Congress demanding answers about potential wrong-doing and a president stonewalling while claiming that executive privilege is being threatened, and so he’s trying to offer half-assed compromises that will leave his people the option of lying privately with no chance of consequences instead of lying publicly and facing perjury?
Am I the only person who’s flashing back to Nixon/Watergate?
Because if that’s really what we’re seeing here, then the next thing to happen should be that there’s a Deep Throat who conveys to a newspaper reporter/reporters a chain of evidence that leads directly to the President, i.e., that the President ordered the attorneys fired because they weren’t in lockstep with his policies and furthermore ordered his AG to lie about it. I think we’re going to see the questions being raised of just how much the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. And something tells me Bush doesn’t want us to know the answers to those questions.
PAD
• 
Considering how utterly clueless and incompetent Bush has proven himself to be, I suspect the question will actually be “What didn’t he know and when didn’t he know it?”
Follow the stupidity.
From your lips, m’man … from your lips.
The other question: these days, if a modern-day Deep Throat DID surface, would they be listened to? Or would it be dismissed as just one disgruntled opinion about an overblown personnel matter?
TWL
I remember watching West Wing and how the staff would declare, “I serve at the pleasure of the President.”
Seems to me that he can have anyone fired that he wants to for whatever reason he deems necessary. Those attorneys weren’t in a union were they?
It depends on the reasons for the firing. For instance, in a standard work for hire situation, which is what most people work under, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. However, certain reasons are off limits, such as you can’t fire someone for being African American or Jewish.
The U.S. Attorneys can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Where they are getting into a sticky area is that the attorneys fired, for the most part, were attorneys who had heavily investigated corrupt Republicans (Lam in San Diego) or had refused to push forward bogus investigations of Democrats (Iglesias in New Mexico and McKay in Washington). This use of the Justice Department as a de facto arm of the Republican Party, while maybe not per se illegal (depending on how the obstruction of justice statutes are written), is definitely corrupt, and is the type of things impeachment was made for.
“Seems to me that he can have anyone fired that he wants to for whatever reason he deems necessary.”
Then why lie about it? Which is what they have not only done, but are fighting to protect their opportunity to continue to do?
Furthermore, they don’t work for the president.
I’m reasonably sure there’s such a thing as “wrongful termination,” especially when someone is fired without just cause. And I’m pretty sure firing someone simply because they don’t like the president’s politics doesn’t quality as just cause.
Why do I feel that way?
Just ’cause.
PAD
Sure, Bush has the legal right to fire them if he doesn’t like the color of their tie.
However, if they were fired as part of a larger effort to both shield republicans from prosecution and accelerate indictments against democrats in order to influence the election, as it looks like it was, then someone has got some ‘splaining to do.
What seems to have been forgotten is that the president is not a king. He is an employee of WE THE PEOPLE. And, as his employers, we have the right to demand an explanation as to why they were fired.
If justice in this country becomes less about who is guilty and who is innocent and instead about who belongs to what party, then justice has been perverted and needs to be remedied.
And don’t tell me that Clinton fired all 93 at that start of his term. Replacing all political appointees is SOP for the start of any new administration. That’s completely different than firing a handful midterm because they wouldn’t play ball.
The real question Congress should demand an answer for is, if these eight were fired because they weren’t considered “loyal Bushies”, what kind of faustian bargain did the other 85 make in order to keep their jobs?
The firings aren’t illegal, because they happen at the beginning of every new presidential administration. Then the new administration submits a list of replacements for congress to approve. Gonzalez tried to take advantage of a provision in the patriot act to hire a set of replacements without congressional approval.
Gonzalez was under oath when he said the firings weren’t political — and a crapload of memos and emails are being reviewed that seem to suggest his testimony was deceptive.
If congressional subpoenas are issued, it’s the attorney general’s office that enforces them. If congress doesn’t like how the attorney general’s office is enforcing its subpoenas, the issue goes to a judge.
So:
To me the problem is that Bush is fighting for the right of his “advisors” (we call them “yes-men” or “enablers”) not to lie, but for their right to tell him that it’s OK to do illegal / immoral / unconstitutional acts.
