TPM Muckraker has the latest:
Alberto Gonzales, in an increasingly desperate attempt to keep his job, has said that he’ll meet with members of Congress sometime this week to explain himself. It’s unclear when or where that will be.
…A small group of lawmakers from both the House and Senate met with White House counsel Fred Fielding yesterday concerning their request for documents and to interview White House officials, including Karl Rove. Fielding, apparently, told them he’ll get back to them Friday after speaking with the president. At issue, of course, is whether the White House will assert executive privilege. That would mean war.
According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who was at the meeting, Fielding “said that he wanted to make this work because he had a reputation, his own reputation, to uphold.”
Yeah, it’s hard to blame Mr. Fielding for wanting to free himself from the mire of sleaze that is the Bush administration. Maybe he should think about resigning and finding other employment. Just a suggestion. Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary Committee isn’t waiting around to see what Bushco decides.
As Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) put it: “Frankly, I don’t care whether Fielding says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want…. If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.”
The committee sent letters signed by Leahy and ranking Republican member Arlen Specter asking the White House to allow testimony from Karl Rove, former White House counsel and Supreme Court Justice wannabe Harriet Miers, and Miers aide William Kelley.
You may remember that the White House assured us Rove had nothing to do with the appointment of Tim Griffin, who formerly served as one of his opposition researchers, to replace the US Attorney in Arkansas, but that assurance turns out to be false, along with just about every word Gonzales has uttered about this mess. Bush will do everything possible to keep Rove away from the hearings, but that’s okay.
BREAKING as I write: The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted to authorize subpoenas for five Justice Department aides and six of the fired US Attorneys to compel their testimony. Committee members postponed a decision on subpoenas for White House personnel for a week, presumably to give Bush a little wiggle room, but that power is out there, hanging over the heads of Rove, et al. We’ll see Karl’s fanny in the witness chair, one way or another.
ALSO: It’s not just Democrats; Republican Senator John Sununu is calling on Bush to fire Gonzales.
Of course the evil right wing conspirators have hidden motives for firing these 8 folks. That could be the only reason for firing 8 U.S. Attorneys. That line of thinking would easily follow to help understand why Clinton fired 93 Attorneys. You can go ahead and dismiss my comments as just beating the drum of the vast right wing conspiracy because it is the big topic with the talking heads in the right wing or distracting from the real argument of why these people may have been fired. But in the battle of 8 vs. 93, I think I will take my chances. Especially given that Clinton and Reno had everything to hide and cover up. Maybe Bush and Gonzales are more efficient and could cover up their dealings with firing only 8 people.
On a more interesting note, I find it far more interesting that nobody cared about Clinton’s firings, or at least nobody knew about it because the FOBC in the media covered it up (FOBC = Friends of Bill Clinton, I had to use some of my own acronyms to help feel at home here Kathy).
BL. every president replaces US attorneys when they first take office. Clinton did, Bush did, they all did — so don’t throw out that tired Republican talking point here.
Replaces 93 of them? I guess I need to do some research, but 93 seems a tad on the high side when compared to other presidents. But I guess when you enter office with tons of legal baggage, I guess it is easier to nip those pesky concerns in the bud. Maybe Clinton and Reno were more efficient than Bush and Gonzales.
Although U.S. attorneys nominally serve four-year-terms, no one doubts that presidents can remove them at any time. But the usual time to ask for resignations is at the beginning of a new presidential term. According to the Congressional Research Service, of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed between 1981 and 2006, only three were pushed out midterm.
From the Cleveland Plain Dealer
I’m a cartoonist from New Jersey, and here’s my take on this whole Alberto Gonzales situation. I’d love to hear what you think.
To view the cartoon, go to http://tornoe.blogspot.com
Subpoenas? Very exciting…I just wonder, will Karl show up? I mean, the guy has been hiding under a rock for a long time…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDaRFf7Cd6M
Karl, where aaarrreee you? LOL, from Americablog.
holy s**t bl, you say a lot dumb fu**ing stuff, but this takes the cake.
first, if there was a hint of impropriety about what clinton did, why did the REPUBLICAN controlled congress 1) not investigate, and 2) approve his replacements?
two, even if clinton acted improperly, what the hell does that have to do with the current accusations? wrong is wrong.
three, in the last twenty five years, do you know how many times a us attorney has left office DURING their four year term? at most five. that means Bush just axed in one fell swoop more than had been so terminated in the prior decade and a half. this stuff just does not happen.
four, the issue is not the firings but the reason for the firings. the accusation is that these folks were sacked because they refused to tailor SPECIFIC ongoing cases so as to benefit republicans. that is wrong, evil, bad.
now that accusation may turn out to be false, and if you want to argue that it is false, fine. but don’t insult us and demean yourself by trying to pass off ignorance like your comments as a real argument.
Rob, your cartoon is spot on. Caroline, can you imagine anyone actually wanting to be Karl Rove these days?
Del and Wheeler, thanks! It’s my understanding that US Attorney positions are political plums. Given that and the four-year terms, it makes sense that the positions turn over when a new administration comes into office, particularly if that administration is following one of a different political party. Matt Drudge tried the old, “But, but, but Clinton!” and there were plenty of people who fell for it without doing their homework, mostly because they believe Clinton is the Source of All Evil (nah, Julian McMahon is much better looking).
Bush claims to love America, but it seems every time we turn around he and his administration are trying to undermine the basic structure of our government. Wheeler, as you pointed out in your post, federal prosecutors have tremendous power. We have to be able to trust that they will use it wisely, without being subjected to undue pressure to go on political witch hunts. That’s where the true abuse lies. Well, that and Gonzales lying to Congress, but – hey! – at least he wasn’t lying about a blow job.
*****STANDING UP TO APPLAUD WHEELER*****
Some pretty venomous stuff there wheeler. It always helps out a mature debate to throw in some cursing and name calling. Kudos to you.
But from what I can tell there is nothing illegal about what the administration did by firing these folks. Last time I checked a boss could fire someone if they wanted to and if a U.S. attorney isn’t properly enforcing the laws in line with the way the boss wants, it is perfectly within his right to fire them. Now if they are firing them to cover up something, from which you implied there may be an issue to sort through. If that is the case the cover up would be the issue and not the firings. Or maybe god forbid, there was a over zealous prosecutor wasting time on frivolous political battles rather than prosecuting real crimes. All in all, I would be surprised if the esteemed democratic congressman actually accomplish anything with their witchhunt.
As for your wrong vs. wrong issue, then why even bring up the past history of other firings of other mid term firings. If history is not an issue then don’t make it an issue. The points made from both sides like to point at the precedence of other firings and that is why the 93 firings from the clinton are important. A firing is a firing. Bush probably would have been better off politically to fire all 93 from the get go, but he didn’t. Whether or not the republicans overlooked them also should not matter to you. It is probably more indicative of the tone of the democrats and their hunt to attack anything Bush does.
As for the comments about Clinton lying about a blow job, there is a little more to it. That was tied to the sexual assault allegations that he also probably lied about and the investigation surrounding that and white water. A little more than just a blow job considering a serious allegation like sexual assault. But I guess the history of a sexual predator shouldn’t be included in an investigation by the line of thinking put forth on the debate here.
I am sorry for the delay in posting, I was out of the net for a while.
Now I will lower myself into the mud with Anna. Thanks again to Anna for jumping on a band wagon and providing absolutely nothing worthwhile to a debate, I expect nothing less from you. Thanks again for nothing.