The House Judiciary Committee wants to question the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former legal counsel Harriet Miers, about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Really?

We’re STILL on this???!!!!

While we’re at it, lets ask Mr. and Mrs. Clinton why he fired ALL the U.S. Attorneys when he took office in ‘93.

Jesus flippin’ Christ.

YOU work for ME, not vice-versa.

I don’t know constitutional law, but why can’t one area of the government hold another accountable.

They can, congress has the power of impeachment and can take other actions if executive office is willingly in violation of law. There’s nobody here that’s going to argue about that check and balance.

This ruling allows the congress to play witch hunt and other political grandstanding games. Note that they can still plead the 5th. Note that they don’t have to give over documents that the President declares privileged. So what did congress gain? ANYBODY that works in the executive office, for whatever reason, must now appear before congress whenever they demand for whatever they demand. It used to be that congress could only go after the office holder like the President or his board members. Now they have the right to go after his advisors.

And why does the justice dept. seeminly only investigate, prosecute Republicans?

I would say you’re only one short step away from Islamofaschism.

freevillage on July 31, 2008 at 1:24 PM

At least the trains will run on time.

If the executive, only investigates itself, that isn’t much use.

I would say you’re only one short step away from Islamofaschism.

I don’t know constitutional law, but why can’t one area of the government hold another accountable. If the executive, only investigates itself, that isn’t much use.

I would argue that it is we the people that are supposed to be holding all branches of gubmint to account.

Impeachment is the only legit avenue for congress to take, but they know they have sweet FA, so they’re defaulting to this bullshart behaviour – wasting more of our money in the process.

And we the people just sit on our shag-arse lazy behinds.

“Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena,” Bates wrote.
He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all non-privileged documents related to the firings.

Is true. They do have to appear but they have no legal responsibility to testify to priviledged magerial.

At this stage, just appeal and ignore them all.

This naturally leads to the flip side of this power grant by the judge… can the executive branch now order the arrest of members of congress?

Skywise on July 31, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Jay Rockefeller did admit to committing treason…

Then again, nothing ever happened to Ted Kennedy for collaborating with the Soviets, did it?

So Congress can just subpoena any one it wants, any time it wants? And then charge people with contempt? Why is this good?

MayBee on July 31, 2008 at 11:54 AM

No, no, no. Congress can not charge just anyone with contempt of Congress. They can, and do, charge Republicans with contempt of Congress.

So Senior Bush, that new tone with the Democrats worked out oh so well didn’t it?

The convouluted reasons cited by the DOJ spokesman, a few members of the Attorney General’s staff, and the Attorney General, led to the notion that these firings were totally and completely political. One would think that most of government would be media savvy at this poiint in our history. Were these firings political? Perhaps they were. But one of the things about federal attorneys in the various districts is they set the local agenda as to which cases to prosecute and which ones to run out the clock on, normally in accordance with policy set by the Attorney General. Apparently, these fired attorneys were prone to let the clock run out on several cases while pursuing cases, and expending funds on cases, that were somewhat political in nature, and not in compliance with guidance set out by the Attorney General. If you get hired by the Attorney General, isn’t there some expectation that you will follow the guidance of that Attorney General, or perhaps find employment elsewhere?

I envision a lengthy Congressional inquiry, complete with dozens and dozens of expert witnesses, lots of cameras, and none of the majority members ever addressing the root of the firings.

Instead, they will launch into their last chance to get something, anything, on Bush. That is what the majority in Congress wishes most. Get Bush! Get Bush on anything, anything at all.

The Adminmistration is standing on a principle, a long held one at that, one used for quite a long time, by Dems and Republican administrations over the years. There are aspects of the Executive that are not the perview of the Legislative Branch. It becomes a Constitutional question. Separation of powers, simply put. This separation does not preclude investigation of the Executive into criminal misdeads of the Judiciary or Legislative branches, nor of the Judiciary or Legislative to look into criminal cases involving Executive misdeeds. Hence, Congress and the Judiciary looking into mattters involving the Executive Branch interfering with the civil rights of several persons involved in cases involving sexual harrassment, or the more recent Jefferson raid viewed by the Judicidary and Executive as being legal. Congress, well, the majority, thought otherwise, and Jefferson still serves, despite his criminal enterprise.

Bottom line? Congress, the present majority in Congress, is going to once again hold hearings, question “witnesses” and spend lots of money and limited time instead of doing their Constitutiinally mandated business of effecting legislation for the good of the country.

It’s all about Bush. Simple as that.

But Miers and Bolten are not entitled, as the administration claimed, to absolute immunity from all compulsory process, including the duty to even appear.

paul006 on July 31, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Where in the constitution is the legislative branch authorized to exercise judicial power over the executive?

They have fabricated the power to act as judge and jury.