Bush’s comments were ‘nasty and bumbling.’
By on Mar 21st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Bush’s comments were ‘nasty and bumbling.’
The New York Times attacks President Bush’s promise to fight Congress on investigating the prosecutor purge: “In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that ‘people just need to hear the truth’ about the firing of eight United States attorneys. … Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
How would ‘nasty and bumbling’ would be different from his other Press conferences how?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pmViolating Separation of Powers for a partisan show trial is not a “legitimate inquiry”.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pmThat settles it. The Times has always been on Bush’s side and since they think his comments were nasty and bumbling, they have to be!!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pmBush was nasty and bumbling or his comments were nasty and bumbling? Get ready Bush, soon you will hear, Mr. Bush please raise your right hand . . . The negotiations going on behind closed doors are strictly about Rove and Gonzales being gone now in exchange for the President not being impeached.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pmI should be arrested for impersonating a human being.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pmYeah, it’s really consistent logically to say the American people deserve “to hear the truth” and that our government should be “open”, but refuse open and transparent testimony by people who have information about the issue at hand. Only in Bizarro World where Bush is King.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pmSD
Sometimes, he’s just bumbling. Sometimes, he’s just nasty. This time he was both simultaneously.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pmIn typical fashion, I’m here to spew some demented half truths and talking points on behalf of the President, so here it goes:
March 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pmBILL CLINTON!
The truth is he fired em, the reason Constitutionally doesn’t matter.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pmFor the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Violating Separation of Powers for a partisan show trial is not a “legitimate inquiryâ€.
Comment by Jake
UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON (1974)
March 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pmUNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON (1974)
UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON (1974)
UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON (1974)
Bush is just telling it like it is and telling that liberal media to stfu basically he finally he puts them in there place after all their mud slingin and we don’t have time to put everyone under oath for each and every little thing we’re accused of otherwise our leadership would be constantly under oath from all the wild leftwing accusations that never seem to let up. STOP WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY liberal hippies so Bush can actually get some impotant work done.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pmNasty comments from the epitome of “nasty”! What else can one legitimately expect?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pmBush’s comments were ‘nasty and bumbling.
Even more than usual? That’s saying something.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pmGood thing I’m retired! Gives me more time to defend this immoral, unjust administration!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pmIt’s a healthy reversal of rhetoric for all the neocons soullessly defending wiretapping: “If you have nothing to hide…”
March 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm“the Judiciary Committees in both the House and the Senate have a pretty clear right to demand information that relates to the propriety of the running of the Department of Justice.†— Republican Bob Barr.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pmSweeties, if you were only as smart as I pretend to be, you’d know that I’m wearing a lovely lacy match Patrick1 and Liberals Heart Terrorists is the same person.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pmall of Bush’s comments are bumbling, folks…
March 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pm. . .President Bush declared that ‘people just need to hear the truth’ . . . .
What he left out was, . . .”according to my presidential view of the world and what is in my and the republicans’ best interests.”
March 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pmNasty and bumbling is Bush on a good day.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:31 pmPatrick1 – Remember when Bush said this – twice? “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – this oath might not mean anything to him or people like you, but it still means something.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pmSo Jake, yesterday you were saying they didn’t have to answer the subpoenas. Then how come they have promised to fight them in court? Surely according to your legal theory, they don’t have to fight the subpoenas in court. They can just ignore them. Right? Doesn’t your fearless leader look weak when he cringes and whines about fighting in court?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pmGotta run! Jerry Springer is on!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:32 pmsnobjob tony to replace howey mandell on hit show “deal or no deal” (should be the headlines in tomorrow’s scandal sheets, aka corporate-owned sycophantic newspapers!
Snowjob Tony attempts to blow hot air up the asses of the WH press corp with his tongue-twisting facts about the “cooperation of this WH in the attorney scandal”…. this is pure fiction! Besides, if Snowjob’s hypothesis is ground in “fact”, then why not testify under oath?
THE ONLY REASON THEY CAN’T TESTIFY UNDER OATH IS BECAUSE A CRIME ABSOLUTELY WAS COMMITTED AND THEY WILL COMMIT PERJURY AND SIT THEIR SORRY ASSES IN JAIL IF THEY DO TELL THE TRUTH.
The People of this country need to send the message, loud and clear, to this Congress that with respect to Bush’s “deal” to the american people who pay his salary and to whom he serves, that there is absolutely NO DEAL!
He’s drawn the line in the sand yesterday by his snarky, sarcastic, unintelligent bullying remarks and it’s time that the american people, collectively, tell this president that we are finished with the corruption. It’s time to tell this president the this is “NO DEAL” and that his days before impeachment are definitely numbered.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
semi-literate dumbf*ck alert on #12
March 21st, 2007 at 1:33 pmAMERICANS STATE, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND CONSISTENTLY TO GEORGE BUSH: NO DEAL!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pmThe President isn’t “nasty and bumbing”! A little drunk maybe.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pm#6 – stop using that oxymoron screen name of yours. You cannot be liberal and patriotic or liberal and Christian. You can be a hateful liberal or lying liberal, but not patriotic or Christian.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:34 pmGotta run! Jerry Springer is on!
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — March 21, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Ah, I see you’ve landed a coveted guest spot on Springer. Congratulations and good luck. Don’t let anyone hit you with a chair.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pmSame words used when Watergate started. Nixon didn’t want his staff to testify under oath. The cover up is needed because the answers will lead to more information about other crimes. Bush is up set because like Nixon the writtings on the wall. Notice how fast Halliburton and Caryle group are getting out of the US. Cheney was ordered by the Saudi King to make sure the new Congress keeps the rubber stamp policy. All hell will break out when Americans find out what really has been going on for 6 years. Bush knows the firing of the DOJ lawyers, CIA leak, illegal Spying, fixing voting machines is just a small part of a much bigger crime wave. Nixon did his best to hide the truth of his crimes now by Bush/Cheney/Rummy using the Nixon play book it’s happening to them. Bush wont be impeached he will resign like Nixon and Cheney will leave because of leg/heart problems.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pmVerbalkint: I hope Rove et al intend to sit their butts in court if they are in “contempt of congress” with these subpoenas. Congress will not back down so this will be the “impasse” to which Dumbya alluded in his snarky remarks. The american people will score one huge victory if this dictator is finally stood up to….and the will of the american people will prevail.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pmBob Barr also impeached Clinton – was he right then, too?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pmYou have to stop asking me so many relevant questions! I haven’t got my revised talking points from Rush Limbaugh yet!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmTony Snow is doing his tap dance on the podium at this moment. What a spectacle he is making of himself.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmHe is feeding the rightwingers their talking points and he is defending the honesty of the White House — But we don’t need a transcript or taking an oath to know the truth — it’s their word.
