'The Real Problem'
How to get the full story on the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys
Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A20
PRESIDENT BUSH says he's "not happy" about the way the firing of eight U.S. attorneys was "mishandled." He says the dismissals were "entirely appropriate," but "the fact that both Republicans and Democrats feel like that there was not straightforward communication troubles me." If so, he should ensure that lawmakers get the full story. That means allowing White House staff members to be interviewed if the Senate deems necessary.
The Senate Judiciary Committee moved yesterday to authorize the issuance of subpoenas for five current and former Justice officials involved in the firings. But after an objection by the ranking Republican, Arlen Specter (Pa.), it delayed a decision on whether to take the same step with White House officials who, as e-mail messages released this week demonstrate, were immersed in the action.
OP-ED COLUMNISTS
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
- And, yes, I DO take it personally
- The Editorialist
- Editorials from Hell's leading daily newspaper, The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
Most Blogged About Articles
Save & Share Article
What's This?
As a general matter, the president has a right to confidential communications with his top advisers; routinely bringing White House officials in to testify before Congress or demanding their e-mail would chill their ability to provide frank advice. But this is no routine matter, and the misleading conduct of Mr. Bush's Justice Department has opened the door to departing from general principles. It wouldn't be the first time: President Bill Clinton's top aides were routinely hauled before Congress to testify on everything from Whitewater to presidential pardons.
White House counsel Fred F. Fielding has been discussing the request for access to White House officials with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is supposed to report back to them today. The two sides might consider a two-step process. The panel, having been misled by Senate-confirmed officials, is entitled to hear from political appointees at the Justice Department about the decision to remove the prosecutors. That should take place first. Then, if senators still have reason to ask current and former White House officials about their roles in the firings, the president should make his aides available under reasonable circumstances and with reasonable conditions attached.
E-mails already released suggest ample basis for such questioning. For instance, a May 11, 2006, e-mail from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, to Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley asks him to call to discuss "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." Ms. Lam was the U.S. attorney in San Diego who prosecuted former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.). That morning, the Los Angeles Times had reported that the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, in an outgrowth of the Cunningham probe, was investigating House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.). Ms. Lam's name had been on the Justice hit list for months, but -- as Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked in a letter to the president -- what was the "real problem" to which Sampson was referring?
White House involvement in deciding whether to remove the prosecutors is not necessarily nefarious. These are presidential appointees; it would be surprising if the White House were not involved. But what spurred their firings is a legitimate and important question for congressional inquiry.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment