PrairiePundit

Washington Times Editorial: Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president's. Mr. Obama's move has the stench of scandal. On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he "no longer" had "the fullest confidence" in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it. The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to "communicate in writing ... the reasons for any such removal." Losing one's "fullest confidence" hardly qualifies as a justifiable reaso...

Steve Chapman: "Politics in Louisiana is as clean as an angel's ghost." -- Louisiana Sen. Huey Long, in 1934. "I don't believe there's any cloud that hangs over me, I think there's nothing but sunshine hanging over me." -- Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the day before he and his chief of staff were arrested on federal charges of bribery and wire fraud. Politics in Illinois, as in Louisiana, has always been more evocative of devils than angels. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama's critics said he was a typical product of a seamy political culture. The arrest of Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, validates the claims about Illinois. It also gives Obama a chance to prove he has managed to tiptoe through the sewer without getting dirty. Except for something that took place in 2001, this expose might not have happened. The event was President Bush's appointment, on the recommendation of Illinois Republican Sen. Peter ...

After abusing President Bush and his staff about appointments in the Justice Department, the Democrats have put themselves in a box on how to cull out Republicans and replace them with Democrats. The Washington Post today gives their side of the story without noting the irony. ... Ron Klain, who was chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore , said that the preelection brainstorming sessions of Democrats who want to fix the Justice Department sound like "an escalating composition of woes," not unlike the health-related talk at his mother's mah-jongg games. "Oh, my knee; no, my back; no . . . " he moaned over audience laughter at a recent luncheon held by the American Constitution Society. Topping the list of concerns is the Office of Legal Counsel , a once-obscure operation whose advice guides some of the government's most sensitive and controversial policies, from domestic wiretapping to the appropriateness of handing out public funding to religious grou...

Ronald Cass: In the next few days, President George W. Bush will choose a new Attorney General to succeed Alberto Gonzales. Even before he does, Democrats and their allies are announcing that the President cannot name anyone they believe would be staunchly committed to Republican policies, to protecting the constitutional preserve of presidential authority, and especially anyone who has been associated with or served President Bush. Senator Harry Reid flatly declared that former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a widely respected lawyer and enormously successful Supreme Court advocate, would not be confirmed. The New York Times applauded Reid and editorialized that the President must appoint someone who is "above politics," not a partisan who has been connected to this or prior Republican administrations. And Senator Pat Leahy weighed in as well with his demand for an Attorney General fully independent of the President. After all, he said, the Attorney General isn't like ot...

The very idea of looking at his testimony is enough to make your hair hurt. I think he is a pretty smart guy but articulate he is not. It should be difficult to make a case that anyone that incoherent could be deliberately be making a false statement. If Congress had collective intelligence it should be happy enough to not have to hear anymore. It should also be clear that Congress was never mislead by Gonzales' testimony, because its members were alway incredulous while listening to the AG. I wish Alberto well. Hopefully he can develop a private practice with a prestigious Houston firm. It should be one that does not require testimony.

Byron York: On Wednesday, the Federal Election Commission slapped America Coming Together with a $775,000 fine — the third-largest such penalty in history — for violating campaign-finance laws in the 2004 election. Now largely defunct, America Coming Together was the biggest of the so-called “527” groups that took in millions from donors like George Soros for the purpose of defeating George W. Bush. In a case that has taken years to decide, the FEC ruled that America Coming Together did an end-run around the campaign-finance laws in 2004 by claiming it was using its money for non-partisan purposes like voter registration when it was in fact spending millions specifically targeting Bush. I included a chapter on America Coming Together in my 2005 book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy . During my research, in the months before the 2004 election, everyone seemed to know that America Coming Together was openly flouting the rules, but everyone also knew that the group would get away with it ...

Opinion Journal: Democrats finally got their man yesterday, as Alberto Gonzales announced his resignation so he'd no longer be a political "distraction" as Attorney General. President Bush accepted with regret and rued that his longtime friend had been "dragged through the mud for political reasons." The decision was probably inevitable, but it should also teach the White House a lesson in the kind of qualities Mr. Bush will need in a successor. Mr. Gonzales made more than a few political mistakes, and his management at Justice will not be taught in case studies. Yet the great irony of his tenure is that he is hardly the hyper-partisan political actor that Democrats portrayed him to be. He's more a conciliator than fighter. His greatest mistake is that he underestimated the political assaults that would come his way once Democrats took Congress. Thus did the entirely legitimate dismissal of nine U.S. Attorneys blossom into a "scandal" without a cr...

