Leahy: Bush not involved in US Attorneys Firings

[rateyes]

A powerful Senate chairman acknowledged explicitly on Thursday that President Bush was not involved in the firings of U.S. attorneys last winter and therefore ruled illegal the president's executive privilege claims protecting his chief of staff and former adviser Karl Rove.

The ruling by Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is a formality that clears the way for his panel to vote on contempt citations if Josh Bolten, Rove and others do not immediately comply with congressional subpoenas for documents and information about the White House's role in the firings.

The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings," Leahy, D-Vt., wrote in his ruling. "The president's lack of involvement in these firings — by his own account and that of many others — calls into question any claim of executive privilege."

<snip>

But Mukasey's testimony and his promise to quit if Bush ignored his legal advice gives any citation — even the threat of one — more weight.

It was not clear, however, that Leahy's ruling Thursday would amount to more than a threat before Congress adjourns next month for the holidays.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Leahy_Bush_not_involved_in_firings_11292007.html


-----------------------------

Meanwhile, on the House side, we were told that contempt charges would be brought after Congress got back from August recess. When it didn't happen in September, we were told it would be October. When it didn't happen in October, FINALLY, in the first week of November, the charges were filed--BUT, NO VOTE WAS SCHEDULED! It's been almost a month since the charges were filed...still no scheduled vote.

Also, let's not forget that Leahy threatened no vote on Mukasey unless the WH complied with the subpoenas. The WH didn't comply. Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of less than 60 Senators (a filibuster might have stopped it.)

Now, we get more threats from Leahy. Sounds good. But, we need to see some actual BITE rather than just hearing more BARKING.

And, the House Contempt charges, yet to be voted on, are NOT inherent contempt charges. And, with Leahy talking about also sending these charges to the US Distric Attorney D.C., they won't be inherent contempt charges either.

Are we going to get our hopes up AGAIN, only to see them dashed on the rocks of politics? My bet: YES.

[L. Coyote]

1. Bush can overturn this by admitting he was involved in illegal firings LOL

[rateyes]

3. But, you see,

that would involve him admitting to lying...something that he can't bring himself to do. They serve "at the pleasure of the pResident is the line we will hear again and again.

[AndyA]

2. Just do it, Leahy. Stop talking about it and JUST DO IT. We'll get the message that it's happened.

I'm sick of all the PR stunts.

Congress needs to just quit talking and making press releases, and DO IT.

The word will get out that it's been done, and it will have a greater impact than a bunch of meaningless words that are never followed up on. :eyes:

Just do it, Leahy. Schedule the damn vote and GET IT DONE!

[rateyes]

4. JUST DO IT....

is right. :yourock:

[cali]

15. How can Leahy schedule the vote? Did I miss his becoming

the Majority leader? The vote on the panel is pretty meaningless unless it's followed by Reid scheduling a vote. I don't see that happening.

[robinlynne]

5. No, but I love the logic he used. If Bush wasn't involved, no privilege, and if he was involved,

then he committed a crime, so no privilege.

[rateyes]

7. But, did he commit a crime if he was involved?

I say, "yes," because of the motivation. But, the law also says the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. We NEED these contempt citations to forward, and it would be better if they were inherent contempt citations.

This is clever, yes. But, it did not have to come to this. This should have been resolved long ago.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Wow, Leahy's good. Really good. nt

[rateyes]

12. All hat...

no cattle.

[L. Coyote]

25. All LIES, NO Privilige Either. Gotta love that one!

[Cha]

19. Yes, Senator Leahy's

Logic is Impeccable!

[acmavm]

6. Leahy's nothing but a bag of wind.

[rateyes]

9. Was a time I would have disagreed with you on that...

don't anymore. :shrug:

[Lasher]

8. Kinda reminds me of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II reports

Kenny Boy's trial also comes to mind.

If you just drag it on forever it all becomes academic.

[rateyes]

10. Out of sight, out of mind. nt

[rateyes]

13. .

[rateyes]

14. ..

[rateyes]

16. ...

[annabanana]

17. The thing is, ratty,

These promises rise & fall like the tides. I won't get incensed about this one; It's too close to the Holidays... Maybe Leahy should float another one by me some time after New Years...

[rateyes]

18. Aggravating is what it is...

like pissing in the wind.

[BornagainDUer]

20. Good move by Leahy. He's fightin' the bastids afterall.

when I thought he had wimped a bit. Let's give him a boost.

[Chicago1]

21. Patrick Leahy is probably up to IMPEACHMENT

Kiddies,


Senator Leahy is probably going to impeach the little one and the rest of his playground thugs. It feels like he's up to something else (HOPEFULLY!!!!!)


START THE IMPEACHMENT!!!!

[LSK]

22. hey, leave the House alone, they have a FISA bill to write....

...that Bush will just veto!

:eyes:

:banghead:

[catmandu57]

23. Yeah yeah yeah

We all know how frightened of contempt citations this bunch is, go ahead on just fucking do it, give the fuckers something else to laugh about.

[robinlynne]

24. Friends, don't forget that Feinstein, in committee voted for telecom immunity in

the FISA bill, making that particular vote a majority for immunity, and LEahy still refued to present the bill to the full senate! he did stand up that one time, all alone, in our defense. He presented the bill without the ammendment for immunity.