Gonzales Showdown Intensifies
Threats of subpeonas lead to threats of withdrawn offers, and away we go:
A House Judiciary subcommittee today authorized subpoenas for Karl Rove, President Bush’s political adviser, and other senior White House officials in the investigation into the firing of eight United States attorneys.
Democrats said the subpoenas, approved on a voice vote of the panel, would not be issued immediately but could provide leverage for Congress in trying to win the testimony of the aides being sought.
“We have worked toward voluntary cooperation on this investigation, but we must prepare for the possibility that the Justice Department and White House will continue to hide the truth,” said Representative Linda Sanchez of California, chairwoman of the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.
Republicans on the subcommittee said they did not dispute the power of Congress to call the officials, but said the action was premature and smacked of politics.
“The only purpose of the subpoenas is to the fan the flames and photo ops of partisan controversy,” said Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, the senior Republican on the subcommittee.
President Bush and Congress appear to be headed toward a constitutional showdown over the demands for testimony and for internal White House documents. The prospects of a showdown were underscored this afternoon as Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said the actual issuance of subpoenas would lead the administration to withdraw its offer of cooperation.
Under growing political pressure, the White House had offered to allow private interviews with Mr. Rove, 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.
“We could meet at the local pub to that have that kind of gathering,” said Representative John Conyers of Michigan, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
But Mr. Snow said, “If they issue subpoenas, the offer is withdrawn, because it means that they will not have responded to the offer. They will have rejected the offer.”
“The moment subpoenas are issued, it means that they’ve rejected the offer,” Mr. Snow emphasized.
Responding defiantly on Tuesday, 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.
“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.
I think I was premature in writing off Gonzales: Bush seems to be in stubborn loyalty mode (both his strongest and weakest trait simultaneously, perhaps). I’d put the odds of him resigning back at 60-40 that he’ll stay – this is heading to the courts, though. It seems pretty clear that things will end up with a claim of executive privilege that will be litigated…
Despite the likelihood that his Attorney General is headed for dismissal or what will be characterized as his unfortunate resignation, the President’s penchant for loyalty over substance is clouding his already questionable judgment skills in much the same manner as with the Rumsfeld departure. Frankly, he may be facing this dilemma because of the weight he places upon loyalty…regardless of propriety.
At some point, it is no longer possible to give this President the benefit of the doubt. Time and again he finds himself…by virtue of the actions of his appointees…in difficult straits. In my opinion, each time this happens, his credibility and his believability diminish and the polls seem to suggest that a large majority of Americans concur. Many have sought to portray President Bush as a man of limited intellectual capacity.
One could argue either side of that debate but more important is the fact that he remains fixated upon conducting his affairs as he sees fit…even if those actions blur the lines of authority…or even more concerning…breach the intent of the constitution. Unfortunately, for a man of his ilk…when confronted by such assertions…he simply believes his interpretation of his authority and that document far exceeds the worthiness of all others. Such is the conundrum we face until his second term expires. Here’s hoping time flies!
Defining George Bush: Head…meet board.
See a tongue-in-cheek visual of George Bush once again beating his head with a board…as he searches for the Holy Grail…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
No way Gonzales stays. He’s scheduled to testify next week – right? After that, it’s curtains unless he can some how provide an adequate explanation for why his earlier testimony has completely been impeached by these e-mails. I don’t think there’s a chance of that. He hasn’t even got the support of the conservatives who are miffed that he won’t ship “illegal aliens” back to Mexico. He’ll offer his resignation, the President will say that he did a “heckofajob,” and then award him a medal. That’ll be fun, but it’s just the undercard. The real fireworks will start when Rove refuses to testify and the Senate begins confirmation hearings on the next AG.
With all due respect, I think you’re confusing what you want with what is most likely to happen. Maybe you’re right, but I think your scenario is implausible. Who’s going to make him resign if Bush won’t? And Bush seems to be putting his foot down. As I said, the most likely scenario is that Gonzales continues to shuffle, and we see a showdown between subpeonas and executive privilege that goes to litigation…
I put that date at around March ‘01, when he rolled back FOIA. I almost voted Bush (ended up going 3rd party….well, more like 8th party), and was pretty pleased with a lot of his policies. When he did that, though, I thought the boy wasn’t quite right.
At any rate, the Gonzales stuff is good theater.
Comrades,
What galls me most is that Congress is once more living out it’s own “Alice in Woderland” production. Absolutely NOTHING was done illegally, immorally, or anything else in the sacking of those attorneys. They serve at the pleasure of the President, and may be removed for any reason, at any time. If the congress-critters want to play this very dangerous game, then they ought to be ready to see the Executive branch return the compliments, with White House breifings questioning the reason behind every Legislative hiring, or firing, etc.
