Posted by Mark Silva and Karoun Demirjian at 6 am CDT
Once-private e-mails about the president's closest political adviser have become public.
The adviser, the attorney general and many more face subpoena threats, if they fail to testify before congressional committees investigating the firing of several federal prosecutors.
And Valerie Plame, the CIA operative exposed by the Bush administration in a battle with a critic of pre-war intelligence, testifies openly before Congress about the government's "careless abuses.''
"What a difference an election makes,'' says Norman Ornstein, a professional observer of Congress who sees Democrats playing the fullest hand of the power that was dealt them in midterm elections which have shifted the balance of power in Washington, recasting the political drama of the next two years.
For more on the story, see the Tribune's report today:
The balance of power
has shifted in Washington
By Mark Silva and Karoun Demirjian
Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The attorney general, several members of his staff and a senior White House aide face threats of subpoenas to testify before a congressional committee unless they volunteer to cooperate with a congressional investigation.
Once-private e-mails between the White House and Justice Department, revealing presidential adviser Karl Rove's interest in talk of dismissing all or some of the nation's 93 federal prosecutors, appear on television screens nationwide.
Valerie Plame, the formerly covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked by members of the Bush administration, testifies openly on Capitol Hill about being "carelessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department."
All of these scenes, which unfolded in rapid succession this week, never would have played out just two years ago when President Bush began his second term with his party in full control of Congress and professing an electoral mandate.
These tableaux dramatically demonstrate the impact of a midterm "thumpin'"—as Bush described the November elections that gave the Democrats control of Congress—on the balance of power in Washington. It is likely to shape the next two years as well, as the Democrats try to set the stage for the 2008 presidential election.
"What a difference an election makes," said Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "It's especially true, having both houses of Congress, where you get the double-barreled subpoena power. It's also reflecting a reality that this kind of oversight was virtually non-existent over the last six years.
"You can be sure that if you had a Republican Congress in place and the U.S. attorney scandal emerged, the Congress would be saying, 'Prosecutors get fired all the time, what's the big deal?'"
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who ran the House Judiciary Committee for six years, maintained that "we were effective in doing oversight," but that now there is "a big element of politics involved."
Sensenbrenner cited committee action this week limiting the president's powers to appoint U.S. attorneys, and noted that one Democrat suggested the committee had to act "because of this administration" but could reconsider with "another administration."
This, said Sensenbrenner, was "a shocking admission … that this is being driven by politics."
With the Democrats' newfound power comes potential trouble for them as well. Ornstein said that "if Democrats overreach and focus so much of their resources and energy on these hearings… it makes it difficult to do anything on the policy front. Part of the reason they were elected was to provide a check-and-balance, but it was also to replace the do-nothing Congress with the do-something Congress, and doing something is not just investigating perfidy and wrongdoing."
The majority party, especially in the House, controls virtually all the levers of power. After 12 years in the minority, the Democrats now decide what bills will be sent to the floor and whether amendments are allowed. They alone can convene hearings, subpoena documents and compel testimony.
Suddenly, a White House that for six years tightly controlled its own agenda, often had its way with Congress and strictly controlled the flow of information faces an onslaught of congressional oversight over controversies reaching back into the early years of the administration. Documents that never would have seen the light of day, and discussions that had been closely held within the administration, are spilling forth under the subpoena power of the emboldened Democratic-run Congress.
Everything from the leaks in the summer of 2003 that exposed a CIA operative's identity to the more recent revelations of the deterioration at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are becoming fodder for congressional investigations by Democratic committee heads eager to wield new investigative powers.
"The fact that there are discussions about [Plame and Atty Gen'l Alberto Gonzales] isn't just due to the change in the House—it's the fact that we even know about these things now," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "They wouldn't have come to light otherwise, because Republicans protected this administration on the whole.
"We're now in the majority, so we can set the agenda," Frank added. "The norm is for Congress to do what it's doing now. What we had before was abnormal, to have Republicans working with [and] covering up for the administration. … I think the public is always in favor of reasonable efforts to get out information."
The administration is fighting back with a public relations campaign.
The Justice Department produced a statement Friday from Chuck Canterbury, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, dismissing the controversy surrounding the prosecutor firings as "politics as usual. … There are those who are trying to make this handful of firings into a scandal."
As demands mounted for Gonzales' resignation, Art Gordon, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, urged Bush in a letter to keep the attorney general, saying, "Our nation and the men and women who carry the badge and the gun need his leadership."
The White House, insisting that it wants to provide senators with all the information possible about the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year, has been forced to negotiate with the Senate Judiciary Committee over how Rove and others might testify without sacrificing the presidential "prerogative" of executive privilege.
The House Judiciary Committee had sought an answer on Rove's willingness to testify by Friday, with the Senate committee holding off talk of a subpoena until next week. White House counsel Fred Fielding met with House committee staffers Friday and won a delay until Tuesday to resolve the issue.