Washington Times: With political adviser Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales both out, Democrats lose two top targets in their investigation of the Bush administration, but a new attorney general nominee could hand them both a bigger stage and more leverage for pressing their case. Top Democrats yesterday said it remains full-speed ahead as they look into the relationship between Mr. Rove, the Justice Department and the Bush White House on political activities and the fired U.S. attorneys. They also said Mr. Bush's next nominee could be held up until his administration turns over documents that Democrats seek in myriad investigations. "I certainly hope that there will be no thought of confirming anybody for attorney general until all the appropriate documents are given to the Judiciary Committee," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, told The Washington Times. ... It appears there is a desire to use the confirmation process in bad faith also to extort do...

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned . It will come as a surprise to no one, least of all me, that I have not been contacted to take his place. It is a job that probably looks good on a resume, but can't be much fun. The Democrats have been attacking the occupant of the job whenever it was held by a Republican since the early 1970's. Gonzales was certainly no exception. This weekend rumors were floated that Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff would be nominated. Perhaps his name was already run by the senators for pre approval before Gonzales resigned. He certainly has had experience as a punching bag in his current position. Whoever gets the job will still have to deal with the Democrats bad faith attacks over the firing of US attorneys who were not aggressively pursuing Democrat voter fraud cases. Democrats are determined to undermine such cases and the attacks on Gonzales and the administration over the firing are chiefly motivated by that. I hope the ...

Washington Times: House Republicans are crying foul over the Democrats' probe into the U.S. attorneys' firings, calling it a "hoax" and a "shell game" that is aimed not at fact-finding but instead at influencing the 2008 elections. "There's a growing irritation among Republicans, because it's gone on so long. With all the digging you would expect to find something awkward or odd or unexplainable," said Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah Republican. Congressmen speaking on the record went only so far as to say that the investigation has yielded no results. Privately, Republican aides with intimate knowledge of the probe describe a process driven by partisan politics from beginning to end. "It is this big investigation of Republican manipulation of the executive branch's prosecutorial ability for partisan gain," said one senior House Republican staffer. "What it has turned into is the Democratic manipulation of the legislative branch ...

Rich Lowry: A MAJORITY is a terrible thing to waste. That's not stopping congressional Democrats. When not trying to force a pullout from Iraq, their main effort has been chasing Bush-administration scandals that loom large only in their fevered imaginations. Democrats consider this "change," but it is really a toxic repeat of the Republican investigative onslaught against Bill Clinton in the 1990s and of the Democratic one against Ronald Reagan in the 1980s - in other words, business as usual when Congress confronts a hated presidential adversary. The Democrats' latest tactic is to give an implicit choice to Bush officials: They can either come to Capitol Hill to testify so Democrats can try to build a perjury case against them, or they can refuse - in which case Democrats will cite them for criminal contempt of Congress. Either path leads inexorably to Democratic calls for a special counsel. Democrats love the prospect of another couple of Patrick Fitzgeralds, dru...

John Fund: ... ... liberals are accusing the Bush Justice Department of cooking up spurious claims of voter fraud in the 2006 elections and creating what the New York Times calls a "fantasy" that voter fraud is a problem. Last week Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, claimed that the administration fired eight U.S. attorneys last year in order to pressure prosecutors "to bring cases of voter fraud to try to influence elections." He said one replacement U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo., was a "partisan operative" sent "to file charges on the eve of an election in violation of Justice Department guidelines." But the Kansas City prosecution was approved by career Justice lawyers, and the guidelines in question have since been rewritten by career lawyers in the Public Integrity section of Justice. But last week also brought fresh evidence that voter fraud is a real problem and could even branch out into cyberspace: • California...

