Subpoenas, Karl Rove, and our democracy, So what?

#26
#26
No he didn't. But he used a pathetic reason to get rid of them. It sure does harm to the whole field.

It's not entirely clear. Wow. Reason to look deeper is it not? Something that could be on the shady side but it's grandstanding so why bother, right?


I have no problem with looking deeper. However, I do think looking deeper into this particular issue is maybe 10% of the intent of the hearings.

The hearings have great potential to be an abuse of power by Congress -- who wins in that scenario?

I would feel the same way if this were a Dem president and Rep Congress.
 
#27
#27
Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.



-John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

Some of these appointees have drawn praise from local skeptics and later won Senate confirmation for permanent appointments.

Roehrkasse said that while some newly appointed U.S. attorneys might have political connections, they all have outstanding credentials.



Todd Jones, who was a U.S. attorney in Minneapolis during the Clinton administration, said he was concerned by the overall trend of an administration putting into place a "more centralized, command-and-control system."

Several prosecutors said prior Republican administrations avoided such tight control.

"Under Reagan and the first Bush administration, we worked very hard to push the power out to the locals," said Jean Paul Bradshaw, who was a U.S. attorney in Kansas City under President George H.W. Bush. "Local attorneys know how a case will play in their areas, what crimes are a problem. Ultimately, these decisions are better made locally."

Peter Nunez, a U.S. attorney in San Diego under President Reagan for six years, said prosecutors have expressed frustration with the strict oversight from Washington.
"I've heard nothing but complaints over the last six years about how many things the Justice Department is demanding relating to bureaucracy and red tape," Nunez said.

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 01/26/2007 | Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots
 
#28
#28
The hearings have great potential to be an abuse of power by Congress -- who wins in that scenario?
Not to mention the potential for abuse of power by the Executive Branch. Who wins by just shrugging it off?

Don't want an abuse of power? Simple. Testify while under oath and allow a transcript. It doesn't have to be live on CSPAN. Just lay everything out. Wiggling and hiding tends to lead to many legal issues and scandals. Why not just come clean?
 
#29
#29
The hearings have great potential to be an abuse of power by Congress -- who wins in that scenario?
Not to mention the potential for abuse of power by the Executive Branch. Who wins by just shrugging it off?

Don't want an abuse of power? Simple. Testify while under oath and allow a transcript. It doesn't have to be live on CSPAN. Just lay everything out. Wiggling and hiding tends to lead to many legal issues and scandals. Why not just come clean?

Goes back to the fishing expedition. If the questioning were strictly about this issue, then the story would be different.

I don't condone the WH actions. However, neither do I condone the opposition party trying to access the private communications among one branch with the primary purpose of scoring political points.
 
#30
#30
meanwhile, the democrats continue to leave their agenda behind. scandal fatigue is already setting in and while I don't put too much faith in polls, congressional approval ratings aren't much higher than the President's.
 
#31
#31
So you have no issue with being able to fire prosecutors for reasons such as they probed Republicans, didn't probe issues favored by Senators, etc? You want prosecutors to be limited by politics rather than having them do their job of prosecuting the most pressing criminal cases in their district?
That is exactly what independent prosecutors are for. The executive has to have the authority to hire and fire his advisors/administrators (executive service) for any reason, including a political reason.
 
#34
#34
The hearings have great potential to be an abuse of power by Congress -- who wins in that scenario?

Goes back to the fishing expedition. If the questioning were strictly about this issue, then the story would be different.

I don't condone the WH actions. However, neither do I condone the opposition party trying to access the private communications among one branch with the primary purpose of scoring political points.

All the Executive has to answer is about the issue. Anything more and they keep their mouth sht. No one from the Legislative branch is holding a gun during testimony/questioning.

So even if there is a question of wrongdoing, you say forget questioning because there are political points to be scored? What the hell did you think Watergate was? What are all investigations? Motivation is the commonplace item in DC. If we were to only make moves if personal agendas are off the table, DC would shut down permanently.
 
#36
#36
On another subject, why not move the attorney general and justice to the judicial branch of government? If it takes a constitutional amendment to get it done I'd vote for it.
 
#37
#37
They are law enforcement. This falls under the executive branch. In simple terms, they are supposed to execute the laws.
 
#38
#38
Senate approval has always been required in just about all cases.
We've already discussed the Patriot Act provision that was rescinded. If a president is able to get rid of some unfriendly hacks left over from a previous adminsitration and replace them with his/her own hacks, why wouldn't he/she?
 
