FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Former top Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers have finally agreed to testify under oath before Congress about the firings of those U.S. attorneys.
In 2006, according to an e-mail from a former Justice Dept. official, U.S. attorneys were singled out and fired for not being “loyal Bushies.”
The Bush White House had fought attempts to force them to testify - citing executive privilege - but an agreement has now been reached between lawyers for Presidents Bush and Obama. Rove and Miers will appear before the House Judiciary Committee in closed depositions. The committee says it might also call on them for public testimony. Rove was President Bush's top political adviser for most of his presidency; and Miers was the top White House legal adviser for about two years.
The controversy goes back to those 2006 firings of federal prosecutors in nine cities and includes allegations of political interference. According to an e-mail from a former Justice Department official, some of these U.S. attorneys were singled out because they were not "loyal Bushies."
Committee chairman John Conyers says this is "a vindication of the search for truth." And for his part, Karl Rove tells Fox News that he's looking forward to telling the committee about his alleged role in the firing of federal prosecutors - although he says it could turn into a "show trial." Rove says Conyers probably has more interest in him than other former White House aides, stating "I understand they may be the hors d'oeuvres, but I'm the main course. Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued."
As documents continue to surface from the Bush era there's a hunger in some corners to set the record straight about the legality of a lot of stuff that happened over the past eight years.
Here’s my question to you: What would you ask Karl Rove and Harriet Miers about the firing of those U.S. attorneys?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Karl from San Francisco writes:
My question to both of them is simple: Who gave you your marching orders? There aren't many in the administration with authority over you, so who specifically authorized you to instigate this process?
It's not like those two will really answer anything. Congressional hearings are absolute jokes for people with political clout. Nothing will happen to them, and they won't say a thing.
Jim from Chicago writes:
While I think it is important that we find out what Rove and Miers wanted the fired attorneys to do that they refused, it is even more crucial to me that we get to the bottom of what the "terrible two" asked the remaining attorneys that they didn't refuse to do.
Lisa from Yucca Valley, California writes:
What makes you think that you are above the law, and can twist it to fit your goals, even when your actions are clearly illegal? And which federal prison do you want to spend the rest of your life in?
Ann from Hampton, New Jersey writes:
What sense of fulfillment did you get out of firing those attorneys who, for probably good reasons of their own, were not loyal to Pres. Bush and probably ruined their careers?
I would just like to know why they are even trying to cover anything up! Why not just be open about the whole deal? They know that they are not going to be prosecuted for anything! It isn't as if they aren't laughing about the toothless justice system anyway.
Denny from Tacoma, Washington writes:
I would ask them: Specifically, on a case by case basis, on what grounds were each of those U.S. attorneys fired?
Ryan from Columbus, Ohio writes:
How do you sleep at night?