Tues, WH will announce if ALLOW Miers, Rove others to testify:

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070318/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AnoE9bDXbb_fNus8mDW2Zfus0NUE

.............The week ahead poses several more risks for Gonzales.

On Monday, the Justice Department plans to turn over to Congress more documents that could provide more details of the role agency officials — including Gonzales — and top White House officials played in planning the prosecutors' dismissals.

On Tuesday, the White House is expected to announce whether it will let former White House counsel Harriet Miers, political strategist Karl Rove and other presidential advisers testify before Congress — and whether it will release more documents to lawmakers, including additional e-mails and other items. That decision was to be made on Friday, but the White House asked for more time.

On Thursday, lawmakers are scheduled to quiz Gonzales about his agency's budget request, but likely will ask questions about the scandal, too.

Also on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on whether to authorize subpoenas for Miers; her deputy, William K. Kelley; and Rove, who said the controversy is being fueled by "superheated political rhetoric."

The panel already has approved using subpoenas, if necessary, for Justice Department officials and J. Scott Jennings, deputy to White House political director Sara Taylor, who works for Rove.

[MadMaddie]

1. When they prevent them from testifying....this is going to get

real interesting folks...

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Love them "executive privilege" battles. n/t

[madeline_con]

3. I think they'll get away with it.

They always do.

They'll play the "National Security" card.

:popcorn:

[Phredicles]

5. I wouldn't be surprised, but it will be hard to justify.

I wonder if this will be what finally, truly brings things to a head.

[rodeodance]

12. I have a gut feeling they will also (get away with it)

[MadMaddie]

14. That may be hard to do since the attorneys they fired weren't

working on terrorism prosecutions...

[napi21]

4. What is this "Will let" crap? As I understand it,several unelected, and un-

confirmed WH officials in the Clinton Wh testified before Congress. IMO, that set the precident. Why does Shrub have the authority to say NO????

[Ninja Jordan]

6. Goes back to Eisenhower; typically, non-cabinet level advisors of the president are excluded from

Congressional subpoena because of a 'separation of powers' argument.

[Kagemusha]

That generally fails against the oversight power when push comes to shove

because good government is the business of the people, expressed through its congressional representatives...

[Ninja Jordan]

8. Does it? It seems Clinton sucessfully exercised executive privilege quite often

I'm not saying it's constitutionally correct, but presidents have argued in favor of it for decades.

[Kagemusha]

11. Uh, no. He exercised it often until the Supremes slapped him down.

It took a while but by and large, Congress got the testimony that it could demonstrate a need for. It's just that their preferred weapon became the Starr investigation with the independent counsel powers.

[napi21]

9. I know that, but I believe that exemption was broken when Clinton's advisors

testified before Congress. The majority of our system is based upon precident, and I think the argument is now mute because the Pubs demanded Clinton's advisors to testify, therby setting a new precident. I guess we'll see how good I am atbeing a judge, huh?

[aquart]

13. Now, now. You know that only applies to Democrats.

[grannylib]

7. And of course, the MSM will ignore the fact that, if the WH does not

"allow" them to testify, it obviously HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE...

When will it be ENOUGH?

It's been scandal after lie after corruption after scandal, one after the other, continuously, since this little imbecile stole the office.

[AtomicKitten]

10. ALLOW my ass.

The DEMS must NOT negotiate with them on this.

A subpoena is "a command to appear at a certain time and place to give testimony upon a certain matter." The term is from the Middle English suppena and the Latin phrase sub poena meaning "under penalty."

[fooj]

15. They need to subpoena Susan Ralston.

[jimshoes]

16. They will stonewall

forever. They have a history of it from deadeye's energy meeting papers to the Abu Ghraib photos. Hopefully the Congress can force this admin into accountability somehow. It is time to play hardball with these felons.

[joeprogressive]

17. It's real simple, if WH refuses to allow them to testify,

that's the day the Democrats in Congress begin drafting articles of impeachment.

[sendero]

18. Why do they need so much time?

I'll tell you why. They are busy coming up with their story, and getting it all coordinated (IMHO). If they are going to go in front of the congress and lie, and there is no way they can tell the truth here, then they have to be sure they have dotted every I and crossed every T.