• 
• 
• 
• 
by James Oliphant
It's a drama that still likely will never see its final act, but the confrontation between the Senate and the White House over last spring's U.S. attorney controversy is inching ever so forward.
Today, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared that several current and former White House must comply with committee subpoenas to testify and that their reasons for failing to do so were insufficient.
“I have given the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity careful consideration,” Leahy wrote in a formal ruling on the subpoenas. “I hereby rule that those claims are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation."
The committee subpoenaed ex-administration officials Karl Rove, Joshua Bolton, and former White House political director Sara Taylor, among others. Rove and Bolton refused to appear before the committee and also, Leahy said, declined to produce requested documents, claiming that they were shielded by the still-somewhat amorphous doctrine of executive privilege. Taylor testified, but refused to answer several questions, citing the privilege, which is intended to protect advice given by senior White House aides to the president from disclosure.
The committee's probe arose out of the sacking of at least eight U.S. attorneys by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose office stated they were let go for performance-related reasons.
In a formal ruling on the privilege claim today, Leahy wrote that evidence obtained so far in the committee's investigation shows that "senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of selected prosecutors and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is now apparent that the reasons given for those firings were contrived as part of a cover up."
The next step would be for Leahy's committee and then the full Senate to vote on contempt citations for Rove and the rest. But even if that happens, the matter would then be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
That man is Jeffrey Taylor, whose previous job just happens to have been as an adviser to Gonzales.
Comments
Ooooh. Scary. Big, bad Leahy is going to threaten Shrubby and the gang with contempt. Scary. I'll bet they're just quaking in the boots.
Pitiful.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | November 29, 2007 12:36 PM
All those attorneys getting sacked because they "agreed" with Bush/Gonzales? Not bloody likely is it?
Posted by: Shhaz4 | November 29, 2007 12:42 PM
Go jump in a lake, Leahy. Me an ma people are above the law. Now Git!
Posted by: George Bush | November 29, 2007 1:01 PM
Senator Depends Leaky Leahy is an idiot in the Vermont tradition of Jumpin Jim Jeffords,Screamin Howard Dean and Socialist Bernie Sanders why would anyone go to Vermont with idiots like this living there.
Leahy is crazy and always has been he is always insulted, whiny, and upset. Get over it Turkey. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | November 29, 2007 1:12 PM
It's about time.
Posted by: Tom O | November 29, 2007 1:56 PM
to Jerry Lillywhite:
What makes Leahy an idiot in your opinion? That he wants to enforce some oversight on a corrupt administration? Do you support this immoral president, the trashing of our Constitution (which by the way grants said oversight duties to the Senate). Your Dear Leader has broken so many laws that it'll take years to filter through and uncover the depths to which Bush/Cheney have sank and many more years to recover both financially and morally on the world stage from the traitorous crininal occupying the White House's unjustified war. If Senator Leahy is an idiot as you suggest, what does that make Bush? A drooling, brain-dead criminal who f*cks up everything he touches and simply walks away blaiming evrybody else for his mistakes.
Posted by: A Patriot Acting | November 29, 2007 2:00 PM
I'm not going to hold my breath... but it's a relief that there is at least some evidence of accountability going on over something more important than a B-J. Someone, please get the executive office under control before we end up like Pakistan.
Posted by: DD | November 29, 2007 2:41 PM
Leahy in particular, and Congress in general has very little power over the president. Just as the president has little power over congress. That's how the separation of powers is supposed to work (see the US Constitution for more details).
Posted by: Bo Davis | November 29, 2007 2:58 PM
Can't blame the guy for trying. After all Bush and his extended crime family deserve to be shown for what they are. Traitors.
Posted by: Little G-DUB | November 29, 2007 3:34 PM
Its just another blow hard attempt to try and change the image of this batch of Democrats, the useless sacks of (insert unpleasant term) that they are. We voted them in to CHANGE things, not talk about it. Stop talking and do something for once or we will end up losing any political momentum we have won. If they don't follow the suponea (like they usually dont), arrest them. Grow a pair.
