Bush, in Nixon-like move, won't give up files on firings

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thunderdog, Jun 29, 2007.

  1. Troubling. Very troubling.


    Bush, in Nixon-like move, won't give up files on firings



    Friday, June 29th 2007, 4:00 AM


    WASHINGTON - President Bush will invoke executive privilege rather than yield to congressional demands for documents on the firing of at least eight U.S. attorneys, who allegedly were canned for political reasons.

    White House counsel Fred Fielding announced yesterday that Team Bush would not hand over documents from ex-White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

    "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion," Fielding said in letters to both oversight committees.

    The fight will now likely move to the federal courts.

    The House and Senate judiciary committees want the documents as part of their investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sacked the federal prosecutors last year for not carrying out the Bush administration's political objectives.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, "Not since the Nixon administration have we seen a stonewalling strategy like this." Schumer has called for Gonzales to resign over the firing of the prosecutors.

    "Maybe everyone has acted honorably. But show me an administration that craves secrecy, and I'll show you an administration that probably has something to hide," Schumer said.

    Bush has told Gonzales to hang tough and not cave into demands that he step down. Gonzales in turn has pledged to fight the efforts to get him to quit.

    Paul McNulty, the No. 2 man at the Justice Department, and two other Justice Department officials have resigned over the flap.

  2. They hate us for our freedom...
  3. How many times did Clinton claim the same privilege? The only difference was that he was under a proper investigation for corruption, one that ended with him being cited for contempt of court and forfeiting his law license. So the headline could have easily have been, "Bush follows Clinton precedent in claiming privilege."

    Unlike the Clinton situation, congress has no right to demand Executive Branch documents merely because they disagree with some presidential action. The President doesn't answer to the Congress. They are co-equal branches of government. He doesn' t have to justify his actions to them. Clearly this investigation is merely political grandstanding by partisan democrats who think it is good politics to weaken a president even though we are in a war and troops are under fire every day.
  4. Strawman.

  5. Aw, come on, AAA. No thinking person would side with the president on this one. The 8 US attorneys were probably fired for partisan reasons. For all I know, that may have legally been the prerogative of those in charge. However, to deny it, to obfuscate and then to invoke executive privilege just smells bad. That coupled with Cheney's recent shenanigans really does not look that good for the administration. (On top of everything else.) It is amazing what people are supposed to turn a blind eye to, and what people can get away with during times of military conflict, whether or not those things have anything to do with that conflict. It really is time to wake up and smell the diaper. The administration it treating the citizenry as fools, and to disagree with that conduct is unpatriotic?
  6. This is purely a Separation of Powers battle. The congress does not have the constitutional power to demand explanations from the president or to subpoena documents or compel testimony on areas that are within the president's exclusive authority. It's not a question of whether they agree with something he did or not. He doesn't need their approval to fire US Attorneys.

    If they want to impeach him over it, they are free to try. They can wage a Separation of Powers battle in other ways, such as by refusing to confirm appointments, cutting his budget, etc. But the president is not subservient to the congress.

    As much as I am disappointed by Bush in other areas, I support him in this. He has an institutional responsibility to his office to prevent congress from encroaching on territory reserved for the Executive Branch by the Constitution.
  7. Fine. Then why did he not just say why it was done and be done with it, rather than watch as his henchmen repeatedly denied the most likely reason for the firings? Essentially, he was watching them perjure themselves before stepping in and putting a lid on it. By all means, let him exercise his privilege. But if you are actually ok with him refusing to say why he did so, then I am truly disappointed. Is his refusal to disclose the rationale a matter of national security? No. National confidence? Getting warmer.
  8. Didnt know he had to....

    I liked him whe he was gubner over TX and I still like him. I disagree with some of his positions, but I like him....

    We take BS from Libs and Dems every day... Right Back Atcha. LOL.
  9. Just to be clear, he is treating you with as much contempt as he is treating anyone else. Revel in it if you must.
  10. Just keep this in mind. I dont care how he feels about me personally...

    One Phrase... Tax Breaks......

    I run a small business as well as trade... He put an additional 100K per year in pocket when he took office. And he hasnt taken it back...

    The other crowd was killig me in the 90's.

    And now they are set to Kill me even more....

    So.. Though I may disagree with him, I like him...

    Maybe it's because I had a face to face back in 98... Who knows....
    #10     Jun 29, 2007