Bush draws line in sand

WASHINGTON -- President Bush fought back Tuesday in the controversy over eight fired federal prosecutors, defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, refusing to let his aides testify publicly and demanding that Democrats "drop the partisanship."

"The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts," Bush said in a hastily arranged late-afternoon White House appearance. "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

The president's counterattack put the White House and Congress on a collision course over executive privilege involving investigations into the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys last year. Democrats say they are increasingly convinced that at least some of the prosecutors were fired because they resisted political interference into their investigations, which, if true, could be obstruction of justice.

The growing controversy also threatened to sweep away any remaining hope for bipartisan harmony in a capital whose government is split between the two political parties.

Vowing to avoid partisan "show trials" in Congress, Bush said he would let presidential adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other aides meet in private with congressional investigators, without taking oaths to tell the truth under penalty of law.

Democrats demanded their public testimony under oath and dismissed Bush's offer to cooperate as a sham.

"If the president wants the truth to come out, then he would have testimony given in a far more full and open way," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "It seems as if the president wants to appear to be cooperative, but not really cooperate."

"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,"...

This is a serious question. About that ‘Constitutional’ fight, does the President have to obey Congressional Subpoenas’?

I have done a good bit of hunting over the issue over the years and I think I can say with some assurance, that there a few givens. Congress has no authority under the separation of powers concept to compel testimony from any Constitutional Officer, ie; the President or Vice President. The President can delegate an ‘executive privilege’ to other members of his staff.

The question is, how far can this be applied? In searching I find that the closer to the President and the more senior the position, the better the legal case. In addition, the courts have a long history of recognizing the right in matters of national security or direct one on one conversations between the president and vice president and staff members.

The further from the President one gets and the further from a presidential power one goes, the weaker the legal claim. In addition, if the President himself or a specific cabinet officer is directly involved in a real legal process, the weaker the claim of executive privilege. That is why most of Clintons claims in the area were denied. Finally, subpeonas that are obviously political (no real constitutional oversight issue involved) are normally killed. Subpeonas issued from the wrong Congressional committee are also almost always killed (for example, having the Congressional Labor Committee issue subpeonas over a judicial issue).

So, where do we stand on the prosecutors? I believe things get squishy here. First, this is an administrative issue and definitely falls under the area of Constitutional oversight by the Congress. Next, there is no crime being investigated so a claim covering his cabinet officers and personal staff would be a toss up. If those were the only issues, I believe the president would lose the argument.

There is another thing to consider, more often than not when an executive privilege issue goes to the courts, it is because the President has stonewalled completely. He leaves the Congress with no option to do their oversight mission. In this case, however, the President has authorized a total document dump and a process for congressional questioning of his staff. He only limits it to closed session and not under oath. If the issue considered was a legal one and not a administrative one, then the question of being under oath might matter but I fail to see a compelling reason here. As to ‘in closed session’, while the Congress has an oversight duty and responsibility, this responsibility does not include a right to a show trial or political investigation.

In this case, I suspect the courts to uphold the President here, though only narrowly, say a 60-40 chance.

I hate to say this, but he can't fire Gonzales now.

WHAT!?!?!

I do not want him to fire Gonzales.

But he needs to fire Gonzales' deputy attorney general (Alberto's #2). The man and his staff are leaking to the Dims and the press to try to oust Gonzales. The deputy AG wants Gonzales' job. And his staff wants promotions too.

There's some very ugly careerism here. Bush should punish it. If he doesn't, it will invite the ambitious second-stringers in other agencies to leak and try to destroy their bosses too, to try to get their jobs. No competent CEO can tolerate such counterproductive office politics and careerism.

Bush should keep the AG, fire the deputy AG and his staff, pardon Libby, and launch JD investigations of Reed, William Jefferson, Sandy Burglar and other Dims. In short, take off the gloves.

Democrats are too stupid to put the priorities of this country in proper order of importance if their lives depended on it. (and their lives do depend on it, our lives too and that of this Republic.) What a mob of monkeys they are.

Unfortunately for America, they concealed their banana breath well enough in 2006 to lull enough voters into giving them the power they had been lusting for. And what is the first things they are doing with that power? Going bananas, diddling, defecating into their hands and throwing it at everyone who disagrees with them and upon Constitution of the USA.

They are masters at tending to monkey business and are tending to it full time, while their share of responsibility in the running of government business is totally ignored by them.

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.

He defends Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight U.S. attorneys, rejects Democrats' demand that aides testify under oath.