In U.S. attorneys case, a judge the White House should welcome

Lawyers for Congress argued in court this morning that executive privilege does not give two top Bush administration officials immunity from testifying about the firing of nine U.S. prosecutors. Democrats charge that the prosecutors were removed for political reasons. And they want the testimony and related documents to prove it.

The Justice Department countered, as it has in court papers, that the president is "constitutionally entitled to autonomy and confidentiality" in talking to Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. "The relief sought by the committee is unprecedented and would fundamentally alter the separation of powers," said attorney Carl Nichols.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates is hearing the case. The administration is probably pleased with the judicial draw.

Bates, who worked for Kenneth Starr and the independent counsel's office during the Whitewater investigation into President Clinton, was appointed by President Bush in 2001. As a judge, Bates in 2002 dismissed the General Accounting Office's effort to learn who met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force.

He also dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson, against Cheney, White House political advisor Karl Rove, former vice presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, accusing them of leaking her identity.

No matter Bates' decision, court watchers expect the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: John Bates. Credit: Beverly Rezneck / U.S. District Court

Comments

[SRD-BCCM]

I doubt very serioulsy this Judge will do their job balancing the scales between the branches. Their stonewalling, and delay tactic seems to work. I think Congress should act without the DoJ and just send some US Marshalls and arrest these people in the Bush Administration.

SRD-BCCM

[TEST]

Wow. Here we have a situation where the Bush Administration is actually turning to Constitutional separation of governmental powers for protection... This is the only situation I can find where neocons seek refuge under the constitution; all else, it's assumed they are seeking the dismemberment of the bill of rights, the constitution, and the like. JUSTIFICATION for all these high-crimes is 9/11, however; a fact which is inexcapable. And how firm is that foundation, by the way?

[TEST]

Wow. Here we have a situation where the Bush Administration is actually turning to Constitutional separation of governmental powers for protection... This is the only situation I can find where neocons seek refuge under the constitution; all else, it's assumed they are seeking the dismemberment of the bill of rights, the constitution, and the like. JUSTIFICATION for all these high-crimes is 9/11, however; a fact which is inexcapable. And how firm is that foundation, by the way?

[TEST]

TEST OF ACCESSIBILTY TO THE PUBLIC.