Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

House subpoenas Rove, Miers

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 11:03 AM on March 21, 2007.


One step closer to Constitutional showdown...

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

According to the AP just moments ago:

A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

The White House, for its part, claims executive privilege, refusing to allow Rove or Harriet Miers to testify under oath (though they have said that Rove could testify "in private"). They stand by Alberto Gonzales "insisting that the firings were appropriate."

Via Mahablog (who has suggestions for taking action), the news release from the House Judiciary Committee:

Judiciary Subcommittee Authorizes Chairman Conyers to Issue Subpoenas in US Attorney Investigation

(Washington, DC)- Today, the House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee (CAL) voted to authorize the full committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) to issue subpoenas for current and former White House and Justice Department officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, Scott Jennings and Kyle Sampson, as well as documents that the Committee has not yet received.

"The White House's offer provides nothing more than conversations. It does not allow this Committee to get the information we need without transcripts or oaths," Conyers said. "This motion allows the Committee to pursue good faith negotiations. We are continuing our talks with the White House, along with the Senate, but we must protect the interest of the Congress and the American people by maintaining the option to move forward with our investigation with or without continued cooperation from the Administration."

"We have worked toward voluntary cooperation, but we have to prepare for the possibilty that the White House will continue to hide the truth," said CAL Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez. "This Congress respects White House prerogatives as a safeguard for the internal deliberations on the legitimate creation of policy, but they are not a 'get out of jail free' card. There must be accountability."

The motion authorizes the Chairman to issue subpoenas at his discretion for the officials to appear before the Committee relating to the ongoing investigation. It also authorizes Conyers to subpoena additional documents relating to the issue - specifically, unredacted documents that have not previously been provided.

Digg!

Tagged as: rove, prosecutorgate

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Study Shows 'Center-Right Nation' Narrative Spiked Immediately After Election Day
We're not talking about theory anymore - we're talking about empirical fact.
Post by David Sirota. November 21, 2008.
Will Gen. Jim Jones Be Obama's National Security Advisor?
Although not as bad as keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense it would still be a very disappointing selection.
Post by Chris Bowers. November 21, 2008.
Obama's (Rumored) Pick for Secretary of the Treasury Makes Wall Street Happy
He's going to be the Secretary of the Treasury in the midst of a financial crisis, so it's probably worth taking the time to get to know him.
Post by Steve Benen. November 21, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Some Reason For Hope
Posted by: bob t on Mar 21, 2007 11:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AMEN

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Teeth?
Posted by: Jeanne on Mar 21, 2007 4:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has Congress grown teeth at last? I am pleased they didn't accept W's offer to let Rove and Miers be present for a chat without cameras, tape, or oaths. Maybe their words will now either be accurate, or they'll come back to bite them (as his own words bit ol' Scooter).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What was that Bush said...
Posted by: dangerouslysane on Mar 21, 2007 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, um ah eh ur...we won't get fooled again!"

Maybe someone was not pleased with the results the last time the administration gave non testimony (no transcripts, no oaths, no reporters, Bush & Cheney going in together).

If they're going to be truthful, why would they object to being sworn in before answering the questions? It's not as if they're going to lie or anything, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

USA v Nixon
Posted by: lessbread on Mar 22, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In USA v Nixon SCOTUS ruled that executive privilege is afforded in matters of national security, but otherwise not to policy advice should it pertain to a criminal investigation. It seems that Congress should subpoena Kyle Sampson and any other relevant DoJ officials and question them extensively in order to build a stronger case for doing the same with Rove and Miers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's good for the goose....
Posted by: gusto on Mar 22, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... is good for Big Brother!
Dangerouslysane's prior comment that "If they're going to be truthful, why would they object to being sworn in before answering the questions?" reminds me of something I hear every time I object to the Bush's right to spy on my phone calls and E-mails: "If you don't have anything to hide, why should you care if they're listening in?".

Until Bush's stacked Supreme Court negates our Constitution, sworn testimony and the Rule of Law provides the sole avenue to Truth when dealing with habitual prevaricators.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Mar 22, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liar, liar, pants on fire is most the most appropriate description of Bush. And his close advisors. And his AG. The whole Bush regime deserves to burn - in the Hell of their own making!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: frank67 Posted by: willymack
DICTATORS
Posted by: pacto on Mar 22, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MAKE THEM ALL COME CLEAN IN THE HEARINGS,SUBPOENAS FOR ,BUSH, CHENEY,ROVE,AND ANYONE ELSE WHO THINKS THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The title is misleading and wrong
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Mar 22, 2007 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO subpoenas have at this time been issued. Senate and House committees have authorized their issuance, which may turn out to be a very different (I hope not) thing as negotiations proceed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carl Rove Proves the Point.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Mar 22, 2007 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one has noted the relevance of the fact that Carl Rove practically begged to be allowed to return to the grand jury on the Plame outing for an unprecedented fifth time, to correct statements he had made earlier.

Would Mr. Rove have been so fastidious about the truth if he had been allowed to have unsworn off the record "conversations" instead of sworn testimony?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]