NYT refers to "constitutional showdown"
In a story dated tomorrow, March 21, The New York Times refers to the impending clash between George Bush and Congress over the testimony of White House staff regarding Purgegate as a "constitutional showdown."
While Democrats are right not to back down, I think talk of a "constitutional showdown" may a bit premature. Of course the Bush administration is being petulant, it's the only thing they do correctly.
As the NYT article notes, it can be illegal to lie to Congress, regardless of whether one is sworn, so the game has hardly begun. Congress can be mighty persuasive to individuals it wishes to hear from. As others are pointing out in the netroots, Bush doesn't want Rove to testify under oath so that he can lie.
The Republicans and their facile allies on the internet and cable television will doubtless stick to their tried techniques of obfuscation and attack.
But anyone who has followed the story at all and in good faith must be concerned at the prospect of the US government trying to use the justice system to attack political opponents, which is what this is about at the core. Firing prosecutors who refused to do your political dirty work is not acceptable in a democracy.
We'll see. I would wager the American public may not understand fully what is happening. Yet.
President Bush and Congress clashed Tuesday over an inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors and appeared headed toward a constitutional showdown over demands from Capitol Hill for internal White House documents and testimony from top advisers to the president.After all that has happened, the Bush administration may finally be brought to account over the politically motivated firings of a handful of relatively obscure (to the public, anyhow) federal prosecutors.
Under growing political pressure, the White House offered to allow members of Congressional committees to hold private interviews with Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser and deputy chief of staff; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and two other officials. It also offered to provide access to e-mail messages and other communications about the dismissals, but not those between White House officials.
Democrats promptly rejected the offer, which specified that the officials would not testify under oath, that there would be no transcript and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them.
While Democrats are right not to back down, I think talk of a "constitutional showdown" may a bit premature. Of course the Bush administration is being petulant, it's the only thing they do correctly.
As the NYT article notes, it can be illegal to lie to Congress, regardless of whether one is sworn, so the game has hardly begun. Congress can be mighty persuasive to individuals it wishes to hear from. As others are pointing out in the netroots, Bush doesn't want Rove to testify under oath so that he can lie.
The Republicans and their facile allies on the internet and cable television will doubtless stick to their tried techniques of obfuscation and attack.
But anyone who has followed the story at all and in good faith must be concerned at the prospect of the US government trying to use the justice system to attack political opponents, which is what this is about at the core. Firing prosecutors who refused to do your political dirty work is not acceptable in a democracy.
We'll see. I would wager the American public may not understand fully what is happening. Yet.
