Free Dating Site    

Senate follows House, authorizes subpoenas of Rove, other top White House aides
Published: Thursday, March 22, 2007 | 8:39 PM ET
Canadian Press: JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senators joined the House on Thursday in approving subpoenas to force U.S. President George W. Bush's political adviser and other aides to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors, setting off new efforts to avoid a dragged-out court fight.

Democrats portrayed the subpoena authority, approved on voice vote by both the House and Senate Judiciary committees, as a bargaining chip in negotiations over the terms of any testimony by White House political adviser Karl Rove.

The committees' chairmen, Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.), and Representative John Conyers, (D-Mich.), appeared in no rush to issue subpoenas to White House officials and provoke a standoff.

Talks continued behind the scenes, officials said, even as the White House and majority Democrats engaged in strategic posturing before the cameras.

In letters Thursday, Senate and House Democrats rejected White House counsel Fred Fielding's offer to let Rove and other administration officials talk about their roles in the firings, but only on Bush's terms: in private, off the record and not under oath.

"I have never heard the Senate take an ultimatum like that," Leahy said. "I know he's the decider for the White House. "But he's not the decider for the United States Senate."

White House spokesman Tony Snow cast the administration's offer to allow Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies talk to legislators in private as the best deal Democrats are going to get.

"We opened with a compromise," Snow told reporters. "By our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution." But, he added, "The phone lines are still open."

The developments came as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, struggling to save his job from increasing calls for his resignation over the firings, promised to co-operate with Congress.

"I'm not going to resign," Gonzales told reporters after an event in St. Louis, the first of a series of meetings with federal prosecutors in coming days in an apparent attempt to patch up relations tattered by the scandal.

"No United States attorney was fired for improper reasons," Gonzales said.

Representative Paul Gillmor, (R-Ohio), said Gonzales has become a "lightning rod" for criticism, joining a growing number of Republican legislators who want Gonzales out. "It would be better for the president and the department if the attorney general were to step down," Gillmor said.

Members of both parties want to know why the Justice Department fired eight well-regarded U.S. attorneys over the winter; whether politicians pressured the prosecutors to rush corruption cases; and whether the firings were punishments for the prosecutors' balking at Bush administration priorities.

Legislators also want answers on whether the firings were to make way for more loyal Bush allies, as the White House has acknowledged doing in Arkansas.

Gonzales has said that he intends to submit every replacement appointee to the confirmation process. But an e-mail from his then-top aide suggests the intent was to use delays that would let the replacement prosecutors serve without Senate approval through the rest of Bush's term.

Such inconsistencies have engulfed Gonzales in an uproar in which the administration is accused of crossing a fine line that allows presidents to replace federal prosecutors, but not if the intent is to influence investigations. It is customary for presidents to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of a term in office, but not to single out a few in midterm.

The Senate committee voted to approve, but not issue subpoenas for Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and her former deputy, William Kelley.
© The Canadian Press, 2007

Acknowledging as we must, that the attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the President, I fail to see the rational behind the hysterics over the firings.

As was pointed out, President Clinton fired all 93 in one fell swoop. The fact that it occurred at the start of his administration as opposed to mid-level is thunderously irrelevent.

Likewise, the allegations that there is some nefarious purpose behind the firings and they somehow portend an end to democracy are, to be kind, laughable. If the firings were due to an attempt at suppressing evidence and circumventing an investigation, such actions would sooner or later (sooner, I would guess) come to light, either through some whistleblower, or Congressional investigation.

Hardly the demise of democracy.

If the administration can be faulted, it would be in the hesitant nature of Gonzales' managerial style. He seems to lack the decisive personality to make a decision and stick to it that was the hallmark of AG Ashcroft.

The fact that Gonzales isn't trusted by conservatives doesn't help him either.

The fact is that President Clinton fired 93 prosecutors at a sitting, and nothing was said; the outrage was non-existent.

No. He instead suggested the creation of a task force to further investigate the admissions of people who committed the crimes.

Not sure where you are from Mustbe, but in my neck of the woods, that's called being incompetent.

When a president fires an employee of the Federal government, who serves at his pleasure, the reason is ALWAYS political. Therefore, your assertion that politics had a role to play in the firings and that alone is somehow untoward and suspicious, is a non-sequiter.

Therefore, your post is premature in assuming that a grand jury determines the guilt or innocence of a defendant; it doesn't.

In our country, there is a Constitutional provision that in order to be tried for a crime, an individual must first be indicted by a Grand Jury

The job of the prosecutor in presenting evidence to a grand jury isn't to do the whole job; its to get an indictment.

Mungojoe, I draw your attention to the United States Constitution, specifically the Fifth Amendment:

Just as I pointed out some hints for your edification on another thread on how to properly research Case Law, I would direct you to thoroughly study the Constitution.

guess then, that all those US jurisdictions that allow for charges to be filed directly with the courts to be heard in a preliminary hearing (even in felony cases) must be in violation of the Constitution. Maybe you should get right on that, it could be a real career maker for you (you might even get nominated to the Supreme Court for it).

You are entitled to your opinion with respect to the last statement in the prior post; however, such actions (regarding the task force) would be considered incompetent in that it is irrelevant to the purpose behind the grand jury function and may be viewed as possible obstruction of justice.

Mungojoe, stop writing fiction. You wrote:

Do a google search and read the account of the third party operative hired by the New Mexico Democratic party. You will also read how certain individuals under investigation ADMITTED falsifiying signatures in order to get paid commisions.

EARTH TO MUNGO; EARTH TO MUNGO. THE PARTIES UNDER INVESTIGATION ADMITTED THAT THEY FALSIFIED SIGNATURES. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO INVESTIGATE?????

You fabricate case law to suit your argument and then you publish falsehoods concerning my writings.

Prosecutors don't indict. Prosecutors don't "... decide to proceed to indictment ..." Only a Grand Jury can bring an Indictment (True Bill). All a prosecutor can do is present the evidence and if a grand jury doesn't return an indictment, then he may dismiss that grand jury and impanel another one; keep doing so until he finds one that returns an indictment.

you publish falsehoods concerning my writings.

I would caution you to show more care in future postings where you make suggestions that are false.