House Panel OKs Subpoenas For Bush Aides

Sets Up Potential Constitutional Showdown With White House

(CBS/AP) 
If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court — ultimately the Supreme Court — in a politically messy development that would prolong what Mr. Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys.

If the matter goes to court, the Democrats probably will lose, said 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.

Mr. Bush defended Gonzales against demands from congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that Gonzales resign. "He's got support with me," he said. "I support the attorney general."

Despite the president's show of support, CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer says Gonzales isn't out of danger. "He may not be a dead man walking right now, but he's certainly a wounded man limping," Schieffer said. "Basically, what the president is doing is leaving it to the attorney general to save his own skin here. And if he's unable to do that, then I think you will see the attorney general saying he has to spend more time with his family or something like that."

Democrats say the prosecutors' dismissals were politically motivated. Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails released earlier this month between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion and led to a public apology from Gonzales over the handling of the matter.

---

E-Mails Released By House Judiciary Committee
Firings Firestorm Interactive

---

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Mr. Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with Miers and Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

Meanwhile, the Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his authority to fill U.S. attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation. Democrats contend the Justice Department and White House purged the eight federal prosecutors, some of whom were leading political corruption investigations, after a change in the USA Patriot Act gave Gonzales the new authority.

"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.

The White House had signaled last week that it would not oppose the legislation if it also passed the House and reached Mr. Bush's desk.

In an op-ed in Wednesday's editions of The New York Times, one of the eight fired prosecutors, David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: "I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me."

[teeus]

We have two options:
1- With America.
2-Against America.
I go with America. With my president.
Traitors,Liberals,Enemies,go with DEMONCRATS.
Posted by j02281 at 06:09 AM : Mar 22, 2007

Buddy! I got good news for you! There's another option! Really! Isn't that good news?!

I'm going to go with #1--going with America, but with a twist. I choose to hold my elected representatives accountable. I choose to pull those poor kids in Iraq from under the wheels of the bus this President has thrown them under. I choose to take advance level citizenship, and reasonably question events, rather than the entry level classes you seem to be stuck in and follow some dip stick down the rabbit hole.

I'm so glad I could be there for you, my bro. What a relief!

[baldfrog-2009]

To j02281
Get this and get this straight cause i can see your one of those shallow minded people who bought the fear package.They,whoever they are,could have flown planes into every building in this country and it does not justify lying to go to war or lying under oath.This is the National Paranoia Rove and Boys got his Boy elected with and really for all we know you may be one of his paid Boys postin on here.
I guess you didn't quite understand me earlier. Everyone who takes the Oath to serve their Country(Miltary,Congress,Senators,the Pres,The VP the Staff and Clerks, (by the way did you ever work in D.C.? )Page Boys the whole Govt.Now if you when you pledge your allegence and its just a superficial lie well we don't have to worry about what you would do under oath,We can just call it Roving under oath.But if I am going to fight for the principles,yes princples of this Country then I sure as hell do not want to put my life on the line for a bunch of lying azzholes like these.They are breaking the laws and rules the swore to uphold.Rove,Bush,Cheney, and the whole pathetic crew are laughing in our faces,spitting in our face and on those on those principles,and thousands have died because they have lied and broke the law and are tearing this Country apart.You'll have some whiny azz comeback I am sure so before you do I don't care if you do and you take it and shove it where the sun don't shine.Do you understand that!Your just jerking each other off on here anyway!

[antoniof123]

j02281 it does not matter how many posts you make that tactic went out with letters to the editor because we see it is you. Once is enough we can all read we just don't want to read the same thing over and over again. Please get a life or say something that is of importance.

[j02281]

We have two options:
1- With America.
2-Against America.
I go with America. With my president.
Traitors,Liberals,Enemies,go with DEMONCRATS.

[j02281]

The whole pathetic crew are laughing like you said,but only for people like you, with hate,
in your heart,looking for changes,changes to
destroy America,to sell America to our enemies.
I think,you forgot Sep/11/2001,you forgot they
attack us, innocent people died,americans died.
Do you really care about it.?. Or you only care
about how to sell our Country?.

[jerr11]

"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?"

White House spokesman Tony Snow


The question most Americans are asking is why this refusal to testify under oath, why the cover up?

A spectacle is when people testify without being under oath. It then becomes just another another opportunity for the Bush neocons to engage in more lying and spinning more untruths.

If you want the truth, let's get the truth.

Put Rove under oath.

Perhaps then we might get the truth from this lying White House.

[themartyred]

bush is NOT above the law, although he's been PERMITTED to fly above it with the previous republican congress and the scared media...

ENOUGH - he needs to answer for so many dirty tricks and direct lies!

[baldfrog-2009]

xgi123, wayfedup
I guess you didn't quite understand me earlier. So plain and simple as you well know everyone who takes the Oath to serve their Country(Miltary,Congress,Senators,the Pres,The VP the Staff and Clerks, (by the way did you ever work in D.C.? )Page Boys the whole crew.Now if you when you pledge your allegence its just a superficial lie well we don't have to worry about what you would do under oath,We can just call it Roving under oath.But if I am going to fight for the principles,yes princples of this Country then I sure as hell do not want to put my life on the line for a bunch of lying azzholes like these.They are breaking the laws and rules the swore to uphold.Rove,Bush,Cheney, and the whole pathetic crew are laughing in our faces,spitting in our face and on those on those principles,and thousands have died because they have lied and broke the law and are tearing this Country apart.You'll have some whiny azz comeback I am sure so before you do I don't care if you do and you take it and shove it where the sun don't shine.Do you understand that!Your just jerking each other off on here anyway!

[shingles1]

Supreme Court in U.S. V. Nixon:

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

MEANING that it is reserved for national security matters. Conservatives knew this and stressed this point repeatedly back during the Clinton era, but they seem to have conveniently forgotten this fact now.

[firststate]

When and how did executive privilege arise to protect white house staff from being required to respond to a congressional subpoena to testify under oath? It's a relatively recent development.