Response to my Daughter

My daughter commented on my post yesterday and mentioned the canard being used by the “Bushies” vis the US Attorney scandal. Notably that the US Attorneys “serve at the President’s will” so he can hire and fire whenever and whomever he wants. That’s right they do so serve. BUT. When asked what the reason for the firings is no one is supposed to lie to Congress. Lying to Congress is a distinct no no. It’s against the law. Not only that but you aren’t supposed to avoid questions, hide papers, delete e-mails or any other thing that could be construed as obstruction of justice. That’s against the law too. These are very naughty things to do since the Constitutional duty of the Congress is to keep an eye on the Executive [i.e. the President and his appointees] to make sure they are acting in the nation’s interests. If Congress cannot exert oversight the whole concept of checks and balances goes out the window and the country starts to slip into an authortarian mode. America is not a Parliamentary system where the ministers are actually part of the legislating body and thus can be thrown out at any time [there is no question that Bush would have been tossed out by now were he Prime Minister in Britain for instance]. The British Parliamentary system evolved after the American Constitution was written and so the Founding Fathers landed on a different, and somewhat heavy handed alternative, way to stop the nation’s leaders becoming dictators: they made sure that America had several “seats of power” each able to check the other. At its heart that’s what this scandal is all about: Congress is exerting its oversight power and by so doing is turning up a variety of ethically challenged if not downright illegal activities over in the Executive branch.

This is basic civics 101 folks. It’s why good old America is supposed to be the “Land of the Free”!

Now. Bush can fire any of the US Attorneys he wants to. He just can’t do it for purely “political” reasons. He cannot, for instance, fire an Attorney who has not done enough to interfere in an election [Inglesias]; nor can he fire an Attorney who is getting too close to indicting some powerful Republican party figures [Lam]; and it looks distinctly odd that he decided to replace the Arkansas district’s US Attorney with a Karl Rove operative who has little or no legal experience [remember these attoneys are the centerpiece of our legal system] but is a good and experienced muck raker. [Guess which state Hilary Clinton hails from]. When all these firings began to be made public a lot of folks raised their eyebrows: it’s highly unusual for a president to fire any of his US Attorneys mid-term, let alone fire eight of them at once. So folks began to ask questions about why he did it. That’s called oversight.

And that’s when it appears the lying started.

This could get ugly. Too many people have crossed the line: Rove, Gonzales, Domenici, Wilson, Goodling, McNulty, Sampson etc are all trying to avoid testifying openly and honsetly. That only raises the question as to why? If there’s nothing to hide why not go and cooperate with Congress as it goes about its Constitutional duty?

So it’s a distraction to talk simply about the Attorneys “serving at the President’s will”. Obstruction of justice cannot be tolerated in an open and free society. All Leahy and the rest of Congress are trying to do is get at the facts: why were these attorneys fired? That’s all. No big deal.

Or is it?

Anyone who says this is not a big deal does not care about the constitution. It’s as simple as that.

Yes it is a big deal.