White House Signals It Will Fight To Block Rove Testimony

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/rove-attorneys-testify/

White House Signals It Will Fight To Block Rove Testimony

During a press gaggle yesterday, Press Secretary Tony Snow signaled that the White House will fight congressional efforts to have Karl Rove testify about his role in the U.S. Attorney purge. Asked whether Rove would testify voluntarily, Snow said:

MR. SNOW: Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill. So I think what we have been trying to do is to work in a way to be as forthcoming with members of Congress — you saw all the emails coming out today — give them all the information so that they can make a fair judgment about it.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett was even more resistant:

I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly to these matters, but that doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information.

Of course the White House doesn’t want Karl Rove to testify. Just last month, a top Justice Department official told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a letter that the “Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Griffin” as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. But in emails released yesterday, former Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson writes, “I know that getting appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.” Also, news reports indicate that Rove’s office may have been involved in problems involving the U.S. Attorney from Washington state, John McKay.

Thankfully, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VA) isn’t backing down. Last night on PBS, Leahy referred to Tim Griffen as Rove’s “acolyte,” and said he will “insist” that senior White House officials testify “in public, in sworn testimony, under oath“:

I intend to bring the attorney general up here. I am requesting several other people to come up here, certainly Mr. Sampson, Ms. Miers, I assume eventually Karl Rove. If they don’t come, then I’ll seek to subpoena them up here, because the story changes almost every time we pick up the newspaper. <…>

What I want to find out is what happened, why we’ve been given different stories. And I want those answers, not in an informal briefing; I want those answers in public, in sworn testimony, under oath before my committee. As chairman, that’s what I insist.

[Donnachaidh]

1. the minute they refuse IMPEACHMENT should be rolled out

Slap these fascists to the curb.

[AndyA]

4. Great idea. But like most great ideas, it won't be acted on.

I would be shaking the impeachment finger at them in a threatening manner right now, if I were in Congress. Enough bullshit. It's time to get America back on track.

[bearfan454]

17. OH HELL YES !

A showdown needs to happen.

[waiting for hope]

2. From yesterday's NPR All Things Considered:

MS. NORRIS: So, if you want answers, who do you plan to summon to get to the bottom of this? Does this mean that you intend to issue a subpoena to Karl Rove or perhaps others at the White House?

SEN. LEAHY: I will subpoena whomever necessary to get all of the facts. Obviously, the attorney general will have to come back; Mr. Sampson will have to come back; I think Harriet Miers, directly involved, will have to come back. There could be a number of other people. What I want to do is the same thing I used to do when I was a prosecutor: build a case; go to whoever I feel, and the committee feels, is essential to uncover the truth; we will have them come and testify.

MS. NORRIS: Does that include Karl Rove?

SEN. LEAHY: If Karl Rove is necessary in there, of course.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8285969

I don't think Leahy's going to back down.

[Vincardog]

34. Didn't staffers testify abut Clinton? Are the RW nutz memories as short as their consciences?

[creeksneakers2]

38. The Republicans subpoenaed everybody

And they also subpoenaed every document from Bill Clinton's first Bazooka Joe Comic to Al Gore's last E-mail.

[Vincardog]

43. Then how is it "it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify "

[mod mom]

3. Question on Tim Griffen: Has anyone heard corporate media mention Af Am Soldiers

targeted for voter disenfranchisement by Griffen? I have heard only GOP caging lists but no detail.

Rove will be afraid to testify under oath because it almost got him indicted with Plame. I hope the FORCE him!

[Spazito]

22. Yep, he was very much part of the disenfranchisement of

absentee votes, some of which would have been from Af Am soldiers no doubt. This article was in the e-mails released to the Senate and is found within the pdfs:


The Final Days
Arkansas Time Staff
Updated: 8/24/06

snip

More newsy, perhaps, is who Cummin's successor might be. Informed sources say one possibility for a WH nomination is Tim Griffin, an Arkansas native who has worked in top jobs in both the Republican National Committee and the White House on hard-charging political opposition research.

Though Griffin, currently finishing a military obligation, spent one year in Little Rock as an assistant U.S. attorney, his political work would likely get more attention - and Democratic oppostion - in the Senate confirmation process. He'd likely have to endure some questioning about his role in massive Republican projects in Florida and elsewhere by which Republicans challenged tens of thousands of absentee votes. Coincidentally, many of those challenged votes were concentrated in black precincts.