These aren’t hearings — he says they are “interviews” — something like Bush and Cheney gave in a duet before the 9/11 commission?
#22 You got it! And the people of this country now intend to hold him accountable to that oath. To intentionally defy an oath given in this democracy, is tantamount to perjury. In addition to the 14 articles of impeachment, we can also add perjury to that laundry list now.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmI suppose I can have some understanding for the bumbling and the nastiness,
after all, it’s not like he has much practice with spontaneous response to a problem…
No “My Pet Goat” to read while Dick and Donald and George Tenet handle the situation….
Speaking of the little Fudster, haven’t seen much of him about lately, maybe he’s just keeping his head down…
March 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pmEvilPoet @ 22. He had his fingers crossed so it didn’t count.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pm“…so Bush can actually get some impotant work done.
Comment by Jamie Kinstle Wapakoneta OH — March 21, 2007 @ 1:28 pm”
Legitimate typo or Freudian slip?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pmGod knows I’m a Christian. I only masturbate in the dark!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pmJake,
Congress has made laws against obstruction of justice. The President, as the Executive, is supposed to oversee the execution of those laws. If he or his departments are suspected of violating those laws, the Congress has the right and duty to investigate. If members of Congress were involved in such violations, Congress also has both investigational and punitive power with these members. Investigational powers include subpoenas and holding hearings to discern the truth. There is sufficient suspicion that obstruction of justice occurred through the activities of members of both the Executive branch AND Congress prior to and including the purge.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pm#11….Wayne, I addressed U.S. v. Nixon earlier on another thread:
Wayne, I will address U.S. v. Nixon. For the record, I do think administration officials should testify publicly before Congress in this matter.
Now, having said that, U.S. v. Nixon is not exactly on point or entirely analogous to the current situation. That decision did not state that Executive Privilege is not a valid doctrine. In fact, quite the opposite. The Court said, presidential communications have the “presumption of privlilege†and that “The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.â€
Nor did the decision address the issue of executive officials being required to testify before Congress. The dispute in U.S. v. Nixon was not between the president and Congress. It was between two parties that were officers of the Executive Branch — the special prosecutor and the president.
The case does not touch upon the denial of information to Congress.
What the Court did decide in U.S. v. Nixon is that while executive privilege does exist, the privilege is not absolute and can give way to the “fair administration of criminal justice.†The Court said, “The allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts.â€
The Court concluded “that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.â€
In short, the Supreme Court found that the executive privilege is a vald doctrine, rooted in the Constitution, but that it does not protect the president from turning over evidence that is the topic of a subpoena sought by a prosecutor and issued by a district court for use in a criminal trial.
The facts surrounding the controversy ultimately resolved in U.S. v. Nixon are very different from the current controversy.
Comment by Exley — March 21, 2007 @ 12:54
March 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pmso Bush can actually get some impotant work done.
Comment by Jamie Kinstle Wapakoneta OH #12
…misspelled…
…Freudian slip?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pmGo to hell, Chimpy. We’ll move ahead without you. F*-off and move aside.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pmI have a crush on Karl Rove. He’s so cute…like a big teddy bear!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pmBumbling and nasty? Doesn’t that describe Flaco and Firehead?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pmViolating an innocent goat during the intermission of a donkey show is not a “legitimate profession”.
How much you want to bet Jake gets paid to troll?
Shill! Shill! Shill!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pmBob Barr also impeached Clinton – was he right then, too?
Is he wrong now?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pm#44- Yeah- I’ll just bet you do. Who likes the bottom?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pmComment by geoman77 #39
WOW!
…hadn’t EVEN read your post…
…isn’t that something?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pmwas he right then, too?,/I>
So you admit that he’s right this time?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pm#12 Jamie Dear did you mean your statement as written “impotent work”….I think so but bet you did not..Carry on poor troll’s….You are protesting to much, what does heir bush have to hide.?/
March 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pmBob Barr also impeached Clinton – was he right then, too?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pmComment by Liberals Heart Terrorists — March 21, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Are you saying that Barr was right then and he’s right now?
I’m a Repuke closet case. I have Jeffy Lube Gannon on speed dial.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:43 pmOur trolls are amazingly honest and open today. Either they’ve changed their meds or someone is playing a little game with us.
More proof that liberals are just mean. Wah wah wah!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:43 pmIf anyone has been archiving Dumbo from the first debates through every speech he’s given, there’s a clear dx of serious mental disturbance which has become increasingly obvious. To trivialize the degree of this psychopathology evident would be to allude to the fact that he appears to be intoxicated. This fact can no longer be trivialized. This man’s synaptic activity in his brain is suffering and he’s making a bumbling fool of himself in public. No american is not grossly embarrassed by watching this “train wreck in progress”.(although some of the opposite party might snicker a bit). Truly, it’s very sad to see and I suspect that this may, in fact, have been his last appearance – particularly one which has any degree of not being totally prepared for him to read. Foreign nations laugh at what they see as totally buffonery in the form of the individual sitting in the highest office in this country. I find it sad, embarrassing, and disheartening that we continue to delude ourselves into hoping that somehow, some way, or in some shape or form, this pathetic little bully will make a 360 degree turn and suddenly begin to act intelligently. Americans always turn lemons into lemonade; it’s within our DNA to be “hopeful” and “positive”; however, with each passing scandal and it’s concomitant cover-up, we delude ourselves even further.
Yesterday, unfortunately, we witnessed fully “THE LITTLE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN AT OZ”. It was revealing, frightening, and sad.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pmLook over there! Britney Spears!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pm#6 – stop using that oxymoron screen name of yours. You cannot be liberal and patriotic or liberal and Christian. You can be a hateful liberal or lying liberal, but not patriotic or Christian.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists
Where do you get the audacity to tell me what screen name to use?. Typical authoritarian with no conscience. YOU don’t get to define me – although your own pathetic screen name is an attempt to do just that, rather than define yourself. But then, maybe your choice of a screen name does define you – as a hate filled, negative person who has to have something to be AGAINST, rather than something to be FOR.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pmVerbalKint sez:
Yes, Jake….remember what you said yesterday?
I do…
Remember, Jake?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pmComment by big papa — March 21, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Hell, I thought someone would beat ME to it, such a softball that was, and right over the plate…
March 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pmWhoever is name-jacking trolls should STOP! If you are a progressive, you only give ammunition to the neocons. If you are a neocon, you only make the trolls look worse than they actually are. Either way, it is dishonest and demeaning.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:46 pmwayne:
Quoting, then, from United States v. Nixon where the Supreme Court acknowledged that executive privilege indeed exists:
VerbalKint:
I never said “they didn’t have to answer the subpoenas” — I want them to fight — I can also understand why Bush and Fielding were willing to accomodate Congress trying to avoid this very confrontation too. Did you see the OLC memo I linked to yesterday? I think I’ve stated my argument fairly well up to now. If Congress subpoenas Bush himself, does he have to appear? Do you think Bush can be arrested for failing to appear?
(fake) Jake:
I thought assuming someone’s screen name was not allowed at Think Progress?
veritas and PLC:
I like the Admin’s chances before the ROBERTS Supreme Court, thank you very much.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pmThe truth is he fired em, the reason Constitutionally doesn’t matter.
Comment by Patrick1
Explain that to Nixon. I am sure he would love to hear this revelation.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pmJamie from Wapak: must be hard living in a bumhole like Wapak amonst all those strawmen…
March 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pmI did post all of those, and therefore remember them all, TripMaster Monkey. You have a question?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pm#12 – We’re going to tax you blind, and give it all to blacks and immigrants – neener neener neener
/snark off
March 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pmHey TripMaster! Looks like we blew our other resident chimp off the threads!
It’s time to throw the GOP hard ball back into their own faces: IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, THEN WHY NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH?? The answer to that one is a total “no brainer”. Now let’s issue the subpoenas and see what they decide to do. Either way, this trainwreck has already occurred and will prove to deepen and further indict this administration as never before.
The longer Bush bullies the american people, the shorter the period of time before this entire nation calls for HIS immediate removal from office.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pmJake
I’m not sure you should feel so confident in Roberts siding with Bush. I think Roberts is more of a true law-and-order conservative who would want to support efforts which insure that obstruction of justice did not occur. I think he would side with Congress’ investigation.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pmremember, during the manson trial, when all the girls would jump up in unison and chant slogans and get all hysterical????
thanks for the deja vu, righties.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pmoops….guess I just automatically scroll past any jake-offs! LOL
March 21st, 2007 at 1:52 pmAren’t these the same dingleberries that made the secret service testify against President Clinton. Do the Democrats have the balls to stand up to the Nazi’s in Washington.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/22/lewinsky.scandal/
March 21st, 2007 at 1:52 pmIs it a “fake jake-off” underway or is it truly a “hi-jake-off”??
March 21st, 2007 at 1:52 pmAfter six years, the Times is catching on. Dinkledorf has been a bumbler his WHOLE LIFE!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pm#38 – klyde – You know what I think? Americans should never forget who works for who.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pmRTWHUA!! RTWHUA!! (Resident Trolls With Heads up Asses syndrome in full effect).
March 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pmdlet:
Richard Nixon is dead and buried in Yorba Linda, CA. BTW: was Nixon impeached for firing U.S. Attorneys? I didn’t think so.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:54 pmBut, hey, fellas- This is all just a big, huge misunderstanding. What we were trying to do was find weaknesses in the constitution, in case somebody really WANTED to overthrow our government. Don’t you see? I was really doing my patriotic duty! Seriously! Fellas…?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:54 pmDinkledorf was the “original bumbler” wasn’t he? He’s the quintessential fool after which all fools were fashioned…even the “fool on the hill”.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pmstop using that oxymoron screen name of yours. You cannot be liberal and patriotic or liberal and Christian. You can be a hateful liberal or lying liberal, but not patriotic or Christian. -comment by CONheartsterrorists
Define liberal, and I don’t mean a pigmanchild code word. Heres some simple math for you. 80-90% of America believes in God or a Higher power. The vote was pretty much evenly split. That means that 80-90% of Democrats are Christian and 80-90% of those who voted Bush were Christian. You truly are dense if you think that only a CON can be a Christian. What I do know is that many more Christian CONS are much more corrupt than Democratic Christians.
YOU IN YOUR TINY LITTLE MIND “THINK” YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT YOUR NOT.
Oh and don’t forget that CONS have created the “Culture of Corruption” not the “Liberals”
March 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pmFrom Rawstory:
March 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pm
PLC:
We’ll see.
Bobby:
No Clinton staffer was EVER forced to testify as to the basis for Executive decision making. That was a civil suit — this is the Congress encroaching on a co-equal branch of government — see the difference?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pm#55… veritas….
You have described what, to me, is one of the most disturbing aspects if having Busch remain as leader of our country.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pmHe seems to be ‘losing it’….
I’m certain that the “handlers” who have groomed him throughout his career told him they would always “take care of things…”
Now he has to confront the consequences of his and his henchmen’s actions, with no one to run interference.
Dicky will drop him like a depleted uranium bullet and flee to Dubai, where his Blackwater army will protect him and his bank accounts…
LHT
Are you going to apologize (= admit you were wrong, acknowledge the harm you did, and commit yourself to not repeat the offense)? I’ll be checking for a couple more hours.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pmJake sez:
Not at all, Shakey Jake. Just indulging in the temptation to rub your face in it…that’s all. ^_^
March 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pmRetired WM ISO younger SWF for intimate times and bubble baths. I enjoy back rubs and role playing. Please respond with picture.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pmRichard Nixon is dead and buried in Yorba Linda, CA. BTW: was Nixon impeached for firing U.S. Attorneys? I didn’t think so.
Comment by Jake
Only because he resigned while impeachment papers were being drawn up in Congress, before they voted on it. Historical Fact, moron
March 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pmNice try, but no banana for you
Bush’s comments were ‘nasty and bumbling.’
They finally noticed!
March 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pmHow’s Cheney’s blood clot? -Dead, yet?
March 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pmCan some please point to what was “nasty and bumbling” in any of this:
Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they served four-year terms.
The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled. We’re determined to correct the problem.
