White House to allow Rove, Miers to be interviewed in firings of U.S. attorneys

[sabra]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will allow the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing of several U.S. attorneys was handled, but they will not testify under oath in the matter, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.

The announcement came after current White House counsel Fred Fielding met with members of the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, who had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/white-house-to-allow-rove-miers-to-be.html

[wicket]

1. Screw that!!!

I *really* hope the Dems don't cave on this.

[Occulus]

37. I think I'll pin this to yours, if you don't mind...

Kos diary: Conyers to Subpoena Rove and Miers

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez called a meeting to authorize subpoenas for five current and former White House and Justice Department officials this morning, RAW STORY has learned.

According to a release, "The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL) will meet TOMORROW, March 21st at 10:15 am in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building to consider subpoenas for Kyle Sampson, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, and Scott Jennings, as well as White House and Justice Department documents, which have not been provided to date."

WHO: House Judiciary CAL Subcommittee

WHAT: Authorizing Subpoenas for White House, Justice Officials and Documents

WHEN: TOMORROW, March 21st, 10:15 am

WHERE: 2141 Rayburn HOB

This, apparently, comes to us via Raw Story.

[wicket]

40. Awesome!!!!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[Divernan]

52. Swear him in & watch him plead the fifth amendment.

I would love to hear that snake say repeatedly, on television, "On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me."

[AlinPA]

69. I don't see how it will work. Bush** owns the justice dept. Don't they

prosecute contempt of congress?

[Occulus]

89. Gonzi wouldn't pursue that case himself.

It's a "Can open, sir, worms everywhere" sort of situation there for any who would handle it, in fact....

ed.: clar.

[Spiffarino]

77. I don't think the Dems are going to acquiesce

Call it a hunch:

Republicans cast the offer as fair and virtually unprecedented. Democrats rejected it and vowed to start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Even without oaths, the aides would be legally required to tell the truth to Congress. But without a transcript of their comments, "it would be almost meaningless to say that they would be under some kind of legal sanction," Schumer complained.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors_70

[Occulus]

87. Yes, this would be a ka-SMACK from Conyers

I'm thinking the WH demand for them not being under oath is what decided him. Does anyone know the timeline on this? That alone would be telling, in a titillating sort of way...

[Spiffarino]

93. Leahy (?) says as early as Wednesday

Not sure if it was him or another, but word out of the Senate is that they will start issuing subpoenas as early as today.

:popcorn:

[grasswire]

2. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

What good is that??

[iconoclastic cat]

3. What are the chances of the Dems allowing this? nt

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Oh, please! Did the WH write this?

They're OFFERING them to talk (NOT testify), they won't be sworn in, and it will be behind closed doors. This CNN thing is crap!

[LiberalFighter]

5. Schumer stated they are going after subpoenas

Conversation under oath with a transcript.

Without a transcript it would be meaningless.

[napi21]

9. YEP! I heard Schumer say that! Good for him! I'd bet the twowill come to "talk"

they will beasked to be under oath, but THEN will claim executive/atty-client priveledge!

Time will tell if I'm right or not, but Miers & Rove are NOT going to burry Shrub!

[MaineDem]

54. Wonderful! n/t

[emulatorloo]

6. "they will not testify under oath" -- License to Lie

I think those days in congress are over for the Bush admin -- the repubs are not in control any more.

[Frank Cannon]

7. I'm so tired of this "not under oath" garbage

If it can't be said under oath, it ain't worth saying. Period.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Talking Point: ---- WHAT IS BUSH HIDING!!!

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Like BFEE said (or implied) about its warrantless wiretapping: if you

don't have anything to hide, you won't have a problem with warrantless wiretapping of you and yours. So with Meiers and Rove, if they have nothing to hide, they won't have a problem being under oath.

It's called being "hoist with your own petard" (an expression from Elizabethan England). What do they have to hide that they are are refusing to testify under oath????? Dems should hammer on this over and over again. Even Lieberbush can probably afford to get on board this train.

[robinlynne]

33. a hell of a lot.

[L. Coyote]

86. The Ohio SoS is investigating Cuyahoga 2004

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x469386

OHIO 2004: 6.15% Kerry-Bush vote-switch found in probability study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x259620

[WritersBlock]

Allow? To be interviewed? NO! I want them subpeonaed to testify under oath! nt

[MaineDem]

53. My sentiments exactly!

The White House does NOT call the shots in Congress!

[brentblack]

10. Another non issue in the end

Gonzales did lie about the reasons...but that is the only crime here.


Reno fired all 93 back in the day so Clinton could stack the deck. This is standard politics and it is the President's (even a criminal like shrub) right to do so. It may not be right, but it is legal.


I just do not want Congress to focus on an issue that will die out when we have war crimes and soldiers dying daily. They will waste loads of time to get no where.

THERE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OCCURRING DAILY - this is not one of them.

[maddezmom]

14. belated welcome to DU

have to say, looks you've read the pdf's and bought into the talking points in them. :hi:

[Ecumenist]

56. My thoughts exactly, Maddezmom

Though I have no idea how long you'll be a member of this esteemed board, BrentBlack, welcome to DU, for what it's worth...:hi:

[antonialee839]

18. This is far from a non-issue. You are using

Republican talking points. It's standard when you first get into office, this is about as
far from standard as it gets. And on top of it, the reason for the firings may not be legal.

[UpInArms]

21. yep - and all those attys had to be confirmed by the Senate

and these do not.

Not the same.

Don't even go there.

[Bridget Burke]

22. Those talking points are SO last week....

Really, you need to get better sources.

[iconoclastic cat]

23. A bridge somewhere is vacant, and passersby cross freely...nt

[The Doctor.]

28. That's right Brent....

Everyone knows that all those attorneys are just bitching because they're pissed that they were fired.

I mean, it's not like they were doing anything important or anything. :eyes:

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Nope

Clinton changed the USAs when he took office, not in the middle of his term. He also did not scuttle ongoing investigations into Democratic wrong-doing when he changed the staff.

There is evidence that Abu G. was working under order from Rove (Bush) to get rid of USAs who were digging into SERIOUS Bush crimes (wiretapping, influence peddling, etc).

Sorry, you need to read the evidence.

[Straight Shooter]

41. Thank you so much for your concern, brentblack.

:eyes:

Now go over to Josh Marshall's http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com (the one who brought this story to light and kept at it) and read through all their archives and get the truth instead of regurgitating GOP talking points.

[Throwing Stones]

42. There are more crimes than tortureboy's lies

The WH potentially impeded federal investigations into public corruption. Each of the firings is potentially one or more crimes.

[Megahurtz]

50. Are You An Attorney?

:silly:

[Divernan]

55. AG Reno did NOT have to FIRE any USA. Their appointments expired.

Go read the relevant sections of the US Code.

[LanternWaste]

57. I've a feeling you won't respond to this

I've a feeling you won't respond to these because they direct and relevant questions, but since it appears you want some dialog (that's what a message board is for, non?)...

Is it standard politics to replace USA's w/ non-confirmed USA's?

Were the USA's that Clinton replaced confirmed or not?

Nice seeing you, though.

[Morgana LaFey]

61. dupe

it didn't work, and then it did -- twice

[Morgana LaFey]

62. Oh, these are impeachable offenses all right

Do you REALLY think you're going to be able to influence anyone here to your way of "thinking" on this?

[brentspeak]

78. I really hope your actual first name isn't 'Brent'

We're a select society, and GOP talking points would demonstrate that you're completely unfit to have the name 'Brent'.

[caledesi]

80. Let me see...uh, the talking point non-issue; reference to

Clinton and to top it off, the WAR! puhleeze............. Some of those e-mails were damaging and there are conflicting "stories" from Rove et al.

Who was fired and from which states? Oh yeah, Lam in California bec of Cunningham and she was on to another Repub. Then of course we have the debacle in Arkansas with Griffin (who tried to get Cummins out) replaces Cummins. The emails connect the dots to the plan in Arkansas to "swiftboat" Hillary. Another stolen election?

The Dems aren't stupid and having been waiting for this for years. They know how far up this goes and that's why * was so mad today. (He looked real bad). Reminds me of Watergate....I was there.

Gonzales did was lie UNDER OATH! That was his only CRIME! Read the emails at FR...oh, never mind, they didn't post them. LOL!

Yeah, let's just let it go. :sarcasm:



edits: usual stuff

[maddezmom]

11. if this administration was honest about anything, they'd have no problem w/ under oath

liars, crooks, etc

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Cameras? Microphones?

Lights? Camera? Action?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

13. I hope they won't allow a lying reptilian pice of shit like Turd Blossom

to get away with not testifying under oath.

