Say Anything Blog

What crime did Gonzales commit by knowing of, or being closely involved in the firings?  Why all the huff if nothing illegal was done?  Could it be another Libby hunt?  No crime, but maybe the libs can dig up an inconvenient memory lapse and screech, “perjury!”?  Or, if nothing else, keep the legal pressure on the President and thereby stay on the offensive through the next election cycle?

Mike, it’s always fascinating how differently you see things than me.

What I see is a Democratic Congress completely unable to pass any of the legislation that it promised to pass in the first hundred hours having to bribe its members in an amount equal to the entire pork spending last year to get them to pass a bill the majority of Americans don’t want....

And they are running a nonstory that few outside of the beltway even care about into the ground.  Why?  Smells like desperation to me.  Gotta have something to distract attention from their complete and utter legislative incompetence.

No doubt you will see the completely blank sheet containing their legislative accomplishments as “half full” rather than “completely empty”.

HG...He said previously that he wasn’t closely involved in the firings. That statement was not true...many people seem to think lying is problematic. He could try the lapse of memory defense although I doubt that would get very far.

Carrick...I’m obviously no fan of the Bush Administration and in general the Democrats advocate policies closer to mine than do the Republicans. I’m certainly not a Democratic party supporter though because I’m not American and because its foreign policies tend to differ little from traditional Republican stands...this Administration is an aberration which I don’t criticise on partisan grounds but because its policies make the world a less safe place IMO. I’d feel the same way if the President was a Democrat and would favour the Republicans if they opposed folly such as we see now.

As for 100 days promise, nothing ventured nothing gained I suppose although I’d be surprised if anyone expected them to deliver.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA: IMO, the real issue here is whether or not Congress has any interest whatsoever in the firing or letting go of any Executive Branch employees.  I say they don’t, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that this is just another facet of the “Get the President” agenda of the Dems and the MSM.

He could try the lapse of memory defense although I doubt that would get very far.

It always worked for the Clintons…

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

He could try the lapse of memory defense although I doubt that would get very far.

Let’s presume he lied about his involvement in the firings.  Where is the crime?  Lying is par for the course for most politicians—not that it’s right.  He wasn’t under oath when he presumably “lied”.  Where is the crime that warrants subpeonas and testimony under oath? 

Put the presumed “lie” into context a little… please.  At worst his “lie” is worthy of an apology and, if he chooses, his resignation. 

Let’s be honest, what the dems are after is a forced resignation and they are will to use congressional authority in an inappropriate way to this end. 

It is purposefully blowing these firings out of proportion to accomplish a political objective—and a malicious one at that.

Mike? Did Al Gonzalez walk into each and every “fired” US Attorney’s office, punch them in the face and scream YOUR FIRED!!!!!!!! No. He did not. The entire process went through Dept of Justice departmental procedures. The President expressed displeasure with these US Attorneys and DoJ did his bidding. That is his prerogative as Chief Executive. Period. Reasons are not open for debate. Period. They serve at the pleasure and discretion of the President. Period.

The Dems are prying the lid off a box that they will deeply regret openning. This shit slices both ways, and they have far more to lose at this point than W does.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

HG...you keep talking about a crime as if that’s the only measure of poor behaviour. If Captain Ed and Tom Maguire can get this I don’t know why you can’t.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

2H9...I know you’re smarter than that so cut it out. This bunch is displaying its ineptness more and more and any questions of impropriety around the original firings are bound to arise.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Mike, there is no impropriety.

On the other hand they’ve been inept in how they’ve handled it probably because they got hit with this unexpectedly.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

United States Attorneys serve at the pleasure and discretion of the President. Period. Discussion over. Period.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

No recourse.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

No appeal.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

No mulligans.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

No do overs.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Changing this redounds negatively to the Dems. Historically their US Attorney appointees have a higher degree of legal problems than the Rs do.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

TW

there is no impropriety.

You may be right but who really knows except for the decision makers and they’re not making themselves very believable these days. My point was that we didn’t see this ham handedness from the Administration a few short years ago.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Mike:

As for 100 days promise, nothing ventured nothing gained I suppose although I’d be surprised if anyone expected them to deliver.

Actually it was the first 100 hours, not days.