#39
#39
Because they were appointed by him and not the previous administration. Curious that some who were removed were investigating GOP wrongdoing. Sounds like GOP friendly prosecutors investigating GOP wrongdoings have a loyalty issue.
 
#40
#40
Because they were appointed by him and not the previous administration. Curious that some who were removed were investigating GOP wrongdoing. Sounds like GOP friendly prosecutors investigating GOP wrongdoings have a loyalty issue.
hail yeah! Executive service are not meant to be whistleblowers. If you don't like what's cooking then make a "noisy" withdrawl if you must.
 
#42
#42
So even if there is a question of wrongdoing, you say forget questioning because there are political points to be scored?


Of course I never said that.

The watchdog function can be performed in many ways. In this case, I'm perfectly comfortable with the press performing that function. Since the most serious allegation here is that the WH fired prosecutors for political reasons, Congressional hearings including subpoena's for WH staffers is extreme overkill. Trying to prove the WH abused it's power by having the Congress abuse it's power doesn't seem like a win-win to me.
 
#44
#44
How can the press investigate potential illegal or unethical actions?

Summoning WH staffers is overkill? Congress abuse its power? Again, how are they abusing their power when they are doing their constitutional duty for oversight? Keep in mind that the power to confirm is in the hands of the Senate. So it is their sworn and Constitutional duty to oversee this field and any actions that occur with them. Abuse of power is neglecting this oversight duty and allowing a branch of government to go unchecked. Obviously Congress saw a need to get involved when they changed the loophole used to appoint attorneys without consent.
 
#45
#45
people who have some fiduciary responsibility to the executive should not make it thier business to investigate/rat out the executive. U.S. attorneys definitely have that level of responsibility to the president.

While that may work in countries like Iraq, these prosecutors swear to uphold the Constitution, NOT the Executive Branch. While they only owe a nomination to the Executive, their loyalty ultimately goes to the nation and the Constitution.

So by your statement, you are saying that all investigations of the Executive should be conducted by another branch of government or independent counsel. I can agree with that. This means Gonzales does not investigate himself and his boss. By your own statement, you should have no problem with Congress doing its duty here.
 
#47
#47
Well had you been paying attention rather than typing before reading, you'd see I said POTENTIAL. Most investigations do not know initially that illegal actions were committed. It takes investigations to root out POTENTIAL illegal actions. Something of this magnitude, requires Congress to look into this.
 
#48
#48
Well had you been paying attention rather than typing before reading, you'd see I said POTENTIAL. Most investigations do not know initially that illegal actions were committed. It takes investigations to root out POTENTIAL illegal actions. Something of this magnitude, requires Congress to look into this.


You've joined the fishing crowd.

Most investigations are based on suspecting crime has been committed and having an idea of what that crime was or what law had potentially been broken.

To investigate a legal act - firing prosecutors - because you think somewhere in the process a law might have been broken -- yet you don't have evidence of a broken law (to do so you have to know which law you suspect was broken) is prosecutoral abuse of power.

Once someone somewhere can tell me which law they think might have been broken and what evidence they have that merits an investigation let me know.

Otherwise, it is fishing.
 
#49
#49
Prosecutorial abuse of power? How can Congress be accused of that since they are not in the prosecutorial field?

You obviously don't know much about criminal law and investigations especially those involving government. Go back to Watergate. No one knew laws were broken. No one initially never even had a specific example a crime was committed. Something did look suspicious and Congress investigated.

If nothing was done wrong, why not lay everything out? Why not go under oath? What is there to hide? Why not be the better man and make the other side look foolish by proving nothing was wrong? Congress has the power to subpeona and has the duty to oversee US attorneys and their hiring and firing. Plain and simple, it is allowed...regardless of motivation.
 
#50
#50
Well had you been paying attention rather than typing before reading, you'd see I said POTENTIAL. Most investigations do not know initially that illegal actions were committed. It takes investigations to root out POTENTIAL illegal actions. Something of this magnitude, requires Congress to look into this.
The point here is that the president had full authority to fire these people. It was 100 percent discretionary. Therefore, no matter what the reason for the firing was, the act of the firing was not illegal and issuing subpoenas when there has not been a crime is an abuse of presecutorial/investagotorial power unless you are offering immunity to the deponents.

My guess is that the rel story, if there is one, is what were these fired prosecutors getting their noses into. Maybe they have some real dirt on the white house? Those are the people that congress should be calling to testify.
 

VN Store



Back
Top