Posted on 03/26/2007 8:36:03 AM PDT by jazusamo
Posted 03/26/2007 ET
We often disagree with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a former prosecutor and now the Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. But one thing is for certain: there isn’t a dumb bone in his body.
That’s why it’s so infuriating to witness the theater he has allowed (indeed, induced) his committee to become over what is now an MSM-dubbed “scandal” .. forged by the explosive combination of top-tier Justice Department incompetence and shrewd opportunism in the Democrat-controlled Congress .. over the Bush Administration’s firing of eight United States attorneys.
On Thursday, following the previous day’s lead from the House Judiciary Committee, Leahy’s panel conducted a proceeding to authorize the issuance of testimonial subpoenas for some of President Bush’s closest aides, including his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers. As elucidated by reams of email already disclosed by the Executive Branch, Rove and Miers were involved in some of the discussions that led, eventually, to the dismissal of the prosecutors.
The hype is pure Washington farce. Plainly, it is also more strategic than appeared at first blush. Not only are administration critics deftly exploiting the ham-handedness of Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and his staff, who initially could not get their story straight about why the U.S. attorneys were sacked -- notwithstanding that the sacking did not require a compelling story in the first place, since the removal of such presidential appointees is a wholly discretionary political call. Democrats are further reaping a more significant political benefit: Every minute Americans spend on this trumped up controversy is one less minute of attention available for the ongoing chicanery in the House. There, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is practicing pork-barrel, bare-knuckles politics to the hilt, ramming through a defense appropriations bill that will starve our military in wartime while lining the pockets of core liberal constituencies with taxpayer dollars.
As Thursday’s hearing ensued, Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) cut to the chase: Gratuitously provoking a constitutional crisis by issuing subpoenas to the advisers of a coordinate branch of government is a gross violation of separation-of-powers. It invites ruinous retaliation.
What, Kyl asked, would the senators think if the executive branch issued subpoenas to congressional staffers to probe a senator’s motivation for taking this or that action? Or how about subpoenas served on the law clerks of a Supreme Court justice to inquire into why a case was decided a particular way. Were such actions to be taken, senators would revolt -- and rightfully so. It would mark a blatant transgression of inter-branch comity. It would subvert the principle that, within the sphere of its constitutional duties, each branch is supreme.
Not so, countered Leahy. He pointed to the cases of Representatives Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Robert Ney, both recently convicted of felony corruption. “Their staffs were subpoenaed. Their material[s] were subpoenaed. The people did have to testify. And they're in prison as a result.” So, Leahy elaborated, “Certainly, the executive branch has been able to go into the exact same things [Kyl was] talking about. Why they made decisions like they did, who bribed them, who paid them off. And they're now serving time in prison for that. So it’s not unusual.”
C’mon, senator, you know better than that.
The Cunningham and Ney cases were about crime -- as Leahy himself said, “who bribed them, who paid them off.” So, too, is the curiously unresolved investigation of Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat Leahy somehow neglected to mention but whose home and House office were searched by federal agents -- and whom two people have already pled guilty to bribing (although Pelosi nevertheless deemed him fit for service on the Homeland Security Committee).
Crime, as any experienced Vermont prosecutor is well aware, changes everything. Most obviously, it is the executive branch, not the Congress, which exercises the constitutional police power. Legislators may not think it’s fair that the Justice Department can pursue corrupt members of Congress while congress can only request, not conduct, prosecutive action against corrupt executive branch officials. But that’s our system of divided powers -- presidents don’t get to raise revenue either; they need Congress to fund the Justice Department … and everything else.
More fundamentally, in the matter of removing U.S. attorneys, Congress is not investigating crime. It is inquiring into politics. It wishes to probe what considerations caused President Bush to exercise his unfettered power to dismiss executive branch officials, like U.S. attorneys, who exercise power that is not their own but the president’s. That is, it wants to use its investigative authority -- which it has for purposes of considering legislation, not usurping the role of the grand jury -- to scrutinize institutional judgment.
Institutional judgment, of course, is precisely the realm in which Leahy and other legislators expect, and must have, insulation from interference by the other branches. Consultations in this realm between members of congress and their closest advisers are sacrosanct. Ditto judges and their clerks. And it must be no different for a president and his staff.
The gossamer girth of Leahy’s contention is best seen in a concept with which, as a fine lawyer, he is well familiar: the attorney-client privilege. In the sphere of communications aimed at the exchange of legal advice, the privilege is inviolate. But, there’s a caveat: the crime-fraud exception. If the communication’s purpose is to plan or commit a crime, the privilege is extinguished and the lawyer can be compelled to testify against the client.
