White House really, really doesn't want its guys to testify

Appeals. Rulings. Negotiations. Delays. Will this movie ever end?

Remember the case of the nine U.S. attorneys who were fired from their jobs amid accusations from Democrats that they were canned for not toeing the Republican line? Remember how the White House claimed executive privilege and refused to let top aides like chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers testify before Congress? Remember when a U.S. district judge, John Bates, said they had to?

Well today Bolten and Miers asked the judge for a delay. Seems they want to appeal his ruling. And they need more time. In a court filing they said:

Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers.

The tussle over this particular controversy could end by January. That's when congressional subpoenas expire, about three weeks before President Bush leaves office. As C2C reported earlier, Miers has been effectively muzzled.

But other investigations live on. As Murray Waas reports today in the Huffington Post, a federal grand jury has subpoenaed several former senior Justice Department attorneys in an investigation into the politicalization of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Over its hiring policies.

One question: whether senior administration figure Bradley Schlozman lied to Congress about screening attorneys for political affiliation before hiring them.

And, even more explosive, Waas is now reporting that the Justice Department investigation into the firing of the nine prosecutors has been extended to examine the question of whether senior White House officials misrepresented their roles in the scandal.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Harriet Miers with President Bush. Credit: Matthew Cavanaugh / Getty Images

Comments

[thebob.bob]

More time?? Come on Judge, these guys have been stonewalling for months. They're giving the finger to Congress and the entire judicial system. Get'em into court or make 'em wait out Bush's term in the pokey!!

[jla3034]

Does it really matter what happens here with this issue? I mean really, what has this administration or congress done about any of the misdeeds this administraion has done. If anyone is prosecuted for anything here they will just receive a pardon

[Metro]

"Justice delayed is Justice denied."

Just as the Bushies and the Republican party like it.

[Hammer1234]

LA Times...another shill for the radicals and liberals. Hey why don't we work on an energy poilicy instead of wasting time and taxpayer money with this crap?

[Hillary2012]

The intentionally unmentioned fact in all of this media nonsense is that the judge said that congress only has the power to subpoena them. The judge then then specifically said that they do not have to actually answer congresses' questions because of executive privilege. They can sit there mute and claim executive privilege to all their questions untill Pelosi is blue in the face and she can do nothing about it.

Which will never happen because the appeal will take longer than this congress is in session. Once the session is over the subpoena's are invalid. The point is moot. The subpoena's are merely a politcal ploy to placate the far left.

[SteveMD2]

Yes, give them more time. Once we are rid of a republican president, and a lockstep senate with the filibuster, these people will face justice, as will so many from the Bush administration.

And there won't be any pardons to get them off the hook! And once the Scooter Libby's and others like him come face to face with the jailhouse gates, they will sing and sing. And each will cause the indictment of many more, until we punish under our constitution and laws the cancer within the republican party that may well destroy our nation and the middle class if left unchecked.

[SteveMD2]

Yes, give them more time. Once we are rid of a republican president, and a lockstep senate with the filibuster, these people will face justice, as will so many from the Bush administration.

And there won't be any pardons to get them off the hook! And once the Scooter Libby's and others like him come face to face with the jailhouse gates, they will sing and sing. And each will cause the indictment of many more, until we punish under our constitution and laws the cancer within the republican party that may well destroy our nation and the middle class if left unchecked.

[Christopher]

"... forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers"?

Really? I don't think so.

More like the Bushies are out to "forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers."

How is Unitary Executive different from Dictator?

[Brian]

US Attorneys serve at the whim of the President, as do all executive branch heads. The President really doesn't have to justify his decision. If a US Attorney chooses not to follow or pursue the policy focus of a President then he sure better realize he's putting his job on the line. US Attorneys have limited time and almost unlimited scope of the types and levels of criminal activity they can prosecute. What if a President thinks the war on drugs should be a priority, or maybe terror subject prosecutions. The US Attorney darn well better set his priorities accordingly.

This whole congressional inquiry is a dog and pony show, as they all are. Congress knows the score, and yet won't baulk at an opportunity to make the Pres look bad.

As far as forcing members of the President's staff to testify.... Come on, give me a break. That priviledge is not going to go by the wayside because of some lame attempt at making a President look bad.

Why don't you stick to commenting on his vocabulency....

[Henry Landis]

If ever there was a more imperative reason to impeach Bush, Cheney and the rest of the two-legged embarassments slithering around the halls of the White House it has yet to be discovered. Taking graft like a Spiro Agnew, or ordering a burglary, like Nixon are crimes that pale in comparison to the treasonous exposure of a CIA agent (and, in the process, her entire network). The climate of corruption in the GOP is still alive and well. In commuting the flunky Libby, Bush was only following his party's protocol; Agnew gets a walk, Nixon is pardoned by Ford for "any crime committed, or may later be found to have committed", and Gonzales gets a presidential security blanket around him to prevent him from revealing his boss's contempt for the American people AND the Constitution. If GOD is good to me he'll close my ears the next time some hypocritical neocon starts bellowing about americanism. What might be even more interesting would be a comparison between Cheney's military decorations...and mine.

[broy]

From the New York Times:

"ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS

By DAVID JOHNSTON

March 24, 1993

Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a “critical decision” in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno’s order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover."

Further on in the story, the statements are made:

"All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General. "

"United States Attorneys are appointed to serve four-year terms at the pleasure of the President. It was unclear whether Ms. Reno initiated the request for resignations or whether it was pressed on her by the White House. The Attorney General said it was a “joint decision.”

Given they are appointed to "serve at the pleasure of the President" for four year terms, and "routinely replaced after a change in Administration", it would seem foolish to NOT assume they would represent the wishes of the President and probably all be replaced, no?

What I find disturbing is that this odd arrangement exists for any administration. Seems like a huge waste of taxpayer money and an invitation to settle vindictive scores and to abuse power by whatever party is in power.