End of snip

[rock]

5. Tradition = non-binding rule

Sorry Snow, it's not a law. Not that that would impress you.

[ejbr]

8. EXACTLY!

Tradition is that U.S. Attorneys are rarely if ever fired! What happened to that tradition? Why are some traditions followed and others not? Why do we have to live in such a brain dead society that these questions never arise or are pursued for answer?
:wtf:

[POAS]

32. Laws? We don't need no stinking laws!

[rox63]

6. Subpeona the bastid! n/t

[gratuitous]

7. Gee Tony, "traditionally," the White House isn't a den of corruption, either

Tell Karl to waddle on up the Hill; Sen. Leahy has a few questions he'd like an answer to.

[Generic Brad]

39. For someone who has nothing to hide Rove sure loves to hide

He resembles a cockroach scrambling away from the light.

[tomp]

40. sez you.

this is only a greater magnitude of corruption, a more in-your-face corruption, a champion corruption. the u.s. government is systemically corrupt and has been for a century.

[Botany]

9. Not only Pat Leahy but John Conyers wants a chat w/ Rove too.

[yardwork]

18. Love today's photo!

[Demoiselle]

24. OH that BEEYOOTIFUL BEAR! Thank you for making my day! (eom)

[Botany]

36. The man has done some great work on bears

http://www.bear.org/SlideShows/SS_Home.html




About the Photographer

Dr. Lynn Rogers, known as the Jane Goodall of black bears, has conducted field studies of bears for over 30 years through the University of Minnesota, U.S. Forest Service, and the Wildlife Research Institute. He pioneered many of the bear research techniques in use around the world. His research provides much of the black bear information on TV and in books today.

As Dr. Rogers learned the language of bears, he realized these animals have long been misunderstood and unfairly demonized. He developed new research techniques based on this new trust and understanding, and developed mutually trusting relationships with several wild bears, including mothers with cubs. He traveled and slept with these bears for 24 hours at a time and witnessed a tender side of these animals few people realized existed. His findings have been featured on National Geographic Explorer, Nature, NBC Nightly News, Discovery Channel, and in numerous books and magazines. A one-hour documentary “Lynn Rogers: The Man Who Walks With Bears” premiered on Animal Planet TV Channel in March of 2001 and has been re-broadcast over 20 times since then.

His intimate photographs of wild black, grizzly, and polar bears will change your view of bears forever.

[SharonRB]

10. Go get 'em, Pat!

Screw tradition - Karl needs to testify under oath. Of course, we know he'll lie.

[Frustratedlady]

11. Well, from the answers we heard on the Plame case and now this situation...

it is rather clear that this administration is running under the "Do not ask, do not tell" reasoning.

How many times have we heard them say they haven't been told...they haven't heard...no one has come forth, etc.

I can just hear Bush saying, "I don't care how or when you do it, and I don't want to hear the details. Just get it done!"

[sinkingfeeling]

12. I believe that a number of Clinton aides testified before Congress.

[bpj1962]

25. Executive Privilege

Bruce Lindsay was Clinton's Personal adviser/counselor and during the Monica Lewinsky scandal he was subpoenaed and Clinton claimed executive privilege. Ken Starr took it to court and Lindsay was forced to testify. It seems to me that Bush can trot it out all he wants but unless Rove gets a law license and a retainer from Bush I think he will have to testify. This problem is not going to go away. Pat Leahy and Henry Waxman are not running for president so I don't think they care who they offend.

[FatDave]

30. Isn't that called...

...precedent? How great will it be if precedent they set attacking Clinton can be used against them?

[Buzz Clik]

13. The WH will invoke executive privilege.

There will be some grumbling, and then we'll move on.

[Dinger]

14. Bingo nt

[yardwork]

19. I don't think that that will work politically

For one thing, the Republicans themselves erased a lot of executive privilege when they went after the Clintons. Another thing is that eventually the political liability becomes too much.

I predict that Rove will not be employed by the White House by the time 2008 rolls around.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Here's hoping! n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

15. That is what subpoenas are for

Ask nicely, then if they don't agree, slap him with a subpoena. If that doesn't work, throw his ass in jail. White House staffers are not above a Congressional subpoena. Pelosi and Reid should publicly scoff at these statements from Snow and Bartlett.

