House Files Lawsuit to Force Bush Aides to Testify on Justice Firings
Fox News reports that the “House of Representatives filed a federal lawsuit Monday to compel former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to testify on the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.”
Earlier, Bolten and Miers were found “in contempt of the Democratic-led Congress, but the Justice Department last week declined to convene a grand jury to order the contempt citations be handed down.”
Before that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had threated “to take action if the Justice Department didn’t permit the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute the case.”
And it now seems that it wasn’t an idle threat.
“Congress, on behalf of the American people, is clearly entitled to the information that is being sought — it involves the politicization of the Justice Department and law enforcement, not national security information nor communications with the president. The president has no grounds to assert executive privilege,” she said in a statement.
The lawsuit says that Miers should testify for Congress, that she’s not immune, and that “both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.”
For those who don’t remember: “The case stems from the decision by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire nine federal prosecutors. Many opponents of the decision said the firings were political retribution, a claim denied by Gonzales, who was nonetheless forced to step down as a result.”
This was, from the outside looking in, a clear case of ‘political retribution.’ They didn’t fire bad federal prosecutors, they fired prosecutors who weren’t willing to be puppets of a Republican administration. They investigated matters Republicans didn’t want to be investigated, and they didn’t investigate matters the administration did want investigated (not because there was, presumably, much to it, but because it would help the Republicans).
It’ll be interesting to see whether Pelosi et. al will give in, or whether – for once – they’ll show some backbone.
So, you buy Pelosi’s claims without bothering to understand the issues and evidence?
My, it seems Tully is grumpy today too!
I agree with you on this one, Michael. Gonzales was the worst AG in recent history and the DOJ under him was a joke. They fired the most productive USA’s in the department for not being willing to operate like an arm of the RNC. Now the administration is refusing to allow those involved to testify. The lawsuit wont’ do any good, but at least Pelosi is doing what she can about it.
This would be a very bad issue indeed for Pelosi to pick to fight on. It is not at all clear that those 8 were perfectly fine prosecutors who simply weren’t "Republican" enough. It is entirely appropriate, essential really, for the President to replace prosecutors who are not taking care that the laws are faithfully executed in accordance with the priorities set forth by the President. At least one of the prosecutors made it very clear that immigration violations were a very low priority for him. That’s a policy decision, and he is answerable for that policy decision to his boss, the President. The President didn’t agree with that policy decision, and so he replaced him.
Some of the others may appear to be a bit more partisan than that, but nobody has made a single allegation, even, that any of the firings were intended to derail any particular prosecution or otherwise obstruct justice. I can assure you, Congress would NEVER turn over evidence of its deliberations and communications about why it chose to consent or not consent to particular nominees for office, nor for their deliberations about whether or not to impeach someone. The President has no obligation to turn over such records of his to Congress, either.
Pat- Maybe the reason it isn’t perfectly clear is that they couldn’t get the administration’s lackeys to testify. Something was certainly up or most of the upper echelons of the justice dept wouldn’t have resigned over it.
Query-have any of the terminated people ever filed any wrongful termination suits? If there was an illegal/improper basis for termination, wouldn’t you suspect these affected lawyers would be in the best position to argue that?
Kritter… why did Gonzales and Goodling and others resign over the issue? Because they were a political liability, and Congress was out for their blood, for the Democrats’ own political reasons. One might legitimately take the position that the replacements were politically stupid without believing that they were illegal or actually wrong in some way. There is zero question that these appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for any reason or no reason. It is the President’s perogative to keep them or replace them for whatever reasons he sees fit. As a co-equal branch of government, the President is entitled to make those decisions without explaining them and giving all the details to Congress. They don’t have an absolute right to the internal deliberations of his administration any more than the President has the right to make members of Congress reveal THEIR internal deliberations.
If the Democrats had ANY evidence that there was anything actually illegal about this matter, then maybe they would be justified in issuing subpoenas to investigate whether to impeach someone, but they have no right to use the Congressional subpoena power just to go on a fishing expedition into the president’s internal administrative deliberations.
Alberto "I don’t recall" Gonzales should be the end result the lawsuit goes after. He traded in political favors for his position in power and ultimately proved we can hope for more accountability. Alberto’s corruption of a department that is suppose to be about justice and not being a hired goon for the Republicans with an axe to grind. Nice to see there is still a large group out there moving the truth closer to the light. There is already some solice that these corrupt officials have been run out of thier position disgraced unable to maintain thier lack of recollection. Don’t be suprised to see the issue truelly flair back up once a Democrat is elected president.
Pat- there was a lot of lying and vague testimony before Congress by Justice and administration officials, because they couldn’t take the chance that the real truth would come out. Lying to Congress is a felony and carries a 5 year penalty.
Bush can hire and fire at will, but even HE can’t interfere in ongoing investigations. Also there were admitted violations of the Hatch Act.
You sound like you are quoting the RNC’s talking points.
BTW, after 100 million wasted on special prosecutor Ken Starr in the Clinton years, I don’t see anything wrong with Pelosi’s decision.
Remember there was no underlying crime before Clinton lied to the Grand Jury.
kritter…. as to your last point, yes there was. Clinton lied under oath at the Paula Jones deposition.
As I pointed out previously, I’ve seen no evidence at all that the replacements were intended to or did interfere with ongoing investigations. I have no idea what "admitted" violations of the Hatch Act you’re talking about.
And there’s a big difference between "lying" and giving "vague testimony." I’d be willing to grant you the second, but you’re going to have to prove the first.