[Divernan]

58. It would be fun to hear the USSC discuss the free speech aspects of phrase"Turd Blossom"

The justices got a little wild and crazy re the meaning of Bong Hits 4 Jesus. Think what they might do with "Turd Blossom".

[rodeodance]

15. well, isn't this interesting----Each party to its corner-----The game begins!

[Beetwasher]

16. Heh, Doesn't Give The Dem Response

There's nothing here that says Dems accepted this offer. I don't expect that they will.

[AlinPA]

26. My worry is that Rove-Miers will not honer subpoena. Then Bush** stops

the subpoeana through the "Justice Department". Bush** - Rove are holding the cards -- they own the "Justice Dept"

[Beetwasher]

27. The DOJ Can't "Stop" A Congressional Subpoena

Bush migh ignore it, but his DOJ can't do anything about either.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. They can refuse to prosecute for contempt of congress

Which is what they will do.

[Beetwasher]

71. I Dunno About That

Would it be DOJ responsibility to prosecute that? Can they refuse? :shrug:

[AlinPA]

76. I'm confused too. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

92. Congress has no enforcement powers

Those powers rest with the Executive.

[knight_of_the_star]

82. They can do that

And Congress can call for a special prosecutor, or better yet revive the old law and nail this guy.

[Kelvin Mace]

91. If our spineless leaders

have the spine, yes.

[knight_of_the_star]

94. I think they'll go to the mat on this one

They have the power now and they know it, I don't think they'll roll over, not while they have the whip hand.

[sutz12]

96. Hey, I understand tha Fitzgerald is available.

;)

[jus_the_facts]

51. Same damn set-up as the 9/11 commission with Dick 'n' Bush....

...another bend over moment if allowed to testify without bein' under oath. :argh:

:hi: Sweetie! :pals:

[Beetwasher]

75. Yeah, But This Time

The Dems ain't having it!

:loveya:

[AlinPA]

66. Why can't Rove/Miers just say no to the subpoena? if Justice

can refuse to prosecute contempt of congress, they (Rove, et al) can laugh up their sleeve.

[Beetwasher]

73. They Can Refuse It

But then it goes to court. I don't know if DOJ can refuse to prosecute or if it's even their responsibility to do so or if they are the only one's who can do so. Perhaps the Senate can appoint a special prosecutor? Start impeachment of officials NOT responding? Etc. I think there are OTHER avenues to explore if they ignore the subpoena's.

[caledesi]

83. Let's take a stroll down Memory Lane 1998....REPUBLICANS

Clinton:

Link: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/07/26/clinton.subpoena.02/

Top Republicans Warn Clinton About Subpoena
July 26, 1998

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, July 26) -- Top Republicans Sunday warned President Bill Clinton that refusing to honor independent counsel Ken Starr's grand jury subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky case could have serious political consequences -- including the possibility of impeachment.

"I think it would be disastrous. It is basically saying he is above the law, he doesn't have to comply with the law," said Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma on NBC's "Meet The Press." "Everybody else in America has to comply with subpoenas (while) he's saying he wouldn't. ... I don't think that would be sustainable."

<snip>

But Hatch said if Clinton were to fight the subpoena to the U.S. Supreme Court, ultimately lose and then still refuse to testify, it would create a "constitutional crisis" that could lead to impeachment.

[rodeodance]

17. "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday" Schumer just said, live

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday" Schumer just said, live
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x456242#456242
456242, "We'll proceed with subpoenas on Thursday" Schumer just said, live
Posted by Atman on Tue Mar-20-07 02:00 PM

In response to the WH's ridiculous offer. He said he'd be meeting with Conyers and Leahy and then a reporter asked for clarification, but of course, MSNBC had to cut away before he responded for -- I am NOT making this up -- "The big story today, a twelve year old boy found after being lost in the woods." I'm series. 100%.

[maddezmom]

19. good...then they'll have to prove exec. priv.

[antonialee839]

20. Excellent.

[Throwing Stones]

43. Sweet! /eom

[rocktivity]

68. YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSS!

A towel and a cigarette, please... :smoke:

and cue the Vonage theme!

:woohoo:
rocknation

[Vidar]

24. I hope Conyers doesn't fall for this bullshit.

[roamer65]

29. Under oath or IMPEACH.

[AlCzervik]

30. of it "Not under oath" when do any of these aholes ever swear to tell the truth?

[ananda]

31. worthless

It's worthless unless they're under oath.

