Bush speaks about firing scandal

[Kazimierz]

Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259843,00.html)

President Bush said late Tuesday that he will oppose any congressional efforts to subpoena White House staff in the investigation of the firing of eight federal prosecutors, a scandal that has put his administration and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under scrutiny in the last week.

Bush said he has given Gonzales, White House political strategist Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers the go-ahead to talk to congressional committees — but not under oath — in the investigation of the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.

"Questioning of White House officials would be conducted by a member or limited number of members, who would be accompanied by committee staff. Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas."

--

I really haven't been following this story much, but i was able to catch Bush's speech just a short time ago.

He was acting very standoffish and defensive (more so than normal), and looked like he was trying too hard to convince us that his solution to the scandal is the right one.

After what he has said, and his behavior at the podium and brushing off of reporter's questions, i'm of the belief that something inappropriate did happen, and that it can be connected to him.

[jn_powell]

I have yet to see any evidence of any wrong doing here. Not that it doesn't exist, but I certainly have not seen it. If anyone has any good links that are anything other than speculation I would honestly like to see them. I am skeptical these days about people going out of their way to make everything this administration does look evil. It is my understanding that none of those fired have stated that they feel this was because of them prosecuting or not prosecuting cases the administration deemed favorable or anything of that nature. Didn't Clinton fire 90+ of these guys? I would really like to see more if anyone has anything.

[Sketcher]

Didn't Clinton fire 90+ of these guys?

Yep. He fired every one of them.

[Knoodle]

Yep. He fired every one of them.

He even fired the ones in Arkansas looking into Whitewater and Morgan Guaranty. Oh my, where was the media then?

[bergshadow]

Most presidents fire the DAs at the beginning - Clinton was particularly interested because of the pattern of abuse that had been forming under Reagan and Bush.

W did too. That's not the issue. The issue is why W would fire his own appointees, several in the middle of serious investigations of Republican scandals. That is unprecedented - Clinton (or Bush, or Reagan, or Nixon) did not fire very many of his own appointees, and only for obvious cause.

What are they doing differently from the ones not fired?

And so we pay attention not to the fired DAs - staunch Republicans, mostly, as many prosecutors are (even under Dem administrations) - but to the ones not fired: and we find smoking guns in plenty,

such as the fact that under W local Dem politicians are brought under investigation (often just before elections, etc) at seven times the rate local Rep politicians are, by these W appointees. More than 200 local Dems have faced federal investigation and publicity therefrom, fewer than 40 local Reps have, since W fired Clinton's DAs and appointed his own.

[Knoodle]

Most presidents fire the DAs at the beginning


Bill Clinton was the first and only President to fire all federal attorneys. You must be getting your facts from moveon.org.

The Clintons were under investigation in Arkansas for Whitewater and Madison Guranty. Good thing for Clinton he got elected President and was able to fire all federal prosecutors, even the ones in Arkansas who were after his ass. God bless America!

I still question how newshound Dan Rather didn't get wind of this. It would have made a good story on 60 Minutes. Maybe his liberal blinders were on a little too tight.

[StCyril]

I for one do not understand the issue here. W used a Presidential power which he had used before. The Constitution of the United States, written by our fore-fathers guarentees some rights and powers. My problem is when someone excercises those rights/powers, people get all up in arms and try to find loop holes and ways around the law to prosecute a person for it!

What W did was not illegal. Unethical, and definitley underhanded, but not illegal. So get over it, he's not the first one to use unethical practices to get the job done. Nintendo stopped giving production licenses to companies who made games for other systems during the age of the SNEs. Those practices ruined the Turbo Grafix 16 market, but I don't see anyone boycotting the Nintendo systems.

[Fish_Bone]

If Clinton lied about cheating on his wife, that means it's okay if Bush does too! :idea:

[Fag Boy]

This isnt a scandal

[bergshadow]

Bill Clinton was the first and only President to fire all federal attorneys. You must be getting your facts from moveon.org. Don't forget Reagan. But that's not the issue.

The difference is, first, that in the past DAs have served out their full four years before being replaced; second, that such replacement is done early in a President's tenure, as policy not retaliation or pressure. This selective firing by W, late in his tenure, of his own appointees, in ther middle of their terms, has no precedent.

And it would not be possible without certain Patriot Act provisions - which Congress has just repealed, after getting a look at how they are employed inpractice. (They could save time by repealing the whole thing - it's all trouble).
http://judiciary.house.gov/OversightTestimony.aspx?ID=752
Later in 1981 President Reagan nominated me and the United States Senate confirmed me as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan. In 1985, I was renominated and confirmed for a second four year term. When President George H.W. Bush was elected in 1988, I continued to serve as United States Attorney until January 1, 1994.

