Posted on 03/04/2009 4:57:50 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Former top Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers agreed Wednesday to testify before Congress under oath about the firings of U.S. attorneys, a controversy involving allegations of political interference that grew into a constitutional standoff between two branches of government.
The Bush White House had fought attempts to force Rove and Miers to testify, and the agreement — steered by aides to President Barack Obama — ended that dispute. Both the White House and lawmakers, especially now that Democrat Obama has replaced Republican George W. Bush — were leery of having a judge settle the question about the limits of executive privilege, for fear of losing.
The agreement calls for Rove and Miers, Bush's top political adviser and White House counsel, to be interviewed by the House Judiciary Committee in closed depositions "under the penalty for perjury," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. The committee says it also might call the two for public testimony. [snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Clinton fired ALL the lawyers. Rove should tell them to shove it.
I hope like hell they use “separation of powers” or take the 5th continually until it comes out of the interrogators’ ears.
Sure, but that was a Democrat.
I can’t wait until a R wins the election, then we can have Democrat truth commissions.
My guess is most people are paying attention to the economy and are not interested in these purposeful distractions.
Or just answer “Clinton fired ALL the lawyers” to every question.
What did the Zero do with the federal prosecutors? Haven’t heard anything. Did he fire them all?
I don’t remember. I can’t recall!
Bambi will fire all of them after Rove makes a fool out of Conyers.
I think Rove will know how to hndle these fishermen.
This is just a fishing expedition, of course the President had the right to fire them. Congress knows that I hope Rove shoves it up all their butts.
If the Pubbies ever do get back in power, they need to investigate every Rat in Congress.
So did GW at the start of his term. That was not the issue.
I agree and I’ll bet he makes the point to them.
I will not vote for any Republican unless they convince me that they will bring every one of the POS democrats to justice.
“One issue Dan” is what they will call me. I will even sell everything I have, to pay for the hangman’s rope.
Why are the Commie ‘RATS so pissed off about this? Were they DNC moles?
President Bush said he was not involved in the decision to fire them.
Oh, let’s not talk about what the Obama Administration is doing. That’s too relevant to what direction the country should be taking.
Dick Cheney had it exactly right about Leahy.
Preposterous.
They could say they don’t recall, that’s what the clintons did when things looked fishy. Also they could talk about hilarys’ 900+ FBI files but,,,,,,,shhhhhh,,we won’t get into that.
Don’t think so...but I’d love to see your proof...
It was covered in various articles 2 years ago. It was also covered in DOJ emails released during this fiasco:
Here is how Kyle Sampson (Gonzales ex-Chief of Staff) described it in email:
• “Clinton fired all Bush USAs in one fell swoop. Has been described to me as ‘have your offices cleared out by the end of the week.’ We fired all Clinton USAs (except Mueller and Warner), but staggered it more and permitted some to stay on for, several months (including Mary Jo White in SDNY who we permitted to stay on for many months).”
[email March 04, 2007]
• “Reagan U.S. Attorneys appointed in 1981 stayed on through the entire Reagan Administration; Bush41 even had to establish that Reagan-appointed U.S. Attorneys would not be permitted to continue on through the Bush41 Administration.”
[email January 09, 2005]
The Socialist-Democrat Party: Wasting Time and Money like it isn’t theirs! Which it isn’t.
I know I’m going to be in the minority here...
but if congress creates an agency they are empowered to investigate how its run even if the people they suspect of wrong doing work for the President. The alternative is that the administration can use any agency to whatever they want.
Do we really want that - putting aside how we feel about Rove - do we want the Obama White House and future administrations to simply do whatever they want with impunity by forbidding Justice from investigating and quashing any attempt by congress?
Clinton fired US attorneys appointed by the previous(George H.W.Bush) administration. That is not considered unusual protocol. When a new administration takes over all US attorneys submit their resignation. It is up to the new President to accept some or all of those resignations.
The 8 US attorneys that were fired by the Bush administration, were not Clinton appointees, they were appointed by Bush in his first term. That is what is at the root of this controversy. Except for under the most extraordinary circumstances, that type of action is never really taken. For that reason, questions have arisen about the grounds for those dismissals.
Here is some background compiled by the CRS (Congressional Research Service)
Record by presidential administration:
Ronald Reagan: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. All of those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons, with the exception of the two mentioned above (Kennedy and Petro).[11]
George H.W. Bush: Kept appointees from the previous administration. Only one attorney's "resignations [was] the result of questionable conduct." Frank McNamara, Jr. resigned because he had “been the focus of heated dispute since the Justice Department announced in November [1988] that he was the target of an internal probe.”[12]
Bill Clinton: Dismissed all previously appointed attorneys en masse and replaced them upon assuming office. Those attorneys who left office before completing their two four-year terms left for personal reasons. Two of those "resignations were the result of questionable conduct." Larry Colleton resigned in 1994 after being videotaped grabbing a reporter by the throat, and Kendall Coffey resigned in 1996 amidst allegations of biting a topless dancer. [13]
George W. Bush: Did not dismiss all the attorneys en masse when he assumed office. Bush Allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months until he replaced with his own selections early in his administration. Bush dismissed eight U.S. attorneys on December 7, 2006, in the middle of their second terms, without citing reason. Three other attorneys resigned without either explicitly stating reasons or providing conclusive evidence as to what reasons were prompting their resignations.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys
"Many U.S. attorneys continue to serve after the administration leaves office. However, U.S. attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president," meaning that the president has the right to terminate their appointments at any time. According to a McClatchy news article dated March 13, 2007, "mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration," as was the case with the George W. Bush firings. [6]
According to the CRS report, in the past 25 years, with the exception of the most recent eight, only two U.S. Attorneys have been "apparently dismissed by the President." Both cases were under the Reagan Administration. Reagan dismissed William Kennedy, US Attorney for the Southern District of California, in 1982, reportedly for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case. The second was in 1984 when President Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio for disclosing information about an indictment. Petro was later convicted of the charges.[7] Both are considered traditionally reasonable causes to be asked to resign. [8]
Most of the other attorneys who resigned "explicitly indicated (in news reports or elsewhere) that their intent was to take a position with a law firm or as house counsel for a business." Only three resignations (all of which occurred under George W. Bush's administration) were given without explicitly stating, or having information to back, reasons for leaving.[9]
On March 13, 2007, McClatchy Newspapers published an article stating that the "current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys." The article further goes on to state that "nonetheless, Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton's first term firings in defending Bush's second term dismissals." [10]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.