John Dean: Why Bush Refuses to Allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to Testify Before Congress

[rumpel]

New Developments in the U.S. Attorney Controversy:
Why Bush Refuses to Allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to Testify Before Congress, and What Role New White House Counsel Fred Fielding May Play
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Mar. 23, 2007

At the outset of this column -- which discusses Bush's new White House Counsel, Fred Fielding -- I must acknowledge that I am the person who first hired, and brought Fielding into the government. He served as my deputy in the Nixon White House, and was untouched by Watergate, because I shielded all my staff from that unpleasant business. Fred is an able lawyer, and now finds himself in the hot seat, with President Bush seemingly looking for a fight with Congress. (But that's what makes the job interesting.)

One further disclosure: I have never been an advocate of executive privilege, except as it might relate to the most sensitive national security information. To the contrary, you show me a White House aide who does not want his conversations and advice to the president revealed, and I will show you someone who should not be talking with or advising a president.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070323.html

[Miss Chybil]

1. This quote will go down in history...

"...show me a White House aide who does not want his conversations and advice to the president revealed, and I will show you someone who should not be talking with or advising a president."

Amen!

[BOSSHOG]

3. Irony of ironies

According to snow, bush didn't have conversations with anybody about the attorneys firings, so what conversations should be protected by executive privilege relative to the firings? And last week dan bartlett said bush didn't know anything about the plans for the firings, BUT HE APPROVED THEM.

So rove doesn't want his conversations with bush about the firings to be made public which according to tony snow such conversations never happened.

And they wonder why people exercising intellectual curiousity instead of blind loyalty hate them with a passion.

[luckyleftyme2]

2. I LIKE HIS LAST PARAGRAPH

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIS ENDING;SHOW ME AN AIDE WHO DOESN'T WANT HIS INPUT EXPOSED
AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOMEONE WHO SHOULDN'T BE GIVING HIM ADVICE!
I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIS PRESIDENT IS IN TROUBLE!

[Demeter]

4. The Article Concludes:

It Seems Likely Bush, with Fielding, Will Go to the Wall on Executive Privilege

This time, it is my belief that Bush -- unlike Reagan before him -- will not blink. He will not let Fielding strike a deal, as Fielding did for Reagan. Rather, Bush feels that he has his manhood on the line. He knows what his conservative constituency wants: a strong president who protects his prerogatives. He believes in the unitary executive theory of protecting those prerogatives, and of strengthening the presidency by defying Congress.

In short, all those who have wanted to see Karl Rove in jail may get their wish, for he will not cave in, either -- and may well be prosecuted for contempt, as Gorsuch was not. Bush's greatest problem here, however, is Harriett Miers. It is dubious he can exert any privilege over a former White House Counsel; I doubt she is ready to go to prison for him; and all who know her say if she is under oath, she will not lie. That could be a problem.

I'LL DRINK TO THAT!

[murielm99]

5. However, look at some of the preceding paragraphs

that describe the Gorsuch situation, and compare this to the current situation.

Gorsuch, EPA administrator, was voted in contempt of Congress for not turning over documents. The Justice Department immediately filed civil suit against the House. If Gonzo stays there, I can see him doing the same thing. Then, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia refused to bring the matter before the grand jury while the suit against the House was pending. Wouldn't Gonzo instruct his US Attorney to do the same?

Would the federal district court dismiss the lawsuit, as they did in the Gorsuch matter? Hasn't * packed the courts? And what would happen if this went to the Supreme Court?

I think it is possible that the republican-leaning courts could rule in bush's favor. We may never see KKKarl in jail. Time will tell. * will not cave, but we could lose. Of course, then, we will know for sure that we no longer have a democracy.

I think Dean is being entirely too optimistic.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. Fear not. Time will tell, Muriel.

[Miss Chybil]

7. What gets me is how the Republicans tend to think they will somehow always be in control.

Their short-sightedness is astounding, unless they know something we don't know. How much power would they like a Democratic president to have? It seems to me, this president may be cooking his own party's goose for a very long time. I'm sure they believed they could stack the entire government in their favor, but their house of cards is falling and they have left than two years left. What are they thinking? (I'm very worried about the answer to that question.)