home

Subpoenas? Déjà vu all over again

The White House made a generous offer: "we'll let them talk, but no oath and no recording or transcripts." And the President and his talking head had the audacity to decry "partisan politics."  Apparently it's only "partisan" if a Democrat is doing it. If a Republican does, it is the order of the day.

The House said "No thank you. We'll subpoena you." When the White House treats the Just Us Department as its personal legal office and tempers justice with whether the prosecutor is a "loyal Bushie," and Karl Rove calls the shots because the President is disengaged or just doesn't care what happens in government, that is what it deserves.  

So, the showdown begins: The gunfight at the D.C. Corral:

The battle over the Congressional inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors is not one of Mr. Bush's choosing. But now that it has been thrust upon him, Mr. Bush is defiantly refusing to allow Karl Rove and other top aides to testify publicly and under oath, as Democrats are demanding. And he is standing by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, despite calls for Mr. Gonzales to quit.

In doing so, the president is sending a message to the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill: He may be a lame duck and his poll numbers may be down, but he will protect those closest to him, defend his presidential powers and run his White House the way he sees fit in his remaining 22 months in office.

The President, with a compliant and complicit Republican Congress, has trashed the Constitution and made a farce of democracy. But, no longer in control of the legislative branch, the White House faces consequences.

It is called "What goes around, comes around." When the Republicans stick it to Democrats for 12 years, and then run and hide behind a claim of "partisan politics," one has to marvel at the audacity of it.  It isn't cojones; it is either their sheer stupidity in thinking that We the People are that stupid or their cojones are collectively receding into their chest as the truth comes out.

I watched every minute of the Senate Watergate Hearings instead of studying for the bar during the day (but I still passed; the hearings started two days before my graduation from law school).  Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC) and Howard Baker (R-TN) were legends in a bipartisan inquiry. Will a Republican rise above it all and be today's Howard Baker and ask "What did the President know and when did he know it?"  

That remains to be seen.

Déjà vu all over again.

< Fred Hiatt Still A Disgrace | NYTimes' Ill Informed Editorial on the Iraq Supplemental >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Doomed to Repeat (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by TKindlon on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:11:13 AM EST
    If the neocons didn't learn anything from the disaster in Vietnam why should they be expected to remember the catastrophe of Watergate? At least the coming bloodbath in Washington will be fun to watch!  

    administration abuse (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Getreal on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:28:22 AM EST
    It has become very obvious to me that the "Bushies" own the Justice Dept. What happen to the constitiuion along the way? Thumbing your nose at supoenas is basically saying to the American public, "we don't live by your rules". The arogance of this administration, and the utter lack of spine of both parties to rain in these dictators, is amazing. If an American citizen pulled this he/she would already be in jail. It appears that our form of government is on the fast track to the trash heap of history and all the common citizen can do is watch dailey as this group of baffoons manipulates the legal system to their own end. This is truly amazing and disheartining to those of us who really care.

    I find it comforting ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:38:58 AM EST
    ... when ppj makes a prediction because he's always wrong.

    If Rove.... (4.33 / 3) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:16:23 AM EST
    took an oath to tell the truth, I think it would have the same effect as throwing a bucket of water on the wicked witch of the west.

    The mofo would melt.

    Separation of powers (1.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:12:51 AM EST
    So the House viloates the separation of powers and tries to force the issue.

    What happens then is that it goes to court and the House will lose.

    Thanks Jim (none / 0) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    What happens then is that it goes to court and the House will lose.

    Reflecting on the comment above, your [invariably wrong] prediction assures a court victory for the House, the People, and the Constitution.


    Parent

    I hope it goes to court (none / 0) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    I hope it goes through three or four levels of appeal.  I hope they spend the next YEAR AND A HALF arguing over why Karl Rove gets something denied the President of the United States when his name was Clinton, the right to testify without swearing to tell the truth.  And in the end, I hope he fights so long he never testifies while Bush is president.

    If George and Karl choose to debate this until the next election, and I hope they do, there will be 432 Democrats in the House, along with two Green Party and a Vegetarian.

    Parent

    That 70's Show mentality. (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Fritz on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 08:34:36 AM EST
    Living in the glory days.  Iraq=Vietnam, US A's=Watergate.  The cafeteria Constitutionalists want the USA to lose in Iraq, the President to weaken the Office for a show trial.  This isn't the 70's and there are no Sam Ervins left in the Democratic Party.  

    If nothing else, he's consistent (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:55:07 AM EST


    Calling Senator Stennis! (none / 0) (#10)
    by TomStewart on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:27:16 PM EST
    Yep, just have Senator Stennis listen to what Rove has to say, then the Senator will tell the Committee what he remembers of the conversation.

    Oh, the senator is dead? Well, forget the whole thing then...