|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
But these are the times he did use it and the scandals that he protected with it.
|
Since odds are slim that Bush and his administration could withstand anything similar to the unprecedented, unrelenting, and unethical, eight years investigation of the "white water" special prosecutors, and come out as unscathed as Clinton, his wife, and closest associates ended up, when "IT" was finally over....I'm compelled to stoop near to reconmike's tactic of posting what he displayed, without a link to it's source.....a partisan blogger....by posting this informative rebuttal....though.....with a link:
Quote:
http://www.socalsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10273
Old 03-22-2007
The "Clinton did it" defense......
Perhaps the more telling comparison is the difference between the number of times Clinton aides actually DID testify, under oath, and the number of times Bush aids have done so. According to <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf">the Congressional Research Service</a>, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_95/news/17610-1.html">47 different occasions</a>. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors:
<b>Harold Ickes</b>, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff - 7/28/94
<b>George Stephanopoulos</b>, Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy - 8/4/94
<b>John Podesta</b>, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary - 8/5/94
<b>Bruce R. Lindsey<b>, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President - 1/16/96
<b>Samuel Berger</b>, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs - 9/11/97
<b>Beth Nolan</b>, Counsel to the President - 5/4/00
In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, <h3>Bush allowed only one of his closest advisers, then-Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to appear in front of Congress. He has also refused three invitations from Congress for his aides to testify, a first since President Richard Nixon in 1972. Clinton did not refuse any.</h3>
CRS also notes that although “White House aides do not testify before congressional committees in a regular basis…<a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf">under certain conditions they do</a>. First, intense and escalating political embarrassment may convince the White House that it is in the interest of the President to have these aides testify and ventilate the issue fully. Second, initial White House resistance may give way in the face of concerted congressional and public pressure.”
The real point here is that the claim of "executive priviledge" has very little basis in the law and has almost universally been rejected by the Supreme Court, e.g. the Nixon tapes case. Given that fact, the only real reason to assert such a claim is to attempt to run out the clock and avoid disclosure of embarassing truths. The President whll hope the case is not expedited and will take at least 20 months to work its way from District Court to the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
The President demand that his staffers only be interviewed, but not under oath and without transcript, is so they can lie to Congress without legal consequences (I guess we should give him credit from learning something from the Libby case). The interesting issue is why? If no crime has been commited, let them testify (truthfully) take the political heat (it'll blow over) and move on. Apparently it is not so easy, as it actually may be a crime (obstruction of justice) for the President's office to interfere with ongoing criminal investigations. Arguably, firing the lead prosecutor to shut down a prosecution of a political ally would fit that criteria.
|
0...so, the Congressional Research Office supports the opinion that the Clinton administration was cooperative and accountable to Congress in a reasonable and a consistent fashion, and the Bush administration has not been,,,,
The following was written in March....the thugs in the executive branch are bolder (cornered ?) now:
Quote:
www.rollcall.com/issues/52_95/news/17610-1.html
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032007F.shtml
Rove as Hill Witness Would Be SRO Event
By Rachel Van Dongen
Roll Call
Monday 19 March 2007
The Senate Judiciary Committee's effort to land presidential adviser Karl Rove as a witness runs headlong into the Bush White House's well-established reluctance to subject high-level staffers or internal documents to Congressional scrutiny.
But intense political pressure surrounding the U.S. attorneys scandal - in which Rove has become a prominent player - could overwhelm the administration's opposition.
Charles Cooper, a former assistant attorney general under former President Ronald Reagan, said it would be "extraordinary" if Rove were permitted to come to Capitol Hill.
"I don't think it's going to happen because I think the president is going to react very negatively," Cooper said. The president has a "very serious attitude towards ... protecting the prerogatives and dignity of his office."
In fact, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers put out a statement Friday saying the White House had failed to meet a deadline for reaching agreement on providing documents - and testimony from Rove and others - and that he would schedule a vote on issuing subpoenas.
A scant few presidential advisers have testified before Congress since Bush was elected in 2000, and those instances have been extremely controversial.
Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, initially declined, and then agreed, to testify before the Congressionally mandated 9/11 commission in April 2004. As assistant to the president for Homeland Security - a staff- rather than Cabinet-level position - Tom Ridge testified on several occasions before the House and Senate in 2002, but not without resistance from the White House, according to a 2004 Congressional Research Service report.
Rove - one of Bush's closest allies and friends - never has testified before Congress and it is unclear under what circumstances, if any, he would testify, even as his role in the U.S. attorneys scandal widens. Media reports last week revealed Rove asked about the firings of U.S. attorneys in January 2005, long before he previously was thought to be involved.
The White House aide could be deposed in some kind of informal arrangement with the Judiciary Committee, which could include a private interview with questioning limited directly to the topic.
Cooper said that's how information often was extracted from officials in the Reagan White House, for instance.
"I would strongly suspect that this kind of issue would be worked out through that type of compromise," Cooper said.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized the issuing of subpoenas for five senior Justice Department aides to serve as witnesses in explaining how and why at least eight U.S. attorneys were fired for apparently political reasons in 2006. Aides still are working out the details of how they will provide information to the committee.
But Democrats delayed issuing subpoenas for Rove and ex-White House counsel Harriet Miers - instead they invited them in letters to appear voluntarily - apparently in hopes of striking a deal with the White House. White House counsel Fred Fielding was on the Hill last week meeting with key lawmakers and seemed to suggest that the officials would be made available under certain circumstances.
In the past, Bush has not been shy in asserting executive privilege or separation of powers arguments in protecting presidential documents and aides.
But this is an instance where political considerations may trump legal ones as the scandal grows and continues to irk Hill Democrats and make front-page headlines.
Calls, even among Republicans, for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales got louder last week as documents were dumped revealing a coordinated campaign between the Justice Department and the White House to oust prosecutors based on political loyalty.
Under the circumstances, attorney Stanley Brand of the Brand Law Group said it was "very likely" that Rove would end up providing testimony.
"I think they don't want to be subpoenaed, and they're on the wrong side of this one," Brand said. "They're getting killed over this.
"I think they'll work it out, and I think he'll show up," Brand said of Rove.
But Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under Reagan, said the legal history surrounding aides' testimony was a bit confusing - and the issue was less relevant when there were not so many presidential aides to begin with.
"The general rule has been as a matter of custom, the Congress will desist from asserting the subpoena power to compel the president and his aides" to testify, Fein explained. "It leaves the legal terrain very murky."
"Certainly, there is no outstanding Supreme Court or other court of appeals precedent that says Congress cannot compel Karl Rove to testify," he added.
If Congress does issue a subpoena, the White House could fight it in court or even choose to ignore it, though Fein said that would not be the smartest move as U.S. attorneys are supposed to enforce subpoenas.
<h3>Brand pointed out that Rove's testimony hardly would be unprecedented as a swarm of former President Bill Clinton's advisers served as Congressional witnesses.</h3>
According to the CRS report "Presidential Advisers' Testimony Before Congressional Committees: An Overview," there were 47 different appearances by Clinton presidential advisers before Congressional committees on a variety of topics.
The list includes Harold Ickes, then deputy chief of staff and assistant to the president, who testified before the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee in July 1994 about the Whitewater investigation; John Podesta, then assistant to the president and staff secretary, who testified before the same committee on the same subject in July 1994; and George Stephanopoulos, who also testified at the same hearing.
Charles Ruff, then counsel to the president, testified in November 1997 before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on alleged fundraising abuses, while Beth Nolan, another former counsel, testified in March and May 2000 before the Government Reform Committee about the White House e-mail system.
|
Comparing "Clinton Did It", to the complete lack of oversight, accountability, (until 6 months ago....)and record of cooperation of the Bush administration with Congress, is laughable, IMO.
Eight years of white water investigations, constant congressional hearings, and an impeachment trial, marked Bill Clinton's two term presidency. Those events boost the stature and reputation of Bill and Hillary, the exact opposite of what the political opposition in the 90's and today, hoped to achieve.
Unlike the Clinton's the relentless investigations that they were subjected to, if they were applied, in kind, to Bush, would yield substantive evidence to break his presidency and his reputation, not enhance it......
Last edited by host; 07-13-2007 at 10:56 PM..
|