Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- Be Careful With Those Pardons Mr. President….Updated
- Living With Caylee
- Malia and Sasha Obama Get The First Look At What Will Be Their Bedrooms At The White House
- Elephants Have Musical Preferences Too
Recent Comments
- ~J~ on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Sue on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- newton on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- newton on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- ~J~ on Be Careful With Those Pardons Mr. President….Updated
- ~J~ on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Sue on Changes
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
I hope they take this all the way and use everything at their disposal to prosecute these people for making a mockery of the justice system.
I’m not for these investigations but why wouldn’t they cooperate if they have nothing to hide?
Written by GussHouse Democrats on Monday targeted two of President Bush’s longtime aides for criminal contempt against Congress, escalating a legal fight over executive privilege and access to White House deliberations on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his panel would vote Wednesday on citing White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers for contempt of Congress.
“It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter,” Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement after being told again by their attorneys that Bolten and Miers would not comply with the committee’s subpoenas.
The administration showed no signs of budging from its position that the president’s current and former advisers are immune from congressional subpoenas and that any White House documents related to the dismissals are protected by executive privilege.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said the decision to act on any House-passed contempt citation would be up to the Justice Department _ but would be inconsistent with the agency’s previous positions.
“The Justice Department long has believed, in Democratic and Republican administrations, that criminal contempt of Congress statutes do not apply to a president or subordinates who assert executive privilege,” Snow said in a statement to The Associated Press.
There were indications, however, that the administration was seeking to repair some political damage Democrats have inflicted during their nearly seven-month investigation into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The probe has revealed information about agency practices under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, including an admission from his former White House liaison that she looked at whether candidates for career positions at Justice were Republicans or Democrats.
Besieged by calls for his resignation but supported by Bush, Gonzales on Monday delivered remarks to the Senate full of regret for his agency’s troubles accompanied by a commitment to repair the damage. He made no reference to the fired U.S. attorneys.
“I will not tolerate any improper politicization of this department,” Gonzales said in remarks prepared for his Senate testimony Tuesday. “I will continue to make efforts to ensure that my staff and others within the department have the appropriate experience and judgment so that previous mistakes will not be repeated.”
“I have never been one to quit,” Gonzales said.
His earnestness was unlikely to blunt Democrats’ efforts, slated to advance on several fronts this week in a constitutional showdown that could culminate in federal court.
University Update - White House - Bush Aides Face Contempt Vote Wednesday linked with University Update - White House - Bush Aides Face Contempt Vote Wednesday
University Update - White House - Bush Aides Face Contempt Vote Wednesday Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 7:51 amVisit University Update - White House - Bush Aides Face Contempt Vote Wednesday
[...] Court Link to Article white house Bush Aides Face Contempt Vote Wednesday » Posted at J’s Cafe [...]
~J~ Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:12 amVisit ~J~
It’s not a “mockery of the justice system”, it’s refusal to testify to Congress—not the courts. There’s a difference. The mockery is by Congress in insisting on investigating something they have no business investigating and no authority to change.
This is a constitutional question of Executive Privilege, used by many presidents, including most recently William Jefferson Clinton. We didn’t call that a mockery of the justice system, and it wasn’t. Congress sometimes gets too big for its breeches and has to be slapped down to show them they are only 1/3 of equal branches of government no matter how much they think they are kings.
Bush has offered a compromise for these people to be questioned in private and not under oath, but Congress knows that will deprive them of their next circus act in the middle ring.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:17 amVisit Guss
J,
That’s where you and I go our separate ways. I think that the constant claiming of executive privilege by the administration is nothing more than a tactic to hide wrongdoing. The Congress has been given by the Constitution the right to oversight and in denying that right by the administration is a mockery of justice. That’s my opinion and it’s not going to change.
~J~ Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:30 amVisit ~J~
Did you feel that way when Clinton asserted Executive Privilege? And this hasn’t been “constant”. It’s only been since the witch hunts began.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:35 amVisit Guss
I did and I also think that this isn’t a witch hunt. I have always said if you have nothing to hide, come forward and testify.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:38 amVisit Guss
I was taught as a child to always accept responsibility for something I did that was dishonest. I didn’t always follow the teachings as a child but as an adult I will always be the first to accept responsibility when I have done something wrong. I think this is a value that everyone should follow and if you have done nothing wrong then you should have nothing to worry about.
~J~ Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:45 amVisit ~J~
It doesn’t necessarily mean they did anything dishonest. The president has the right to get candid advice from his advisors. When Congress insists on reading that candid advice it poses a problem, because if the president—any president—allows this information to be seen by outsiders then he can no longer depend on candid advice from his advisors as they will be afraid of being subpoenaed to Congress to testify about their advice.
This is a basic constitutional question of separation of powers. Nowhere does the constitution give Congress the authority to run the Executive Branch, and this is what they are trying to do with their hearings and subpoenas.
They can’t change the fact the attorneys were fired, so what are they after that is oversight? They know these people are in the Executive Branch and as such serve at the president’s pleasure.
This may sound like some sort of cover-up to you, but has been an ongoing argument between administrations and Congresses for a long time. Congress has no right to run the Executive Branch and that’s the principle this all hangs on. It has nothing to do with hiding anything, although anything is possible, but everything to do with how the president runs his department.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:46 amVisit Guss
Let the truth be told. If the Congress is wrong then it will reflect badly on them but as it stands now the constant claim of executive privilege doesn’t look good and you know as well as I that appearance means everything in Washington.
~J~ Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:49 amVisit ~J~
I simply disagree with you and agree a president should have the right to confidential and candid advice from his advisors without Congress poking into it where they have no business.
How would they like for the president to start investigations into their motives for whatever they do, including these investigations? They wouldn’t stand for it.
My gosh, when the FBI searched Jefferson’s office you could hear the screams from Congress all the way here. That was from both parties and it was wrong. They think they run the government when they are a co-equal branch. Not higher or lower than any other branch and certainly not more powerful.
Sue Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:53 amVisit Sue
You are correct Guss that appearance in Washington means everything. That is a sad fact.
But, the other fact is the President has the absolute right to fire these US Attorney’s for absolutely any reason and Congress has no power to stop him.
They can write all the stories they want but it will not change the basic truths. Congress overstepped their bounds here, and the President is within his.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 10:55 amVisit Guss
J,
I don’t disagree with you that the administration has the right to have candid advice. I’m only saying that, bringing this to an end as quickly as possible would be for the good of the country. If testifying is all it’s going to takes to get this over with, them why not do it? Don’t you think that this political game has gone on long enough? The teeth of the tiger need to be pulled and testifying will do that.
~J~ Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 11:02 amVisit ~J~
I agree with you, Guss, and so does President Bush, believe it or not. He has offered to allow these people to testify in private about what Congress wants to know, but not under oath. They go under oath and then they are subject to any topic that may pop into their heads if a door is cracked just a bit by a word said by someone testifying.
If Congress really wants to find out they would accept the compromise and move on. The problem is they are on a witch hunt and won’t be satisfied until they have a head in their hands and people see that too.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 11:06 amVisit Guss
J,
Believe it or not, I agree with you but let’s get it over with. As much as we might wish it, it’s not going away until testimony is received under oath.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 11:11 amVisit Guss
I’m listening to Gonzalez testified before the Senate judiciary committee. They’re asking the same questions and getting the same answers. When is this going to stop? I don’t know. I only know that I’m tired of hearing the same thing over and over again.
~J~ Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 11:11 amVisit ~J~
Guss, even under oath it won’t go away. Conyers and Leahy won’t let it go away.
Guss Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 11:14 amVisit Guss
They need to at least try it.