CNN's Henry asserted that "the subpoena issue" is "about the Democrats"
SUMMARY: While reporting on the split between President Bush
and his own party on the issues of immigration reform and the Iraq war,
CNN's Ed Henry contrasted those disputes with "the subpoena
issue," saying that the subpoenas issued by the Senate Judiciary
Committee to the White House for information on the warrantless wiretapping
program is "not really about ... [Bush's] own party,"
it's "about the Democrats." In fact, several committee
Republicans voted in favor of the subpoenas.
On the June 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry suggested that Republican lawmakers "are no longer afraid" to confront President Bush on the issues of immigration reform and the Iraq war and contrasted those disputes with the "the subpoena issue." Henry was referring to the subpoenas the Senate Judiciary Committee issued to the White House for information on the administration's warrantless domestic wiretapping program, which he described as "not really about ... [Bush's] own party," but "about the Democrats." In fact, as the Associated Press reported on June 28: "[T]he Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans -- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa -- sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give [committee chairman Sen. Patrick] Leahy [D-VT] the power to issue the subpoenas." Host Wolf Blitzer responded to Henry's claim that the subpoenas are "about the Democrats" by saying that the committee "voted 12-3 in favor of issuing these subpoenas."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the June 27 edition of The Situation Room, Blitzer repeatedly suggested that only Senate Democrats voted to authorize the subpoenas, even after CNN correspondents Dana Bash and Elaine Quijano, as well as Democratic strategist Paul Begala, all noted that several Republicans had also voted to authorize the subpoenas.
Furthermore, during the June 28 segment, neither Henry nor Blitzer reported the reason cited for issuing the subpoenas. Henry simply referred to the "subpoena issue" and Blitzer only reported that the subpoenas sought "documents and testimony from White House officials." In a June 27 press release, Leahy explained that the committee issued the subpoenas for "documents relating to the authorization and legal justification for the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program." In letters accompanying the subpoenas, Leahy wrote: "Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program. All requests have been rebuffed."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the June 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: And joining us now from the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, where the president delivered a speech earlier today, our White House correspondent, Ed Henry.
A lot of people suggesting, Ed, that the president had invested so much of his personal influence and prestige and power in trying to get this immigration bill through, a complete collapse today. What does it say about his ability to influence events on Capitol Hill and elsewhere over the next year-and-a-half?
HENRY: What it means is if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, he's inching closer, closer to be a lame duck. And the fact -- and the clearest sign of that is when people in your own party are no longer afraid to take you on, on issue after issue.
On the immigration reform bill, the president made that personal appeal, a dramatic effort on Capitol Hill, face-to-face with Senate Republicans, and yet, in the end, only 12 Senate Republicans voted with him. So the vast majority went against him.
If you look on Iraq, the issue he was talking about today, you now have stalwart Republicans from red states, like Dick Lugar, standing up against the president, saying, "We can't wait till September. You need to change the policy now, because the increase in troops is not working."
And then you look at the subpoena issue. That's not really about its own -- his own party. It's about the Democrats. And you look at the subpoenas that are arriving at the White House day after day on issue after issue. This president is moving closer and closer to lame duck, Wolf.
BLITZER: Well, on that subpoena issue, the Senate Judiciary Committee, what, they voted 12 to 3 in favor of issuing these subpoenas to get some documents and testimony from White House officials. It looks like there's going to be a constitutional showdown over this issue.
HENRY: Absolutely. It's very likely headed to the courts. That could be part of the White House strategy -- drag this out, because by the time there's a resolution, it's very possible that President Bush will be out of office, Wolf.
BLITZER: Ed Henry, reporting for us from Newport, Rhode Island. Ed, thanks very much.















I'd think they would be proud that some Republicans voted with the Democrats. Oversight is a good thing. They should shout it from the rooftops and proclaim that there are some Republicans willing to do oversight as well. Why give Democrats all the credit.
BREAKING NEWS
Bush commutes sentence for Libby THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 2, 2007, 5:52 PM EDT
President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.
Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.
Can we please impeach Bush now?
Bush: I would like to get to the bottom of this like the rest of America. If there is any hint of appearance that someone in my administration is involved in this leak they will be fired.
Psst Mr Resident Libby is involved.
Bush: I've just changed the bar from appearance to if anyone is found guilty.
Psst Mr Resident Libby was found guilty.
Bush: I've changed the bar again. Libby will only have to pay the 250,000 fine from money donated by Conservatives.
Psst Mr Resident you are a like your father can we call you Junior now?
That's depressing, although not unexpected.
I might as well depress you more
Although a president has unlimited pardon powers, it is highly unusual to pardon someone before trial and conviction. The best-known precedent -- following the Watergate political scandal during the Nixon administration -- was former President Ford's pardon in 1974 of former President Nixon, who was never indicted.
Bush Pardons Weinberger, Five Others Tied to Iran-Contra." President Bush granted pardons to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair.
Bush Junior commutes Libby sentence.
What does all the above have in common. They all involve the highest ranking member in our country the president. They are all Republicans. They are all crimes against the country.
Nixon using his office to cover up crimes against the democratic proscess in our country.
Bush Sr using his office to sell weapons to our enemies.
Bush Jr inovled in the leak of a CIA agent using his office to help his partner in crime escape facing the penalty of law.
I now have the proof I've been looking for. You know why republicans never think they do anything wrong when the so arrogantly break the law?
By commuting his sentence, Bush has obstructed justice. By not pardoning him, Libby's appeal can continue. Therefore, he cannot be compeled to testify before congress.
The appeal is expected to last at least a year, bringing us almost to the end of this administration.
Democrats never pardon their buddies. LOL.
You left out the part about the full pardon come Christmas 2008.
Cheney has probably already written out the $250,000 check for Libby's fine, and you can be sure Libby's got a nice cushy lobbyist job waiting for him. One thing we now know for certain is that Libby won't write a tell-all book.
Two America's indeed!
Sorry MMfA for being the one that took this thread off topic.
he will probably write a book and the Dems will be falted and he will back it up with scripture and "hantywaste speak" and coulterskank will come out with her new book backing up libbys book and hantywaste will have a book out which will reenforce hanRATtys new book about coulters book and.........................going thru the permutations got my head spinning
Just don't try calling today. The White House phonelines are not taking any calls today.
Correct. They are getting their lies together. There better be hell to pay for all of this "evil doing" by the baby bushskank autocracy in 09
In the imediate, msnbc.msn.com/id/19570520 is running a pol. At 1620 hrs. Pacific standard time its running 82% against this current pole axing of justice. If I got the address wrong I got it off Firedoglake, any errors are mine.
Do these reporters and producers have actual lives? They talk to each other like we are'nt listening. Like a parent will talk about a child in the room as though the child is not there. Please, don't tell us what we think, how could you possibly know as they spend their entire work week talking to each other and combing their hair? Go to your kids soccer game or your nephews and nieces, get the phucc over your self. Standing around in front of a camera crew for 12 hours does not give you any insight into the psyche of the rest of us.
He's right. It's about the Democrats - trying to hold the lying, cheating, scandal laced republicans accountable.
This is ongoing obstruction of justice. It is not hard to figure out that Bush and Cheney are afraid that Libby's loyalty will not extend to actual incarceration. He could decide to sing like a little birdie on the way to jail - that can't be risked.
Remember that Libby was convicted not just of perjury but obstruction of justice. It is vital for him to continue that obstruction. Enabling that is in itself obstruction - an impeachable offense.
Despicable...repugnant...indefensible...dishonorable…
just before the Fourth,
such a disdainful man disparaging America thus…
for shame…he is beneath contempt,
and lowly despicable.