Today I’m also announcing the following steps my administration is taking to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work with the Congress. First, the Attorney General and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons. Second, we’re giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of information about the process used to make the decision about replacing eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys.
In the last 24 hours, the Justice Department has provided the Congress more than 3,000 pages of internal Justice Department documents, including those reflecting direct communications with White House staff. This, in itself, is an extraordinary level of disclosure of an internal agency in White House communications.
Third, I recognize there is significant interest in the role the White House played in the resignations of these U.S. attorneys. Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.
Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having — the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made. So I’ll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. In addition to this offer, we will also release all White House documents and emails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any other outside person, including members of Congress and their staff, related to this issue. These extraordinary steps offered today to the majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable solution to the issue. However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.
The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. 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. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.
As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it’s important to maintain perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was natural and appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider and to discuss with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of my second term. The start of a second term is a natural time to discuss the status of political appointees within the White House and with relevant agencies, including the Justice Department. In this case, the idea was rejected and was not pursued.
Second, it is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties, and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.
I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who resigned. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the Attorney General’s decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle.
It’s now my hope that the United States Congress will act appropriately. My administration has made a very reasonable proposal. It’s not too late for Democrats to drop the partisanship and work together. Democrats now have to choose whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people’s business. There are too many important issues, from funding our troops to comprehensive immigration reform, to balancing the budget, for us to accomplish on behalf of the American people.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pmPlease disregard my personals ad…I mistakenly posted it here. It was meant for Match Me A Fascist.com.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pmAnyone remember Professor Irwin Cory? I believe he spoke more clearly and made more sense than Bush.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pmThe truth is he fired em, the reason Constitutionally doesn’t matter.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pmComment by Patrick1
——-
Maybe I don’t understand the point. So let’s assume that Bush/Rove/Gonzo told the AG’s to fix an election or told them that they must Lie to Congress. And then the AG’s don’t follow those instructions. So Bush/Rove/Gonzo call the AG’s and tell them that they didn’t do what the “pleasure of the President” required so they’re gone. That’s ok and, as an underlying reason for firing the US Attorneys, doesn’t matter? Do I understand your point properly?
TripMaster Monkey:
Since I stand behind each and every statement you quoted, how exactly did you “rub my face” in anything?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pmWhy fire ‘em when you can hire ‘em?
Rethug ethics at work
WASHINGTON – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) said Tuesday she wants answers about the departure of the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, who resigned last October before the Justice Department’s dismissal of eight other U.S. attorneys sparked controversy.
“I have questions about Debra Yang’s departure and I can’t answer those questions right at this time,” Feinstein, D-Calif. and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters in response to a question. “Was she asked to resign, and if so, why? We have to ferret that out.”
Debra Wong Yang went to work for a private law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and has said she left of her own accord.
Snip
About five months before Yang’s departure, her office had opened an investigation into ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., and a lobbyist. Gibson Dunn, the firm that hired her, is also the firm where Lewis’ legal team works, but government rules required that she step aside in that case or any other she was involved with while a government prosecutor.
The Lewis case is connected to the corruption investigation in San Diego that began with the 2005 conviction of former GOP Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who is serving jail time for bribery. Former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego, who was among those dismissed last year, was prosecuting that case. Feinstein contends that Lam’s dismissal had something to do with the her role in the Cunningham investigation, though the Justice Department denies it.
Of course she left of her own accord to make a lot more money working for the people she was investigating.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pmJake (the un-American),
“nasty and bumblingâ€
The transcript obviously doesn’t show Chimpy’s body language and tone of voice.
Pretty lame try…
March 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pmWhoever is hijacking the trolls’ names is acting in just as despicable a manner as the trolls.
Please stop. Thank you.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pmSO LHT if a Liberal, (Pigmanchild code word for addict) then Rush (whis is irrelavent -Arnold) cannot be a Christian if he’s an addict right?
Also PigManChild cannot be Patriotic if he is a ChickenHawk.
And, LHT, By your own Logic, YOU cannot be a Christian nor a Patriot, because you side with an Addict and a ChickenHawk.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!
CONS (Bushie Loyalists) are such hypocrites and liars.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pmWhen Nasty met Bumbles…
March 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pmWhat is a strawmen?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pmDur! Nixon wasn’t impeached! He resigned.
Yes, this administration is “Nixonian” in the sense that they’re criminals but what these people are doing is WAY WORSE, Constitutionally.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pm#7, PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) , My Bad!
;)
#33, his Right, yes, appropriate action? IMO, No.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pm“nasty and bumbling” sounds more like a description of our president than his comments.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pmSTOP WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY liberal hippies so Bush can actually get some impotant work done.
Comment by Jamie Kinstle Wapakoneta OH
You mean impotent work? Some kind of Freudian slip?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pmHey Jake, look at this..Nasty Bumbling Pic.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/b/bush_finger_flip.jpg
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:11 pm3 of the first 5 posts in this thread were by patrick1, liberals heart terrorists, and Jake.
’sup wit dat?
Are you fellas in a panic? Do you honestly think you can stop this freight train with disingenuous bullshit?
The wheels are turning, and the momentum is building, and all we libs and dems need to do is go along for the ride – while we laugh in your faces!
HA!
HA! HA!
HA Ha ha ha ha Hah! HA Ha ha ha ha Hah HA Ha ha ha ha Hah!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HaHAHA haHA Ha ha ha ha Hah! HA Ha ha ha ha Hah HA Ha ha ha ha
Hah!
Ha!
Ya’ dipshits.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:11 pmZooey:
Please quote from the transcript where you objected to his “body language and tone of voice” and I will look at that video.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pmWhat the Bushies don’t understand is that just because the attorneys were appointed by the President that doesn’t make them “political appointees”.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pmJamie Kinstle of Wapakoneta OH is the next Karl Rove.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pmI didnt elect that evil man and in this instance unless he’s giving illegal advice he should almost always have to testify under oath . Idon’t care if it s public . But with transcripts I’ll read about everyword later.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:13 pmMr. Shumer an Mr. Leay should agree to these terms . Just not public but all the rest .
#73- True, sadly the 28%ers long ago gave up on the idea that the rethug presidents are public servants
March 21st, 2007 at 2:14 pmGeez, “nasty and bumbling”
March 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pmCould be W’s legacy he’s been looking for.
Please quote from the transcript where you objected to his “body language and tone of voice†and I will look at that video.
Comment by Jake
Good god, you’re a jackass.