The claim of “this is OK because it happens at the beginning of every administration” is just an irrelevant red herring, as this is not the beginning of the Bush administration. It’s 6 years into his administration, and these firings are, as has been mentioned very suspect because they only target those that either are investigating corrupt Republicans, or refused to issue premature indictments against Democrats in the 2006 elections in order to help Republicans gain some ground.
Democratic Underground has a great fact sheet about the misinformation being spread around and the truth debunking those lies. It can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×463761
Posted by Peter David at March 22, 2007 01:31 PM
Then why lie about it? Which is what they have not only done, but are fighting to protect their opportunity to continue to do?
There may be plenty of reasons why they want to sweep this under the rug, even if it isn’t the least bit illegal. Bush’s popularity ratings are at an embarrassing low, especially for a wartime president. The last thing he needs is something else to be embarrassed about.
Posted by Peter David at March 22, 2007 01:31 PM
And I’m pretty sure firing someone simply because they don’t like the president’s politics doesn’t quality as just cause.
Actually, these firings were made possible under an obscure provision of the Patriot Act. So, yeah, the Prez not liking their politics may be enough under the law to justify the firings. I’m not saying that’s a good thing… I’m just saying that’s U.S. law as currently written.
I think it’s highly unlikely any laws have been broken, and I think drawing parallels to Watergate is a bit of an overreach. On the other hand, I think there’s definitely something stinky going on here.
The irony of all of this? One of the fired attorneys was interviewed on NPR and stated that he could have lived with being removed from his position for purely political reasons. After all, he was a political appointee. He knew that and could live with it. But he’s livid that his professional competence has been impugned. He claims he never had a bad performance review yet his firing was portrayed as performance-based.
The thing is the White House did not want to make an admit say this. “We fired them for political reasons and cronyism.” If they did that all congress would have oversight and say “Yup, Bush did cronyism and we did not like it.”
Bush can fire them for any reason (Ex. Not giving a personal foot massage.) but it is having that reason public is what they wanted to avoid, which made things a lot worse.
The thing that made things worse also is trying to go around Congress with “temporary appointments” that become perminant.
Now THIS discussion is sounding extremely familiar.
Not to Watergate per se — as has been pointed out, the firings themselves are quite probably legal.
But this tendency for Bush to (a) act like he’s king, (b) make every single decision based on political gain, then (c) claim that he’s not doing either of the above while making it REALLY ÐÃMN CLEAR in attitude and likely-unconscious phrase that that’s precisely what he’s doing … that we’ve seen before. It’s becoming the rule rather than the exception.
I’m kinda looking forward to the subpoena fight, actually. As I’ve seen people elsewhere point out, he’s effectively kicked Congress in the nuts with his “offer” re: Rove and Miers, and if the Democrats don’t put on some steel-toed boots and kick right back they’re not worth the control of Congress we gave them in November.
Anyone have any thoughts on Edwards’ announcement today?
TWL
The real issue is that Bush does not want to be held accountable for anything. His entire administration has worked consistantly in order to skirt any provision that might require them to explain their actions or ask permission from Congress or any court. This would have been a non-scandal had Gonzo simply gone before Congress and said, “Yeah, we fired them because we wanted people more in tune with our agenda and that’s our right.” Instead, he lied and then they lied again.
Well, I wish Mrs. Edwards a speedy recovery from her cancer.
And, of course, awaiting the inevitable personal attacks from the Hannity and Rush crowd about how Edwards is a horrible person for not dropping out.
One article I read (http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2007/03/frameshop_the_5.html#more)noted in Bush’s speech 5 words he continually dropped in order to frame the debate:
1. resignation – sounds less controversial than firing
2. leadership – sounds better than “we wanted loyal Bushies”
3. explanation, and 4. incomplete – to obscure the fact there was deceit and equivocation
5. fishing – to make the inquery seem completely partisan
It’ll be interesting to see how closely Fox’s talking points will match up.
I read the same article, Sasha, and I think it’s somewhat tough to rebut. I’ll be interested as well to see how well it plays.
