White House rejects Senate compromise on firings

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

White House rejects Senate compromise on firings

By Stuart Grudgings
Reuters
Sunday, April 1, 2007; 2:00 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House dismissed on Sunday a possible U.S.
Senate compromise to allow testimony by officials over the firing of federal
prosecutors, which has embroiled President George W. Bush's administration in
controversy and led to calls for his attorney general to quit.

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Charles
Schumer of New York said an agreement was possible under which White House
aides such as Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove could testify
without being under oath.

Critics charge that the dismissals of the eight U.S. attorneys were politically
motivated, with White House involvement.

-snip-

White House counselor Dan Bartlett rejected the compromise, saying the senators
were trying to "cobble together a proposal through sound bites on a Sunday show.
What we have in writing from them is far different than that type of proposal."

-snip-

Bartlett accused Democrats of dragging out the controversy for political reasons,
calling it "inexplicable" that they were refusing to bring forward the date of
Gonzales' testimony from mid-April.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100446.html

---

EDIT: changed link

[Fridays Child]

1. WTF? The Senate caved on getting Rove under oath?

Stupid, complicit fuckers.

[bemildred]

2. Trying to make it look like a witch hunt.

Spin over substance as always.

[fooj]

3. F*ck Bartlett.

Gonzo is the one who CHOSE the date. Leahy wanted him in earlier.

Choices have consequences. Live with it, Gonzo.

[truthisfreedom]

4. Mid-April? Excellent! This means that Congress will have plenty of time to put together hard-

hitting questions for gonzo. Plus, it gives them plenty of time to really do research, including questioning other people under oath.

[Danieljay]

5. I don't want an EFFING compromise. Grow a spind G - Damnit!

When are these people going to be held accountable? THAT's what I want. Accountability and justice.

[cali]

6. Let me suggest that they know precisely what they're

doing. They knew the WH would refuse. Such negotiation strengthens the subpoenas. There's ample precedent on this. They're laying a trap, and they're doing it with great care.

[Danieljay]

9. I'll trust you are correct on this. Just hope when Bush goes to the courts to keep them from

testifying, the courts will rule in our favor.

[aggiesal]

7. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said ...

... an agreement was possible under which White House aides such as Bush's chief political strategist Karl Rove could testify without being under oath.

Now I know why I would rather give my money to DU instead of the Democratic Party.

[Danieljay]

10. it included transcripts... which they can hold them to account in case of perjury, oath or not.

Bush still refused.

[Miss Chybil]

8. NO F'N COMPROMISES! Under oath. In public. PERIOD!!!!!! nt

[depakid]

11. WTF is wrong with Senate Dems

Proposing yet another double standard for Bush cronies that no one else would be permitted to follow.

This is EXACTLY why so many people have lost faith in the Democrat's ability to lead.

[cali]

12. Again. They know what they're doing

The subpoenas are strengthened by a Dem attempt at negotiation. They know damned well that the WH is going to refuse anything that's on the record. There's legal precedent for the assertion that the subpoenas are strengthened by negotiation. They know they're going to have to slug it out in court, and they're trying to build the strongest possible case.

[TwilightGardener]

13. That's true--if you want to look good in a legal case, it helps to show that

you were at least willing to negotiate, before you play hardball.

[depakid]

14. I find that a very unconvincing rationalization

Prior to the Bush administration, how many times did you EVER see people testify before Congress when they were NOT under oath?

This is simply more capitulation- it's unwarranted, unjustified and is is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever to a judge who's looking at the merits of the case.

[w4rma]

15. Imho, Dems knew the White House would turn down even transcripts.

And so they offered it. They are pushing the limits as far as they can, while still keeping enough accountability that the GOP leadership will refuse.

[cali]

16. Sorry, you're just plain wrong.

Not that I care about convincing you, but you might want to actually do some research into it. It's pretty clear that you don't know wtf you're talking about.

[depakid]

17. It's you who doesn't understand the legal system

and hasn't read the history or the precedents-

Basically, all you post are assertions and apologies- aimed at letting Rove & Meiers off the hook.

While the separation of powers/executive privilege cases come from a slightly different context- they are still apposite (among other things, we'd be looking at criminal proceedings for contempt).

US v. Nixon sets out the rationale:

....neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts.

However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. <418 U.S. 683, 707>

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=418&page=683

Of course, there is no claim of privilege when criminal behavior is alleged. While the firing themselves may have been legal, the actions in the cover-up are not.

If Congress issues subpoena's compelling Rove & Meiers, to appear- and they refused to testify, they would be held in criminal contempt of Congress- most likely by the House, where a simple majority would suffice.

"Once the contempt motion is voted out of either chamber, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, would impanel a grand jury to seek indictments on those officials who refused to testify. The case would first be heard in U.S. District Court here, then move to the appellate court and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court.

In the end, it is Congress that almost always holds the upper hand, notes Lanny Davis, a partner at Orick Herrington & Sutcliffe and a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, whose senior staffers were served with numerous subpoenas to testify before Congress — and almost always did.

“No matter how you begin, it goes into an endless loop. You stand up on principle, then Congress yells ‘What are you hiding?’ and you give in,” he says.

See, i.e. http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1174381417390&rss=dc

In addition, you might be interested in reading what John Dean has to say (he knows a little about this area). Not that he or I care about convincing you....

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070323.html

[Fovea]

18. A Question

You say it may have been legal.

But in the cases where it clearly obstructed justice, and there is no demonstratable policy to back up the administration's claims of poor performance, isn't it safe to assume that the purpose was to hinder the equal application of justice?

And isn't that a high crime no matter how you slice it? Or am I being too simplistic?