All it is now is an opportunity for pr and spin...

... and ratings for news shows.

I'm still boycotting.

[stevedeshazer]

32. How gracious of them.

This will not stand.

[Occulus]

34. edit: replaced

moved it to a reply to post #1, because Conyers' action is veeerrrrry interesting and shows a HELL of a lot of backbone. I wanted people to see it, and I hope I haven't offended...

[dddem]

38. An update to the story...

They will, in fact, be allowed to testify under oath, only not out loud. They will have to answer all the questions in their heads. Truthfully, and without lying. Now dontcha feel better?

[Throwing Stones]

45. I'm not sure turdblossom is capable of telling the truth, even just in his head /eom

[Lil Missy]

39. They are buying time. Now they can say they are "cooperating"

I get so sick of this crap.

[mahina]

44. That's big of them. Is this still a nation of laws? Do they even grasp how this looks?

I think I'll be more interested in the testimony under oath.

[Vinca]

46. Gee willikers, as Rummy might say, you'd think they have something to hide.

If they haven't done anything wrong, they should be grateful for the opportunity to testify UNDER OATH and IN PUBLIC for all the world to hear. I don't see Pat Leahy agreeing to this pile of baloney.

[frogmarch]

47. Not under oath?

Bullshit!

If the Dems cave and allow the WH to get away with this, I will be furious.

The WH not wanting Rove and Miers to testify under oath says the WH wants them to be able to freely lie. Assholes.

[Megahurtz]

48. Lying Sacks.

Put 'em on the chopping block! :sarcasm:

[Buttercup McToots]

49. NO! I won't have it...

I want to see and I want to hear what they
have to say...UNDER OATH!
We better make our wishes known...

[vanboggie]

59. Truth is Non-Negotiable - period

Isn't it ridiculous that they will let them testify if they can lie. And still Bushco has not been charged with treason.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

60. That reminds me about the story of the man who went before the judge

on a charge of jewelry theft but because of lack of evidence the case was dismissed.
"So judge, what exactly does that mean?" asked the man.
"It means that you are exonerated," said the judge.
"So I can keep the watch?"

[bluestateguy]

63. "Testify? I, uh, I'll be happy to visit with them."

nt

[Jacklyn75]

64. Under oath is the only way!!! I hope they don't cave!! n/t

[rocktivity]

65. Not a chance--SUBPOENA THEM!!!!

:grr:
rocknation

[AlinPA]

67. What's to stop them from ignoring the subpoena? Justice won't prosecute, because

the admin. owns them.

[rocktivity]

72. The subpoenas should be issued because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO

ethically, legally, AND logistically. Besides, at the very worst, it will leave a paper trail. I don't care if the Bush monarchy vetoes and ignores the Dems until the cows come home--or Election Day 2008, whichever comes first.

:headbang:
rocknation

[AlinPA]

74. I'm not saying they should not be subpoenaed; just that they won't show up.

[lovuian]

70. Not testifying under oath means they might perjure themselves

so thats why they won't testify under oath

[Penndems]

79. "They will not testify under oath"

Three words: "Unacceptable" and "Hell, no".

Rove and Miers are going to be held accountable under oath..

[Faygo Kid]

81. Impeach him.

Chimpy has a lot to hide, obviously. They don't want to comply with Congress? Impeach.

[0007]

84. The time has come for junior to go back to mommy's tit.

[Penndems]

85. YES - in fact, throw out the entire Cabinet and every single member of

the Immediate Office of the President, the NSC and the Executive Office of the President.

Never, in my (almost) fifty-two years on this planet, have I seen such overt contempt for the Members of Congress the American people sent here to be their voice by a President and his Administration. There's always tension between the Executive and Legislative Branches, but not outright hatred, disdain and complete disregard for Congressional edicts and authority.

Exactly how stupid do they think Congress and the nation are? "Oh, we'll send up Rove and Miers, but they can't testify under oath"? Why, so they can feel free to commit perjury and not suffer the consequences of lying before Congress, as they would under sworn testimony?

Enough already. Throw them out.

[Occulus]

88. See my post at the top of this thread n/t

[Penndems]

90. Thanks - just saw this over at DKos

I can't wait for those subpoenas to be issued.

[sutz12]

95. There is a reason that Article One of the Constitution is about the Legislature.

The Founding Fathers wanted it to be the superior body in our government. Thie greatest fear was the power of the single ruler.