminal activity, K? Has Rove done anything illegal? He is a White House staffer discussing firing and hiring of prosecutors. Has there been any allegation of criminality (outside of ThinkProgress and DailyKOS etc)?
“I don’t even remember anyone on the right accusing Clinton of using expanded executive power to curtail our civil rights or politicize the USA’s.”
Kritter, the Right was foaming at the mouth over Clinton! Remember the screams about Waco and Ruby Ridge?!! Bizarro fantasies about black helicopters, and all sorts of survivalist nutters running about in the woods armed to the teeth for when Clinton would turn the country over to the UN?!
The Right certainly complained about Clinton’s politicization of the US attorney’s. I came across an Impeachment petition from the 90s while researching about this last week, that said precisely that as an article of impeachment.
Thus, I refute your claims that the Right were far more sane in the 90s than the Left are today
Rudi my Bolshie Comrade…
You know Bob Barr has some strange hate on for Bush, has for years. I am not sure what is at the root of it, but he hated Clinton dementedly too.
I looked at the site. Good and bad points, and probably will be avoided because of this mix. On the Bad side:
“Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law”
So far, the courts have ruled 16-1 that the Bush administration’s actions are in accordance with the Patriot Act, and the new law passed last year. Where is the violation of federal law?
Some of the points are good, I must admit.
Bush’s “Signing Statement” policy is clearly disturbing, and must be struck down. Much the same for his wilful dismissal of “habeas corpus” as there is no imminent threat to justify this anymore (as, say, Lincoln faced in the Civil War, or FDR in WWII).
But on Executive Privilege:
Bush’s lawyer is, I gather, negotiating Executive Privilege as he negotiated for Reagan in the 80s.
I imagine some of Bush’s options will be struck down by the courts, even as others might be maintained.
Thus, reason why the Left need not head for the woods with their guns to join the Right nutters still living there…who haven’t heard Clinton is no longer in office.
Didn’t Clinton and others, including Hillary, testify under oath?
Methinks that could have set a precedent…
Perhaps Clinton’s impeachment served a higher purpose after all.
Marlowe-If he hasn’t done anything illegal- why should he be afraid to go under oath? There have been many different contradictory versions of this story and this administration is not known for its veracity, so obviously the committee would want to get sworn testimony, and not meet in secret. Rove narrowly escaped indictment in Plamegate, after lying um I mean suffering severe memory loss in front of the grand jury.
Let the subpoenas be issued so that the WH and DOJ’s credibility can be restored. As of now, everyone involved in this is acting like they have something to hide, and Bush’s choice to use a partisan attack on Democrats makes it look even worse.
After all we were told when unlawful wiretaps were occurring, that if you were innocent, you had nothing to worry about.:)
BTW, Bob Barr was joined by 3 other Conservatives whats their excuse?
I love it!
Following on Kritter’s point, if the white house hasn’t done anything illegal, what’s with the 20 days worth of missing emails? Maybe they’re in a hole somewhere keeping Jose Padilla’s torture tape happy. Marlowecan is a wonderfully entertaining and gifted defender of the indefensible and reminds me of my daughter’s tactic when confronted with vegetables she detests- fingers in the ears and a happy song hummed over and over. Works everytime.
Truflo said: “Marlowecan is a wonderfully entertaining and gifted defender of the indefensible and reminds me of my daughter’s tactic when confronted with vegetables she detests- fingers in the ears and a happy song hummed over and over. Works everytime.”
Hahahahahahaha…you’re darned right, it works.
Smart woman, your daughter! There is no telling how far that strategy will take her in life…look at our Dear Leader, after all!!!
[...] And we’ll start by noting that Sister Toldjah is sayin’ The Cowboy is Back. That would be Dubya, who has apparently roused himself into sufficient anger to tell the congress that no, they may not subvert the constitution by infringing upon the separations of power and inserting themselves into the executive branch. As Ed Morrissey points out, Bush really didn’t have any other option to play. As the Moderate Voice points out, this non-story, non-scandal is now important because the Dems have made it important – they’re provoking a constitutional crisis simply because they want to and they can. You like that? [...]
Kritter said: “Marlowe-If he hasn’t done anything illegal- why should he be afraid to go under oath?”
I gather the WH (regardless of the President) avoids this for fear of establishing a precedent. This may be self-serving in this case…and, indeed, in others in the past…but that is the nature of Executive Privilege.
“Bush’s choice to use a partisan attack on Democrats makes it look even worse…”
Bush is playing to his base, which is furious that he isn’t responding to the Democrats. Of course this is partisan, Kritter. The Democratic base is enraged that their elected members are afraid to pull the plug on the war, and so their members are feeding them the next best thing…strips they can tear off Chimphitler.
Again, why testify? Where is the criminality? Maybe in Gonzales testimony to Congress. But what has Bush done that’s possibly criminal here? or Rove? or Miers? Has anyone even claimed any specific laws were broken on this issue? No break-ins at the DNC lately….
