Bush Pushes Back On Firings Flap

President Tells Democrats To Accept His Offer To Have Top Aides Testify Privately And Not Under Oath

(CBS/AP)  A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added that federal prosecutors work for him, and it is natural to consider replacing them. "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper," the president said.

Mr. Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me, the president said.

---

E-Mails Released By House Judiciary Committee
Firings Firestorm Interactive

---

The Senate, meanwhile, voted to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

Several Democrats, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and John Edwards, have called for Gonzales' ouster or resignation. So have a handful of Republican lawmakers.

"What happened in this case sends a signal really through intimidation by purge: 'Don't quarrel with us any longer,'" said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a former U.S. attorney who spent much of Monday evening paging through 3,000 documents released by the Justice Department.

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

Bush said he would aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides.

"If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said. "I'm sorry the situation has gotten to where it's got, but that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know there's a lot of politics in this town."

If the matter goes to court, the Democrats probably will lose, says CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

“The White House has the stronger legal position when it comes to executive privilege and not just because there is a lot of precedent for it. The courts that will hear this dispute, especially on the appellate level where it matters most, are stocked with conservative judges likely to support broad privilege claims by the White House,” Cohen said.

Even before the president spoke, Democrats rejected President Bush's proposal, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

"He said he wanted this to be a conversation rather than a hearing," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate probe into the firings. "A conversation is fine, but let's have the conversation under oath, with a transcript."

Even without oaths, Bush aides would be legally required to tell the truth to Congress. But without a transcript of their comments, "it would be almost meaningless to say that they would be under some kind of legal sanction," Schumer complained.

Fielding's meeting on Capitol Hill came a few hours after Mr. Bush spoke with Gonzales in an early morning phone call — their first conversation since the president had acknowledged mistakes by his longtime friend and lawmakers of both parties had called for Gonzales' ouster.

The White House offered to arrange interviews with Rove, Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a deputy to White House political director Sara Taylor, who works for Rove.

"Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas," Fielding said in a letter to the Senate and House Judiciary committees and their ranking Republicans.

He said documents released by the Justice Department "do not reflect that any U.S. attorney was replaced to interfere with a pending or future criminal investigation or for any other improper reason."

The documents show confusion at the highest levels, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr. But the big questions remain unanswered: Who first floated the idea of firing the prosecutors? Who put together the hit list? And how much influence did the White House have in the whole affair?

According to CBS News partner Politico.com, Republican officials — at the request of the White House — reportedly have begun interviewing candidates to succeed Gonzales.

"Rumors are swirling in a typical White House parlor game," Perino said. She described reports that Gonzales will stop aside as "political theater that has no basis in fact."

According to Politico.com, the candidates being considered by administration officials to replace Gonzales include White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein, federal appeals judge Laurence Silberman, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox and PepsiCo attorney Larry Thompson, who was the government's highest ranking black law enforcement official when he was deputy attorney general during Mr. Bush's first term.

[waynabq]

Anybody stupid enough to take Bush, Rove and Cheney at their word deserves to have a corrupt, greedy, criminal government killing their kids and robbing them blind in broad daylight. Pathetic, freakin' pathetic....

[waynabq]

Tony Snow and Bush paint testimony by Rove and Mier as a "Fishing Trip" and a "Witch Hunt"? When did telling the truth in Public under oath ever become a "Fishing Trip" and a "Witch Hunt"? I guess that would make our entire justice system by their definition a "circus".

I guess America should just take Bush's word as the truth, right? Look what happened when he told this country Iraq had WMDs and a Nuclear weapons program....the consequences were no big deal right? Yeah...right if you're a certified Limbaugh, Fox listening human parrot/diehard moron that is.

[skyk-2009]

I found the Bush Comment about a "Show Trial" to be very revealing. People who have nothing to hide, who wish to only put the Truth out, do NOT use such terms. People who wish to be "Honorable" act like Ms. Plane. No this is a blantant attempt to scare and use the poor simple underbelly of this society to protect this bunch of LIAR's and CHEATS. The "Show Trial" comment says it all. HE completely IGNORED the Constitution's REQUIREMENTS of these Senators, regardless of Party. It completely ignores the need for our Justice System to stay clear of corruption. It goes straight to the small and simple minded and makes them think THEY are under attack. God how low have we fallen under this pathetic Southern Fascist?