This Congress came into office with a promise to “Clean Up the Culture of Corruption”. To date, it has embraced that culture, becoming more corrput than the Republicans they accused in the first place.
It’s time that Congress cut the crap and start tending to the very real needs of the nation.
Respects,
If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, would Roberts and Alioto have to recuse themselves?
“Alice in Wonderland?” Really? “NOTHING?” Really? Would it be improper for the administration to sack an attorney because they were not pursuing voter irregularities in districts won by democrats (excluding those where republicans won)? Would it be improper for the administration to sack an attorney who was pursing republican corruption? Would it be improper for the administration to sack an attorney was in the midst of a conflict with a sitting republican Senator and Representative over how to handle indictments favorable to the republican party?
Additionally might it be improper to claim that attorneys were being sacked because of sub-par performance when in fact they were being sacked because they were not loyal bushies. How about provided false information to the public and congress?
You want to quibble about pleasure of the president and illegality vs impropriety? Is this what you have been reduced to? This is what the public hated about Clinton and are currently dimissing the president as irrelavant for.
Look, I don’t know if it was illegal and neither do you. In our country, we believe in transparency because the image of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety. Congress is well within its rights to ask questions. Elections have consequences. In this case the consequences are consistent with the will of the people – to provide oversight to an incompetent and untrusted executive branch. Your comments about democrat corruption in this context are some kind of flight into fantasy and do not deserve a response.
How dare you, Scott. Gwedd has an inside track on the facts, obviously. We should all defer to his superior knowledge of the situation (which curiously always tends to favor the Republicans).
Scott, while I agree with your view regarding the gravity of such allegedly improper actions, the question is whether or not Congress can seek to subpoena WHO officials without some existing evidence (as opposed to allegation or innuendo) that such activity actually took place. All we’ve seen so far are some loose allegations and coincidence-connecting. You can’t just start sending subpoenas down to the WH when you feel like fishing for evidence.
Or, if you’re Tony Snow, you can just claim that Congress doesn’t have the right to perform oversight functions on the executive branch.
Makes me throw up in my mouth, just a little.
There is so much evidence (as opposed to allegation and innuendo) that it is inconceivable that most or all of the Gonzales Eight were fired for not using the law to advance Republican electoral interests. Seven of the eight received positive evaluations of their performance at the Justice Department. The New Mexico DA was fired after he refused to indict for bogus vote fraud allegations. Ditto for the Washington DA. A day after the San Diego DA informed the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery case, the AG’s Chief of Staff complained to the White House of a “real problem” with her. And so forth. This is a case of res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself. If this is a “partisan fishing expedition,” then so was Watergate.
What I find amusing in Bush’s statement that “We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants” is this: wasn’t it a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants which got them into this mess in the first place?
Sorry, left out a negative in the first sentence. But you know what I meant.
peter, you say there is so much evidence, and then simply parrot the talking points of the Dems and the AAG alone. Query: Do you think that Iglesias alone would be the only AAG in his office that would be in a position to present evidence of his claim? And even if his assertion was true, he got a call from his own Senator, Domenici. Does that give a green light to subpoena any Republican?
You appear to overlook the distincition between evidence and allegation.
His “job approval ratings” or whatever are not evidence of wrongdoing. They are evidence of small-U “unfairness”, at least to him, but do not support claim of illegal conduct.
I’m not sure I understand your first question. If you ask if there is anyone else in Iglesias’s office who can corroborate his assertions, then I don’t know the answer.
His assertion that he got a call from Domenici asking about an ongoing criminal investigation is not an allegation and is not in dispute. Domenici confirmed that he made the call. It is a violation of Congressional ethics to call a prosecutor about an ongoing investigation (with the sole exception being if the Congressman has material information about the case). The larger issue, of course, is the way in which using the levers of government power to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats violates such basic tenets of our legal system as the impartiality of justice. Does this give the Senate the right to subpoena any Republican in the world? Of course not. Does it give the Senate the right to subpoena people in the Justice Department and White House who were involved? Absolutely.
Domenici calling Iglesias at home and then hanging up on him was a really big deal. Peter is right there is a lot of evidence, I sure there would be enough to get a warrent in a criminal case (not sure what the standard is for subpoenas in the executive branch). By your standard, a case would have to be proven before the investigation.
And by the way, Rove has opened himself up for this by making public statements that the seven were fired for bad performance, which by the way there is no evidence of.
A second by the way Wavemaker, ranting about “partisian a**holes fishing for evidence,” does not contribute to the discussion on this matter. But, I guess that gives us a pretty good picture of why you can’t see anything wrong in what this administration has done.