Personally, I hope Congress passes legislation removing all partisanship from US-As selections…as well as tighter restrictions on FBI activity. Congressional oversight is obviously necessary…even when partisan.
The Bush-hating frenzy continues to grow. A little maturity would help your reputation, people.
Lying before Congress is illegal (Gonzales and McNulty), and Rove narrowly avoided being indicted in Plamegate. If there was interference in an ongoing investigation that is not a minor matter. There is some evidence that occurred with Iglesias.
If Congress thinks they are not getting the full story, they have every right to subpoena those involved. If the executive stonewalls, we could have a nice minirevival of the Watergate years. Which would be entertaining if nofhing else to watch them squirm on camera. BTW, what about Truflo’s point about 20 days of missing e-mails?
Investigations are conducted to search for illegality. If there was absolutely no grounds for this investigation, I would agree with Marlo, but there is plenty of fishy stuff going on here.
Komrad Marlow – You are avoiding the other three of the Paleo-Gang of Four. I wont argue your points about Barr, but what about Bruce Fein, Richard Viguerie and David Keene. Are they Bush haters or Conservatives who swear allegience to our country and the Constitution and not the Supreme Decider – W. They aren’t the ass kissers of the Weakly Standard or NRO. These four were Conservatives before K-Lopez and Johan Goldberg were even born. They don’t have the homo-erotic fanasties like Fred Barnes over the Decider….
“Marlowe-If he hasn’t done anything illegal- why should he be afraid to go under oath?”
Well one must admit this reasoning has been a favorite of both the administration and it’s supporters.
“If you have nothing to hide why should you care if we listen in on your calls?”
Spin it how you want Marlowe, but do you seriously think the American public, in it’s current mood, is going to respond positively to “you can ask them anything they want so long as you don’t insist they tell the truth or make any record of what they said”?
Think about it for a second. We recall this same reasoning when the 9/11 commission wanted to question Bush and Cheney. It was a huge mistake to let them get away with it then. One we won’t make again.
Congress is doing its job in checking the power of the other branch, which this president has attempted to set as above the other two branches and the constitution.
And not every liberal or current anti-bush hates bush or hated him from the beginning. If we do hate him, he has certainly earned that hate. Also, the ‘bush-hating’ defense is itself immature since republicans had a clinton hating frenzy for the entire time he was in office, and even went after him for missteps in his private life.
In all honesty, no comparison between what clinton did and what bush is doing can or should be made. bush is president now, and what has he gotten us into? an immoral/illegal war that we are losing, debt up to our eyeballs, loss of respect around the world, an overstretched and weakening military, and the erosion of our constitutional protections.
Marlowe,
The US-A scandal may not be illegal, but for those of us who care about our justice system, it is a crisis barely diverted and one which demands we remain ever vigilant when it comes to this administration.
Are you not concerned at all by what, in one instance at least, we know was attempted by a senior member of the republican party, namely that the chairman of that party in Washington pressurised a US attorney to drag innocent people before a grand jury in order to weaken the democratic opposition in that state? And this after the allegation of voter fraud had been investigated by the FBI who found no case to answer.
Thankfully, and may he be honoured for it, John McKay refused Chairman Vance’s demands and as a result lost his job.
It may not be illegal to keep dead rats under your floorboards but pretty soon no one wants to live in the same house as you, well almost no one.
Eat your damn vegetables!
Marley Marl…
We’ve been a dictatorship by committee since 1981…i’m calling out EVERYONE for running this country into the ground. My venom knows no political boundaries…however, the past 6 years of the 26 year dictatorship has been as blatant as ever in my opinion. So I’ll just leave it at that…these cats need to burn for what they’re doing…
Chuck: What changed in 1981?
I was being generous, Chris…Big money has always ran this country…and besides, most of our presidents are blood related…keep that money in the family, y’know? heheh
Chuckprez said: “Big money has always ran this country…and besides, most of our presidents are blood related…keep that money in the family, y’know?”
All “Skull and Bonesmen” for sure. When both candidates for president come from the same elite club, one has to wonder about the nature of choice in the US.
Rudi the Analytical Red said: “These four were Conservatives before K-Lopez and Johan Goldberg were even born. They don’t have the homo-erotic fanasties like Fred Barnes over the Decider….”
For a moment, I read that as “J-Lopez” heheh. Ain’t touching Fred Barnes fantasies…homoerotic or otherwise. Actually, I don’t know much about the other three at all, Rudi, so I can’t comment. I thought Barr was a loon under Clinton, and continues to be wacko today…see his interview in “Borat”.
I do know that Bush has infuriated many conservatives…not as many as the GOP on Capitol Hill, who are numbnuts supreme…but certainly a great many. Probably because Bush never really was a conservative like his papa (or maybe, to be Freudian, because his papa was one).
