Conyers orders Rove and Miers to haul their asses in and testify

[marmar]

from AP, via HuffPost:


House panel approves subpoenas for top Bush aides in prosecutor flap
LAURIE KELLMAN | AP | March 21, 2007 11:17 AM EST


WASHINGTON — 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, 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 panel approved, but has not issued, subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week.

The panel also voted to compel the production of documents related to the firings from those officials and Gonzales, Fielding and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolton. Fielding a day earlier refused to provide Congress internal White House communications on the subject.
....(more)

The complete article is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070321/fired-prosecutors

[midnight]

1. Does anyone know if Clintons aides required a suponea

to testify under oath or did they justy testify because they were asked?

[DemKR]

2. Not yet

The subpoenas haven't actually yet been issued, they just gave Conyers the power to issue them. (I hope he does)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Now that they have the power,

do you think Bush will cave and let Rove and Miers testify? Or does he think SCOTUS will overturn the Nixon ruling on executive privilege?

[AndyA]

4. I think they ought to subpoena George Bush's fuzzy ass and have him testify

under oath as to the goings on in his (mis)administration.

If he has nothing to hide, why would there be a problem? Clinton testified before the Republicans. The precedent has been set.

[gratuitous]

5. The only "political spectacle" here is originating with Bush

Congress is doing what it should have been doing for the last six years, but which, curiously, the Republican majorities never seemed to get around to doing: Providing oversight. I guess the GOP was too busy with such riveting topics as flag burning, gay marriage, and who should have the final say in Terri Schiavo's case.

You get the truth by gathering evidence, and taking testimony. Odd that Tony Snow doesn't appear to know this. Why would Bush hire such an incompetent boob to be his press secretary?

[marmar]

6. Agreed.

:applause:

[HellRaiser]

7. kick