Subpoenas For Rove, White House Aides Expected To Be Authorized Today

[babylonsister]

http://www.alternet.org/wire/49617/

Subpoenas For Rove, White House Aides Expected To Be Authorized Today

From the wire:
Posted at 7:29 AM on March 22, 2007.


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.

Subpoenas for Rove and other top White House aides were expected to be authorized Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. A House panel took similar action Wednesday, but held off issuing the subpoenas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070322/fired-prosecutors


Constitutional showdown nears as Senate panel considers White House subpoenas Thursday

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS | AP | March 22, 2007 07:48 AM EST
Compare other versions »


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.

Subpoenas for Rove and other top White House aides were expected to be authorized Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. A House panel took similar action Wednesday, but held off issuing the subpoenas.

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.

more...

[CrazyOrangeCat]

1. kick

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[mitchleary]

2. Hey W

looks like they called your bluff. You can commence drinking JD by the quart. :rofl:

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Sweat, Piggy, Sweat!

I look for defections within 'pug ranks as this unfolds...at least among those with any recollection of history that occurred within their lifetimes (Watergate, anyone?).

I hereby withdraw my 'piggy' comment, which is unfair to four-legged members of the animal kingdom everywhere.

[CJCRANE]

4. Not a moment too soon n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. kick and 5th R!!!! N/T

[annabanana]

6. The repugs are kicking up a storm. . .

(c-span radio here: http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspanradio.asp?Cat=Series&Code=CSR&ShowVidNum=30&Rot_Cat_CD=&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30 )

[progressoid]

7. So, what happens if he says, "no"??

:shrug:

[tex-wyo-dem]

8. As I understand it...

if chuckle-nuts refuses to comply with the subpoenas then the decision would go before the DC district federal judge. If the judge rules in favor of the subpoenas then the WH could go from there to the appellate courts and ultimately the SCOTUS. In any case, the WH could drag this out for some time. :(

[melody]

10. I think Schumer's throw down remark yesterday was telling though

It sounds like they may have people in the wings ready to testify to what the band of criminals knew/did/said.

[Lil Missy]

12. That's my question too.

If they refuse to testify, what are the consequences? Will this just go to a Republican appointed judge who is in the back pocket of the bushies anyway?

From what I gather, it would result in a "contempt of Congress" violation. okay, that's good. But isn't that just a slap on the wrist?

Color me jaded. I am so sick of these people getting away with shit because the cards are stacked in their favor.

[progressoid]

13. Hey, welcome to DU Lil Missy (from across the river!) I found an answer....sort of.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/22/MNG4COPGAC1.DTL


If the White House refuses to comply, the judiciary committees would meet in the coming weeks to decide whether to issue contempt-of-Congress citations. If they do, the full Senate and House would have to follow suit.

That would set in motion the extraordinary spectacle of Congress enlisting the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to empanel a grand jury to seek the indictment of administration officials over their refusal to testify on the firing of his colleagues.

"A U.S. attorney would feel a great deal of pressure to say, 'The law is the law, and I will follow the law,"' said Charles Tiefer, a former House counsel, now at the University of Baltimore Law School. "But in this case, the U.S. attorney also would be expected to follow the instructions of his president."

According to the Congressional Research Service, 10 Cabinet level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt of Congress since 1975 for failure to produce subpoenaed documents by either a subcommittee or a full committee. In each instance, the White House substantially or fully complied before criminal proceedings began.

[Lil Missy]

14. Hi neighbor!

That is encouraging, somewhat. But, what is to say that the sources that be would not weasel word a decision in favor of bush? This administration has defied logic and the rule of law all along.

What is right and legal is not necessarily what is going to come to pass. They have the legal system in their back pockets for the most part.

What really chaps my ass is the egregious overreaching with the Clinton admin, but those precedent or rules "don't count" when you are referring to a fucking Republican.

Case in point: Gingrich is promoting the notion that personal one's personal life is not relevant. Really? Are you fucking kidding me?

[progressoid]

15. Unfortunately, I just read another analysis that said this may stretch out for months if

Rove et. al. choose to challenge it. Kinda depressing.

[firefox_fan]

9. Confusing. Weren't they already authorized yesterday?

??

[Bridget Burke]

11. Nope

From the article in the OP:

"Subpoenas for Rove and other top White House aides were expected to be authorized Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee. A House panel took similar action Wednesday, but held off issuing the subpoenas."