I am sensitive, and appreciative, of Separation of Powers issues. That having been said … jeez.
For the President to say he’s going to extraordinary and unprecedented lengths to cooperation with Congressional investigations into the whole US Attorney Firing brouhaha by making available Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify is simply a partisan joke, made all the less funny by his stealing a march and making the whole thing out to be a partisan attack by the Congressional majority. The “joke” part:
- The testimony would not be under oath. If they lie through their teeth, there’s no penalty.
- The testimony would be in private. Only the Congressional committees involved would get to hear what was being said. Not the public.
- No notes, no transcripts, no recordings. Thus, not only keeping it private, but unaccountable — they can claim anything attributed to them was not what they actually said, or was misinterpreted, or was just a partisan attack.
Even if they, and the White House, were as pure as the driven snow in this, it would be a bad arrangement. It shows the Administration’s abiding penchant for secrecy and unaccountability. And it shows that they’re at least as willing to play partisan games as the Dems, and more desperate to do so. Kudos to the Democratic committee chairmen for not taking the deal and doing so in a non-strident fashion.
I expect that the Prez will tell his people to ignore any subpoenas issued as he is above the law.
Maybe he is. Hope he isn’t.
The presser was amusing, I did like the use of the Royal “We” and “Us”, kind of put things into perspective.
Subpoenas of Rove and Meyers.
George II claims executive privilege.
Goes to the SCotUS (Which will be fun to see how that plays out)
My guess is that they will drag this out until it is no longer a news item.
Bonus Funny:
Someone in the White House Press Corp read a column written by Tony Snow where he said that:
Article here
The Separation of Powers thang is a very prickly subject. Just as Congresscritters of both parties bristled at the FBI searching the office of a Congressman last year, so, too, all Presidents have bristled at Congressional oversight of their activities.
I’m sure there’s also sensitivity over the idea that a “misrecollection” on one of the testifiers’ parts might lead to a Scooter Libby-style conviction on perjury (as we all know, in politics it’s not the crime that does you in, it’s the cover-up). It’s both a CYA and a legitimate concern, depending on the point someone gets hung on.
I’m also sure there’s concern about fishing expeditions (legitimate concern and not). I’ve little doubt that, even under oath/transcript/public eye, *if* there were previous agreement, the folks testifying could limit their testimony to the case at hand, and not be compelled to testify to other interesting tidbits of info. But if there’s no such agreement, the sky would be, I assume, the limit.
Finally, I love the article.