Comments (26)

TheraP wrote on February 28, 2007 4:49 PM:

Too bad they can't subpoena the inmates of Guantanamo!

Yes, get creative with these subpoena powers!

Let's bring more into the light.

Anonymous wrote on February 28, 2007 5:00 PM:

Does the senate really have any power to supeona anyone under this hamfisted administration? When they can't even get a nonbinding resolution to a vote! Still all this blather and exploration.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on February 28, 2007 5:01 PM:

Does the senate really have any power to supeona anyone under this hamfisted administration? When they can't even get a nonbinding resolution to a vote! Still all this blather and exploration.

shera wrote on February 28, 2007 5:08 PM:

It appears that Congress can subpoena almost anyone it likes. I looked into it a bit just now, and found this handy article by Daniel Engber in Slate. Paraphrasing the article, Congressional power to subpoena or otherwise compel testimony is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, but has been recognized by the Supreme Court. The first case, Anderson v. Dunn (1821) recognized the ability of Congress to issue contempt citations; the second, McGrain v. Daugherty, EXPANDED Congressional subpoena power to issue contempt citations for any legislative purpose, no matter how vague. I don't know how much further Schumer and Leahy need to look into it - their power to subpoena Iglesias and other U.S. Attorneys willing to talk is assured.

Citizen92 wrote on February 28, 2007 5:09 PM:

8 little John Deans each with their own axe to grind... This should be interesting.

Poldark wrote on February 28, 2007 5:14 PM:

If these firings originated in the White House, would that be impeachable?

shera wrote on February 28, 2007 5:14 PM:

Sorry, I forgot to link; here it is: Slate article

shera wrote on February 28, 2007 5:15 PM:

Still no link; I give up: www.slate.com/id/2114976/.

mbbsdphil wrote on February 28, 2007 5:17 PM:

The former US Attorneys could be compelled to appear before Congress and testify on certain maters; their refusal could subject them to consequences for contempt of Congress. Most or all appear willing to testify about certain topics.

These former government employees/lawyers would have confidentiality obligations that would bar them from talking about certain matters. They would be free to talk about other things about which they have personal knowledge. That would include communications from the Justice Department about who fired them, about any stated reasons for that, etc. This testimony might inconveniently disagree with prior testimony before Congress by Justice Dept officials.

I am sure that Schumer's and his committee's lawyers will lay out the legal geography for him before subpoenas are issued. Public hearings are political theater; virtually everything is discussed and known beforehand.

EH wrote on February 28, 2007 5:19 PM:

shera: as with many recent developments for which there is popular momentum, the question is whether the dems have the guts to go forward and challenge these issues.

Dennis wrote on February 28, 2007 5:25 PM:

By damn! If these folds get before the senate and not hidden behind closed doors, let's see the "Justice Department" dance it way out of this one!

What will Gonzales say, "We can't answer these questions due to "national security"?

If there has been any good to come out of these past six plus years and this administration, it's the revelation to the American people of just how the sordid both political partys are, how corrupt the political process has become, and how LOW our politicians will go.

And even then, we've not seen the bottom.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Citizen92 wrote on February 28, 2007 5:31 PM:

mmbsdphil

I agree, this is the time for Congress to show oversight. They just need to structure the hearing in a way that DOES MORE than just disprove that the USA's were dismissed for reasons other than performance. We know that cronyism prevails, we just need to know HOW BAD it is.

And they need to nail the new relevation about 2 MOC's attempting to drive a political wedge into that New Mexico investigation.

The leap of faith will come trying to prove what we really want to hear -- that the USA's were canned because they were getting too close to something/s damaging to the GOP. That road is just strewn with "open investigation" claims of privilege.

mbbsdphil wrote on February 28, 2007 5:34 PM:

Inconveniently for the public, the amendment to the so-called Patriotic Act - supposedly secretly slipped into the legislation in the dead of night by Sen. Specter's staff - gave "the Attorney General" authority to make these interim US Attorney appointments, and expressly deleted any timeframe within which they must be approved or rejected by the Senate.

Consequently, the interim appointments can readily be used to circumvent the Senate's advice and consent. Among other things, this allows Mr. Bush to appoint lawyers as US Attorneys that even a Republican-controlled Senate might have rejected, let alone the current Democratically-controlled one.

That's the rub Senator Feinstein hopes to cure with corrective legislation. It almost certainly would be vetoed, unless attached to legislation the President could not afford to veto.

Given Jolly Jack Lieberman's piratical change of loyalty, and the thin margin of control the Democrats have in the Senate, odds seem high that this state of affairs will continue until the next President is in office.

That does not mean Dems can or should do nothing. They have a Constitutional responsibility to oversee the conduct of the executive branch. They should document: take pictures and name names and make egregious behavior public. That's part of their job, even if Mr. Cheney and the last Congress tried to delete it from memory.

chimpeach wrote on February 28, 2007 5:43 PM:

Gonzales must be shitting a pickle right now.

Jan Hammer wrote on February 28, 2007 5:56 PM:

What are we waiting for? Fire up the subpoena
machine. Let's see where this takes us.

shera wrote on February 28, 2007 6:31 PM:

EH:

Completely agree, and now we know that they can't say that there's no LEGAL basis for not subpoenaing the former U.S. Attorneys. The Judiciary Vote should be a complete formality because there should be a straight party line vote, unless I'm wrong and a supermajority of votes is needed. Here's hoping otherwise.

daCascadian wrote on February 28, 2007 6:33 PM:

mbbsdphil >"...Given Jolly Jack Lieberman's piratical change of loyalty, and the thin margin of control the Democrats have in the Senate, odds seem high that this state of affairs will continue until the next President is in office..."

Dig deeper into the background. No one gets into those positions of power w/o some skeletons capable of being used against the specific individual. How do you suppose they are "managed" ? Consider methodologies of blackmail & extortion. Think grand criminal enterprises & their behaviors. We all can understand how it functions and make use of such understanding for our benefit.

"All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Joe Buck wrote on February 28, 2007 6:47 PM:

While the new legislation allows the president to appoint new attorneys without approval by Congress, using this power to stop investigations of allies, and to punish a district attorney for not issuing indictments of Democrats just before election day to please Republican congressmen, is another matter altogether. We folks with a few gray hairs remember the "Saturday Night Massacre", when Nixon ordered the firing of Archibald Cox in October 1973. He had the legal power to do so, but that was the move that changed the tone in Washington and led to the impeachment proceedings.

ohiomeister wrote on February 28, 2007 7:21 PM:

Good point, Joe Buck. If these firings are simply unethical attempts to improperly influence federal criminal investigations, this deep corruption should be exposed.

Anonymous wrote on March 1, 2007 11:51 AM:

It's frightening to me that these people would somehow confuse keeping quiet about corruption with "honor". Are we all just spineless plebes now? Our government is corrupt, they have the evidence, and they're not going to talk unless they get a subpoena. Where, exactly, is the honor in that?

Barry wrote on March 1, 2007 1:36 PM:

Talk about sour grapes and character disordered behavior. Iglesias' accusations are absurd.
What's keeping any citizen from calling any US Attorney's office to find out when an indictment is expected in a case? By the way, has anyone asked Gov. Richardson or Patricia Madrid (former AD of New Mexico) if they called and asked about the case in question? As for his non-political role while US Attorney, someone might ask him about his talk at a Republician Women's meeting.

artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 7:36 PM:

hello

artur@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 7:37 PM:

hello

andrey@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 8:03 AM:

hello

dennis@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 7:17 AM:

hello

acyclovir wrote on May 13, 2007 4:44 PM:

Good work!