Just some interesting information from Team Hawkins. As you may know, GWB invoked executive privilages, refusing to allow two top level White House executives to testify (on record or under oath) regarding the firing of federal prosecutors. Here is a little article from the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/washington/09cnd-prexy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The two officials that GWB has refused to allow to testify under oath or on the record are Harriet Miers (you may remember that she was President Bush's first nominee for the Supreme Court, replaced by Samuel Alito) and Sara Taylor, former Political Director at the White House. During the 2004 election cycle Sara Taylor was the Political Director for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign. I actually interviewed Sara Taylor (along with my boss, David Magleby) for the project we were working on. I remember that she wasn't very forthcoming with information, so I suspect that even if she were able to testify under oath or on the record, that she wouldn't say much of interest.
4 comments:
I've been hearing a lot about all this, but still am not sure what's going on, can you explain it to me? The Prez fired 9 federal prosecutors and no one knows why? What are the two aides being subpoena'd for?
This is what I know Emily (and it is not a lot, cause I sometimes prefer to read people than New York Times)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzoles' office is in charge of all the federal prosecutors (aka US Attorney) across the country. Federal Prosecutors have a lot of power. For instance, in CA one federal prosecutor recently convicted Congressman Duke Cunningham (R) of San Diego who was charged with embezzling and such indiscretions (I think). Anyway, the federal prosecutor had the power for say, no...we will no charge him for such a bad crime, we will charge him for a lighter crime...or such nonsense. Because they are appointed by the President, approved by Congress...they often have a political bent. There are only 93 federal prosecutors, just so you can get a sense of how large a number like 9 is.
Here is where things get tricky. After the 2004 election, and some of the decisions that some of the US Attorney's had made, some say that there was a discussion/conversation among the white house and the Attorney General that some of the US Attorney's had to go. Because their decisions did not mesh well with the administration. For instance, they let go the federal prosector who charged Rep Cunningham in CA. They are trying to figure out how much the white house was invovled with the firings. Attorney General Gonzoles has testified that he doesn't know why they were fired, but that they didn't consult the white House (legally they can't consult the white house is my understanding). But some believe that the white House was in on the firings.
And that is why they want to subpoena the two aides to see what they know about the invovlement of the white house.
PHEW! That was the longest comment ever. If I am incorrect in any of the information here, please someone update. Like I said, I don't read as much as I would like.
Also, as I understand it, most federal prosecutors are replaced each time a different political party wins the White House. Bill Clinton let several attorneys go after he was voted into office, and no one made a big deal of it at the time because that's what Presidents can do. The think about these firings is that they were people that GWB had put into office himself, four years previously, they were Republican judges already, but they let them go because they didn't like the way the judges were ruling about partisan cases. They are not supposed to politicize the offices.
What is even more maddening to me is that they tried to besmirch the characters of those prosecutors by saying that they didn't do a good job, when one of them, the judge from Arkansas had already earned a meritorious reputation for his great work. I can just picture Cheney sitting down with Karl Rove and saying, "Let's axe these guys--they aren't being team players by supporting GWB."
GRRRRRRRR!
Claudia
Well I wonder why GWB would do something so shady as to not let the aides testify. It seems pretty obvious by not letting them that he's afraid of what they're going to say, or maybe something deeper's going on here. weird I hope the investigation gets to the bottom of it!
Post a Comment