Could one or more of you put into layman's terms why there is so much drama between executive and legislative branches over these 8 fired attorneys or whatever? I just. don't. get it.

I'm shocked.

Thanks again for your help, Fu. haha.

It's basically a Dem vs. Rep thing. And now with the Dem majority, Congress for the first time under GW Bush has enough votes to issue subpoenas, and basically be bigger pains in the ass for GW. Think Congress vs. Clinton during Lewinsky.

Plus, these US Attorneys were supposedly fired for political reasons. As I've heard it, the story is that at least some of those fired (all of them?) were involved with investigating certain Dems who were up for re-election last Nov. The US Attorneys were under pressure from Reps to finish and make public the results of their investigations just before the elections, and the US Attorneys weren't moving fast enough, and Reps complained to GW.

Confounding things is that the Alberto Gonzalez and the Justice Dept (who the US Attorneys work for) haven't been able to come up with consistent answers as to just why these people were fired.

Why Harriet Myers originally wanted to fire all the US Attorneys, I don't quite understand.

Yeah, accusations are flying. There is also talk that they were asked to "look the other way" with regards to some investigations into some Repubs.

These attorneys were fired when they wouldn't comply 100%. They were given no reason for their firing at first. When it became clear that they couldn't be fired without cause they said it was for incompetence.

The investigation has now found out that all of their year end evaluations from the last few years were exemplary which flies in the face of incompetence and casts suspicion on the reason they were fired.

So then, the denial of Bush to let aids talk to Congress under oath is against the law? Does he or does he not have the right to deny their conversations with Congress to be under oath?

This is a complicated issue, and I'm not sure I completely understand it. I don't know whether Bush has the power to ignore a congressional subpoena - I think probably not. But, I think someone from his cabinet doesn't have to answer certain question based upon the executive privilege - courts have recognized that the president needs to be able to receive frank advice from advisors/cabinet (this might extend further within the executive branch, not sure), so to help ensure this, they recognize the executive privilege, where the president & his advisors don't have to answer any question that touches on the advice they give him - like pleading the 5th Amendment.

I'm not sure if that makes sense...

This is pretty much the heart of the matter. That, and Bush's contempt for Congress over the past 6 years. Combine that with the newfound power of the Democratic Majority...and an opportunity to pile on Bush..Voila -- political Imbroglio.

So essentially, both Congress and Bush are "right" in terms of what is allowed and they're going to get into a huge pissing match of "I'm in charge; No, I'm in charge". I think I understand a bit more. I never knew about the "executive privelege" thing.

Yes.

Also there are a couple of newsblogs that have been encouraging members/visitors to question local and state officials regarding the firing and hiring of U.S. attorneys and attorney staff. The info coming back seems to point overwhelmingly to political motivation, machination, payback, gladhandling and vengeance when it comes to hundreds more positions.

Much of this is a combination of Bush and Gonzalez's rigidity rubbing wrongly against congress + the internet being a remarkable tool for non-trad, non-mortar media to gather and disseminate information that editors at Old Media would have to spend vast resources to gather.

My next question is: is this something that is unique to the Bush administration or is the "political motivation, machination, payback, gladhandling, and vengeance" common within politics in general but Bush's attitude toward Congress, etc. has increased the likelihood of this making news?

I'd say yes, increased likelihood. Also newsbloggers get info out extremely quickly and tend to hammer at specific issues, not letting them die away with the next news cycle.

So it's going to be harder and harder to be a manipulative s-o-b without someone reporting on it and many thousands of people reading about it.

You can't be serious?


That shits been around since we grew thumbs.

Yes. I know all that, but I guess I simply meant if it was that much worse under the Bush administration that it merited newsworthiness or if it were more because of his attitude toward Congress, etc. that motivated a more aggressive movement toward accusing and investigating on this issue. Does that clarify better?

When you've got the throne there will always be somebody gunning for you. No matter what party you're in.

I'd say it's not intense enough. The way they came after Clinton for MonicaGate was way more aggressive and this issue with the attorneys is much more serious if you ask me.


Dems would've come after him sooner but they didn't have the majority in Congress.

It gets more press because we are at the very beginning of the party primary campaigns. Everything has started obscenely early, and anyone who thinks they have a shot to suck up contributions and live high off the hog of a "campaign" has raised their volume to the max in order to garner face time in the press. When you're trying to make a name for yourself, you take advantage of every opportunity.

Doesn't the Supreme Court get involved once Bush vetoes Congress' subpoena?

From everything I've read and heard, this didn't become an issue until the Justice Dept claimed that the US Attorneys were fired for performance reasons. The fired US Attorneys weren't too pleased about this and spoke out. It seems the Justice Dept can't get their story straight and now Congress is investigating. From what the US Attorney in New Mexico has testified to, he received calls from a Republican Senator and a Republican Congresswoman asking about a case regarding a Democrat, which is apparently unethical. When the US Attorney advised them that the case wouldn't be dealt with until after the 2006 elections, they both contacted the White House to complain about him. This is where the trouble starts. What was said and how was Karl Rove involved?