Watch it, or don’t watch it. I don’t care.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pmSTOP WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY liberal hippies so Bush can actually get some impotant work done.
What, some more cedar and brush needs clearing?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:17 pmI think Jake is Jason Hendlers older brother
March 21st, 2007 at 2:19 pm“you can shake a stick, but you can’t shake the presidents stick”
March 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pmsmafdy:
I just had turned on my computer, honestly. You don’t expect me to post 24 hrs, while my computer is OFF, do you?
Zooey:
Sorry. I was just trying to discuss the thread topic. Anyone else who thought the President’s statement was “nasty and bumbling”?
CONs heart terror:
I don’t have a brother, do you?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pmBTW: does anyone else think that Zooey’s comment @ 2:16 pm (”Good god, you’re a jackass.”) was either nasty or bumbling, regardless of her body language?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pmyour poor liberals, look at you mindless robots lining up behind the New York Times….
oh your poor libs, so predictable, so pathetic….
Liberals say, “Because the New York Times said so, it is so!”
you guys are embarrassing yourself.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:26 pmIt is sad, howsad. No one yet has been able to even point to what exactly Bush said above that was “nasty and bumbling.” Curious, huh?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:29 pmYou yuppie liberals are a joke. IF you spent have the time actually doing something productive instead of tearin down this Christain man you might actually be something good for this country. Instead you make fun of Bush’s body language?! Gmmie a break!
And what is a strawmen? And who is Karl ROve?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:29 pmComment by howsad
Just look at the picture I posted, I wasn’t talking about the times, besides we all know that CONS are Closet Moonies. Look at George giving people the finger while holding the American flag, how nasty.
Does George have hate syndrome?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:29 pmAbovetheClouds:
Can Congress subpoena, and more importantly, force the President of the United States to testify on this matter?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pmComment by gummitch — March 21, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Either way at least they finally have a sense of humor.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pmBTW: does anyone else think that Zooey’s comment @ 2:16 pm (â€Good god, you’re a jackass.â€) was either nasty or bumbling, regardless of her body language? Comment by Jake —
Nasty – yes. Bumbling – no. Expertly timed – yes.
BTW, does anyone else think that Zooey does not have the same obligations as an elected official?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pmZooey:
Sorry. I was just trying to discuss the thread topic. Anyone else who thought the President’s statement was “nasty and bumbling�
Comment by Jake
Bullshit. If you were interested in discussing the thread topic, you would have watched the video of your Idiot King on your own, and not made stupid-assed demands on me.
Get lost.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pmJamie Kinstle Wapakoneta:
Assuming you are not a parody, Karl Rove is Deputy Chief of Staff and a key advisor to President Bush. You may want to look into the reasons why Congress has authorized subpoena(s) for him before you comment further.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pm#123 – PLC :-)
March 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pmPLC:
As a fellow Christian, you will understand then why I won’t be “nasty” in return?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pmI’m a CON and I love REV MOON and BUSH.
We are MOONIES!
BTW: does anyone else think that Zooey’s comment @ 2:16 pm (â€Good god, you’re a jackass.â€) was either nasty or bumbling, regardless of her body language? Comment by Jake —
Did Zooey give you the finger while holding the American flag?
Isn’t a Jackass just an animal? She said God was good.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:37 pmAnyone else want to discuss the thread topic?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pmMr. Bush would not be removed from office via the impeachment process for firing USA’s, or aides who serve his pleasure. He could be removed from office for lying, obstructing justice, conspiracy to violate election laws, etc. Mr. Rove can’t be impeached, but he can be prosecuted for the same offenses.
But I wouldn’t worry about impeachment; that only results in removal from office after a Senate conviction. I’d worry about one Congressional probe after another, detailing specific acts of wrongdoing and maladministration. With that, a prosecutor could convene a grand jury and seek indictments.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pmWhoever is hijacking the trolls’ names is acting in just as despicable a manner as the trolls.
Please stop. Thank you.
Comment by Zooey — March 21, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Well how about ALMOST AS DESPICABLE. Matching that level requires a little more effort don’t you think?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pmJake sez:
And that says it all.
You qualify your assertion that the Admin’s chances before the Supreme Court are favorable by mentioning Roberts. Ideally, this should be an issue of law, and the Justices present shouldn’t be the issue. The fact that you feel compelled to qualify your statement so shows graphically that you believe in political cronyism to vindicate the Admin, not the Rule of Law.
Thanks for being so obvious, Jake. It saves me time.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pmok got his name mixed up with someone else sorry. Still, what is a strawmen?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pmJamie Kinstle of Wapakoneta OH is the next Karl Rove.
Comment by smafdy — March 21, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Just because she’s hitting the drugs pretty hard? I think there’s a chance she MAY be wackier.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pmWhat are a strawman?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pmPerhaps a continuing education course in logic and debate might help you out Ms Kinstle. Put down your Bible long enough to get through such a class, then perhaps you could discuss matters with the rest of us.
Karl Rove is Deputy Chief of Staff and a key advisor to President Bush -Jake
Chief of Staff, not Chief of DOJ.
Advisor? HAHAHAHA A Political advisor? LMAO. (read advisor of smear campaigns)
March 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pmComment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Good god, you’re a jackass.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pmThe trouble with lying is that you have to remember everyone of them every time for as long as you choose to keep on lying.
Bush isn’t smart enough to do this. He relies on others to do it for him.
Rove is smart enough to do this, but he’s not always available for Bush to be told what to say.
That’s when Bushie gets his dander up and tries to act tough. It’s pathetic to watch, but it’s all he has left.
This little excuse for a President has to go. The American public got to see the ‘real Bush’ yesterday. It’s our job now to not let them forget.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pmmbbsdphil:
You do realize that a sitting President (and arguably Vice President) cannot be indicted for ANY criminal offense, right?
TripMaster Monkey:
It is an issue of law, and I think ROBERTS and ALITO will follow the law. My concern, however, is the calls for recusal that will be coming from the Democrats who realize that as well. If they can “stack the deck” then all bets are off.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pmZimzone:
Can Congress subpoena, and more importantly, force the President of the United States to testify on this matter?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pmGood god, you’re a jackass.
Comment by shane
Heh. :-)
Off to class again! Later!
March 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pmBobby:
No Clinton staffer was EVER forced to testify as to the basis for Executive decision making. That was a civil suit — this is the Congress encroaching on a co-equal branch of government — see the difference?
