I Control Congress!
“If the House had nothing better to do, this futile partisan act would be a waste of time,” said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. “The ‘people’s House’ should reflect the priorities of the American people, not the fantasies of left-wing bloggers.”
Well, maybe not me, probably they’re referring to Josh Marshall. This is about the House vote to hold presidential chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for not responding to subpoenas issued by the House compelling them to testify under oath.
The background is familiar over the past few years: the Bush White house fired nine US Attorneys and apparently pressured a great many more for reasons that are completely improper. The attorneys were pressured to pursue election fraud charges against Democrats even if the attorneys felt the charges had no merit, and they were similarly pressured not to pursue legitimate cases against Republicans. In the investigations that followed, the Attorney General and other White House officials made misleading and false statements under oath to Congress, and the White House has refused to surrender documents and has “accidentally” destroyed mountains of evidence, much pertaining to this case.
The White House refused to allow Miers and Bolton to testify on the grounds of “executive principle,” which is a code word for “we want to deny the checks and balances guaranteed under the Constitution.” Bush offered to allow them to testify, but only if their testimony were not under oath–of course, the only reason to make this demand is if there is an intent to lie to Congress. When House Democrats voted for the contempt charges, the Crybaby Republicans stomped their feet and held their breath, staging a walkout–as if it were the height of impropriety to investigate massive corruption, if the focus of the investigation were Republican.
If anything, the Democratic Congress has been far too soft in its investigation, letting the White House drag its heels and show utter contempt for Congress’ authority for the past year. The move to hold the White House officials in contempt is, quite frankly, very late in coming. The intensity and depth of political corruption in this White House far exceeds that in any presidency in U.S. history, and deserves far more scrutiny and investigation.
Worse, since the Bush White House controls the enforcement of laws, it simply refuses to honor any charges held against it. It is exactly as if a prosecutor were a serial criminal offender, but was put in charge of the prosecution of the cases against himself–and simply declined to do anything. In any other such case, there would be a higher authority that would step in and clobber the scofflaw–but here, we are dealing with an executive branch that has no higher authority than the Constitution, which they hold in contempt and refuse to follow. There being no higher corporeal authority, there is not much else that can be done.
The Bush White House’s legacy will have been to establish that the president is above the law, that he can violate any statute, make any ethical breach, and get away with it.
Theoretically, the next president could reverse these decisions and release any documents not shredded or deleted by this administration (which will probably be very few by that time), and allow justice to be realized. But if a Democratic president tried to do so, he or she would instantly be attacked in fury by conservatives, accusing the new president of “wallowing in the past,” not allowing “bygones to be bygones,” and of “abusing the power of the presidency to exact partisan political retributions.” In short, the claim will be that a president can break any law, refuse to prosecute himself, and then enjoy immunity the day after he leaves office.
After all, this is the presidency that promised to “restore honor and dignity” to the White House.
We’re still waiting.
Theoretically, the next president could reverse these decisions and release any documents not shredded or deleted by this administration (which will probably be very few by that time), and allow justice to be realized.
More likely, the next president will use Bush’s practices as precedents, especially I think, Hillary.
This is what did in the Roman Republic. Just because Caesar crossed the Rubicon didn’t mean others had to, but they did.
It all hinges on the next person to enter on to the thrown. This is another reason why many people doubted that Bush would ever give up power, a la Louis Napoleon. Because he suddenly become vulnerable to a back lash of his own habits. The stupid duntze, while he was busy grabbing power and crapping on the constitution, never realized that time stands still for no one. Now it’s doubtful that he would hang on because of the messes he’s made.
This leads me to think, that if Republicans had to choose between a tyrannical Hillary or a Hillary that released a lot of the unflattering executive documents of the Bush years, they would choose the latter. More likely they would get both: Hillary might court compliance while in power, but would release the documents anyway upon exiting, reminding Bush what a double dealer he was to enter into contracts with (did anyone ever engage in quid pro quo with him and not come to regret it?)
What a President Obama would do or McCain is not certain. McCain might draw back some of the precedents set by Bush, if he’s feeling nostalgia, but he’d never release the papers. Obama, I am more incline to believe, would dial things back and offer tranperency. As a member of a minority group, I can’t see Obama wanting to, or trying to end the American republic. More likely he would want to restore constitutional checks and balances.
Still it’s impossible to know who and what people will do if they come into the precious, the ring of power. And now there’s more power in that position than there ever was, ever in history. It would take a pretty good person to rise above.
You realize that when Clinton (Bill) became president, he fired *every* U.S. Attorney? Congress (democrat-controlled at the time) didn’t have any problem at all with that. In fact, U.S. Attorneys serve at the whim of the President, and he can fire them any time, for any reason–or for no reason at all, like Bill did.
And “Executive Privilige” is not an abstract or incomphrehensible principle. Every attorney and their client has “aatorney-client privilige”. You can’t put an accused on the stand and ask him “What did your attorney advise you to do?”. Likewise, a President needs to be able to speak frankly with his senior advisors in confidence, with the knowledge that they won’t be compelled to revel confidential and private conversations under oath. If this was a Democratic President and the Republicans were demanding this, I can’t believe that you’d be in favor of it.
This is a partisan tempest in a teapot, and the Republicans are right to be annoyed.
*Sigh.* Is this another liberal poster I am misreading? In a way, I hope so, because the argument is really bad. Yes, Bill Clinton fired every US Attorney… when he took office in January 1993, just like Bush did in 2001–which the Democrats had no problem with, either. This is dramatically different from firing a specific group based on their inability to carry out corrupt orders, and pressuring many others to carry out those orders.
As for “attorney-client privilege,” (a) it does not apply to Bolton, and (b) it never keeps any attorney from testifying. If a counsel is asked a question that would violate attorney-client privilege, then they could bring that up, But they can’t claim to be subpeona-proof because of it. Not to mention that White House counsels play a different role than most attorneys; it’s not the same ball game. Neither does this explain away the lying to Congress.
So please go back and get more of this good stuff from the place you found it, especially if you’re a liberal and are joshing me.
To sum up what Luis is saying, Geoffrey, complaining about Clinton firing all the U.S. attorneys when he took office is like complaining that he appointed new cabinet members.