Friday, July 6, 2007 | 6:56 a.m.
Since February, Congress has been attempting to learn why the Bush administration last year fired nine U.S. attorneys, including Nevada's. Was it trying to influence federal elections? Was it engaging in ruthless partisan politics? Or did it have a legitimate reason?
Congress' attempts to get answers included calling Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before it to testify. But in answer to dozens of questions, he claimed a faulty memory.
So, to get more solid information, on June 13 the chairmen of the Senate and House judiciary committees issued subpoenas to the White House, seeking e-mails and other documents that could shed light on why the attorneys were suddenly dismissed.
On June 28 White House counsel Fred Fielding called the judiciary chairmen, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Fielding relayed President Bush's answer to the subpoenas, which can be summarized in one word: nope.
In his refusal, Bush invoked executive privilege, a power recognized - with limits - by the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 29 the judiciary chairmen wrote to Fielding, giving him until July 9 to explain why executive privilege applies in this case.
On Sunday, during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Leahy said he would support a vote to hold Bush in contempt of Congress if he doesn't abide by the subpoenas.
Included are subpoenas issued by the Senate on June 27 to the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney's office and the Justice Department, seeking documents related to the warrantless domestic eavesdropping begun after 9/11 by the National Security Agency.
A contempt vote would send this conflict to the Supreme Court and create a constitutional controversy that could linger for months.
Because one of Congress' chief roles is to provide oversight of the executive branch, especially in the case of highly questionable and possibly illegal activities, we support the judiciary committees in their aggressive quests for verifiable information.
archive
