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

[Atman]

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%.

.

[grasswire]

1. was this BEFORE they announced the "deal"?

Or after?

[Monkeyman]

2. After

[Atman]

3. Just now...AFTER

In response to "the deal."

/

[blogslut]

10. Where is confirmation

that "deal" is done?

[wicket]

4. w00t!

:woohoo:

[zanne]

29. Could this go to the Supreme Court?

If there is a standoff, is there any remedy on our part? Any legal minds out there?

[Bitwit1234]

5. CNN has about tweny seconds about the email release and

all the rest. And about ten minutes about Anna Nicole and the DNA test, the judge smoking a joint, and all the rest of the stuff. As usual.

[Supersedeas]

15. the GOP/Media Establishment is in full swing -- Karl's Facs machine must be humming

[jannyk]

6. Schumer wants 'oaths and transcripts"! nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Here we go!

:bounce: BRING IT ON! I am SO ready for this.

[ronnykmarshall]

23. Sounds like a stand off !!

Can Pigboy and Harriette be arrested for not appearing once served with a subpoena?

[NightWatcher]

8. how far will it go?

Do you think that the dems will fight for this one or cave?
I hope that they push them to the wall and make them testify under oath, on tv, live, with transcripts, and a sign language interpretter.
Give em hell, dems

[John Q. Citizen]

11. I think they will fight. n/t

[Monkeyman]

14. Fight

[Cameron27]

9. Bad day at Black Rock for the Rove & Miers ROFL

I just emailed my thanks in advance to Sen. Leahy for accepting nothing less than sworn testimony from these two a**holes. (said it nicer though)

[GeorgeGist]

12. Ted Olson's probably firing up the SCOTUS ...

as we speak.

[robinlynne]

13. what WH ridiculous offer? I missed something. tell me. tell me.

[Atman]

16. WH "offered" to let Miers and Rove be "interviewed" not under oath, behind...

...closed doors, with no transcripts.

Yeah, right.

.

[robinlynne]

19. heard that one before.... 9/11 hearings? Thanks. nt

[Bitwit1234]

17. CNN just said the committee rejected bush's offer for interview

or rove and miers. One thing. miers does not work for the white house any longer. She is a private citizen. What right does bush have to reject her testifying. And since rove is a federal employee whose salary is paid by the taxpayers how could bush deny that also.

Now if they were elected there might be some question as to whether they can or not. But I don't think federal employees have the right to reject testimony under oath.

[antonialee839]

18. Any lawyer types out there who can tell us if

they will be compelled to testify because of the precedent set during the Whitewater mess? Under oath, I mean.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

21. As far as I can tell, yes, since Clinton testified under oath.

If any other lawyer type has anything to add, please do. I assume that rule would apply to Cabinet members and other high officials.

So pulling a Nixon (invoking executive privilege) won't wash anymore, because of what the Repukes did in their Clinton witchhunt! It's coming back to bite 'em in the arse! :evilgrin:

[loudsue]

20. I thought miers was still w/ bush. Did she leave her employer?

I missed something. Hard to keep up here.

:kick:

[stevedeshazer]

25. She left a few months ago.

Wanted to spend more time with her family, ya know.

;)

[niyad]

24. not sure what the law is, but these people WORK FOR US, and they have NO RIGHT NOT to be required to

testify in any investigation.

[druidity33]

28. Isn't Meiers

*ush's personal attorney? She might try and claim privilege on that account...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

22. Rock On, Chuck!!!

:yourock: :yourock:

[Tigress DEM]

26. What show cut Schumer off? Let's bombard MSNBC for cowardice!

If people getting up in arms and blasting sponsors of that superbowl peep-show of Janet Jackson's boob can generate a publicity uproar, maybe we can do the same.

An INSTANT of REAL News and you people drowned it in a "feel good story" about a little boy being found.

[Tigress DEM]

27. CNN is talking about it, saying there won't be transcripts or under oath.

OK 20 seconds of news on an issue of great importance to everyone, then it's time to bring out Buzz Aldrin walking on the Grand Canyon bridge to nowhere.

[Zenlitened]

30. "If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath."

... “After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. “Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, was just as emphatic. ... “I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome.”

“Testimony should be on the record and under oath,” Mr. Leahy said, repeating a demand that he first made on network television over the weekend. “That’s the formula for true accountability.”

(snip)

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also reacted coldly to the White House offer. Mr. Schumer said Mr. Fielding was proposing in effect that Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers be available for “conversations” with lawmakers.

“That’s fine,” Mr. Schumer said. “Let’s have a conversation under oath, with a transcript.”

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20cnd-attorney.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

:dem:

[texpatriot2004]

31. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? It is still an appropriate question. nt