Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Bush says he’ll fight subpoenas for aides

Democrats want answers in firings of U.S. prosecutors

March 21, 2007

Advertisement

— A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as today for the White House aides.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said he would fight any subpoena effort in court.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," he said. "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."

He added that federal prosecutors work for him and it is natural to consider replacing them. While saying he disapproved of how the decisions were explained to Congress, he insisted "there is no indication that anybody did anything improper."

Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," Bush said.

The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies - but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

Comments

Porter 7 years, 1 month ago

right_thinker?? Pilgrim??

Nothing??

0

Agnostick 7 years, 1 month ago

Well, here's what we've all been waiting for.

Okay... certain people have spent the past few years, "talking the talk" at every opportunity. Simultaneously, these same folks often like to use "Slick Willy" as their diversionary tactic.

"He lied under oath! Perjury!" they cry.

Well, time to "walk the walk."

Conservatives/Republicans love to imply that they are somehow morally superior to the folks way over on the other side of the aisle.

So, why not testify under oath, then? I mean, if Gonzales and Rove and Miers are going to tell the 100%, absolute, ironclad truth about all this... why resist the oath? By allowing these three to testify under oath, and tell the 100%, absolute, ironclad truth, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. They will demonstrate, once and for all--with actions, not empty words--that Conservative Republicans are morally superior to Liberal Democrats.

As for the "executive privilege" argument, that's a crock. If Bush was REALLY worried about that, he wouldn't be letting these folks anything about this--"off the record" or on it.

So... are they gonna "walk the walk?"

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com http://www.uscentrist.org

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.