Truflo said: “And this after the allegation of voter fraud had been investigated by the FBI who found no case to answer.”
That was the Rossi-Gregoire case, which I followed closely at the time. For folks who didn’t: the GOP won the governor’s race in Washington State by a close margin on election night in 2004…the doorknob GOP candidate Rossi then took off on vacation in the Caribbean for weeks, while the Democrats began swamping the courts with petition after petition for recounts and playing the media. They eventually got the votes they needed. There was a court case that decided it…not an FBI inquiry…it was found that election laws were violated with felons being sent ballots, as well as all sorts of bizarre goings-on in King County. The election stunk to high heaven, but the judge said it was nonetheless not in the public interest to overturn the election.
That was why the GOP were furious at McKay. It wasn’t a clean election by any means (both GOP and Dems agreed the felons should not have received hundreds of ballots…but there was no way of addressing that post-election). The presumption was that the felons would have voted Dem, but as the judge said, no way to prove how they voted.
Truflo: Did you ever get your daughter to eat her veges?
[...] Be sure to read our extensive earlier post HERE. [...]
Marlowe- I thought the GOP never whined when they lost close elections-isn’t that just what they fried Al Gore for? It sounds like they considered any of these attorneys who weren’t aggressively partisans, dead wood, who should be removed regardless of their performance evaluations.
What did they expect McKay to do?
What did they expect McKay to do?
I live in Washington, so I can answer that one.
They expected McKay (and Secretary of State Sam Reed, another GOP politician who put the law above party loyalty) to bring charges of vote fraud, even though there was no evidence of enough deliberate fraudulent votes to have changed the outcome of the election.
That’s how vote fraud law works in Washington: it’s not enough for there to have been some fraudulent votes (which any election is going to have. There has to have been deliberate fraud, and there has to have been enough deliberate fraud to have changed the outcome of the election.
That excludes inadvertant mistakes. Such as, as happened here, some convicted felons received ballots in the mail and thought that meant they could legally vote, so they did.
It also means the losing candidate can’t just claim that all the fraudulent and/or mistaken votes went to the winning candidate. In fact, a review of deliberate fraudulent votes cast in the 2004 Governor’s race resulted in four votes being subtracted from Rossi’s total.
But the GOP expected McKay to ignore the law, and the results of the review, and either toss out the election (which there’s no provision in Washington law for, so he couldn’t have done so) or just declare Rossi the winner.
That’s pretty much what I expected from the way the rest of this is shaping up. Thanks for the info-Casey L.
Now even if no real law has been broken by the WH or DOJ, is this the way we want our US attorneys to function in this country? What kind of justice is this? It violates standard these guys have, and teaches them to put politics over their own judgment.
“Following on Kritter’s point, if the white house hasn’t done anything illegal, what’s with the 20 days worth of missing emails?” — Truflo
Uh, what “missing emails?” I news-googled it, and there’s zip. Maybe you have a reference? (no conspiricy theory sites, please)
yonason – there are 18 days (Nov 15-Dec 3) in which only a handful of emails has been found. Those are crucial days, because the USAs were dismissed on Nov 15. There is also clear evidence that the WH was using non-official email accounts (using, among other acccounts, a domain owned by the GOP) so the question arises whether incriminating emails were sent via private accounts, in order to avoid discovery.
I see nothing but good coming out of this “showdown” between the executive and legislative branches. I don’t even care who is being more or less “political” or “paritisan” here. The important thing is that they are at loggerheads. This is the way it is supposed to work. This is the way our government was designed. It is called checks and balances. Conflict between the executive and legislative branches is built in to the constitution. It just looks different now because we have had six years of single party control undermining the foundation. Joe G. said the same thing in an earlier post on the same subject:
Anyway, just wanted to offer up a prop on the “High Noon” metaphor. I have been tracking this president v. congress conflict in a series of blog posts since the beginning of the year, and have been struggling with maintaining metaphorical consistency. I started with boxing, evolved to WWF Steel Cage Wrestling match, and most recently settled on the Battle of the Pellennor Fields during the siege of Minas Tirith. that was a bit over the top. I think I’ll just steal “High Noon” for the next round.
“This scandal points up the benefits of divided government where there is authentic, vigorous oversight.â€?
In the 1980s, when Reagan was opposed by a Democratic Congress, all the wailing was precisely the opposite: that “divided government” was the problem and many liberals (and some GOP elitists in Washington) toyed with “fusion of powers” and related other changes to our system of government. Now, just as after the 1994 elections, liberals are “discovering” how wondeful separation of powers is — until their future Dem president is hamstrung as Clinton was by a Congress that wouldn’t be a rubber stamp. You’ll demand that rubber stamp once we have President Clinton again.
On a related note, what would have been the prospects currently under a parliamentary system of a no-confidence vote being taken against Bush and his administration? When would such a vote have first been taken? And the outcome?