more of the same
What is in the news this week is the issue of the firing of eight US Attornies by the GW Bush administration. Now I have to admit that I have little love for lawyers of any stripe, (my first reaction to hearing the news was that it is too bad that we don't behead ousted government officials), but the gist of the story was at first the dismissal of these officials because they did not lend themselves and their good offices to the harrassment and ostracizing of political opponents of the administration.
Frankly, that particular assertion did not surprise me, as that is just the way the game is played these days.
As the story has developed, the Congress is gearing up to hold hearings on the issue, and the White House has said that it will not permit its staffers, including the Attorney General, to testify under oath, invoking "Executive Privilege" in a blatantly Nixonian manner. The President has warned of a constitutional showdown if White House staffers are compelled to appear and testify under oath before the House Committee. The sad thing is that he might win, given the makeup of the Supreme Court.
The only way to avoid this particular conflict is to follow the methods prescribed by the Constitution. A bill of impeachment would allow the US House to investigate and prosecute the case in a very public forum. Failure to testify by any of the staffers would put them in (legal) contempt of Congress, (not the simple disdain that most of us hold), for which they could be removed from office, fined and possibly jailed, at least during the proceedings.
I have not yet decided if this is a genuine abuse of power issue, (or more correctly, if this particular abuse rises far enough above the pale to merit serious attention), or just a way to hobble the administration, but the executive privilege issue really sticks in my craw. I was infuriated by it when Nixon invoked the doctrine, (at the time I credited the origination of the doctrine to him), was sickened when Bill Clinton used it as a lever to move the Congress in a slightly different direction, (procedurally speaking---it gave validity to the notion), and now am again infuriated that the President believes that he serves only himself and his friends.
It is time to put the notion of executive privilege in its place. If the administration won't honor the spirit of the law, then we are left to do what we must.
Stay focused.
Frankly, that particular assertion did not surprise me, as that is just the way the game is played these days.
As the story has developed, the Congress is gearing up to hold hearings on the issue, and the White House has said that it will not permit its staffers, including the Attorney General, to testify under oath, invoking "Executive Privilege" in a blatantly Nixonian manner. The President has warned of a constitutional showdown if White House staffers are compelled to appear and testify under oath before the House Committee. The sad thing is that he might win, given the makeup of the Supreme Court.
The only way to avoid this particular conflict is to follow the methods prescribed by the Constitution. A bill of impeachment would allow the US House to investigate and prosecute the case in a very public forum. Failure to testify by any of the staffers would put them in (legal) contempt of Congress, (not the simple disdain that most of us hold), for which they could be removed from office, fined and possibly jailed, at least during the proceedings.
I have not yet decided if this is a genuine abuse of power issue, (or more correctly, if this particular abuse rises far enough above the pale to merit serious attention), or just a way to hobble the administration, but the executive privilege issue really sticks in my craw. I was infuriated by it when Nixon invoked the doctrine, (at the time I credited the origination of the doctrine to him), was sickened when Bill Clinton used it as a lever to move the Congress in a slightly different direction, (procedurally speaking---it gave validity to the notion), and now am again infuriated that the President believes that he serves only himself and his friends.
It is time to put the notion of executive privilege in its place. If the administration won't honor the spirit of the law, then we are left to do what we must.
Stay focused.
posted by eccentric recluse at 6:07 PM
7 Comments:
Bill of impeachment? Coooool.
Even in the case of W, I think that impeachment is a drastic step, but one that would at least permit the uncovering of the facts of the various scenario's that we find ourselves embroiled in. W might win, (in fact, he probably would), but the nation might be better off for what is learned.
just my $0.02
It's the old sausage thing... you really don't want to know everything. Whatever good would come of it would be outweighed by the long-term bad.
Do your best to know who you vote for. Hold them accountable if there is clear, legal reason. Voice your opinions until you lose your voice... and re-deploy your power when you vote again.
This clearly political, hurt, distract, disable an administration by any means available, hurts us all. If an administration can be hauled in, person by person, to be grilled by the corrupt, crooked, truth-challenged kooks in congress... future administrations will be crippled too.
The hypocrisy is mind-bending.
If an administration can NOT be hauled in, person by person, to be held accountable for their actions, then we are in trouble for sure. Remember, they work for us, not us for them. Everybody forgets that.
-Roy
Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.
“Political interference is happening at Justice across the department,” she said. “When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general’s office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window.”
Quote thanks to Firedoglake.
Now why shouldn't Herr Rove and company be allowed to turn the DoJ into a political toy? MMMMMM. Oops, maybe the next president will be another Clinton then we'd have to rethink that.
Crooks are crooks whether they have a r or d behind their names. Right now I want these r's out of office.
JB
I agree with anonymous that the practice of doing whatever it takes to hobble an administration is bad, and that it has become the norm in our polarized political environment, but I would suggest here that not pursuing any administration that has left an evidentiary trail like the present one is even more harmful. Those things that are done and not examined and remediated by the Congress or courts become de facto precedents for the future exercise of power. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not. In the absense though, of any political cooperation, coupled with the appearance of a complete usurpation of power and authority, the Conress and courts have no choice but to act, and if an over-the-top action such as a bill of impeachment is required to get to the facts of any matter, then that is what needs to be done.
I sincerely hope, that in the future, the role of government can be better managed by all parties, but until the somewhat idealistic day comes, we are in a political barfight.
Bar fight is a good one, 'cause that's what it is.
Memebers of BOTH parties, ALL branches, come to Washington and get drunk on money/power. They'll fight visciously while in the stupor and we not only keep setting up rounds... we'll pay to clean the place up for the next, drunken brawl.
If we keep taking sides out some semblance of political idealogy and loyalty... the alcoholics will NOT stop drinking and fighting.
This has been going on for a long time; and since 1/2 the country at any given time have enough of "their" party AT the party, they (we) keep excusing it all. *sigh*
Post a Comment
<< Home