The president is obliged to allow his staff to be subpoenaed

[techweenie]

Did Bush's aides help AG Gonzales to lie? Congress wants to know and Dubya says they can't be questioned under oath, nor transcriptions made of their testimony -- rendering what they say irrelevant and not actionable.

Bush cannot disallow Congress' investigation of white house staff.

"Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up... Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.'" -- Tony Snow

Oh, wait. He was saying that about Clinton.

[the]

Originally posted by techweenie
to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.'" -- Tony Snow

Exactly. The president is sworn to uphold the law, and it would be bad for the president to use the majesty of the office to evade the law.

The Snow comment has no applicability to the US Attorney "scandal" because there is no allegation of broken laws.

So it is impossible for Bush to be using the majesty of the office to evade the law in this matter.

He shouldn't use the office to try to cover up crimes or evade the criminal process. In this instance, there is NO ALLEGATION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED. That's not so hard to understand, is it?

Look, I think Bush is a total moron and the worst president of our lifetime. Clearly, it would be best if the election were this year instead of next, so he would be gone and we start to move on (to whereever it is we will be moving on to).

But this manufactured "scandal" stuff in anticipation of the '08 elections is silly, disingenuous, and makes people lose credibility (like to the millions blindly perpetuating the above post on every Internet board in cyberspace). There are so many other things to paste Bush with, it's probably doing him a favor to divert attention from real issues, to these goofy things.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by the

He shouldn't use the office to try to cover up crimes or evade the criminal process. In this instance, there is NO ALLEGATION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED. That's not so hard to understand, is it?

The law allows Congress to investigate whatever Congress wants to investigate. It is not subordinate to the Executive branch.

[the]

LOL, c'mon, that's the best you can do?

So Congress should be allowed to subpoena the Executive Branch for anything, at any time, and compel testimony of Executive Branch staff regarding meetings with the President and others? That would be a great system. Every consultation, every decision making meeting in the white house subject to subpoena and review by Congress, at their whim.

The Executive Branch is not subordinate to Congress.

Congress can investigate, but shouldn't there at least be some ALLEGED CRIME that it is investigating? How can you have an "investigation" of a non-crime or non-violation of law?

Doesn't Congress have better things to do? They made a lot of big promises in November, and swept the House and Senate. And spending time and money, and putting their faces all over the press "investigating" non-crimes, is what they deliver?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by the
LOL, c'mon, that's the best you can do?

So Congress should be allowed to subpoena the Executive Branch for anything, at any time, and compel testimony of Executive Branch staff regarding meetings with the President and others? That would be a great system. Every consultation, every decision making meeting in the white house subject to subpoena and review by Congress, at their whim.

The Executive Branch is not subordinate to Congress.

Congress can investigate, but shouldn't there at least be some ALLEGED CRIME that it is investigating? How can you have an "investigation" of a non-crime or non-violation of law?

The crime would be conspiracy to obstruct justice, but don't you think it's reasonable to allow for a bit of fact-finding before the charges start being thrown around?

[jyl]

Originally posted by the
The Snow comment has no applicability to the US Attorney "scandal" because there is no allegation of broken laws.

Isn't it too early to say that?

It has not been determined whether the US attorneys were fired in an attempt to interfere with pending criminal investigations - e.g. pressuring them to bring indictments in Democratic voter registration cases, or trying to head off prosecutions of Republican politicians.

This is certainly a distinct possibility that should be investigated.

Iglesias was fired after Republican politicians complained that he wasn't moving fast enough to bring indictments in Democratic voter registration cases. Republican congressmen were asking the White House to take action before the elections. Lam was fired when she started investigating a second Republican congressman, right after she'd put a first one in jail. Black was fired when he started investigating a Republican lobbyist who has since been jailed.

The circumstances of the firings are suspicious. The emails that have come to light are also suspicious. The conflicting and changing stories that the White House and Dept of Justice have given about the firings are suspicious. The resistance to allowing Administration officials be questioned under oath is also suspicious.

Article from NYT describing some of the issues that need to be investigated:

The Bush administration has done a terrible job of explaining its decision to fire eight United States attorneys. Story after story has proved to be untrue: that the prosecutors who were fired were poor performers; that the White House was not involved in the purge. But the administration has been strangely successful in pushing its message that the scandal is at worst a political misdeed, not a criminal matter.

It is true, as the White House keeps saying, that United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president,” which means he can dismiss them whenever he wants. But if the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid prosecution, or to punish them for not misusing their offices, that may well have been illegal.

In law schools, it is common to give an exam called the “issue spotter,” in which students are given a set of facts and asked to identify all the legal issues and possible crimes. The facts about the purge are still emerging. But based on what is known — and with some help from Congressional staff members and Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University — it was not hard to spot that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute.

Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious assertion to Congress: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.”

The administration appears to be trying to place all of the blame on Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to inform top Justice Department officials about the White House’s role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.

But Mr. Sampson’s lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House’s role. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said last week that “Kyle Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.” Congress will be looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty knew that what they told Congress was false or misleading.

