Politics, U.S. Attorney Purge
What Is Bush Hiding?
The Bush White House is refusing to send Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify before Congress. The reason for this, they say, is that there is executive privilege and the fact that there is no precedent for it. This latter bit is, typically, a baldfaced lie:
According to the Congressional Research Service, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors.
Among the Clinton senior White House staffers who testified were Harold Ickes, assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff; George Stephanopolous, senior advisor to the president for policy and strategy; John Podesta, assistant to the president and staff secretary; Bruce Lindsey, assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president; Sandy Berger, assistant to the president for national security affairs; and Beth Nolan, counsel to the president.
The Clinton administration could have fought these appearances all the way to the Supreme Court. The reason they did not was simple: They didn’t want there to be an appearance that they had something to hide.
The difference now is stark. The Busheviks a) do have something to hide and b) don’t give a damn what anybody thinks. They will take this all the way to the Supremes if for no other reason that to run out the clock.
Topics: Politics, U.S. Attorney Purge
This article does not make it clear whether Clinton’s aides testified under oath. Anyone know the answer?
“Testify” means to “speak under oath.” Besides, lying to Congress in unsworn statements is a serious crime.
fabulous show of restraint, Madison. you now you wanted to say “…stupid.”
:D
Also political advisors from the Bush 41 and Reagan adminitrations testified under oath. And it’s nothing new; it also happened under FDR’s administration and I’m sure many others. Nixon tried to claim Congress didn’t have the right to hear his people testify under oath and the Supreme Court ruled against him 8-0. But that was when the SC ruled on the law instead of just voting Republican.