Opinions please?

Question

Does this really sound like a witch hunt to you or a legitimate investigation protecting the integrety of the Justice dept?



Thank you for contacting me about the refusal of subpoenaed White House officials to testify before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about the 2006 termination of nine U.S. Attorneys. I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns.



On July 12, 2007, former White House counsel Harriet Miers refused to comply with a subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. On August 2, 2007, senior political adviser Karl Rove similarly refused to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member.

Ms. Miers and Mr. Rove have been linked through documents, interviews and testimony to the unprecedented firings of several well-performing federal prosecutors. Never before in history have a President and an Attorney General fired a group of U.S. Attorneys en masse, other than through the normal turnover expected in the change to a new Administration. Of the 486 U.S. Attorneys confirmed by the Senate in the past 25 years, only two were removed for reasons other than misconduct.

Oversight hearings on the attorney firings are necessary to protect the impartial fairness of our justice system. As U.S. Attorneys are our nation's chief federal law enforcement officers, their independence from political considerations is essential to the fair administration of justice. The Justice Department cannot function effectively when politics influences the decisions of its federal prosecutors. Nor can it function effectively if it appears that prosecutors are fired if they have not shown sufficient loyalty to the President or his political advisors.

The President has claimed that the information sought by Congress is protected by executive privilege, and has therefore directed Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers not to appear before Congressional committees. However, Congress has received testimony indicating that the President was not directly involved in any discussions about the federal prosecutor firings. Instead, the White House has claimed only that its refusal is necessary to protect a general interest in the privacy of its discussions. That interest is not a sufficient reason to invoke executive privilege. Indeed, the Supreme Court held in the 1974 case United States v. Nixon that allowing the President to invoke an absolute privilege against a criminal subpoena only because of a generalized interest in confidential discussions "would upset the Constitutional balance of a workable government."

Refusal to comply with a Congressional subpoena may constitute a violation of federal criminal law. Historically, contempt citations issued by Congress have been enforced by officials at the Justice Department. However, legal advisors to the President have said that the Justice Department will not be allowed to prosecute White House officials, including Ms. Miers or Mr. Rove, if Congress charges them with contempt. It is regrettable that the White House continues to stonewall Congress' oversight responsibilities and its efforts to determine whether federal prosecutors were fired for improper political reasons.



I will keep your concerns in mind as the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to investigate these matters. Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to keep in touch.

NEOBillyfree, obviously you didn't read the whole letter real well.
You are probably one of those people who think non-partisan is anything that supports the republican party, and any devious from party line is partisan competition huh? fit the neocon mind-set. with all of their so-called think tanks trying to claim non-partisan, or fair and balanced, when they are anything but.
It appears, to people like you it is only fair and balanced when it supports your opinion.

*deviation i meant

Answer 1

How about simply ordering them into a hearing. If they refuse arrest them for treason.

The 3 branches of government were ment as checks and balances to each other. Never should one have more power than the other.

By refusing to obey a subpoena then they have committed a crime. Crime on the political level affects all Americans. A crime that affects all Americans is treason.

Force the issue. Government is a servant to the public, not above the law.

Answer 2

Sounds like a legitimate investigation protecting the integrity of the Justice department.

Oh--and like Bush is supporting contempt of Congress.

Answer 3

sounds like there is a whole lot of legal stuff here that NO ONE on Y/A, including me, is educated enough to make a real judgment on.
sounds pretty partisan in its conjecture too.
Bottom line is, the administration can hire and fire attorneys at will with out any reason and there probably is hard feelings that could turn into false accusations.
you know, a real he said , she said thing.coming soon to a theater near you.

Answer 4

Sounds like the Bush admin stonewalling as usual.

Answer 5

its an investigation.
they should testify or be arrested for contemp of court