Senate Prepares To Vote On White House Subpoenas

[maddezmom]

Source: CBS/AP

(CBS) WASHINGTON Senate Democrats are pressing their campaign to have White House political guru Karl Rove, under oath and under the glare of television lights, fielding questions before a congressional committee on the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors.

~snip~

Facing a potential constitutional showdown, the White House showed no inclination to compromise, saying Bush would only allow his aides to hold limited private interviews with certain lawmakers, and not under oath.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow on Thursday accused supporters of subpoenas of wanting "a Perry Mason scene where people are hot-dogging and grandstanding and trying to score political points."

~snip~

Specter floated a proposal late Wednesday in which a limited number of House and Senate lawmakers would be allowed to hear from White House aides who were not under oath, and a transcript of the proceedings would be provided.

Specter said his "strong preference" was that the testimony be public. It was not clear whether other Republicans or any Democrat would back such an approach.



Read more: http://wcbstv.com/politics/politicsnational_story_081073429.html

---

Specter can take his idea and stick it.

[AndyA]

1. Specter has changed his tune before, hasn't he?

He feigns outrage and gets his feathers all ruffled, yet when it comes time to walk up to the plate and hit the ball out of the field, he swings and misses. Seems his outrage is short lived, and he almost always sides with the GOP.

We're on to you, Specter. You're a joke, and a good example of what being a politician is all about. Forget your constituents, it's all about the party.

[maddezmom]

2. I'd like to get him under oath about slipping in the USA provision into the Patriot Act

[asjr]

3. I believe he blamed that on one of

his aides. You know, Republicans can't take the responsibility.

[Demit]

4. I think I read that it was the aide who was forced on him by the admin, in an unholy

deal he made to get support for chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I do believe he has (or had at one time) principles but, time and time again, he has shown how eagerly he will sacrifice them for a seat at the table with the powers that be.

[quiet.american]

6. Yep. n/t

[rodeodance]

5. "Anyone who would take that deal isn't playing with a full deck," Reid said.

Democrats have rejected Bush's offer - relayed to Capitol Hill on Tuesday by White House counsel Fred Fielding - in large part because there would be no transcript and the testimony would not be public.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader, said it would be "outrageous," to allow Rove to testify off the record.

"Anyone who would take that deal isn't playing with a full deck," Reid said.

Reid added that Gonzales "is history. He can't survive."

[LynnTheDem]

7. Whatcha trying to HIDE, Mr. bUsh?

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Seems to me, if a Senator is a Committee Member then they have the right

to be at the party! This exclusion of members, all negotiated on who will or will not be "allowed" is complete BS! This needs to be the full committee, witnesses under oath, and PUBLIC!

I do worry about one thing with the House though, and frankly I hope I'm not sorry I mention it but...Watching Conyers yesterday over the issue of authorizing the subpoenas and getting Rove/Miers under oath. I think he might have slipped up. A few days ago, they were conducting the hearing on NSL letters. After several members' questioning, one of them asked whether the witnesses had been sworn in. They hadn't, and he said it was too late but that they were under obligation to tell the truth to Congress. Even so, the hearing had/has a transcript and was public. :shrug:

[L. Coyote]

9. Leahy, "Nothing, nothong, nothing..." characterizing WH offer

and what they can get without subpeonas. Spector suggested let's see what we get first. Leahy seems a bit frustrated, and raised his voice a bit. Justice does not come easy!!

[maddezmom]

10. if you read the letter from the WH if they interview them, they can not be subpoenaed later

Such interviews may cover, and would be limited to, the subject of (a) communications between the White House and persons outside the White House concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. attorneys in question; and (b) communications between the White House and members of Congress concerning those requests. Those interviews should be conducted by both committees jointly. Questioning of White House officials would be conducted by a member or limited number of members, who would be accompanied by committee staff. Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas. A representative of the Office of the Counsel to the President would attend these interviews and personal counsel to the invited officials may be present at their election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x472952

It's a one time deal, they will give the info and interview but that will be the end of it in their eyes.

[pushycat]

11. So why hasn't anyone mentioned that last condition about

a one time deal? So far, the first three have been repeated over and over in MSM, but not that last item. Wow, Fielding wants this to go away in a hurry.

[maddezmom]

12. got me

:shrug: It's a no deal, deal.