If the Executive branch had nothing to do with atty firings, why is Bush ordering Miers to not testify?

Question

How can Bush claim Executive Privilege for something that Bush says the Executive Branch never talked about?

Answer 1

Honestly, now. Do you really believe that any of those pressing the White House for information are really interested in the truth?

This is just another partisan maneuver, more self-righteous posturing by career politicians.

Answer 2

That is like asking why someone would plead the fifth when they claim to have had nothing to do with the crime- it assumes guilt. If this president expects to retain executive privilege (a long standing privilege dating back to Thomas Jefferson) he has to assert that privilege- regardless of guilt or innocence. If not, it results in the executive (whatever his party) conceding that privilege- a bad precedent for an important (although not constitutionally grounded) privilege for the executive branch.

I don't like Bush much (I didn't like him when I voted for him in 2000). But it seems that a combination of irrational fear and hatred have turned normally sensible people into anti-Bush zealots. I saw this back in the Clinton years with right-wing friends and I didn't like it then.

Beyond that, the dismissal of staff in the attorney general's office is an executive prerogative. The issue is just more fodder to the anti-Bush crowd. Quite silly too, to focus on this non-issue when there are real problems with the Bush presidency that need to be addressed.

At least that is the perspective of this registered independent voter.

Answer 3

The reason its under question is that the people Bush fired are his own, that's right, his own appointees, and he claims to have fired them for poor work, some of them, not surprisingly aren't happy with this evaluation and protested. It seems there may have been political pressure to prosecute only Democrats and not investigate Republicans.
The thing about the judicial branch is that while its OK to put in your political appointees, as Clinton did when he came in and took over from a Republican Bush One, and in fact as every other president has done, its a whole other animal to direct the efforts of the men and women once they are in office. To fire them because they aren't doing the bidding of the Executive branch on a political basis is pretty much unheard of, that's why the fuss.
Executive privilege invoked for reasons of national security, or even personal privacy is one thing, executive privilege for reasons of circumventing the law is another, and really not right, its our government, we pay for it and its suppose to represent us, we are supposed to know whats happening, secrecy where needed, sure, secrecy when its to cover a power grab is another.
I hope this answers both the people who keep saying its nothing, and those who think somehow that the replacement of attorneys when Clinton took office is comprable to the firing of Bushs own appointees who wouldn't drop the investigations of Republicans on orders of the executive branch.

Answer 4

because of the fact it is with regard to the firing of the 8 criminal experts (and not approximately national protection), there is not any reason on god's eco-friendly earth that bush could have any "government privilige" on the subject of no longer having his workers testify. with the pardon given to libby, and now this debacle, it is obvious that bush is going for broke. He, perchance properly, assumes that he can do rather much something he pleases to an quantity becuase a lot of human beings, the two on the suitable and left, experience that an impeachment could be too lots turmoil for a rustic at conflict.

Answer 5

http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx?Section=523

List of what has been collected by the House Judiciary committee so far. Also an index of what is being withheld.

This is really lengthy, but eye opening....

Reading through a few of these PDF's, and getting a feel for the language and people involved in the correspondance, can only lead to the conclusion that the White House fired these USA's for political reasons....

Namely that they were investigating the Executive branch for being complicit in various scandals surrounding other GOP members....One of the attorney's Iglesies, had an ongoing investigation surrounding Karl Rove's illegal campaign strategies and "misallocation" of campaign funds.

Enjoy.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me add something here...

Seems alot of people fail to see the significance of this matter. "The president can fire them !, Clinton fired all the USA's"....

Let me spell it out for everyone here.

YEs the president can appoint USA's and fire them at will. However, the DOJ and the WH are to function administratively seperate. Also, when you dismiss a USA, there is a proper proceedure for doing so, and DOJ office that is to be consulted...the procedures weren't followed. On top of that, it is a serious ethical violation to dismiss USA's who are involved in investigations into your political allies, for which it is determined the president himself might also be complicit in the criminal allegations.

It is not legal or ethical for the White House to exert "administrative control" over the DOJ in ways that hamper it's ability to function independantly, and provide honest service to American citizens.

Read through the e-mails to Alberto Gonzales, sent from Harriet Myers and others.....and you find that the White House did just that.

Answer 6

Answer: Tradition! When the last president claimed "Executive Privilege"...You CHEERED! The only thing that has changed is that past criminal is gone, and now an honest guy like Bush catches the flak for the SINS of his predecessor.

Answer 7

The WH, regardless of the party residing in it, commonly fights against having aides testify in Congress. It's called the daily power struggle between the executive and legislative branches of our government.

Answer 8

What is the problem with the attorney firings? Every past president has fired theirs, what makes it so different with this one? I wish liberals would latch on to productive issues for once.

Answer 9

"...besides that Johnson fellow wiped his snot on our lunch conference table...remember?"

"...Yeah, bet his wife would like his secretary's wardrobe...heh-heh-heh!"

That's ground for a lawsuit, defamation of character, and etcetera!