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Jake:
When the Executive decision is to willfully obstruct justice, I don’t think the “separation” argument will work (and leave Clinton the F**k out of it – y’all have no right to scream about investigations after what you did to him. I seem to remember the shoe being on the other foot at that time).
Interestingly, this never had to get to this point – purging the ranks of the Attorneys wasn’t necessary to achieve Republican or Conservative goals. Therein lies the true rub: Not only was the purge done to facilitate some investigations and hinder others (always in favor of the ruling party) – an act that smacks of obstruction in and of itself – there’s the added criminality of repeatedly lying about it to Congress. The obstruction continues.
This second aspect points out the sheer incompetence of the Administration, and increases its reluctance to testify under oath.
They are so incompetent, they can’t even f**k up correctly!
P.S: Life is easier when you tell the truth.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pmJake sez:
Actually, Jake, it was a remarkably erudite and succinct commentary upon your personality…nothing ‘bumbling’ about it, and if you believe it was ‘nasty’, well, if the shoe fits…
(P.S.: Given the fact that Zooey was describing a person who thinks that ‘rape jokes’ are the acme of political discourse, I’d say she was actually quite charitable.)
March 21st, 2007 at 2:52 pmI see there’s at least one (fake) Jake on another thread. I won’t post for a couple hours to see if that clears up by itself. Have a good lunch everyone.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:52 pmNo testimony from the presidunce will be necessary prior to the impeachment trial in the Senate.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pmI’m a guy darnnit! Jamie as in James! And no philosphy book can trump GODS WORD! You libs are the same everywhere. Stawmen – I think your making things up sense you ran outta names 2 call me.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pmbumbling, mumbling, grumbling, stumbling…
Quote Sponsored by the Bush Administration
March 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pmOk James, calm down.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pmFollow this link, read up and come on back to discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Maybe they should have a rule that your brain needs to be this > o big before you can go on this ride.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pmJamie, God will do you no good and no service.Instead, voters, be lefties o righties can do you a good service.
My advice, send God to hell and begin to live as a real human.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pmI’m a guy darnnit! Jamie as in James! And no philosphy book can trump GODS WORD! You libs are the same everywhere. Stawmen – I think your making things up sense you ran outta names 2 call me.
Comment by Jamie Kinstle Wapakoneta OH — March 21, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Okay, WFT is this post about? Am I missing something? Or are 6th graders allowed to post here during lunch break?
March 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pmJake sez:
How painfully obvious you are, when the two Supreme Court Justices you feel worthy of mention (in ALL CAPS, no less) are Chimpy appointees.
What a joke. The “deck” is already stacked…the SCOTUS has already demonstrated quite ably that they valued partisan politics over the Rule of Law when they appointed Chimpy president in 2000. After two subsequent SCOTUS appointments by the Appointee-in-Chief, I’d say the “deck” is stacked beyond repair.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pmTMM ~ you may be wrong with regard to Roberts. He is such a strict constructionist that the Nixon case may give him the precedence he so cherishes. Let’s hope.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pmHere’s hoping, RUCerious…
March 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pmThe TRUTH is coming out.
“Nasty and Bumbling” is the REAL Bush.
He is a LIAR, MURDERER and PUNK coxucker TRAITOR to the USA.
May he BURN IN HELL FOR HIS LIES AND ATROCITIES.
God Bless America, the Democrats, and the WORLD!
March 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pmNo Clinton staffer was EVER forced to testify as to the basis for Executive decision making. That was a civil suit — this is the Congress encroaching on a co-equal branch of government — see the difference?
Comment by Jake
For someone who is old enough to know better, Jake, you betray an astonishing lack of information about the government. Either you went to a trade school, or skipped all those Civics classes to sneak out for a smoke. You’re completely confused about the whole “co-equal” thing.
The Founding Fathers had plenty of experience with monarchy and with and unbridled Executive and had no use for the idea at all. The power given to Congress is the power given to the people, to hold the Executive in check. You have apparently bought into the authoritarian conceit of the “unitary Presidency” that gives more and more power to the Executive while claiming that the two bodies are equal.
They’re not equal, and they were never intended to be so. The Constitution empowers Congress to keep the Executive in check. The reverse is unnecessary because it is never necessary for the Executive to keep the people in check. Your comments yesterday that the Executive should be able to subpoena Congress is addled. This country has never seriously weakened the Executive branch; it’s actually struggled at times to keep the Executive from appropriating more control that it should have. Good examples include FDR’s attempt to stack SCOTUS and, well, Dick Nixon.
This administration is making assertions for power that are simply not sustained by the Constitution, and doing so more egregiously than any Administration ever has. Up to now, they’ve pretty much gotten away with it.
This Administration has never even bought into your absurd “co-equal” claim. As far as they’re concerned, GWB is the next thing to a monarch and they’ve even gone so far as to claim he holds that position by God’s Word. The Divine Right of Kings got tossed onto the trash heap a long time ago, and they’ve been trying to resuscitate it since 2001.
It’s wrong, and I think you’ll find that most people do not want to live under a monarchy. Some people are weak, and need an authoritarian figure to make them feel safe. Others know that this particular monarch is only interested in greasing the skids for his corporate buddies and want to be on the gravy train. It’s sickening to see “conservatives” claim to adore Original Intent, while at the same time plotting to destroy the Republic and essentially institute a monarchy, even a hierarchical one (Bush III?).
March 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pmJake
Lest ye forget – Jesus called the Pharisees “hypocrites”, “fools”, and “jackals” – rather nasty comments, wouldn’t ye say?
I also do not believe that “nastiness” is limited to particular labels. The whole tone of a comment can be nasty, due to being condescending, dismissive of dissent, intentionally distorting of the other person’s views, etc.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pm“They’re not equal, and they were never intended to be so. The Constitution empowers Congress to keep the Executive in check. The reverse is unnecessary”
Actually, the president’s veto power is a Constitutionally granted authority to help the Executive keep Congress in check.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm‘Nasty and bumbling.’
This is an apt description that applies to Bush’s entire presidency.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pmnames of an Austrian and five Americans abducted in Iraq were kidnapped on Nov. 16.
The four Americans working for Crescent Security are: John R. Young of Kansas City, Missouri, Jon Cote of Buffalo, New York, Paul Johnson Reuben of Buffalo, Minnesota, and Josh Munns of Redding, California.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pmWar4Sale:
While it may be an apt description that applies to Bush’s entire presidency, would you care to point out where you think it applies to the statement above?