"Given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved, we need more time to resolve them," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
The White House had maintained that former White House counsel Harriet Miers proposed firing all 93 U.S. attorneys and that Rove dismissed the idea. But now, with e-mails and memoranda spilling out, White House spokesman Tony Snow suggested the origin of the proposal could be in question.
"At this juncture, people have hazy memories," he said Friday. "To the extent that [the proposal] was raised, it was knocked down. This is not something that ever rose to the idea of being seriously considered."
Even as the White House is stressing the president's right to dismiss U.S. attorneys, who serve at his pleasure, Snow is being careful to say this idea of the firings did not originate with Bush.
"The president certainly has no recollection of any such thing," Snow said. "Don't be dropping it at the president's doorstep."
Yet, for the next two years, Democrats flexing newfound muscle are likely to drop at the doorstep of the president every controversy large or small, confronting a White House that never had to answer so many questions.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
They are flexing all right but nothing has come of it except a bunch of hot air and several senators flying around the country stumping for their next job - president. How about all of them get back to their seats in DC and earn their pay?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | March 17, 2007 8:05 AM
This country & world will be better off once we get rid of more Republicans from Washington & banish conservatives as well during the next election.
Posted by: RomanB | March 17, 2007 8:50 AM
This is what I thought was going to happen. Despite the anti war sentiment in the country that put the Democrats in power, the Democrats are now blowing it. The firing of the US attorneys?... SO WHAT! The Valerie Plame situation?...SO WHAT! They just allowed Plame to make a speech covering the Democrat talking points and prevented any hardball questions to challenge her. What bothers me is that the guy who "leaked" her name, Richard Armitage, was never charged. Instead we get Libby on perjury. The prosecutor Fitzgerald is a political hack who had no case. It's a joke.
Posted by: Fred Carani | March 17, 2007 8:54 AM
RomanB,very well said.We need to remove these nuts from our political system.Or,at the very least,make em all move to a Red state.
Posted by: Raving Loon | March 17, 2007 9:49 AM
So Rep. Sensenbrenner says "we were effective in doing oversight," but now it's all political. That's a laugh. Actually, the Republican 109th Congress was completely ineffective at oversight, and a lot of other things, precisely because they were political. The clear message from last November's election was that the public wants accountability from this administration.
Posted by: Reader X | March 17, 2007 11:02 AM
Hey lochnessmonster:
Since you're so concerned about senators "flying around the country" instead of being back in DC earning their pay", I thought I'd take the time to go back through The Swamp to before the Nov 2006 election.
Funny, I didn't see ANY POSTS from you back then telling Bush & Cheney to stop flying around the country, which they were doing for Republicans running for Congress, and to return to DC to earn their pay.
In other words, you've just been proven to be a hypocrite.
Posted by: BC | March 17, 2007 11:21 AM
Fred Carani,
Hey,atleast Pelosi got a jet.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | March 17, 2007 12:00 PM
BC
Calm down...I think Bush & Cheney should be in DC more...this president can't spend more than 10 minutes in one place. Does all this travel make them think nothing will stick if they are constantly on the move?
But I still think that the congress people should not be out campaigning and raising money for '08 when they are missing votes on legislation. This includes both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | March 17, 2007 1:42 PM
As Roman puts it
This country & world will be better off once we get rid of more Republicans from Washington & banish conservatives as well during the next election.
Roman, a country like this already exists. It is France. You are free to leave at any time. Also, please note that most conservatives are in agreement that we should rid Washington of so called Rebublicans who act like Democrats. Believe it or not, Bush is a product of your grand Liberalism. The only reason conservatives voted for him was because Gore and Kerry sickened our stomachs more than he did.
The only people happy right now in today's political climate is Liberals. The pussification of America is all around us, and if Rebublicans don't wake up and stop pandering to these fools, the party will die, St. Patricks Day will be replaced by Osamsa Bin Laden Day, your neighbor will be wearing a lampshade, and your kids will be learning English as second language.
Posted by: infidelonboard | March 17, 2007 2:02 PM
Finally, the corrupt Wingnut Party is being held responisible for the calamity,misery,casuality,infliction,havoc,grief,devastation,hardship,tragedy,upheaval and downright disaster that they've created while being the majority party in Congress and lockstepping with the W. administration for 6 years.....but let's don't forget that they did give tax cuts to the rich people so I guess "some" Americans think they did a good job while they were in the majority.
I think it's time to roll out the Impeachment ball.
Posted by: John E. | March 17, 2007 2:27 PM
Hazy memories? Isn't that the title of a Woody Allen movie? Trump is right; worst president ever- these guys in the Bush administration are starting to make Nixon look like Mother Teresa.
Posted by: Kevin Quail | March 17, 2007 3:56 PM
infidelonboard,
Naw, were gonna make it more like France, then you can leave.
