« ¡Patria o muerte, venceremos! | Main | 18 Days Redux »
Rule Of Law! Rule Of Law!
By Jeff Fecke | March 21, 2007
So President Pissypants won’t be letting his aides testify.
Personally, I think Tony Snow is right:
Evidently, Mr. Bush wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Bush values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Bush will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
Now, of course, in the preceding paragraphs you can replace “Bush” with “Clinton,” because Tony Snow will happily change his opinions based on whose ox is being gored. But I don’t, and I can say with certainty that despite the GOP Congress’ overreach, Clinton would have been wrong to refuse to let his aides testify before them. And certainly, I think the same of Bush’s decision. (Sorry, offering that Karl Rove can testify only in secret, off the record, not under oath, and using only the yes/no wheelchair that Captain Pike used in “The Menagerie” is not a legitimate offer.)
The simple fact is that if U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, Presidents serve at the pleasure of the people. And both of the other coequal branches of government must have the right to question the President and his staff in situations where, say, there is a question of whether the adminstration has obstructed justice.
That right shouldn’t be absolute, but outside of questions of National Security, it should be close. And an honest and ethical administration should have no fear of testifying; indeed, they should welcome any opportunity to expound on their honesty and ethics.
But we all know that the ethical standards of the Bush administration make the ethical standards of the Clinton administration look like the ethical standards of the Carter administration.
At any rate, the House has already issued their subpoenas, and the Senate will soon follow suit; we’re moving down the track toward a decision. Soon enough, Karl will be under the klieglights. And until that time, the President’s support will continue to ebb.
Topics: US Attorney Scandal | 3 Comments »
March 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Doesn’t all of this come down to a fundamental question….do these prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President or not? If they do, I kind of see it like at-will employment…you can be fired for pretty much any reason at all. Now, wouldn’t a smart leader want to keep around people who were objectively talented, despite politics? Yes, absolutely. But, does a unenlightened leader have the ability to clean house without thought to talent. Yes, absolutely. It is kind of like a new football coach coming in and firing all the assistants, which basically happens always. In my opinion, there are much bigger items to be concerned about, and this is a waste of Congress and bloggers’ time.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The question comes if the reason for firing the prosecutors was to alter their pursuit of Republican malfeasance, or because they were unwilling to pursue specious claims of Democratic malfeasance. David Iglesias’ case is the textbook–he was fired, it appears, because he refused to bring charges against Democrats specifically to aid Heather Wilson’s reelection campaign–but Lam’s case in San Diego is as disturbing, as well.
The operative term in those cases is “obstruction of justice.” And while leaders can clean house for stupid reasons, they can’t clean house for illegal ones.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
But for the GOP’s “Patriot” act, this unprecedented mid-term “housecleaning” would have required Senate confirmation. The GOP Congress passed the Patriot act, allowing them to avoid confirmation, and then the GOP political junta decided to can a bunch of DOJ Attorneys for refusing to wield the DOJ swords for GOP political purposes. Emails appear to show that the leaders of this plan knew about it, and that the AG lied or mislead Congress when it inquired into the details. Now, the GOP white house says that it need not answer questions under oath? That they don’t need to tell the truth about it?