Posted on 03/21/2007 8:17:35 AM PDT by bamahead
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.
By voice vote and without dissent, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.
"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.
"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.
The committee rejected Bush's offer of a day earlier that his aides could to talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.
Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?
"Absolutely," Bush declared.
"Our reasonable offer that Mr. Fielding presented to Congress yesterday is our reasonable offer and nothing has changed during the 12 hours since Mr. Fielding spoke to the Congress," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "If they are truly serious about wanting to obtain the facts, they have right in front of them the opportunity to do that."
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
I hope their ONLY response to EVERY question is:
"I plead the Fifth on the grounds that my answers might incriminate me."
Then we can sit back and watch the Dimmie's heads explode right there on C-Span. :-)
This is going to be a big problem, regardless of merit. Remember, you are dealing with demigogs and the MSM. They can make Scooter Libby's bad memory into a federal felony with a prison sentance. A showdown, although it's legally correct, may be politically niave. I don't have a better situation, but it appears the Dems have called awfully fast for them to be bluffing.
You can forget about the SC bailing this out, it will never get there. Any legal filing will have to be in a DC court, where it WILL be delayed at least 2 years (past the '08 elections).
Meanwhile, the MSM and move'on.org's will hype this beyond watergate, and the average man on the street will think republicans are hiding something.
I don't have a better solution yet, but I'm open to real, workable ideas.
This is going to be Hugh! I'm vey, vey, series!
Nail meet head.
"There must be accountability." For what?
Where is the evidence? This is purely a political fishing expedition. Nothing more.
You are mistaken or trolling. Why spout the leftist mantra? The rats are the liars here.
popcorn...
about the only way to fight this is to mobilize the pajamahdeen (aka, memogate part duex). It's time to flex the muscles of the new media. Viral videos, p2p mass-education, light-up the blogosphere!
We need to point out that:
1) nothing was done wrong. 8 attorney's were fired, but clinton fired all 92 of them.
2)That Fitz was considered to be fired, and would have been if this had really been politically motivated, he certainly would have been one of them.
and 3) that political interference in the justice department is EXACTLY what these sho-trials are out for. That calling for firings of gonzolas and company is even more gross interference than these 8 us attorneys.
Bush should issue a statement that he's stopping this proceedure in the name of national security, or preventing political interference that strikes at the consitutional foundation of our govenrment. Do a Reagan, and go straight to the people. Don't trust the MSM to carry water for this one.
This is HUGH! I've Vey, Vey, Series!
For the 50%+ voter fraud in Santa Ana of illegal alien voters that got her elected?
93 in '93! The whole kit and caboodle!
Put Leahy under oath. Put Mary McCarthy under oath.
I am not trolling. McNulty testified that the attorneys were removed strictly for performance, and had to back off that when the positive performance evaluations were produced.
Now Alberto is saying that "performance reasons" can cover anything they want it to. But when it was announced, these Republican attorneys had to defend their records, because their reputations had been blemished by the removal.
McNulty fanned the flames with his appearance before Congress, giving legitimacy to a non-issue. Whether Alberto knew he would do it or not, he has to go. I'm not sad to see him go (having not wanted him in the first place on the USSC or as the AG), although I would rather he be fired for failing to protect the border or prosecuting Sandy Burglar.
I've said it before - I just don't get it. They didn't need to justify the firings at all. If they hadn't put "performance reasons" out there in the first place, the attorneys wouldn't have defended themselves and this would have blown over like all the other non-scandals the Dims have persued since W came into office.
Hello, Congressional Republicans. If you whimp out to the Democrats now, your party will go the way of the Whigs, and you'll all be out of a job.
Somehow the notion is stuck in my head that, since it's not a criminal trial (merely a "hearing"), the "plead the 5th" answer isn't acceptable.
Dunno where I got the notion, but it's rolling around my caffeine-addled noggin.
PLUS, since this "scandal that isn't" is merely a show for the camera "pleading the 5th" makes you LOOK guilty....and perception is the key.
"I do not recall"....what're they gonna do, waste time trying to prove that you DO recall and just won't tell?
Let 'em play their game....heck, even fluff 'em up a little. Make 'em look like the partisan hacks they are.
"Sorry, distinguished Senator Kennedy......I simply don't recall."
Man...I feel dirty just typing that.
Somehow the notion is stuck in my head that, since it's not a criminal trial (merely a "hearing"), the "plead the 5th" answer isn't acceptable.
Dunno where I got the notion, but it's rolling around my caffeine-addled noggin.
PLUS, since this "scandal that isn't" is merely a show for the camera "pleading the 5th" makes you LOOK guilty....and perception is the key.
"I do not recall"....what're they gonna do, waste time trying to prove that you DO recall and just won't tell?
Let 'em play their game....heck, even fluff 'em up a little. Make 'em look like the partisan hacks they are.
"Sorry, distinguished Senator Kennedy......I simply don't recall."
Man...I feel dirty just typing that.
They have been headhunting fro Rove (and Cheney) since 2000. ANY opportunity they think they can get, they will go for. They missed with Fitzmas, this is just another swing. They're relentless but time and money wasting. And as a taxpayer, I AM SICK OF IT>
That's all this is about. They'll fight to the death to protect their vote-fraud machine. Without it, they're nothing.
Same here, Sue. Congress could be spending its time doing something serious, instead of wasting time on trying to advance the political fortunes of the Democrats.
You are correct.
I have suggested before on this forum, that the republicans are remiss in not tapping some of their available funds to start waging an ad war against this stuff...since the DBM won't show the rep. side, they need to start paying for exposure on the networks....or, did McCain-Feingold prohibit this TOO??
From Drudge:
White House: Take it or leave it... Snow: If subpoenas are issued, offer of Rove interview is withdrawn... Developing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.