Yesterday, Bush made an "offer" to allow congress to interview top White House aides (Rove and Miers primarily) in regards to the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys. Problem is, he doesn't want them to be under oath. He wants it to be behind closed doors and he doesn't want to allow any transcripts of the proceedings. So basically he is saying, "I'll allow you to interview these folks but only if it is completely meaningless and a waste of everybody's time." This may be the biggest crock of shit yet.
This is a white house that is fighting for it's life because if congress can prove that the administration used a loophole in the Patriot Act to install politically favored appointees without congressional approval in order to taint criminal investigations of republicans (especially in the case of Lam) it is akin to Watergate. The fact that they initially lied about the motivation for the firings and language in emails that suggests that the so called "temporary appointees" installed under the Patriot Act were not really going to be temporary indicates a lot of sneaky activity but nothing that can yet be deemed illegal. Trying to keep Rove and Miers out of the hot seat I think is a last ditch effort to keep evidence that there was indeed illegal activity under wraps.
Here's the problem, Conyers, is gonna issue subpoenas real soon and the pres is going to exercise executive privilege to protect the administration's (not the country's) interests. If congress does decide to push the issue (and I think they will) the case goes to the Justice Department where (wait for it) Alberto Gonzales gets to decide whether or not to prosecute the case! Are you fucking kidding me? So don't expect the AG to resign any time soon. With this little arrangement in place the White House can continue to do what it wants so long as Justice is in their corner. Fuck!
Do you think Rove and the boys knew this from the get go? Hells yeah they did! Double fuck!
In related news, at least the senate voted overwhelmingly to close the loophole that allowed all this shit to happen in the first place.
4 comments:
Wouldn't an independent counsel have to be appointed, a la Ken Starr? I hate people who say a la, by the way.
From the Washington Post:
That would set in motion the extraordinary spectacle of Congress enlisting the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to impanel a grand jury to seek the indictment of administration officials over their refusal to testify on the firings of eight of his colleagues.
"A U.S. attorney would feel a great deal of pressure to say, 'The law is the law, and I will follow the law,' " said Charles Tiefer, a former House counsel now at the University of Baltimore Law School. "But in this case, the U.S. attorney also would be expected to follow the instructions of his president."
After all, he "serves at the pleasure of the president..." Gross.
Can't we elect some folks to serve at the displeasure of the president? Maybe somebody that just goes over and slaps him in the sack every once in a while?
Post a Comment