Posted by: greg | November 29, 2007 3:57 PM
Why isn't Leahy pushing this issue to the Supreme Court? Because he knows he would lose. So why is he pushing it at all? Because with all due respect, (and very little is due) Leahy is the worst kind of partisan hack. His bluster is nothing more than a shameful display and his investigation a waste of taxpayers' money. Maybe Vermonters will wake up, smell the maple syrup and send this hack to retirement on a Ben & Jerry family farm
Posted by: pmg | November 29, 2007 5:55 PM
Firing US Attorneys happens to be legal. They don't even have to have a reason.
This is a typical, standard Democrat tactic to make appearances where there is no substance.
Rebellious adolescents.
Posted by: Thomas Paine | November 29, 2007 6:17 PM
"HERE COMES THE JUDGE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE"
FLIP WILSON SPEAKS! I SAID HERE COMES THE JUDGE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE!
Posted by: Roger Morris | November 29, 2007 6:24 PM
Just curious Patriot Acting do you work for Dickie Durbin? Jerry White, Springfield P.S.Not that I would believe your answer as Reagan says Trust but, verify. As usual you posted anonymous so, I can't verify cheap Democrat shot. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | November 29, 2007 7:47 PM
Isn't citing the Bush Administration for contempt sort of like citing poop for stinking?
Posted by: Albatross | November 30, 2007 1:57 PM
For all those whiners: Is government accountability not important to you? If so, please feel free to move to a country without democracy. If you truly support the US and what we stand for, why not hold our leaders accountable, no matter what party they belong to?
Posted by: Roger W | November 30, 2007 1:59 PM
Leahy is no idiot. You try getting to his position in Congress, then cast stones. Congress works so slowly it's downright glacial. That's the way good politics works: slowly, carefully, democratically. You want fast? Give up on freedom and cash in your liberty for a sackful of tyrrany.
Posted by: Wad Spicer | November 30, 2007 5:55 PM
Roger W. STOP STOP... You're making too much sense!
Posted by: Da' Buffalo In The Midst | November 30, 2007 6:04 PM
At least Leahy is trying to do something. Sounds like the US attorney for the District of Columbia is a keystone position. Is there any limit to how blatantly partisan his prosecution of comtempt charges can be? Also, is there a possibility that any contempt charges against Rove and others could be prosecuted after the presidential elections next year when, assuming the Democrats win the Presidency, a new, more favorable attorney would be appointed to the position of US attorney for DC?
Posted by: Constitution Supporter | November 30, 2007 6:45 PM
He's waited too long to be credible as a tough guy. If it took him this long to figure out that noncompliance was illegal, he'll probably think he has to start all over again, first issuing polite requests, then being ignored for six months before he for-real-this-time-I'm-not-fooling-stop-laughing talks about considering maybe issuing subpoenas. And then he'll excuse his further inaction by saying that it's too close to the elections. For now, a few diehard Dems will cheer this brave stance, and pretend to be surprised when it comes to nothing.
Posted by: John | November 30, 2007 8:10 PM
After reading threading through these comments, I can see that Chicago is still a pretty right-wing fortress for the 'forces of darkness'. However, there is much I admired about the city, and the citizens have earned the right be believe any way they wish.
Posted by: SMM | November 30, 2007 11:41 PM
I have read posts that condemn Leahy, who to my knowledge, hasn't committed a crime. Does the fact you're attacking the man mean that no laws were broken? Or is it just that he's on the wrong side of the aisle? Firing folks is legal, caging isn't. Why not stay on topic and defend lying and caging rather than trying to distract the flow of the argument by going after Leahy? I know why and so do you. It's the one in the conservative playbook labeled 'We got Nuthin'. It's right next to 'Hillary's a Bitch' and 'Family Values.'
Posted by: GMan | December 1, 2007 7:11 PM
I think the White House should be held in contempt for quite a few things regarding the U.S. Constitution. They've violated so many amendments, that it's getting way out of hand. Pretty soon, we won't have any liberties left. I say an impeachment would be in order. This along with the 9/11 cover ups are good examples of why the American public deserves the truth. I hope they're found guilty on all counts.
Posted by: steven appel | December 2, 2007 9:37 AM