It was an obvious attempt to copy the success of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, but without the intellectual capacity to carry out any of the promise.  Of course, unlike Newt and the 1992 Republican Party, Nancy Pelosi failed 100% to carry out any of her campaign promises.

Apparently you have as low a regard of Pelosi, if you really didn’t expect her to achieve any of her stated goals (apparently ever).

2H9...your deflecting does Clinton proud.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I said 1992 Congress, I meant 480 AD Congress, er that is “1994 Congress”.

Carrick...I’m dubious when it comes to any grandiose schemes. Did I tell you about my garage cleaning plans for today?

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

You may be right but who really knows except for the decision makers

No, they could fire them for whatever reason they want except obstruction of justice.  Nobody’s come up with any cases like that.  The closest was the moonbats attempt to link it to the Cunningham case, but he was convicted so that’s not the case.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

The Republican HOR passed 31 of the promised 32 measures in the first 100 legislative days in 1995. So, I’ll stand with my assumption that you think that Pelosi is an incompetent blow-hard can’t get anything right.

By the way, exactly who’s deflecting?

Carrick...then that Republican house did a great job. I have no feelings pro or con Pelosi so I can’t help you there.

2H9 is deflecting by saying that because the prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President then there can be no questioning of circumstances surrounding their termination nor any requirement that the AG speak the truth to Congress. The fact that they do serve at the President’s pleasure should have resulted in an easy termination/non-reappointment process...bunglers.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

The fact that they do serve at the President’s pleasure should have resulted in an easy termination/non-reappointment process.

It was easy, it’s done.  The rest is just a political show that apparently you are falling for.

Admittedly and unsurprisingly the administration has failed to defend themselves and now look in the wrong. 

So yes they are bunglers in that matter.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

TW...then we’re not really arguing because the bungling is my point.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Good, cause you know I hate to argue.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Massive stumbling political bunglers.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

And I still contend that if placing WhiteHouse aides under oath in the Plame matter is a good idea, then it is a good idea to place all the actors in this little drama under oath. From Colin Powell to Richard Armitage, lets have it all in the open.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Pelosi 100 hours

Tuesday, January 9 - Implement the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Wednesday, January 10 - Increase the Minimum Wage
Thursday, January 11 - Expand Stem Cell Research
Friday, January 12 - Allow Negotiation for Lower Prescription Drug Costs
Wednesday, January 17 - Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
Thursday, January 18 - End Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy

http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0003

WOOF, how many of those measures made it into law?

Zero?

Pelosi runs the House not the Senate.
The Senate did pass a min wage bill
94-3 so that will be negotiated.
More important.
When Republicans stifle popular legislation they pay.

HG...you keep talking about a crime as if that’s the only measure of poor behaviour.

Mike,

A crime is the only thing worthy of subpoenas and testimony under oath before congress, lies about involvement in legal firings over which congress has no oversight, are not.

HG...I see. Is this your interpretation or is it an opinion that’s widely held?

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

With all due respect, WOOF, the Democrats are having more problems from a lack of their own unity than from opposition from the Republican Party. 

And that “identification advantage” metric must be pretty meaningless, because it has consistently failed to predict election outcomes… Based on those numbers, the Republicans would have been slaughtered in 2004.

Probably a better metric would be people who consider themselves “conservative” or “liberal,” because not that many of us vote one-party these days.

I agree with you Carrick, things are a lot more complex, with plenty of fraternization between the “enemies”.

this Administration is an aberration which I don’t criticise on partisan grounds but because its policies make the world a less safe place IMO.

Straight from the DNC play book.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

The Whistler said: Mike, there is no impropriety.

On the other hand they’ve been inept in how they’ve handled it probably because they got hit with this unexpectedly.

That is just it, there isn’t any crime, but the Dem’s want to get Rove on record so they can charge him with perjury. It’s all about getting Rove. No Substance.

I’ll stand with my assumption that you think that Pelosi is an incompetent blow-hard can’t get anything right.

By the way, exactly who’s deflecting?

Now that is funny.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

this Administration is an aberration which I don’t criticise on partisan grounds but because its policies make the world a less safe place IMO.