[krispos42]

16. Subpoena, subpoena, subpoena

And when they refuse, impeach both of them at once.

Unlike most of the other scandles and illegal activity, which are complex, complex cases, this is so simple and clear-cut that he can be impeached immediately and tried quickly.

And if those two dozen Repub senators up for election in '08 don't voe to impeach, then fuck'em. I'll take 65 Dems in the senate any day.

[nealmhughes]

45. Baby Huey isn't a constitutional office holder, he can just be convicted and put in jail,

no impeachment necessary.
Baby Huey is just an employee, nothing more or less than the WH butlers...only they're civil service, and he's not!

[Gman]

21. Their worst nightmare last November is coming true now

Now put them in a position where they can either perjure theirselves before congress, be charged with contempt of congress or both.

[paparush]

23. Here's another news flash: Sun Rises in East. Bear Sh*ts in Woods

[xxqqqzme]

26. hey tony do the names

Haldeman, Erlichman, Dean mean anything to you. I remember watching them ALL testify. It was on TV - honestm - and that was before C-span.

[garybeck]

27. Wasn't this a major nail in the coffin for Nixon - refusing to testify?

[dwp6577]

28. make them all testify

I have a feeling the glove will fit perfectly...

:)

[ProudDad]

29. I don't think any of the people mentioned

Sampson, Miers or Rove are impeachable. Gonzalez is impeachable and should be impeached and removed.

They are indictable and would fill out the space in a prison cell very nicely...

[POAS]

31. This is why

(Barring exceptional circumstance) Gonzo will also stay in the WH. They are going to stonewall behind executive privilege.

[pdefalla]

33. "Traditional"

"MR. SNOW: Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill."

Yes, it's been traditional in the BUSH White House to stonewall everything.

However, when the Republicans were unleashing Kenneth Starr on the Monica Lewinsky debacle, Clinton sent staffers to testify, including Senior Advisor Sidney Blumenthal and Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.

[The Wizard]

35. I see Rove

having an appointment with Ken Lay's cardiologist. (wink wink):silly:

[designforce]

37. Here are some samples for you Snowman....

Secretary of Commerce Rogers Morton turned over information regarding an Arab boycott of Israel in 1975, rather than be held in contempt. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger avoided contempt when President Ford had a member of his National Security Council provide information Congress wanted. Secretary of Interior James Watt, and Attorney General William Smith, yielded to Congress rather than face contempt. President Reagan's EPA head, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was dangerously close when the House voted, 259-to-105, to hold her in contempt, but Reagan yielded.

Attorney General Dick Thornburgh turned over documents in 1991, rather than risk contempt. White House associate counsel William Kennedy turned over notes regarding President Clinton and the Whitewater Development Corporation, rather than be held in contempt.

History is a nasty little item these guys don't know either.

Gathered from here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070112.html

[kegler14]

41. Rove claimed a few days ago

that there are a "few" holdover U.S. attorneys who were appointed by Clinton. I don't believe this is true. Can anybody point me to a source that would show one way or the other? I tried going to the DOJ U.S. attorney site, but it wasn't any help.

thanks

[EC]

42. They set the precedent during Clinton

and they were warned that it would bounce back at them...so Karl has no choice if he is subpoenaed.

[TankLV]

44. Hey, Snowjob - the emails came out IN SPITE of your efforts, not "because" of you efforts you

fucking lying fox repuke whore!

It is actually the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to spew!

Will any "journalists" confront him with that "small" fact?

[HuffleClaw]

46. HOW exactly could they prevent it?

simply ignore a subpoena from congress? take 'em to court? they'd look like complete fools. it would FLY in the face of the rights eternal cry of 'if you have nothing to hide...' ONLY the freepers would rejoice in such an action, and not even all of them.

[SoCalDem]

47. Rove is not "special". he's not Bush's lawyer..he's an "adviser"

he was NOT elected or confirmed by congress.

He's "fair game"...(words he should understand)

Slap a subpoena on the rat-bastard..hook him up to some torture device that he loves so much..(maybe a waterboard or two)..shoot him in the ass with some sodium pentathol and make the weasel spill his guts :)

I smell Pay-Per-View here