Interfering with an ongoing investigation or court case would be a very serious matter. If done corruptly, it would be obstruction of justice, a crime. If there were strong evidence that U.S. attorneys had been fired in order to kill sensitive investigations in their offices, this would be a very different matter. If Congress had credible indications that such a thing went on, its investigations might be justified -- although it would then be more appropriate for legislators to call for a criminal investigation, not try to conduct one themselves. Such congressional investigations have a history of compromising the prospects for bringing wrongdoers to justice.
But there is no such evidence. A fishing expedition into the mere possibility -- absent convincing evidence -- of a crime is no better when launched by Congress than it would be if used as a pretext by the executive branch to investigate congressmen. What would Leahy say if the Justice Department started issuing random grand jury subpoenas to senatorial staff on nothing more than a hunch that influence-peddling might be afoot?
The Justice Department has rightly been criticized here. It is understandable that Congress is angry over the conflicting explanations for the firings. But it has more than made its point on that score, damaging the administration politically and the Attorney General perhaps irreparably. Scoring more political points is not worth the exorbitant cost of undermining the confidentiality of principal/agent relationships. Once Congress crosses that Rubicon, it would be foolish to think that fall-out will be limited to the executive branch … or, indeed, to Republicans.
Mr. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
That's only because he's lacking a spine.
PING..
He got away with treason, he has to have some smarts.
There hasn't been a news article on Jefferson in 10 months, anywhere.
People get fired every day...there is no scandal there, but shoving stolen doucments down your drawers? Now there is a scandal!
Combine this with the fact that the President isn't on National TV/Radio daily, beating the Dims over the head with this cut and run legislation, it's no wonder that he's having problems.
Unfortunately the Troops are the ones who will end up paying the price.
NO...there hasn't except when Nancy was going to put him on the Homeland Security committee and the House GOPers said they would try to stop it....
BUT, I do remember the WAILING that went on up on Capitol Hill that the Justice Dept, with a search warrant, went into his office to get evidence.
BUT, these same people see nothing wrong with expecting the POTUS' closest advisors to have to testify at a hearing over something that IS NOT ILLEGAL!!
I tell you what, Americans need to wake up an smell the coffee....this Congress is getting out of hand..and the DEM candidates for POTUS are worse.
Well, if getting away with a crime makes you smart then I concede my point. He's smart. He's Ted Kennedy smart.
If I were president, I would hold a press conference personally. I would make a point of putting the names of all the Clinton holdover U.S. attorneys in a jar. I would pull out a name at random and announce that they were fired.
Then I would look into the camera and point out that this lottery will continue until the congressional circus stops.
I fully agree and the two of them should be sharing a cell.
Good one!
However, I take issue with the author. He makes the mistake of thinking that someone can dissemble, deceive, lie, scheme and slander, that they cannot be dumb.
What Leahy is doing to his own country IS dumb. As an added visual to make my point, imagine Leahy out on a patrol with a bunch of US Marines in Iraq. It is not too hard to image them looking at each other and saying "Boy, that guy sure is a dumb ass."
Dumb is not absolute...it is relative. I don't consider myself a rocket scientist, but I also think I can handle myself in a lot of different situations. Those situations I mangle would make me appear pretty dumb. It happens.
Bottom line...I think I agree with YOU and disagree with the author.
And he's full of leaks!
The Administration has, once again, managed to screw up all by itself and then compound the error by terrible damage control. As everyone knows, politics ain't bean bag so it is silly to blame the Democrats for taking advantage.
They serve at the pleasure of the President. Clinton demonstrated this perfectly at the start of his administration although the MSM seems to have conveniently forgotten this.
The rats cannot get past the fact that they don't serve at "their" pleasure. Add in the fact that the rats are smart enough to use their willing accomplices in the MSM to continue their strategy of death by small cuts to the Bush administration and you have the present situation which is labeled a scandal but in reality is nothing of the sort.
This is another example where Bush should take the gloves off but how many of us have given up on that idea? I have.
10 years later, we still don't know who hired Craig Livingstone to dig up 900 FBI files on political enemies of the Clinton Administration.
>>>I would make a point of putting the names of all the Clinton holdover U.S. attorneys in a jar.I would pull out a name at random and announce that they were fired. Then I would look into the camera and point out that this lottery will continue until the congressional circus stops.
Since at this time there are no Clinton holdover U.S. attorneys, I don't think that would be terribly effective.
Unfortunately, there are no Clinton holdover US Attorneys to fire in this scenario. Aggressive investigation of Congressional wrongdoing would cause more howls, however.
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.