It is this type of thinking that leads me to have little or no respect for lefties.  The notion that, after eight years of non-response to terrorism, during which time a major terrorist organization came to power and orchestrated an attack on US soil, the Administration that finally stands up to, and fights back against, terrorism has made the world “a less safe place” is so patently idiotic as to defy understanding.  That’s the leftie mind for you.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

HG...I see. Is this your interpretation or is it an opinion that’s widely held?

Mike,

I take it this to be an admission that you don’t know whether or not this presumed “lie” rises to the level of subpoenas and testimony under oath, and you’d like for me to explain the insignifigance of what you presume to be a “lie” not under oath?

I did, but I guess you weren’t listening.

I think it would be more incumbant upon you to explain the legal signifigance and congressional authority of demanding testimony where no crime exists and that the firings were legal is not even in question.

HG...you can take it however you like. You know I’m no expert on American jurisprudence and that my opinions are shaped by my general knowledge of western democratic history. In general, governmental officials are expected to tell the truth, even if they believe the questions are irrelevant or ridiculous. In general, when a governmental official is caught in an apparent lie then the natural response is to wonder why the official lied. If the statement was not in fact a lie then the official will be expected to explain why it is not.

You are entitled to your opinion that governmental officials can lie so long as no laws are broken but that’s a pretty low standard of conduct IMO.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

You are entitled to your opinion that governmental officials can lie so long as no laws are broken but that’s a pretty low standard of conduct IMO.

Mike,

Nice spin, but once again you ignore the more salient point.  The lie doesn’t rise to the level of subpoenas and testimony under oath before congress, nor does congress have anything but malicious purposes for such a disproportionate over-reaction. 

Besides Mike, the White House already offered private interviews.  It’s not like anyone is saying he shouldn’t answer for his presumed “lie”, just that the venue demanded by House Dems is ridiculously over-the-top.

HG: To wit, treating a non-crime as a full-blown felony.  Shades of Scooter.  I guess AG is getting “Scootered”; the Dems have been handed a new weapon with which to continue their politics of personal destruction, which is their only agenda.  Forget what is good for the country: economic growth and the defeat of terrorism, let’s focus on destroying the administration!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

R108,

Well said. 

AG’s semi-defensive rhetoric seems only to add fuel to the fire of animosity burning vehemently hotter and hotter within the liberal bosom.

HG

The lie doesn’t rise to the level of subpoenas and testimony under oath before congress, nor does congress have anything but malicious purposes for such a disproportionate over-reaction.

In your opinion.

It’s not like anyone is saying he shouldn’t answer for his presumed “lie”, just that the venue demanded by House Dems is ridiculously over-the-top.

I can understand the reluctance of some to accept an “interview” with no oath, transcript or publicity and I wouldn’t characterise such reluctance as “over the top.”

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I think it would be more incumbant upon you to explain the legal signifigance and congressional authority of demanding testimony where no crime exists and that the firings were legal is not even in question.

HG,

I think it is pretty well established that no one can even intimate reasonably that a crime has been committed, or federal rule or regulation has been broken in the firings of these US Attorneys.  Certainly Mike Adamson can offer no such authoritative accusation.

Still, that said, it is within the Congress’s constitutional mandate to do all the “investigating” it chooses and issue all the subpoenas it’s chairmen care to issue… just as it is within the constitutional authority of the president to instruct his administration’s officials to ignore the subpoenas, and allow congressional Democrats to go to court to try and enforce them.

And if the case should get to the Supreme Court before the end of Mr. Bush’s term in office, there is every likelihood that the Congressional Democrats will lose in any case.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I, myself, am still searching for that clause in the Constitution giving Congress, either Senate or House, the authority to issue subpoenas. Congress is NOT a part of the Judiciary Branch. They can exercise oversight, and nothing more.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Congress...the authority to issue subpoenas

How else could these clowns get anybody to talk to them?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

In your opinion.

Mike,

If Congress issued subpoenas and demanded testimony under oath every time a politician or government official was accused and presumed to have lied.... well, anyone ought to get that picture. We could hold hearings from now to Kingdom come and still be incomplete in investigating the Clinton administration.