TWL
But he’s livid that his professional competence has been impugned. He claims he never had a bad performance review yet his firing was portrayed as performance-based.
I think the same guy was on my local talk station. HE said they’ve recanted that he had a bad performance. But he said he’s staying in the fight because his colleagues are also being besmirched.
Something he said that I found almost unbelievable was that when he came into the job, Ashcroft made it clear that political affilations stop at the door.
Something he said that I found almost unbelievable was that when he came into the job, Ashcroft made it clear that political affilations stop at the door.
Maybe that’s the real reason Ashcroft left, to make room for a for pliable AG.
Anyone have any thoughts on Edwards’ announcement today?
It seems clear to me that Ms. Edwards wants him to run and, that being the case, he should.
The prognosis, if it’s what it seems to be, is very poor. I can’t help but suspect that this will ultimately be very detrimental to his campaign but I doubt that is foremost in his mind. I’m no fan of his prospects to be a good president but he’s clearly a genuinely good family man.
And, of course, awaiting the inevitable personal attacks from the Hannity and Rush crowd about how Edwards is a horrible person for not dropping out.
They must not be at the National review:
Jonah Goldberg- I am no fan of John Edwards as a politician, but given the facts as we know them, I don’t see anything wrong whatsoever with him staying in the race.
Kathryn Jean Lopez- Disagree as we do, Elizabeth Edwards really cares about politics. I believe she believes in Edwards 2008 and wants him to run and that’s why he’s staying in.
Mona Charen- Very genuine, affecting. Mrs. E is a very impressive person. Let’s keep them in our prayers (for an easy treatment and full recovery — not for political success needless to say).
Byron York– No, there won’t be a suspension of the Edwards campaign. I think most observers would agree that today’s news conference was a very impressive performance, both by John and Elizabeth Edwards.
One reason why I find the NRO online a good place to visit.
Want another parallel to Nixon?
They release hundreds of emails regarding the termination of the attorneys…
…and there is a 16 (should have been 18) day “gap” between the emails…
“Scrutiny Intensifies On 16 Day Gap In Released Documents”
How can it be that there were no emails for 16 days?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.email.gap/index.html?eref=rss_politics
The prognosis, if it’s what it seems to be, is very poor. I can’t help but suspect that this will ultimately be very detrimental to his campaign but I doubt that is foremost in his mind. I’m no fan of his prospects to be a good president but he’s clearly a genuinely good family man.
I’m pretty much in agreement on this. I haven’t really figured out what I think of him as a candidate, but it was clear back in ’04 that he was, at a minimum, a Good Guy.
As for personal attacks … I’m glad that none has surfaced as yet, but I won’t be surprised if any do come in from the less sane counterparts of the people Bill quoted.
…and there is a 16 (should have been 18) day “gap” between the emails…
Well, it makes sense that it’s a much longer time period — after all, it takes Arlo Guthrie a lot longer to type than to sing.
(Let’s see if anyone has ANY idea what that’s referring to. 🙂
TWL
At the very least, I get it, Tim.
Den, you took the words out of my mouth.
Give me my gum back, you creep.
I think the Edwards camp sounds like a class act.
As far as the other situation goes, it just reaffirms something I’ve said elsewhere: “Some dang fool has gone and remade the 70s!”
And, of course, awaiting the inevitable personal attacks from the Hannity and Rush crowd about how Edwards is a horrible person for not dropping out.
Those aren’t going to come immediately and may not come at all. Hannity and Rush are attack-dogs in human form, but they’re not stupid about it. Attacking Edwards regarding his wife at this time would only make him more sympathetic…especially sinces she’s still well enough to step up on stage and say that she wants him to keep running. Even they know that attacks regarding Elizabeth Edwards will (currently) rebound on the attacker and simply make Edwards look better. People like Rush and Hannity would wait until he can be made to look bad by pointing out that Edwars not visiting her enough while she was hospitalized (for example). The last thing those guys would ever want to do is make a Democrat look good.
Den wrote: “And don’t tell me that Clinton fired all 93 at that start of his term. Replacing all political appointees is SOP for the start of any new administration. That’s completely different than firing a handful midterm because they wouldn’t play ball.”