[skyk-2009]

When someone like a Rove, who has a long history of dirty tricks, gets his hands on something as big and powerful as the Justice Department of this nation, the urge to abuse and misuse it has to be great indeed. Folks there's something very slimy about Rove and there's something here that THEY, the servants of We the People, do NOT want us to know. I've seen to many criminals in my time and what I saw on the news last night was a Criminal attempting to COVER UP!!

[mcvet]

I can smell the emails burning and the hard drives being magnitized.A lot more than 18 minutes gone here of old Watergate.Needed a least one weeked to begin destroying that stuff eh?
Posted by baldfrog at 06:38 AM : Mar 21, 2007

Why else would Sir Lies-A-Lot take this kind of stand? If things are as they say what's the problem of going under oath and answering questions? No I feel like most on these Boards and I believe Rove, Cheney and Bush are VERY capable of using the Department of Justice to interfer and manipulate Investigations for political purpose's. I think EVERYONE knows that it's just some, the Kool Aid Drinkers, refuse to admit it.

[mcvet]

I can smell the emails burning and the hard drives being magnitized.A lot more than 18 minutes gone here of old Watergate.Needed a least one weeked to begin destroying that stuff eh?
Posted by baldfrog at 06:38 AM : Mar 21, 2007

Why else would Sir Lies-A-Lot take this kind of stand? If things are as they say what's the problem of going under oath and answering questions? No I feel like most on these Boards and I believe Rove, Cheney and Bush are VERY capable of using the Department of Justice to interfer and manipulate Investigations for political purpose's. I think EVERYONE knows that it's just some, the Kool Aid Drinkers, refuse to admit it.

[mcvet]

I can smell the emails burning and the hard drives being magnitized.A lot more than 18 minutes gone here of old Watergate.Needed a least one weeked to begin destroying that stuff eh?
Posted by baldfrog at 06:38 AM : Mar 21, 2007

Why else would Sir Lies-A-Lot take this kind of stand? If things are as they say what's the problem of going under oath and answering questions? No I feel like most on these Boards and I believe Rove, Cheney and Bush are VERY capable of using the Department of Justice to interfer and manipulate Investigations for political purpose's. I think EVERYONE knows that it's just some, the Kool Aid Drinkers, refuse to admit it.

[terrapin78]

Bush calls these criminals "honorable public servants".

If they were serving the public honorably, they would testify in Congress under OATH.

[baldfrog-2009]

SearingTruth Thank you!
Dubya likes playing cowboys.
Well Dubya,Cheney, Rove,Condi,none of these so called wannabe Texans are from Texas by birth.
So Dubya you and your fake Texan buddies "just can't stand the truth."What the hell you can't even be honest about that.Rove your just plain pathetic and Barney's wife.Keep up those old Moral values you sold the country last election,the fear package,that you went around the the fundamentalist churches in Ohio to get your boy elected and told a bunch of lies then laughed in their faces behind their backs,had old jeb hold up the lines in Florida in florida for the blacks you racist porker,your a real piece of work. I wonder if Martin Luther King would have been given executive privilege by some trumped up case by that pervert J Edger Hoover and a Republican President?By the way thought I saw Valerie Plame Wilson give testimony under oath the day,we all know what ole Scooter Potter did to Protect Rove and Cheney.
I can smell the emails burning and the hard drives being magnitized.A lot more than 18 minutes gone here of old Watergate.Needed a least one weeked to begin destroying that stuff eh?

[searingtruth]

"Our great country just had enough of Bush's pride, arrogance, and criminal misconduct. The 110th US Congress must not back-down with their request to put under oath any Bush crony under oath. Further, Congress should start impeaching proceeding against Bush et al. This is the worst U.S. president we have had in the history of the United States."
doctormiguel

Indeed patriot doctormiguel.
ST

"...They have claimed that they are no longer subject to the authority of the judicial or legislative branches of our government, and may ignore any law they wish at anytime. They have even claimed that the President may "sign" a law, while simultaneously signing another statement claiming he is free to ignore it. They have established a network of unconstitutional secret prisons, where both foreign and domestic citizens who have been illegally abducted are sent indeterminately, without charge or representation. Some have been tortured, and some have even been murdered. They have single handedly erased our sacred and traditional right to privacy by claiming they may place anyone they wish under surveillance at any time, even going so far as to specifically claim they may ignore FISA laws. They have started an illegal preemptive war that has needlessly taken the lives of more than 3,000 of our bravest and most noble fighting men and women.

And this is just the short list. ..."

Excerpt from A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com