I resigned effective on January 1, 1994, upon the confirmation of my successor, Michael Dettmer, the presidentially-appointed United States Attorney of former President Clinton.

I served as U.S. Attorney for 3 Presidents (Reagan, Bush and Clinton) and 5 Attorney Generals (Smith, Meese, Thornburgh, Barr and Reno) and several acting Attorney Generals.
- - -
In our family we were taught to respect government, politics and politicians. A great aunt of mine once said of our family, “We were raised on politics, sports and cigar smoke.” Now, I confess, I am a recovering politician.

With this background the Committee may appreciate a little how much I love the Department of Justice. It also may show that I have no grudge against politics and politicians.

Therefore it troubles me when the word “politics” is sneered at, and is used as a dirty adjective in common speech. And it truly offends me when I hear prosecutors wrongfully tarred with that adjective when undeserved.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2516&wit_id=6062
While my personal situation was historically unique, there was nothing at all novel about United States Attorneys being replaced for political reasons. The Reagan administration, for example, acted in its own interests much the same as the Clinton administration had in its when it sought the prompt removal of all U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration, notwithstanding the fact that most of the persons whose nominations were to be submitted had not been selected and many interim persons would be required. One indeed would expect that the next administration will do the same thing and will have every right to act politically as to a task that is properly political – calling for the execution of policy choices accepted by the majority who voted for the new President.
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208046.htm So there you have it. Reagan and Clinton cleaned house, so to speak, when they assumed the office of President. This Bush is selectively cleaning house mid-term, in a manner unprecedented, at least in recent history.
To repeat: the problem is not the firings, necessarily. The problem is the political pressuring and corruption of the rest of the DAs. We have a seven to one investigation bias against Democrats, during W's administration, apparently enforced by such means. That is the problem.

[Nocturnal]

For those confused or apologizing for these actions. Let's put them under oath to see what exactly they did wrong. Why on earth are you against that?

Yep. He fired every one of them.

Sigh.

Yes he did, at the begining of his term, just like Bush 1st, and GW and other presidents.

What he didn't do was fire them mid-term, after they refused to persecute his political opponents. Also, it is against congressional ethics to communicate directly with federal prosecutors. They were exploiting a flaw in the Patriot act as well, that allows the prosecutors to be replaced without congressional approval.

I have yet to see any evidence of any wrong doing here. .

Addressed above.

Also, if they did nothing wrong, why are they afraid to go under oath? It's total bullshit.

Bill Clinton was the first and only President to fire all federal attorneys. You must be getting your facts from moveon.org.


Wrong.


What W did was not illegal. Unethical, and definitley underhanded, but not illegal.
That is what we are trying to find out here.

[jn_powell]

Addressed above.
How so? I want to see something here other than speculation. What opponents, specifically, did they refuse to persecute? I want names because otherwise this is just, as I said before, specualtion. And flaw or not, I do not see where any law was broken and all I see is a witchhunt to vilify anything this administration does.

[Nocturnal]

How so? I want to see something here other than speculation. What opponents, specifically, did they refuse to persecute? I want names because otherwise this is just, as I said before, specualtion. And flaw or not, I do not see where any law was broken and all I see is a witchhunt to vilify anything this administration does.

The liberal media is doing a bad job at getting the details out, I'll give you that much. The details are out there though, no speculation here, these guys were clearly fired for political reasons. The only area that is murky is what hand the administration actually played here.

Believe me, there is enough real scandals with these people to make idle speculation a major waste of time. Just because there have been so many scandals, doesn't mean there is a blind campagin against these guys. Perhaps they just really are this bad? That possibility isn't given enough thought I think.


http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=189001

Just a few of the details that I posted right when the story broke. Several of these guys were called directly by Republican members of congress and pressured to act a certain way.

H. E. "Bud" Cummins III: Fired so that a job could be opened for a protege of Karl Rove.

David Iglesias: Fired because he refused to bow to pressure to indict some Democrats before the 2006 election at the request of a Republican Senator. FTA

Carol S. Lam: Fired because she was casting a wider net based on the testimony obtained in the plea agreement with Randy "Duke" Cunningham... instead of tossing more illegal aliens in jail.

John McKay: Fired because he declined to intervene in a ballot dispute in the 2004 Washington governor's race to benefit the fellow Republican candidate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/06/politics/main2538446.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2538446

(CBS/AP) A fired federal prosecutor told a Senate committee Tuesday that he felt "leaned on" and sickened as Republican Sen. Pete Domenici hung up on him in disgust last fall when told that indictments in a corruption case against Democrats would not be issued before the fall elections.

"He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?'" former federal prosecutor David Iglesias, one of eight U.S. attorneys summarily fired in recent months, told the panel. "I said I didn't think so. And to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead."