Oh, horse patooty. Janet Reno’s rationale for firing all 93 attorneys is no different than Gonzalez’s was. Just as Clinton used the ace card of “executive privilege” when he was taking heat from a Republican witch hunt.
This selective indignation is a waste of everyone’s time and your tax dollars. I was hoping when the Democrats took over Congress they would actually accompish something useful. Instead, they are wasting most of their time stabbing at a lame and dying duck.
Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
No wonder nothing sweeping and positive is ever accomplished in Washington.
As far as Reno never fired any attorneys general for the successful prosecution of democrats, no.
As far as Gonzales fired any attorneys general for the successful prosecution of republicans, no.
As far as they are attempting to remove prosecutors who will refuse to enforce a congressional subpoena, they may.
Until you are the new boss, no.
Janet Reno’s rationale for firing all 93 attorneys is no different than Gonzalez’s was.
Which rationale would that be? Gonzales has already given several, each less credible than its predecessor.
Which rationale did Reno echo? Specifics, please.
TWL
Oh, and Rob S. — Thanks. I’m glad to be back among cultured folk.
TWL
So, I’m sure that someone among us is enough of a Constitutional scholar to answer one nagging little question for me –
Does the President indeed have the authority to refuse to permit Congress to subpoena members of his staff? Or to set conditions on their testimony?
(Okay, so it’s two questions. I’m tired, all right?)
And is this authority at all related to the precedent Gonzales once tried to cite regarding Bush’s authority to use “extreme sanctions” in questioning foreign nationals? (He once pulled out the notion from British law that “the King can do no wrong” – that whatever the Sovereign does is, by definition, legal. IIRC, it was less than a day later that he retracted that statement, after someone pointed out to him that the President is not, in fact, a sovereign ruler…)
Peter,
Give me a break. If this was a Democrat president and a Republican congress, you would be arguing that the president has every right to decide the agenda of people under his administration. A president has every right to decide who is going to represent his administration, and if someone is not on the same page, they can be let go. Period. He doesn’t even need a reason. This blind Bush hatred seems to have clouded your ability to reason when it comes to anything that involves the Bush administration. Read Ðìçk Morris’ recent column on this topic please. What about that representative from Louisianna who ther FBI caught taking bribes? WHat did the democrats claim? Separation of powers! Every time I hear the democrats claim to be righteously idignant, I remind myself that this is the same Party that: 1 defends Ted Kennedy (who left a girl to drown), 2. Defends Sandy Berger (who stole top security documents and stuffed them in his pants and then destroyed them. Thank God he wasn’t a republican, huh, because if he was we would of never heard the end of it on Comedy Central, and the dems would have been calling for his head. As it is now Berger will get his secuirty clearance back in 3 years. Yeah, dems really care about national security). 3. Accepted more than 3 million dollars in donations from China and Korea for the 1996 elections (breaking election law). 4.Defends Gerry Studds (who actually had sex with a teenage House page). And the list could go on and on. Lisitening to the dems these days you would think the friggin’ inquistion has begun agian (and maybe it has). “If you don’t think like us or agree completely 100% with us you must either be converted or destroyed.”. If you’re honest you’ll agree that the dems are way scarier in terms of trying to make everyone think just like them and are far more willing to use force to impose their will on others. You just happen to agree with them so you’re willing to look the other way.
Oh, and for the record, I’m libertarian. I just wish we had more than two parties to choose from. The republicans just aren’t smart enough to make me worry as much as the dems do.
Gonzales went before Congress and told them that he wouldn’t terminate the US Attorneys for political reasons after he had fired them for political reasons. For that reason, I want him to resign.
But the last thing I want him to do before leaving office is to indict Valerie Plame for lying to Congress. She testified last week under oath that someone else pushed the idea her husband going to Africa, not her. However, several people at the grand jury testified that it WAS her doing. Someone lied under oath, and it seems highly probable to have been her.
Rudy,
A president has every right to decide who is going to represent his administration, and if someone is not on the same page, they can be let go. Period. He doesn’t even need a reason.