Kimberly Strassal: A president removes a U.S. attorney, and Congress demands to see privileged files related to the firing. The president refuses, noting that "these suspensions are my executive acts," and "based upon considerations addressed to me alone." The Senate has a meltdown, arguing it has oversight authority over the removal of administration officials and threatens to censure the attorney general. If this sounds familiar, it shouldn't, since it's the story of a long-forgotten battle that President Grover Cleveland fought with Congress in 1885. One reason it is long-forgotten is because nothing happened. The Senate was steamed that Cleveland wouldn't cough up the docs, but it also recognized there were limits on its power. It never did hold any officials in contempt, never did take any judicial action. Instead, it confirmed Cleveland's new choice for the U.S. attorney position. What a difference 122 years makes. Democrats are conducting an i...

Washington Post: Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege. The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals. Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecut...

Washington Post: The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said yesterday that he will attempt to cite the White House for criminal contempt of Congress if it does not turn over documents related to the firing of nine federal prosecutors. "If they don't cooperate, yes, I'd go that far," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said on NBC 's "Meet the Press." "This is very important to the American people." Leahy's comments raise the stakes in a growing conflict between the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Bush White House, suggesting that the constitutional clash may end up in a court case that could last beyond Bush's tenure as president. ... What Leahy is after is a political show trial of a non crime and a non scandal in order to insulate Democrats from the real crimes of voter fraud. This is one of the most audacious cover ups of Democrat crimes in history and Leahy is one of the most preposterous pretenders to a search of justice ...

Washington Times: President Bush may have strong legal grounds for refusing congressional subpoenas, but the political price for asserting his executive privilege will be high, say lawyers who have worked for both Republican and Democratic presidents. "I think the political costs are so high it doesn't matter how strong your legal case is," said Abner J. Mikva, who served as President Clinton's White House Counsel from 1994 to 1995. "It's a very powerful word in politics: cover-up. What are they covering up?" said Mr. Mikva, a former federal judge who now teaches at the University of Chicago law school. Lanny J. Davis, as Mr. Clinton's special counsel from 1996 to 1998, defended the administration from numerous Republican-issued subpoenas. "I defended executive privilege then, so how could I not defend it now?" said Mr. Davis, who said executive privilege "is an important principle of separation of powers." "But the political...

AP /Fox News: President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors. Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. In reaction, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy accused the administration of shifting "into Nixonian stonewalling" and revealing "disdain for our system of checks and balances." "With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to Leahy and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having...

Don Surber: ... Let’s see, liberals pushed for the prosecution of Linda Tripp for taping her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Liberals oppose the government monitoring communications between al-Qaida and its cells in the United States. Now these very same liberals want to snoop on the communications of the RNC. I cannot overstate the Stalinistic nature of this proposal. Henry Waxman is upset that Karl Rove did his political communications through the RNC instead of the White House email system. I think if he had done it the other way around he would have accused Rove of using public funds for political purposes. Waxman is a partisan who was famous for saying "so what" when the Clinton administration abused power. I say so what to Karl Rove sending political emails through the RNC.

Dana Milbank: Give him a sword and a tunic, and Chuck Schumer would have made a passable Oliver Cromwell as he stood on the Senate floor yesterday. The New York Democrat, playing a British parliamentarian, had come to seek a "vote of no confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- and thereby deal a blow to the imperial reign of President Bush the Second. "We have a sacred, noble obligation in this country to defend the rule of law!" said the honorable Member of Parliament from High Dudgeon. "Without rule of law, without democracy, without rule of law being applied without fear or favor, there is no freedom!" There was one big problem with Lord Protector Schumer's plan: The American system of government does not have no-confidence votes. That's what they do in Britain and other places with prime ministers and Houses of Commons and that sort of thing. "This is not the British Parliament , and I hope it never will become the British P...

David Rivkin & Lee Casey: It is obvious by now that the U.S. Attorney "scandal" is no scandal at all. After nearly five months of congressional investigations and hearings, there is no evidence that anyone, either at the White House or Justice Department, acted inappropriately let alone illegally in replacing a group of U.S. Attorneys after the 2004 elections. Significantly, the recent and much anticipated testimony of former Justice Department/White House liaison Monica Goodling, while very troubling in other respects, also failed to suggest that any improper motivations played a part in what was, at bottom, no more than a badly handled personnel action. It is certain, however, that the administration's congressional opponents will not let the matter drop. Not only does the affair offer an opportunity to bloody President Bush politically, but it is part of a larger effort to undercut the presidency itself. Top federal prosecutors are, and should be, subject to re...