The Bush administration also applied a heavy hand after the firings of eight prosecutors became public and some of the dismissed U.S. attorneys had been quoted in media, according to one of those ousted, Bud Cummins of Arkansas.

Cummins said in an e-mail released by the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, had called and expressed his displeasure that the fired prosecutors talked to reporters about their dismissals.

"If they (DOJ) feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully," Cummins said in the e-mail to five other fired prosecutors.

[jn_powell]

Now that is more what I was looking for. Thank you. Up until this point I have seen nothing.

[bergshadow]

Now that is more what I was looking for. Thank you. Up until this point I have seen nothing. OK, this is a good example. In past discussions on this forum we have argued about whether various news sources are biased and in which direction. This incident provides a very clear, very specific example.

Anyone who thinks, based on what they have seen from their news sources, that this story is about something Clinton did too, or something normal for Presidencies, or routine in any way,

anyone who regards this, based on what they have seen from their news sources, as an exaggerated witchhunt over essentially trivial matters, a product of spin

and anyone who missed - "didn't see anything about" - the major aspect of the story, the major concern and the whole point of the alarm - that the sitting, unfired DAs may have been pressured in seriously illegitimate ways, that this points to the possibility of major corruption of our entire federal legal system stemming from the Patriot Act,

has been getting all of their news from sources that are very, very biased in favor of government propaganda.

There isn't much excuse for a news source blowing this one. It isn't in a foreign country, there's no war or enemy or complicating matters of security, the issues are simple and sufficiently scandalous to boost ratings, the story is right there.

[GlutSow]

Now that is more what I was looking for. Thank you. Up until this point I have seen nothing.

To see anything you have to actually leave ebwf and check out some news sites.

[jn_powell]

and anyone who missed - "didn't see anything about" - the major aspect of the story, the major concern and the whole point of the alarm - that the sitting, unfired DAs may have been pressured in seriously illegitimate ways, that this points to the possibility of major corruption of our entire federal legal system stemming from the Patriot Act,

has been getting all of their news from sources that are very, very biased in favor of government propaganda.

I try to spread it out. I don't even go to Fox news. Usually I try to go to CNN, MSNBC, and BBC news. I do go to the Drudgereport as well, but most of that is just links to other sources just they choose to only show certain stories. By the way, I don't remember having too many conversations with you regarding validity of news sources, by I understand your point.

To see anything you have to actually leave ebwf and check out some news sites.
I read several news sources on a daily basis smartass.

[Nocturnal]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070321/D8O0KN6G0.html

Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign over his handling of the U.S. attorneys' firings over the past year.

"He's got support with me," Bush said. "I support the attorney general."

Well that's it. Gonzales is finished I think. Everytime GW makes a public statement about his support for one of his guys, said "guy" is immediately destroyed in a series of scandals and calls for resignation.

House is asking for Subpoenas... so the whitehouse can take that to court or accept.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

[r(2)Truth]

Apparently, the congress wants them to go under oath
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6475985.stm)

Bush advisers ordered to testify

George W Bush says he does not want confrontation with Democrats
A Congressional committee has voted to order key White House aides to testify under oath about the controversial firing of eight federal prosecutors.
The White House has offered to let the aides speak to Congress, but not under oath, and will resist the new order.

Congress wants to question Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, as well as Mr Bush's former lawyer.

Lawmakers are probing the dismissal last year of eight US attorneys, which critics say was politically motivated.

Mr Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has faced calls to resign over the dismissals.

The president has thus far stood by Mr Gonzales, a long-time confidant from their days in Texas before they came to Washington together.


Mr Gonzales says the prosecutors were dismissed because their performances were below standard.

Congressional investigations have found that Mr Bush's former counsel, Harriet Miers, proposed firing all 93 US attorneys nationwide in 2005.


Mr Gonzales is fighting to hold onto his job

One of the attorneys who was fired was replaced by a former aide to Mr Rove.

Mr Bush said on Tuesday that Congress should accept his offer to let his aides testify privately, without oath or transcript.

He vowed to resist any order, or subpoena, for them to testify in public.
"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honourable public servants," Mr Bush said.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the House demand for testimony under oath sets up a constitutional battle between the president and Congress which could end up in the Supreme Court.
Bipartisan unease

The criticism of Mr Gonzales began with the Democrats who now control Congress, but has spread to Republicans as well.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly - and with bipartisan support - on Tuesday to strip Mr Gonzales of the power to appoint US attorneys without its consent.

And the vote on Wednesday authorising the use of subpoenas to compel White House officials to testify passed on a voice vote with no dissent.

Critics of the prosecutor firings - including some of the prosecutors themselves - say they were removed for investigating Republican officials or failing to investigate alleged vote fraud in support of Democrats.

[bergshadow]

I try to spread it out. I don't even go to Fox news. Usually I try to go to CNN, MSNBC, and BBC news. Exactly.

And from those mainstream, high-reputation sources received the impression that this was a witchhunt over trivialities, rather than an introduction to the facts and circumstances of most concern.

It isn't often that these issues are this clear, no statistics required.

This rightist, pro-establishment bias of the mainstream media should be noted, I think, and remembered in the future when the issues are fuzzier and the claims less certain.

Since you didn't mention the Grey Eminence, an example from the NYT (unrelated topic):
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703200006
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ (article on NYT coverage of Gore).

edited in: yet another example, from the quote above
Congressional investigations have found that Mr Bush's former counsel, Harriet Miers, proposed firing all 93 US attorneys nationwide in 2005. The key fact here, not mentioned, is that all those attorneys were appointed by the current administration. 2005 was W's second term, and DAs serve four year appointments. Nowhere in these accounts is that critical circumstance - that these are all W appointees in the first place, a much different situation than past replacements on merely political grounds - mentioned.

This isn't politics as usual.

[Sketcher]

Exactly.

And from those mainstream, high-reputation sources received the impression that this was a witchhunt over trivialities, rather than an introduction to the facts and circumstances of most concern.

You seem to think that any news media that isn't classifying this as a scandal is just pro-government propaganda. Have you ever thought that maybe it actually isn't and it's actually YOUR sources that are propaganda? The sources jn listed all have a reputation for being extremely reliable. It is possible that instead of "our" sources being propaganda and "yours" being reliable, just the opposite may be true.

Although you would never admit that, even if it was true.

[bergshadow]

You seem to think that any news media that isn't classifying this as a scandal is just pro-government propaganda. Have you ever thought that maybe it actually isn't and it's actually YOUR sources that are propaganda? Sure. Especially since those are among my sources, too, and everyone errs occasionally.

So we, as always, check the sources, based on what we can discover of the facts of the matter at hand. We can check, for example, to see if this firing was something other Presidents had done, or if past such firings had proved to be innocent, as some sources have claimed.

And after checking, we find that it isn't normal business, hasn't been done innocently in the past, and certainly appears scandalous - we'll know more if we can get some testimony under oath, which is proving remarkably difficult to get for some reason.

So - and this is the key - we evaluate the sources based on the reality as revealed in 20/20 hindsight and verifiable statistic and physical fact. After a while, if we see patterns of misleading and erroneous reports from a given source, we label that source accordingly.

This is the opposite of the procedure common among the righty rant crowd, in which reality is evaluated according to the pre-labeled source reporting it.

[bergshadow]

It's either double post or start a new thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032102713.html

More tentacles.
Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.
- - - -
News reports on the strategy changes at the time caused an uproar in Congress and sparked an inquiry by the Justice Department. Government witnesses said they had been asked to change testimony, and one expert withdrew from the case. Government lawyers also announced that they were scaling back a proposed penalty - -
And an illustration of why we need to put Rove under oath http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0703210070mar21,1,4717359.column?coll=chi-news-col&ctrack=1&cset=true Did Rove speak directly to Big Bob Kjellander, whom Rove engineered into the job of treasurer of the Republican National Committee?

Answers might tell us why Fitzgerald, honored in 2002 as one of the top prosecutors in the Justice Department--and the fed most feared by the bipartisan political Combine that runs Illinois--was abruptly downgraded in March 2005.

According to news reports this week, Fitzgerald was downgraded in a 2005 Justice Department memo sent to the White House and was listed among federal prosecutors who "had not distinguished themselves."
- - -
Conventional wisdom from Washington is that Fitzgerald fell out of favor with the Republicans because of his pursuit of the CIA leak case, - -

But why not consider an alternative?

Just as that March 2005 memo downgrading Fitzgerald was making its way to the White House, Fitzgerald's office in Chicago was proceeding in a fascinating political corruption probe involving alleged kickbacks requiring state approval for the construction of hospitals.

That case would mushroom into Operation Board Games, revealing bipartisan political influence in hundreds of millions of dollars invested through state pension funds.
- - - -
Kjellander is the Republican committeeman of Illinois who flaunts his friendship with Rove and who recently resigned as treasurer of the Republican National Committee. Kjellander also represented the famous Carlyle Group before the teachers' pension fund board and he received $4.5 million in questionable consulting fees.

Did Kjellander discuss Fitzgerald with Rove? I don't know.

Only Rove can say, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, with a court reporter present, reminding Republicans that they once demanded that others respect the rule of law.

[JaneEyre]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/03/13/VI2007031300974.html

I know this isn't where we post videos, but.....

Here is Gonzales' "I will not resign" speach.

[LegendaryLink]

Isn't the whole thing about speaking "not under oath" really stupid? That's like declaring "I'm going to lie about something"