Apparently you haven’t been reading very closely. I haven’t seen anybody, Peter included, who disagrees with that statement. The problem, as so often seems to be the case, is that Gonzales didn’t say “yeah, we fired ’em cause we f***ing well felt like it.” He has listed an ever-growing and never-convincing set of straw-man reasons.
Some of those apparently-false reasons were given under oath, if memory serves (though it’s late enough that I may be misremembering that). Assuming my memory is right, though, I think the Attorney General committing perjury for nothing other than the political gain of “his” president is in fact a significant problem.
Of course, if you want to turn it into another pìššìņg match, you have every right. My metaphorical bladder is nice and full.
TWL
Tim,
That’s what I mean when I say the republicans are just too dumb to worry about. I totally agree with you. I agree that they are their own worse enemy and invite these attacks by being such boneheads. However, I don’t think it is good to pick a fight on every issue because it appears to me that opposing the administartion has become for many, simply a knee jerk reaction. And as much as it may pain people to hear, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (assuming you’re not on military time, ’cause then it would be just once a day).
It does sound familiar. Lame duck President. Congress in the hands of the opposite party. Lots of investigations about the administration instead of doing what they said they would do while running for office. Yep. Almost like it was 90’s all over again.
Well, at least the democrats haven’t started investigating how the White House responds to fan mail to Barney the Dog.
The republicans actually did investigate that re: Socks the Cat.
What about that representative from Louisianna who ther FBI caught taking bribes? WHat did the democrats claim? Separation of powers!
Maybe you should pay better attention. Republican Dennis Hastert made that argument.
As others have noted, while they can fire them for any reason, the issue is now that they lied under oath about the reasons for it. Remember lying under oath?
Oh yeah, that’s only a crime when a democrat does it now.
Silly me.
Oh, horse patooty. Janet Reno’s rationale for firing all 93 attorneys is no different than Gonzalez’s was.
Given that Gonzales has given at least three different reasons now, none of which was the one Janet Reno used (ie, it’s a new administration), no.
BTW, you are aware that Bush let all of the Clinton appointees go in 2001, just as Reagan let all of Carter’s go in 1981, Bush 41 let all of Reagan’s go in 1989, etc., Right?
Gonzales did not fire these eight for the same reason as those others did. They were fired because they had the audacity to put their duty to the law above their duty to help the GOP win elections.
Just as Clinton used the ace card of “executive privilege” when he was taking heat from a Republican witch hunt.
And I seem to recall several republicans saying that executive privilege was a load of bull and was just an excuse to cover things up, including some guy named Tony Snow who wrote a whole op-ed piece about it. Now he’s defending it.
If it was wrong for Clinton, then it’s wrong for Bush. Unless, like perjury, it’s one of those rules that are only illegal when democrats break them, of course.
People like Rush and Hannity would wait until he can be made to look bad by pointing out that Edwars not visiting her enough while she was hospitalized (for example).
Which will be about five seconds after she goes in for her first chemo appointment.
Of course, if Edwards were a true bášŧárd like (just to pick someone at random), Gingrich, he could use that time to serve her with divorce papers.
Posted by Tim Lynch
Off to the Gulag … i mean, Guantanamo … with him.
Posted by Jonathan (the other one)
I rhink the answer to that is “sort of but not exactly.”
That is, if it’s a gen-you-wine security matter, no-one can force them to testify about it; this is what Nixon and now Bush Minor attmepted to claim “executive privilege” over – that a President’s advisors would hesitate to give hime advice that might make them look bad if they were going to have to testify about it later.
Going off at an apparent tengent, here, the NHTSA is planning to institute a ruling that will shield automakers from having to disclose defects in their cars and if they’ve been sued over injuries arising from such – under the clause that shields “trade secrets”; the rationale is that if people knew all the Bad Stuff that an automaker’s been caught at, it would hurt them competitively.
See a parallell with the Presidential advisors there?
My advice to both automakers and Presidential advisors is “Don’t do anything that would make you look bad in the first place, and then you won’t have to hide it…”
TWL wrote: “Which rationale did Reno echo? Specifics, please.”