Bat One,

I agree Congress can, but my point is that dems are blowing things way, way out of proportion for malicious political purposes.  The fact that the subpoenas will be defeated in court will prove that congress has no say over the President’s hiring and firing of US attorneys serving the interests of the President, and therefore proving my claim, and others, that the firings do not fall under congressional oversight.

Bat One,

I think there is one exception to my statement above in the case of obstruction of justice or something like that.

Gang, I ain’t joking around. I can find no authority given to Congress to issue subpoenas. They can request that a judge issue a writ, they have no authority, repeat, NO AUTHORITY to issue subpoenas to anyone. At all. Period. Ever.

And no one can be compelled to answer any question put forward by any member of Congress. Period.

They are merely the Legislative Branch. They only have the authority over you that you give them.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9, most of Congress’s right to subpoena comes from their power to legislate, and to protect that right to legislate.  That’s the short answer.  Most of the law related to that is Constitutional caselaw.b

However, I think there is a question over the power of a Congressional subpoena in a non-judical investigation, which is pretty much what we have here.  Namely, you can’t subpoena for fishing trips.

Mike A,

I will remind you again, given the less than morally stellar history of those on the Left, it would probably be a good idea for someone to rethink the instant precedent that any public mis-statement is to be defined as a deliberate and maliciously intended falsehood.  From Valerie to Hillary, your side can ill-afford to open that particular rhetorical can of worms.

Carrick,

If we are going to start delving into constitutional caselaw, let me suggest that decisions regarding executive privilege should be at the top of the list.  There appears to be no reason to think that either the Congressional Democrats or the President are going to back away from this confrontation.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Congress has no authority to issue subpoenas. They can only request a writ from a judge. No member of Congress can simply decide"I’m gonna subpoena some fuckers today” and have it be so. A judge has to issue. No member of Congress can take it upon themselves to do this.

And the icing is you don’t have to say yes. Put your left hand on that Bible, raise your right hand, the bailif goes blahblahblah, and you say “No.” What is Waxman going to do? Hold you in contempt? They ain’t got that authority either.

Executive. Legislative. Judicial. There is a reason they are seperate.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I disagree, my friend.  Try Title 2, Section 192, USC, which states,

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

Of course, the catch is that Congress cannot by its own authority find a person guilty of any crime.  Rather, they must refer the matter to the US Department of Justice for the appropriate prosecution.  That is, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez’ Department of Justice.

Are we having fun yet?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Lying to Congress is a crime.
If there were a question of indicting
Gonzales and/or others in the DOJ a special prosecutor would be appointed.

Congress can impeach the Atty General.

Lying to Congress is a crime.

Any way we could reverse that and return the favor?

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Lying to Congress is a really serious crime, unless it’s like Valerie Plame or something.  Then it’s not a big deal.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Perfectly on target, Rob!

Hey, I get one right every once in a while I guess.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Bat One

...it would probably be a good idea for someone to rethink the instant precedent that any public mis-statement is to be defined as a deliberate and maliciously intended falsehood.

Which is why you don’t see and hear me screaming “liar liar pants on fire.” The AG may well have a legitimate excuse for telling Congress something that was not true although I suspect we might have heard it by now if that was the case. Still, the fact that the Administration has left itself open to the questions is what really interests me as a political junkey...this term has seen quite a turn around in terms of political competence as compared to the efficiency of the first term.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

The AG may well have a legitimate excuse for telling Congress something that was not true…

Here’s the problem, Mike: Why should the AG have to tell Congress anything at all, much less make an “excuse”?  The truth is, Queen Pelosi and her minions are trying to arrogate Congress to the position of being the Grand Overseer of the Executive Branch.  The Dem Congress has no such Constitutional power.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108

Why should the AG have to tell Congress anything at all, much less make an “excuse”?

I don’t know why Gonzales spoke to the Committee but I do know that he told them something that has turned out to be not true. Maybe Congress has some oversight role in the area...I’m sure Bat One would know so maybe he can enlighten us as to why the AG talked to Congress. As for why he would be expected to account for his inaccuracy, that should be obvious.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Why should the AG have to tell Congress anything at all

Lets see ,the DOJ is a government agency, they pay his salary , he was confirmed by the Senate , and he can be impeached.

As for why he would be expected to account for his inaccuracy, that should be obvious.