Convictions of this kind are not common, but they happen. Just ask former White House aide David Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false statements to a Senate committee.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he “felt pressured” by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.

Much more needs to be learned, and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee, has been admirably firm about insisting that he will get sworn testimony from Karl Rove and other key players. It is far too soon to say that anyone committed a crime, and it may well be that no one has. But if this were a law school issue spotter, any student who could not identify any laws that may have been broken would get an “F.”

[the]

Again, the USA's serve at the president's pleasure. They could have been, and should have been, dismissed when Bush first took office.

There can be no obstruction of justice relating to their dismissal. Bush didn't agree with their viewpoints, priorities and agendas, so he let them go, as he was fully entitled to do. Even the most rabid don't claim there was any violation of law. So there can be no obstruction of justice.

[the]

Originally posted by jyl

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.

[/i]

This is the main issue of interest (the other stuff seems like so much fluff, such wishy-washy "could be" "possibly is" language, and is all tied to this primary underlying issue).

The problem with this is that this argument can always be made. Because prosecutions and other such "official proceedings" are always ongoing.

If a Dem gets elected, he/she will certainly be smart enough to avoid this problem, and will release the majority of the Bush appointed USAs. All of them will be in the middle of prosecutions and investigations, of which Bush approves, and of which the new Democratic president disapproves.

The new Democratic president will appoint USAs who are not likely to investigate Dems, and will remove those that are. Same if a Repub. president is appointed. The president is entitled to appoint USA's who share their agenda and viewpoint. And if a Dem is elected president and a USA slips by who appears to be focusing on investigating Democrats, you can be sure the Dem president will be quick to remove that person, too. Why keep someone who serves at your pleasure, but is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint? The president (Dem or Rep) won't, and isn't required to. In that regard, it's good to be king.

USA's are not Article III judges.

[Joeaksa]

Techie does not learn easy nor fast.

This has already been beaten to death in the previous thread (Why not under oath?) but he has to try another stab at a dead horse...

[Dan in Pasadena]

There are three branches of government SPECIFICALLY to act as a check/balance against each other's use and abuse of power. To divest power from one place; from a monarchy.

I agree with most of what "the" is saying at the beginning of his post but not the "manufactured scandal" stuff. If U.S. Attorneys were fired to stop them from doing investigations the administration didn't want done, or conversely to allow their replacements to conduct investigations they DID want done? Investigating THAT is not "manufacturing" a scandal, it IS a scandal and is unacceptable.

I don't know why Bush nor his advisors don't see that to the average American not agreeing to come to Congress and testify under oath is tantamount to saying, "we don't want to be obligated to tell the truth". That's the way I take it.

Perhaps a crime wasn't committed. I will agree that may be completely true, so why not find out? The appearence of an impropriety (8 of them to be exact) merits an investigation. If I've got nothing to hide I won't object to speaking to you in front of anyone or under oath.

[the]

Originally posted by Dan in Pasadena


I don't know why Bush nor his advisors don't see that to the average American not agreeing to come to Congress and testify under oath is tantamount to saying, "we don't want to be obligated to tell the truth". That's the way I take it.

That's just another example of Bush and his people (Gonzalez, etc.) being incompetent buffoons and very, very, very poor decision makers.

Creating problems and "scandals" where no underlying basis exists.

There are legit reasons for the Exec Branch resisting Leg. Branch subpoenas. As you point out, there are 3 branches for checks and balances. The balance can go out of whack if the Leg. branch is entitled to subpoena and force the Exec. branch to testify under oath at whim.

Obviously, for many people, this balance is largely politically driven. E.g., if its a repub congress subpoening a dem president (i.e., Clinton), it's outrageous, and vice versa, like in this case.

[jyl]

Originally posted by the
Again, the USA's serve at the president's pleasure. They could have been, and should have been, dismissed when Bush first took office.

There can be no obstruction of justice relating to their dismissal. Bush didn't agree with their viewpoints, priorities and agendas, so he let them go, as he was fully entitled to do. Even the most rabid don't claim there was any violation of law. So there can be no obstruction of justice.

Don't know what anyone's basis is for saying this, unless he/she has studied the federal statutes cited and the relevant precedents.

Oh, and these US Attorneys were in fact appointed by Bush in 2001 (haven't checked every one but that's been the case for every one I've checked).

[jyl]

Originally posted by the
This is the main issue of interest (the other stuff seems like so The new Democratic president will appoint USAs who are not likely to investigate Dems, and will remove those that are. Same if a Repub. president is appointed. The president is entitled to appoint USA's who share their agenda and viewpoint. And if a Dem is elected president and a USA slips by who appears to be focusing on investigating Democrats, you can be sure the Dem president will be quick to remove that person, too. Why keep someone who serves at your pleasure, but is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint? The president (Dem or Rep) won't, and isn't required to. In that regard, it's good to be king.

So it would be okay for a Republican President to instruct every federal prosecutor in the country to investigate and indict only Democrats, and vice-versa? That is a desirable way to run the country? This is North America, not South America.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by techweenie
The crime would be conspiracy to obstruct justice, but don't you think it's reasonable to allow for a bit of fact-finding before the charges start being thrown around?

