BUSH INSULTS & CHALLENGES CONGRESS, CALLING THEIR SUBPOENAS A "FISHING EXPEDITION." CONGRESS MUST IMPEACH THE BASTARD

I can barely contain myself. Bush called Congress' investigation into the politicization of the Justice Department "a fishing expedition" and has refused to allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to be put under oath. He'll agree to an informal interview only-- where they can continue to lie their asses off as they have done for the past 6 years. The Regime says the matter is not negotiable.

Bush's go-to man to protect their asses now, White House lawyer Fred Fielding, says "Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas." Bush warned Congress that if they don't accept his offer it would precipitate a constitutional crisis. He referred to Rove as "an honorable public servant."

Bush operatives are hinting that if the Democrats back him into a corner the Regime could appoint Lieberman A.G.-- which would allow Republican Governor Jodi Rell to appoint another Republican to the Senate, as well as putting in place a nominee the Democrats obviously don't have the guts to contest. It would be the worst of all worlds.


UPDATE: RESPONSES-- NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BUSH BE IMPEACHED YET... WELL, NOT COUNTING DWT, OF COURSE

Ralph Neas of People For the American Way, came close. He just sent this statement out:

“President Bush is so unaccustomed to congressional oversight that he confuses accountability with partisanship. If the President were really interested in the public knowing the whole truth, he wouldn’t be trying to prevent White House aides from testifying publicly and under oath.  President Bush is one of the few people left in Washington who has confidence in Attorney General Gonzales. It’s time for him to go. And that’s just the first step in cleaning up this administration.”

John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee had a response too:

"This offer is disappointing. I had hoped the White House would agree to a transparent process that would allow us to get to the truth about this matter. Instead, we were offered interviews -- not under oath or subject to transcription.

"While we appreciate the White House's gesture, we will work with the Senate Judiciary Committee to create a counteroffer. We will move forward to authorize subpoenas for current and former White House and Justice officials, as well as documents. In short, the House Judiciary Committee will take whatever steps are necessary and within our Congressional authority to get to the bottom of what has become a horrible mess that is undermining American trust in our federal criminal justice system."

Agreeing with Harry Reid on this, Atrios fears that the Bush Regime might lie. Reid:

After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush Administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.

Glenn Greenwald has put together a compendium of other presidents' attempts to get around investigations by invoking "executive privilege."

It is crystal clear (just as it was when Bill Clinton sought to invoke "executive privilege" to resist Grand Jury subpoenas to his aides -- Sidney Blumenthal, Bruce Lindsay and Hillary -- in the Lewinsky investigation) that the narrowly-construed doctrine of executive privilege does not entitle the President to shield the communications here from compelled disclosure. When the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974) rejected Nixon's invocation of that privilege to resist a Grand Jury Subpoena for the Watergate tapes, this is how the Court defined its scope (emphasis added):
The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.