It Isn't 'Risky' to Investigate the White House

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:42:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In today's NYT White House Memo, Sheryl Gay Stolberg insists that a confrontation over assertions of executive privilege in the investigation of U.S. Attorney firings would be risky for the White House and for Democrats. The risk for the White House is obvious: if the administration loses the battle and can't continue to stonewall, the truth might come out. The risk to Democrats is less clear.

Stolberg says Democrats "run the risk of looking like they are waging a fishing expedition." Even if Alberto Gonzales and other DOJ witnesses to date hadn't been so evasive and inconsistent in their testimony, and if White House emails hadn't disappeared, the "fishing expedition" charge would still ring hollow. At this point, it's obvious to the casual observer that Democrats are being stonewalled in their search for answers to legitimate questions. If this is a fishing trip, it's one the American public is willing to take.

To support her "Democrats need to worry about issuing a subpoena" thesis, Stolberg turns to Ari Fleischer. Democrats should take advice from Comical Ari?

Here's Fleischer's logic:

"Congress shouldn’t go down this subpoena line because they’re only cooking their own goose. It’s great for the base, but lousy for the country.”

Why "this subpoena line" will cook a Democratic goose is a question Stolberg evidently didn't bother to ask. Stolberg moves instead to Republican strategist Charles Black, who believes Democrats haven't subpoenaed Rove because they want to delay their investigation "to keep the controversy alive." If that's the administration's worry, Rove can deal the Democratic strategy a quick defeat by making a prompt voluntary appearance before Congress to answer under oath questions about his involvement in the firings.

You won't find that suggestion in Stolberg's memo. She moves instead to the president, who bemoans the spectacle of Rove's participation in a "show trial," and to Dana Perino's complaint that the Democratic "obsession with trying to get Karl Rove is bordering on the weird." Stolberg evidently found no reason to ask Perino why it is "weird" to wonder whether Rove helped select the U.S. Attorneys who were axed.

Using subpoenas to learn the truth about the U.S. Attorney firings is not "risky" for Democrats. The risk to our democracy of an unchecked executive outweighs any political risk to legislators who investigate misconduct.

< On the Politics Of Iraq: What Steve Benen Said | Is Piracy the Worst Form of Theft? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

It Isn't 'Risky' to Investigate the White House | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

For Sheryl Gay Stolberg (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:57:44 PM EST

Everything is "risky" for Dems. All news is good for the GOP.

'risky' for dems = 30+ yrs of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by seabos84 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:07:34 AM EST

their craven, despicable caving to the right wing.

there is beauty in this circle of fear for the fascists -

the dems don't do much of anything cuz they've been convinced anything is risky, and

cuz they don't do much of anything their support in the electorate is as tepid and timid and tasteless as their wishy - washy don't do much of anything policies.

I hope ms. nyt synchophant gets to ride on the big plane with the big boys and go to the big junkets - if you're gonna be a synchophant for the powerful ya outta be getting something for it.

rmm

At Will Employment (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by jarober on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:45:29 AM EST

I see the whole "At Will Employment" thing is just way, way too hard for the left to grasp. The difference between this and the 1993 firings of all 93 attorneys is what, exactly? In both cases there were political considerations involved, and it's clear that the competence of the individuals wasn't the primary motivation.

Are you trying to assert that the administration doesn't have the right to fire US Attorneys at will? If so, I'm going to get some popcorn for the first month of the next Democratic administration.

: At will employment (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:45:56 AM EST

Even at will employment has its limitations. I gather that is too much for you to grasp. You can fire any one for any reason provided its not an illegal reason. Clearly you haven't been following the case. I recommend you go through the archives at TPM and TPM muckraker. Also the archives here at Talkleft have shot your specious argument down.
Wholesale change at the beginning of an administration is one thing. Firing prosecutors for failing to take on politically motivated proscutions or for taking on prosecutions of your political friends is another.
As for your tit for tat argument, as near as I can figure that is SOP for the GOP, so just do the right think and don''t wory about 2008. Besides, you have to be in the majority for that to work and after losing the Iraq debacle, I don't expect the GOP to have any power for awhile. They have lost the trust of the country.

: blah, blah, blah (none / 0) (#8)
by Sailor on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:56:50 PM EST

The standard wrongwing talking points all over again.
It's illegal to lie to congress about it. it's illegal to do it to interfere with investigations.
BTW, it's also illegal to fire or select career folks based on politics. That also happened.

Political employees (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by jarober on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:23:39 AM EST

The White House can fire a US attorney for any reason or no reason. That's what "At Will" is all about.

And "Wholesale change at the beginning of an administration is one thing. Firing prosecutors for failing to take on politically motivated proscutions or for taking on prosecutions of your political friends is another."

What do you think the purpose behind the wholesale firings are about at the beginning? They are political in nature, period. Either be consistent, or just stop. Either any political firing is bad, or none are.

Serious mistatement (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:00:55 PM EST

Its any reason or no reason, but not an illegal reason. Minor point that.
Are you now arguing that the wholesale change in 1993 )which we both agree was acceptable) was due to:

Prosecutors for failing to take on politically motivated proscutions; and/or
Firing prosecutors for taking on prosecutions of political friends?

Please identify any of the 1993 firings that fit either or both categories.

I am consistent. I think you are being deliberately obtuse or you have not thought this through. Either way you are wrong.

I don't think "at will" is the issue (none / 0) (#7)
by rdandrea on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:05:27 PM EST

Even though it's the Republican talking point.

Even if the firings were "at will," there's nothing preventing people who engage in such acts from suffering consequences, public relations or otherwise.

The Congress is simply performing oversight that it has not bothered to perform since 2001. That's what happens when both houses change hands. Get over it.