'President Clinton'; get used to it. Your boy has destroyed the Republic party for a generation or more.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 17, 2007 7:21 PM
Shortly after the Plame story broke, Richard Armitage raised his hand and said "I gave her name to Robert Novack". But Prosecutor Fitzgerald ignored Armitage and went after Libby instead. Then Fitzgerald conducted a 2 year investigation and the best he came up with was perjury. Doesn't this semm the least bit odd to anyone? If the Plame case was so big, why didn't he indict and convict anyone on real charges. Couldn't be because there wasn't a crime committed could it? Instead we get Plame making a speech and Waxman looking like an idiot. I thought the Republicans were going to get slaughtered in '08 because of Iraq. Now after seeing the Democrats in action, it's obvious they don't care about what is best for the country. They are only driven by Bush hatred, revenge and power.
Posted by: Fred Carani | March 17, 2007 7:23 PM
If Scooter had nothing to hide then there was no reason for him to lie to the FBI. But I guess truth-telling doesn't come easy if you never practice. If he didn't remember the details, he could have told the FBI and the Grand Jury he just didn't remember. That defense has worked for countless pols, regardless of party. Libby won't serve a day behind bars anyway: the pardon is coming--it's just a matter of time. So cry for somebody who deserves it.
Posted by: TQTGA | March 17, 2007 8:21 PM
senseless brenner should be charged with a crime. i love Wisconsin, but, this jerks 15 minutes of fame is over.
Posted by: Phil Elliott | March 17, 2007 11:15 PM
NO, NO, NO---Why use Repuglicrites' one word
vocabulary 'Power', to define stated Congressional Democratic "changes" and "reforms".
It IS about GOVERNANCE--of the People, by the
People, and for the People!!! Understood?
Posted by: ABE | March 17, 2007 11:26 PM
Reading many of the comments, particularly the anti-Bush group, it makes me wonder if the majority of the posts are written by the DNC.
Posted by: Jay Rizzo | March 18, 2007 12:32 AM
Either Congress cuts these (people) off, or we the people will do it for them. Capice?
Posted by: Knightmare | March 18, 2007 2:53 AM
For six year this administration has run rough shod over the rights of Americans without any oversight. The republican controlled congress is complicit in this and this is only now being shown as the Democratic-controlled congress reveals the arrogance of the Bush administration. I for one, commend the congress for doing what the last election commanded them to do which is keep an eye on what this corrupt administration is doing.
Posted by: Stephen Saint-Coeur | March 18, 2007 3:58 AM
Hey Fred Carani, interesting bit of logic, let me try that too:
Then [Ken Starr] conducted a 2 year investigation and the best he came up with was [lying about having sex]. Doesn't this seem the least bit odd to anyone? If the [Clinton Whitewater] case was so big, why didn't he indict and convict [Bill & Hill] on real charges. Couldn't be because there wasn't a crime committed could it?
Posted by: steve w | March 18, 2007 7:06 AM
I think it's time to roll out the Impeachment ball.
Posted by: John E. | Mar 17, 2007 2:27:11 PM
John E.... There will be no "impeachment ball" (unless your speaking about a Bubba Redux) and Pinocchio Obama will not make the first primary vote. Lot's of baggage with Cook County crooked hacks. Mr. Rezko will give up Pinocchio when the Fed's start leaning on him. It's coming John E.....soon
Posted by: Don B | March 18, 2007 4:29 PM
Then [Ken Starr] conducted a 2 year investigation and the best he came up with was [lying about having sex]. Doesn't this seem the least bit odd to anyone? If the [Clinton Whitewater] case was so big, why didn't he indict and convict [Bill & Hill] on real charges. Couldn't be because there wasn't a crime committed could it?
Posted by: steve w | Mar 18, 2007 7:06:40 AM
The reason that did'nt happen is because Bubba removed the Fed.
judge from the case , part of his infamous 93 purge and installed one of his friends from Ark. to take over the case. Now i ask does
that not seem odd ?
Posted by: Don B | March 18, 2007 4:38 PM
Yes, Don B. that does sound odd. Clinton replaced the 93 attornies in 1993. Which was before the Whitewater investigation and Ken Starr. So how could he have replaced the judge in charge of a case that was non-existent??
The hyprocrisy of the Republican party is starting to show more and more. Lie to a grand jury? Impeach Clinton, pardon Libby. Have an extramarital affair? Impeach Clinton, but not Newt Gingrich - after all, he did not lie to a grand jury about it - just the American people.
Posted by: BobinATL | March 19, 2007 8:36 AM
So how could he have replaced the judge in charge of a case that
was non-existent??
Posted by: BobinATL | Mar 19, 2007 8:36:16 AM
You need to go back and check your facts Bobin, U.S. Attorney Geo. Banks was investigating in '92, about to bring numerous charges against Slick Willy and the viper herself. He was fired in Mar. '93 and replaced by Bubbas' law student Paula Casey in Aug. '93. She was able to deflect and run interference for Bill for a while.You did get some of it right though Bobin, with Ken Starr and Monica, and lying. You know i don't recall Newt lying to a federal grand jury, so it would kind of be hard to impeach. But Bubba did do a lot of great things though...like sell China some nuclear secrets, freed that great American Mark Rich, some strong responses to terrorists attachs. Do you really think most Americans care if Newt Gingrich lied to them?
Posted by: Don B | March 19, 2007 5:36 PM