I think it’s fair to say that Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is livid over the prosecutor purge scandal.
Democrats are now demanding additional documents, as well as testimony under oath from three top current and former White House officials: Mr. Rove; Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel; and William Kelley, the deputy counsel.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said he would subpoena them if they refused to appear.
“I intend to get the testimony,” Mr. Leahy said in an interview. “If they don’t want to come voluntarily, then I will subpoena them. If the White House wants still to refuse, you have to ask yourself, Why stonewall? If they’ve got nothing to hide, why not testify?”
On CNN, yesterday afternoon, Leahy was equally direct. On whether Rove might testify, Leahy said, “He can appear voluntarily if he wants. If he doesn’t, I will subpoena him.”
Leahy added, “The attorney general said, ‘Well, there are some staff people or lower level people — I am not sure whether I want to allow them to testify or not.’ I said, ‘Frankly, Mr. attorney general, it’s not your decision, it’s mine and the committee’s.’ We will have some subpoenas.”
Have I mentioned lately the benefits of being in the majority?
On a related note, there’s a new conservative talking point that’s making the rounds — because U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, there was nothing legally impermissible about the purge. As a result, even if Justice Department officials (including the Attorney General) misled Congress, it’s relatively meaningless because there’s “no underlying crime.” If this defense sounds familiar, it’s because Bush’s allies just finished using it to defend Scooter Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice.
Leahy addressed this point yesterday as well. (TP has video)
BLITZER: But is there anything illegal in putting one of Karl Rove’s associates in and making him the U.S. attorney in Arkansas?
LEAHY: There’s nothing illegal in a president firing, by itself, firing a U.S. attorney. What it does say, however, to law enforcement, you either play by our political rules — by our political rules, not by law enforcement rules, but by our political rules — or you’re out of a job.
What I am saying is that that hurts law enforcement, that hurts fighting against crime. And if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation — and this is something we don’t know — if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation, then you do get into the criminal area.
Blitzer asked Leahy specifically whether he believes administration officials committed perjury. Leahy responded, “Well, we’ll find that out. That’s not always the easiest thing to prove. But we can certainly prove that we have not gotten complete answers. It’s a lot more. I think the American public deserves to have answers on this, instead of every day a little bit more dribbling out. Let’s get all of the facts. But let’s have it under oath. It’s interesting, sometimes, when people are sworn in. It focuses their attention a little bit more.”
It does, indeed. The Judiciary Committee will vote today, on whether to authorize subpoenas to 14 current and former administration officials, including Rove, Miers, and Sampson.
Stay tuned.