Posted on 02/17/2009 3:09:55 AM PST by blueplum
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is asking for two more weeks to weigh in on whether former Bush White House officials must testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
The request comes after an attorney for former Bush political adviser Karl Rove asked the White House to referee his clash with the House of Representatives over Bush's claim of executive privilege in the matter.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., has issued a subpoena requiring Rove to appear next Monday to testify about the firings and other allegations that the Bush White House let politics interfere with the operations of the Justice Department.
Michael Hertz, the acting assistant attorney general, said in a court brief released Monday that negotiations were ongoing.
"The inauguration of a new president has altered the dynamics of this case and created new opportunities for compromise rather than litigation," Hertz wrote in the brief dated Friday. "At the same time, there is now an additional interested party - the former president - whose views should be considered."
Members of the committee have been seeking the testimony of Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers since the spring of 2007.
Last July,
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Has anyone else noticed the complete disappearance of the word "scandal" since Dems and Obama came to power?
Obammy knows he’ll have to defend Emanuel at some point so he can’t enrage Republicans too much.
Just a thought...has anyone bothered to find out if obama has fired ALL US Attorney’s in the Bush administration yet?
Hasn’t Obama replaced all of the US attorneys and put in his own? Why not?
don’t know the answer to that - I do recall some talking head lamenting pre-election that Fitzie could be gone post-election since Obama would hire his own crew - not sure if that implied U.S. attorneys also or not
Inglesias wrote last year that he was dismissed because he refused to bring charges against dems in 2006. He also laments that ‘neocons’ prevented appointment of those with liberal views. He comments that he was fired because he was a ‘political appointee’ but decrys the policy of political appointments at the same time, although that is exactly how he got his job, which he apparently considers should have been a ‘career’ appointment. Considering the Zero admin has been completely political in their appointments, (to the point of attacking the credibility of the Census Bureau led by a Republican) his argument may no longer hold water. imo jmo moo
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-iglesias1-2008oct01,0,2792832.story
Whenever leftists get into power they purge the opposition. Starting here?
Does Rove, as a private citizen, even have to honor the subpoena? And does he have to answer anything besides “I don’t remember.”?
They will lose this in SCOTUS. hussein knows it.
LLS
Fitzy threatened him with prosecution... “no cover if you fire me”.
LLS
I still think Rove should show up and answer absolutely every question with, “I don’t remember”.
This is the POTUS equivalent of voting ‘present’. Next step in the tried and true ‘say yes’, ‘do no’.
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O’Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don’t remember - 71
I don’t know - 62
I’m not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don’t believe so - 9
I don’t recall - 8
I don’t think so - 8
I don’t have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don’t remember - 4
I don’t believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don’t have any recollection of that - 2 I don’t have a specific memory - 2
I don’t have any memory of that - 2
I just can’t say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don’t have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don’t believe I did - 2
I can’t remember - 2
I can’t say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I’m not aware - 1
I honestly don’t know - 1
I don’t believe that I did - 1
I’m fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I’m not positive - 1
I certainly don’t think so - 1
I don’t really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That’s what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don’t recall - 1
I honestly don’t remember - 1
That’s all I know - 1
I don’t have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don’t actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don’t believe I ever did that - 1
That’s all I know about that - 1
I’m just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don’t know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don’t know anything about that - 1
I don’t have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don’t know - 1
I really don’t know - 1
I can’t deny that, I just — I have no memory of that at all - 1
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.