I repeat, unless Congress has oversight powers over the Executive Branch(they don’t), no accountability is involved.  It’s that simple.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Why should the AG have to tell Congress anything at all

Lets see ,the DOJ is a government agency, they pay his salary , he was confirmed by the Senate , and he can be impeached.

Let me ‘splain it to you: The Legislative Branch of the govt(Congress) has oversight in the area of legislation.  They have no say whatsoever over whether the Executive Branch chooses to fire some(or all) of its employees in any department, unless it impacts legislation directly, and there is no legislative issue here.  Get it?
He can be impeached for criminal activity(not an issue here), and then has to be convicted to be removed, in a trial with rules of evidence and cross-examination of testimony, unlike the “kangaroo court” sham being perpetrated here by the Congress.  See the difference?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

...they pay his salary…

Wrong!  The American people pay his salary, and are paying for this travesty of rule by investigation by the Dems.  They should be impeached for this crap.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The DOJ is not part of the Executive.
No executive privilege.

Mike A,

I believe the fact that the AG spoke to Congress about the firings was nothing more sinister than an attempt to be courteous and accommodating toward the legislative branch of our government.

As I stated earlier, one Mr. Bush’s chief faults in how he has managed the federal government during his tenure has been the fact that he has been too accommodating, too sympathetic, and too quick to try and compromise with his political enemies.

He has been, in short, entirely too Christian toward those who despise both him and his faith.  He ought to have taken the domestic threat as seriously as he has taken the international one.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The DOJ is not part of the Executive.
No executive privilege.

WOOF,

Sorry… but you are dead wrong about this.

The DoJ is most certainly part of the executive branch of government, and the Attorney General is a Cabinet Officer, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, who, like the US Attorneys who are similarly appointed,, serves at the pleasure of the president.

Where did you learn civics, anyway?  A public school, no doubt.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

He has been, in short, entirely too Christian toward those who despise both him and his faith.  He ought to have taken the domestic threat as seriously
as he has taken the international one.

Exactly.  I have been frustrated, waiting expectantly for him to smack down those jerkoffs, who are doing nothing short of attempting a coup.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Bravo1, you made my point. Congress has no authority to issue subpoenas. They can only request a judge to issue.

And Gonzalez did not, at any point, say he had nothing to do with these firings. He said he was not closely involved.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The Atty General is an Executive officer, he is also the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. and subject to congressional oversight.

WOOF,

Glad to see you have corrected your mis-statement regarding the constitutional and legal status of the Attorney General. (Pity the Attorney General isn’t being afforded the same consideration by the Democratic harpies in Congress!)

No reasonably knowledgeable person would seriously dispute that Congress has “oversight” authority over the entire federal government (although I don’t believe the word “oversight” or any other such appears in the Constitution.)

At the same time, no reasonably knowledgeable person would deny that a president, any president, should have unencumbered access to the advise of his cabinet officers and advisors (Executive Privilege).  Which is why I suggested last evening that any properly pertinent constitutional research should start with the case law on Executive Privilege, because it is within that realm that the battle between the Democrats in Congress and the Bush Administration will be taking place.

Once you look at the case law, you’ll see that with certain exceptions, the courts have generally agreed with the presidential point of view.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One...thank you for clarifying that. We may rarely agree but I do value your knowledge and opinion in matters like this.

2H9...Given that “executive privilege” does not appear in the Constitution, can we put that down as another “mythical” power?

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

BatOne, I agree with you on congressional oversight not being explicitly part of the original constitution (rather it is enumerated through SCOTUS case law).  See for example, page # 32 (pdf page 38) of the Congressional Oversight Manual Executive privilege is discussed starting on page # 39 (pdf page 45).

According to the document, executive privilege is presumptive, and would need a sufficient “showing of need” to overcome that privilege.  Unless something comes to light demonstrating criminal wrongdoing, I would guess that presidential privilege would not only survive a court test, but might strengthen the power of the executive branch, via codification of the limits of the use of subpoena of senior administrative officials in cases where no evidence of wrong doing is present.

Looks to me like the White House is playing its cards well on this one, they would lose little if Gonzales were forced to testify, and would gain from explicit language that would upfront limit Congeress’s negotiating power coming from future subpoena threats.