WASHINGTON, May 22, 2008
House Panel Subpoenas Karl Rove
White House Says Judiciary Committee Is Making "Political Theater" Out Of The U.S. Attorney Firings Scandal
-
President Bush, right, looks at his top political advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove speaks at the White House in Washignton, Monday, Aug. 13, 2007. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
-
Interactive End Of The Rove President Bush's longtime friend and political mastermind Karl Rove resigns.
-
Photo Essay Karl Rove President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist announces he's leaving the White House.
Accusations of politics influencing decisions at the department led to last year's resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top aide to President Bush would testify voluntarily.
"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate."
"Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters," Conyers said.
Neither Rove nor his attorney, Robert Luskin, could be immediately reached for comment, but the White House slammed the subpoena.
A White House spokesman condemned the committee's subpoena as "political theater," reports CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.
"Karl Rove has twice offered to answer the Committee's questions on the Siegelman matter," said Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto. "Instead the Committee has now subpoenaed him for the apparent purpose of asking him questions already covered by the President's prior assertion of Executive Privilege. They know he can't answer, but they want their political theater."
In a May 21 letter to the House panel, Luskin called the subpoena a "gratuitous confrontation," noting that Rove has been similarly ordered to testify by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Luskin maintained Rove would not testify because of an ongoing legal dispute over whether the White House could claim executive privilege in refusing to publicly share conversations Mr. Bush had with top advisers. Instead, he wrote, Rove could discuss the issues with congressional investigators - but only behind closed doors and without a transcript being made of the session.
"While the committee has the authority to issue a subpoena, it is hard to see what this will accomplish, apart from a Groundhog Day replay of the same issues that are already the subject of litigation," Luskin wrote in the letter, which was released by Conyers' staff.
Conyers also released a May 5 letter showing the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating whether Siegelman was the target of "selective, politically motivated prosecutions."
The office, which is the department's internal ethics board, also has been investigating whether politics played a part in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.
Results of the joint inquiry into the fired prosecutors, which has been ongoing for more than a year with the department's inspector general, are expected to be released in coming months.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 CommentsPosted by One-American
Yes, it is as a matter of fact. Accountability was one of the things that concerned voters in 2006. In fact, the Dems haven''t gone far enough in their investigations. And when they finally do something, the Bush administration stonewalls. Wonder what they got to hide? I know if I was innocent, I''d be chomping at the bit to testify to anyone who wants to listen.
It''s time for the fat lady to sing.
Congress is fixing to have a short fat stuffed hawg for a BBQ, soon......
Obama Seeks Red Cross Help On War Crime Charges Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
Posted by Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscr on Wednesday, May 21st at 11:59 AM
May 20, 2008
Obama Seeks Red Cross Help On War Crime Charges Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers (Traduccisn al Espaqol abajo)
Russian Foreign Ministry reports to President Medvedev are stating today
that US Presidential candidate Barack Obama has sent one of his top aides
named Valerie Jarrett to meet with officials from the International
Committee of the Red Cross, in Geneva, Switzerland, to what is being
described in these reports as the %u2018preliminary stage%u2019 to begin actions in
the International Court of Justice charging the present United States
President, Vice President and former US Defense Secretary with war crimes.
As we had previously written about in our October 15, 2005 report, the
International Committee of the Red Cross opened in that year a War Crimes
Portfolio alleging that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld, and other US Officials, were in violation of Articles 3
and 4 of the Geneva Convention and could be tried for Crimes Against
Humanity.
Vicki, VICKI!!!! Did you turn off the lights...???? I can''''''''t see!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------]
LibH8er - that''s because you have yr head quite a way up yr own a$$.
I am so angry still over this farce we call the war with Iraq that I could pull my hair out!!!!!!
Go after these war criminals, dammmit!" Posted by stn_sage
I am all for it, and any dem who doesn''t get on board should be called out and made to explain themselves, or he charged with aiding and abetting obstruction of justice.
2. Baghdad year zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
Posted by psy_war at 12:07 AM : May 23, 2008
Thank you for this information.
It''s time to put the fat lady under oath and watch her sing.
lol!
I believe it also allows Bush to pardon himself and his administration from any and all laws they may have violated since 911! It''s pure BALONEY!
There''s NOTHING legal about ILLEGAL clauses in law! That are in direct violation of existing law!
MCA 2006 doesn''t supercede existing law that doesn''t allow co-conspirators to have private criminal discussions!
The Dems need to stop talk''in, and start WALK''IN!
Go after these war criminals, dammmit!
Actually ex-post facto laws are forbidden by the constitution, as are bills of retainder, but this is not an ex-post facto criminalization.
Since the actions of the Bush administration were illegal before "the decider" tried to decide that they were not (after they had already committed breach, hence "ex-post facto"), it is rather the nullification of the "ex-post facto DE-criminalization" first enacted by the White House.
That would make for some great TV
Posted by liberalameri
Are you saying they''d face the Texas style justice they only intended for the insignificant petty masses they call liberal whiners?
Guess this is the "mandate" that some fools voted for in ''''''''06.
Posted by One-American at 06:23 PM''
As far as I am concerned the liberals have 140 million to spend before I give hoot. I would hope that you remember that is how much the GOP spent having Kenneth Starr investigate Clinton and all he could find was an affair with an intern. What a great use of tax payer dollars that was!
I wonder what the independent investigator would find if they spent 104 million investigating Bush?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 Comments