Exley and gummitch:
Of course there are checks and balances going both ways. As for Bush’s “unitary Presidency†at least we can agree that co-equal branches is an improvement over “GWB is the next thing to a monarch and they’ve even gone so far as to claim he holds that position by God’s Word” right?
PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC):
Jesus was not being “nasty” in those instances. He was stating the truth. Back to the current day’s topic, what exactly in Bush’s statement above do you consider “nasty and bumbling”? I, for one, am glad he finally laid down the law.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:53 pm(I’m back, in case you were wondering — we’ll see if the fake Jake reappears again — like some herpes flare-up)
March 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pmNo Clinton staffer was EVER forced to testify as to the basis for Executive decision making. That was a civil suit — this is the Congress encroaching on a co-equal branch of government — see the difference?
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
How do we know all the dirty tricks the administration is using – does this come from Rove?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:11 pmNot at all, Shakey Jake. Just indulging in the temptation to rub your face in it…that’s all. ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 21, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
We like that.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:13 pmjakeoff:
How do we know all the dirty tricks the administration is using – does this come from Rove?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:19 pmIt is an issue of law, and I think ROBERTS and ALITO will follow the law. My concern, however, is the calls for recusal that will be coming from the Democrats who realize that as well. If they can “stack the deck†then all bets are off.
Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Only Republicans stack decks.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:20 pmSorry, jakeoff, I was trying to ask if you had a question for me?
March 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pmThe term straw man is attributed to T. S. Eliot in the following work. It had appeared in prior works, but this was the poem that firmly cemented it into the English language.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pmHaving just re-watched the press conference, poor little Bush has no idea how ironic he sounds when he talks about “scoring political points”. He blames the Democrats about this being partisan, yet ample evidence shows Bush started the controversy because of his own nasty partisanship, when he fired the attorneys for not being “loyal Bushies”. This is no different than Nixon’s Saturday Night massacre, as they both were trying to obstruct justice.
His rancor continued to be especially vile, with more stabs about Democrats and show trials. Bush yells like a stubborn child who thinks he’s been wronged. Yet, all his insistence that he is co-operating is flatly disproved by concealing information, changing his story (a.k.a. LYING), and being purely hypocritical about how he wants partisanship left out of running the country.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pmWe are in for some fine entertainment
March 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pmBushiva’s a stumblebumhole…
…he likes to talk tough…
…”bring it on’, “wanted dead er aliive”, “mission accomplished”…
…that kinda sh*t…
…but to repeat a phrase I’m sure he’s very familiar with…
…”He’s all hat…
…and NO cattle”…
…living on a sod farm…
…that the media has elevated to a ranch…
March 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pmKG Prophet:
And, who was forced to testify about Nixon’s Saturday Night massacre? He certainly was never impeached over that. Even the Watergate Tape case that forced production of evidence ACKNOWLEDGED that Executive Privilege exists. What is NOT allowed are show trials. Look, I hope the facts will show that the law was administered without partisanship or favoritism. That’s the way it should be. Nonetheless, there are Seapration of Powers issues here:
As Congress inquires into this matter, it must be careful not to subvert the intended constitutional structure, and historical traditions in this area, by allowing its own political calculus or motivations to play a role.
From a historical perspective, the supervisory relationship between the President, his Attorney General and the nation’sbranch law offices, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices, is quite well-established. Thus, Congress should examine the relevant history, before making potentially baseless accusations concerning Attorney General Gonzáles’s efforts to oversee his department.
The History of The Relationship Between the Attorney General and Local U.S. Attorney’s Offices
At the founding of the Republic, the contours of the relationship between the Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys were perplexing, and unsatisfactorily-defined. In those times, supervision of U.S. Attorneys was rather oddly given to the State Department, which had little interest in such matters; after all, U.S. Attorneys’ jurisdiction is overwhelmingly domestic, not international. As a result, U.S. Attorneys pretty much did as much (or as little) as they wanted.
Appointed in 1790, Edmund Randolph, America’s first Attorney General, wisely asked for “directive” authority over the independently-minded officers who ran local U.S. Attorneys’ offices. However, Congress adjourned without addressing his request – and as a consequence, Attorneys General regrettably were compelled to operate in a rather haphazard way for close to 80 years. (Randolph even received only a half salary and was expected to supplement his income with the private practice of law. Ruefully, Randolph would describe himself as something of “a mongrel” settling for the scraps from the Cabinet’s table.)
By 1870, however, Congress had recognized both the need to create a formal Department of Justice, and the importance of placing the Department’s components under well-articulated lines of authority. The value of executive supervision of local offices had finally been grasped.
Historically-uninformed voices seeking short-term political advantage jeopardize this value with hasty calls for Gonzales’s removal or resignation. Any claims that the Attorney General ought to take a hands-off approach regarding local U.S. Attorney’s Offices are historically inaccurate. Worse, they ask us to repeat a mistake that Congress reversed as far back as 1870.
Historically, the Executive Has Received the Benefit of the Doubt on Removals of Executive Branch Officials
Not only does the Attorney General historically have authority with respect to local U.S. Attorney’s Offices, but he (or she) has also enjoyed the benefit of the doubt on removals of executive officers such as U.S. Attorneys, including those subject to Senate confirmation.
Why? Quite simply because it is the executive who is in the best position to evaluate U.S. Attorneys’ performance, and who is responsible for it. In 1923, Chief Justice Taft, the only member of the Supreme Court to have also served as president of the United States, affirmed that removal authority vis-Ã -vis executive officers, even those subject to Senate confirmation, was an incident of the president’s power to nominate, not the Senate’s power to confirm. Taft put it this way in the landmark case of Myers v. United States: “The power to prevent the removal of an officer who has served under the President is different from the authority to consent to or reject his appointment. When a nomination is made, it may be presumed that the Senate is, or may become, as well advised as to the fitness of the nominee as the President, but in the nature of things the defects in ability or intelligence or loyalty in the administration of the laws of one who has served as an officer under the President are facts as to which the President, or his trusted subordinates, must be better informed than the Senate, and the power to remove him may therefor be regarded as confined for very sound and practical reasons, to the governmental authority which has administrative control. The power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, not to the power of advising and consenting to appointment, . . .” (Emphasis added.)