Here’s what “Time” wrote about the Clinton administration’s attorney dismissals back in 1993:
“She (Reno) requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country “to build a team” that represents “my views” and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was “no linkage”‘ between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue.”
The fact is, all of this bruhaha is just a continuation of what is just a never-ending partisan political con game.
The Democrats are no different than the Republicans at spinning the wheels of government — creating elaborate rathole diversions — when there is really no useful legislating going on.
And the argument that Reno’s dismissals were more righteous that Gonzalez’s because she was up front about it and he acted like a kid with his hand caught in a cookie jar is just plain silly. The end result and intention is identical: They want guys in the positions who, when they say jump, their guys dutifully say, “How high?”
According to “Countdown” this evening, Rush Limbaugh immediately suggested that Edwards would wait to see if the announcement today would result in a bump in the polls. If not, then he would be exiting the race. Earned Rush top honors for “Worst Person…” today.
And the argument that Reno’s dismissals were more righteous that Gonzalez’s because she was up front about it and he acted like a kid with his hand caught in a cookie jar is just plain silly. The end result and intention is identical: They want guys in the positions who, when they say jump, their guys dutifully say, “How high?”
I don’t think the distinctions are particularly silly. Yes, Reno requested that they all be dismissed — as has been pointed out repeatedly, that’s not uncommon for the start of an administration, and is something the Bush team did as well.
These particular firings were (a) specifically targeted, and (b) firing members OF “their own team” who had already been put in place. That already makes them qualitatively different — not necessarily better or worse, but visibly and obviously of a different category. Gonzales knows that. Bush knows that. Everybody and their pet cat can see it, which is why Gonzales’ denials are falling so flat.
TWL
Ouch! All I remember about Watergate was it pre-empted the Brady Bunch reruns with my lunch ( a terrible thing when you’re 8).
Whatever happened to “The Buck Stops Here” ?
This situation differs from Watergate in one crucial area: No crime has been committed. What started the whole Watergate situation was a break-in at the Watergate Hotel. What has started this new anti-Bush push is something perfectly legal: the firing of US Attorneys. Eight of them. It’s been a two year process thus far and some of them have terms expiring anyway. Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who fired all 93 US Attorneys when he first took office. Nobody in the media cared.
What the Democrats want here is another show trial so they can fish for process crimes (i.e. Scooter Libby). They want to put Republicans in a position where they can be accused of lying under oath publically when they shouldn’t have been called up to the Hill anyway. It is up the the Democrats to prove guilt first… and no one can find any crime here. Democrats want this bad. They want to get conflicting statements from Bush Administration officials on forgettable or insignificant details so they can continue their attempts to damage said administration. (Strange that they didn’t seem to mind that Valerie Plame lied under oath last week, but I guess since that didn’t fit their agenda…)
Darin
Nobody in the media cared.
Bull. Glenn Greenwald did a great job of digging up all the media carping about Clinton’s carping.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/19/us_attorneys/index.html
Of course, when Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did the same thing at the start of their administrations, there really was no media carping.
“She (Reno) requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country “to build a team” that represents “my views” and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was “no linkage”‘ between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue.”
And yet, the prosecution of Rostnekowski continued, despite the routine beginning of term replacements, and he was eventually convicted. How about that?
“Of course, when Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did the same thing at the start of their administrations, there really was no media carping.”
Clinton was the first president to fire all 93 upon taking the office. Again, he did not receive the kind of media coverage that the current president is regarding US Attorney appointments.
“Maybe you should pay better attention. Republican Dennis Hastert made that argument.”
Again, I agree, the republicans aren’t einsteins when it comes to politics. However, I beleive that had it been a republican caught taking bribes by the FBI, we would never find a democrat, especially one in a leadership position, running to the defense of that republican. The dems run a tighter ship and are far more organized. Sometimes it just doesn’t seem like a fair fight. It makes me think of the relationship between Garfield and Odie. All Odie (repubs) wants to do is lick Garfireld to death, and all Garfield(dems) lives for is to kick Odie off the table. I always liked the ones where Garfield met someone his intellectual equal like the wise cracking scale. I wish we had an alternative here in the US, but all we get stuck with is Garfield and Odie.