Click the heels of your red slippers together, Dorothy, and maybe this non-scandal will last another few weeks.

[the]

No. Every Federal prosecutor in the country does not serve at the pleasure of the president. These are USAs.

I have studied the statutes and the precedents. Which is why I believe the long cut and paste you did lacks credibility (I assume you haven't looked at the statutes or the precedents, so I'm not blaming you).

For example, the key one:

___________________________________
18 USC § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant


(a)(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to--

(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).


(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to--

(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) cause or induce any person to--
(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;
(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or
(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is--

(A) in the case of murder (as defined in section 1111), the death penalty or imprisonment for life, and in the case of any other killing, the punishment provided in section 1112;
(B) in the case of--
(i) an attempt to murder; or
(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person; imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and
(C) in the case of the threat of use of physical force against any person, imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to--

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to--
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [FN1] supervised release,, [FN2] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


(c) Whoever corruptly--

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from--

(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [FN1] supervised release,, [FN2] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or
(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.


(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant's sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.


(f) For the purposes of this section--

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance--

(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or
(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.

(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.


(i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.


(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.


(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
______________________________________

To say this statute is intended to be used against a president for removing a USA has no basis. The statute is intended to protect witnesses. To try to stretch this statute to use against a president for removing a USA is ABSURD. There is NOTHING in the case law construing the statute to support it.

[the]

To the contrary, read what Congress itself says the statute is intended for in the Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purpose attached to the statute:

"(a) The Congress finds and declares that:

"(1) Without the cooperation of victims and witnesses, the criminal justice system would cease to function; yet with few exceptions these individuals are either ignored by the criminal justice system or simply used as tools to identify and punish offenders.
"(2) All too often the victim of a serious crime is forced to suffer physical, psychological, or financial hardship first as a result of the criminal act and then as a result of contact with a criminal justice system unresponsive to the real needs of such victim.
"(3) Although the majority of serious crimes falls under the jurisdiction of State and local law enforcement agencies, the Federal Government, and in particular the Attorney General, has an important leadership role to assume in ensuring that victims of crime, whether at the Federal, State, or local level, are given proper treatment by agencies administering the criminal justice system.
"(4) Under current law, law enforcement agencies must have cooperation from a victim of crime and yet neither the agencies nor the legal system can offer adequate protection or assistance when the victim, as a result of such cooperation, is threatened or intimidated.
"(5) While the defendant is provided with counsel who can explain both the criminal justice process and the rights of the defendant, the victim or witness has no counterpart and is usually not even notified when the defendant is released on bail, the case is dismissed, a plea to a lesser charge is accepted, or a court date is changed.
"(6) The victim and witness who cooperate with the prosecutor often find that the transportation, parking facilities, and child care services at the court are unsatisfactory and they must often share the pretrial waiting room with the defendant or his family and friends.
"(7) The victim may lose valuable property to a criminal only to lose it again for long periods of time to Federal law enforcement officials, until the trial and sometimes and [sic] appeals are over; many times that property is damaged or lost, which is particularly stressful for the elderly or poor.

"(b) The Congress declares that the purposes of this Act [see Short Title of 1982 Amendment note set out under section 1501 of this title] are --

"(1) to enhance and protect the necessary role of crime victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process;
"(2) to ensure that the Federal Government does all that is possible within limits of available resources to assist victims and witnesses of crime without infringing on the constitutional rights of the defendant; and
"(3) to provide a model for legislation for State and local governments."

-------------------------------

The statute is clearly intended to provide for the protection of VICTIMS, WITNESSES, and INFORMANTS. It has nothing to do with the president appointing or releasing USAs.

Thus, the key argument and "supporting" legal authority from your cut and paste ("4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding") is pure garbage.

The fact that whoever you cut and pasted would suggest so gives them ZERO credibility with me. They have to do much better. The fact that garbage like this is apparently the best that obviously partisan-politics driven people can do leads me to conclude that this is, at it's core, a NON-scandal.

[Dan in Pasadena]

'the' - Are you secretly Fast Pat's (FastPaste's) alter identity?

Whew, lot of words to read!

[Hugh R]

Without admitably reading all the stuff you guys posted, didn't Clinton ACTUALLY fire ALL 93 US Attorney Generals when he was Chief Executive. Or am I wrong?

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Without admitably reading all the stuff you guys posted, didn't Clinton ACTUALLY fire ALL 93 US Attorney Generals when he was Chief Executive. Or am I wrong?

He did, and he was within the law by doing so. Just as Pres. Bush is within the law by letting any and all of them go now.

Its just that the Democrats are siezing upon any chance to ruffle feathers and cause problems with administration.

I cannot want to see Rowe get ahold of them....

[Dan in Pasadena]

On election, yes he did. And that is fairly typical and I don't think anyone denies it. What is being asked about mid term firings and selected multiple firings is, was there an agenda to stop investigations of Republicans and fire USA's that were not investigating Democrats? Just askin....tell us what you know....."nope, not without being able to lie, not if you're gonna write down what I say"