Today, the powers of the office of the Attorney General fully reflect Taft’s insight. It is described as the “chief law enforcement officer of the United States, . . .guid[ing] the world’s largest law office in the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.” The United States Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators, but as the DOJ website clearly specifies, they do so “under the direction of the Attorney General.”
True, a wise Attorney General will give sufficient professional latitude to each U.S. Attorney in order to best accomplish the prosecutorial and civil defense needs of each district. But latitude is not unaccountability – just as the refusal to micromanage is not an abdication of authority.
The Bush Administration Hardly Invented What Is Long-Established Removal Authority
History reveals that a defense of executive removal authority is far from merely the product of some wild-eyed theory of “unitary executive” invented by the Bush administration. Rather, it is — as every president since Ulysses S. Grant has insisted — a vital principle, consistent with “a faithful and efficient administration of the government.” After all, said Grant, “What faith can an executive put in officials forced upon him, [or] those, too, whom he has suspended for reason?” Put another way, a boss without power to hire and fire will typically be crippled in his or her effectiveness.
The eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys may all be fine men and women; that is not inconsistent with their having been dismissed. The Constitutional system, as it has taken form over our history, puts the choice of dismissal solely in the President’s hands (as he is chooses to be informed by his Attorney General). Accordingly, the President is within his rights to dismiss a U.S. Attorney even for the simple reason that he preferred someone else for the job.
Some have suggested at least some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed in order to shield criminal wrongdoing – that is, dismissed so that criminal prosecutions that they had overseen would fade away or be resolved with lenient plea agreements. Before making such serious accusations, however, the Congress ought to come forward with hard proof, not the whine of innuendo.
Moreover, and significantly, none of the dismissed prosecutors has come anywhere close to making that accusation. Surely, it should not be inferred.
In making its inquiry, then, Congress should be careful not to subvert what history has so well provided: the executive’s ability to dismiss its officers is the structural mechanism by which the President “takes care” that the law is faithfully executed.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20070319_kmiec.html
March 21st, 2007 at 6:07 pmJake,
March 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pmPublishing a transcript of a Bush speech as an example of what was delivered is as futile as listening to a four-year-old reading Newton’s ‘Principia Mathematica’. Both have a total lack of ability to read the phonetic message and both will stumble over the text.
WaltTheMan:
It wasn’t “as an example” — it was part of my question — how else would you propose I ask the question related to the thread topic? Everyone agreed with the NYTimes editorial headline simply because it slammed Bush, but not one single person here has even quoted what they think was “nasty and bumbling” above. Just a bit curious, don’t you think?
March 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pmJake,
March 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pmIt was in the delivery.
dlet:
Richard Nixon is dead and buried in Yorba Linda, CA. BTW: was Nixon impeached for firing U.S. Attorneys? I didn’t think so.
Comment by Jake
I never said he was impeached for firing US Attorneys. In fact he never was impeached. He resigned in disgrace. His firing of two Attorney generals and the US attorney that was investigating him was the nail in the coffin for him. And I said you can tell Nixon this. I didn’t say he would respond very well.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pmJamie, I’m not making fun of Bush’s body language, I’m making fun of where you live…. what a dive.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pm#173 – Jake,
March 21st, 2007 at 7:11 pmOne thing that I forgot to mention is that the current NYT editorial staff is be about 3 places to the right of Barry Goldwater.
WaltTheMan:
The “delivery” of “Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys” was “nasty and bumbling”?
P.S. to dlet — you are correct that you didn’t say Nixon would respond very well ; )
March 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pm172 Jake. You should maybe include some information about the opinion piece you posted. You know, something about the author?
Douglas W. Kmiec is Chair and professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University. He is also the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush
So, in this Republican lawyer’s opinion, the Executive branch should just go on doing what it’s doing, and absent any evidence to the contrary, which they’re busy doing everything possible to avoid providing, Congress should just leave them alone.
That’s the kind of bold objective “independent” thinking we like to see.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:54 pmgummitch:
Well, that was deleted by TP “free speech” advocates, but I did provide the link for you to find the information out yourself, right? Besides, who do you think, if not for Republican lawyers in the DoJ, is going to be ARGUING Bush’s case if this issue ever gets to the ROBERTS Supreme Court? Gosh darn, I wish Miers had made it now too ; )
March 21st, 2007 at 8:09 pm“Nasty and bumbling”? HOW ABOUT “MENDACIOUS and RAMBLING” or “UNINFORMED and PATHETIC” or “BELLICOSE and EMPTY” or “BELLIGERENT and ERRONEOUS,” or “PETULANT and PETTY,” or “WHINING and CRYBABYISH,” or “SPOILED ROTTEN and CHILDISH,” or “NARCISSISTIC and SOCIOPATHIC,” or “DERANGED and DELUSIONAL,” or “SCHIZOID and HALLUCINATING,” or “SELFISH and FOOLISH”, or “UNABLE TO FACE FACTS and UNDISCIPLINED CHILDISH OUTBURSTS,” or “UNABLE TO COPE WITH REALITY and LIVES IN AN INSULATED BUBBLE,” or “JUST PLAIN STUPID and UNABLE TO REALIZE HIS OWN IMBECILITY”???????????? YEAH!!!!!
March 21st, 2007 at 8:45 pmWell, that was deleted by TP “free speech†advocates, but I did provide the link for you to find the information out yourself, right? Besides, who do you think, if not for Republican lawyers in the DoJ, is going to be ARGUING Bush’s case if this issue ever gets to the ROBERTS Supreme Court? Gosh darn, I wish Miers had made it now too ; ) Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Bumbling and Nasty – great description for you – old man.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 amThe “delivery†of “Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys†was “nasty and bumbling�
P.S. to dlet — you are correct that you didn’t say Nixon would respond very well ; ) Comment by Jake — March 21, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Says the troll, who is bumbling and nasty. Why do you hate America Jake? Is it that you prefer Israel – Jacob? If so, I suggest you move there. We only want Americans that have American values here – OK putz?
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 amWow. So people do post on dead threads. Interesting — but if anyone has a question who is not on my Ignore List for refusing to answer my questions and/or resorting to personal attacks, please let me know.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pmLook over there! Britney Spears!
Comment by Flaco
Flakehead,
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 amBritney once said in a televised interview, while chewing gum, that she “trusts this president.” Look where that got her.