House Dems move forward with subpoenas

March 21, 2007

Admit it, some of you thought congressional Democrats would hear Bush’s obstinate vows to fight yesterday and cave to White House demands on the prosecutor purge scandal. Dems have talked tough before, only to back down against aggressive White House posturing. Might it happen again?

Not this time.

Today, the House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee (CAL) voted to authorize the full committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) to issue subpoenas for current and former White House and Justice Department officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, Scott Jennings and Kyle Sampson, as well as documents that the Committee has not yet received.

“The White House’s offer provides nothing more than conversations. It does not allow this Committee to get the information we need without transcripts or oaths,” Conyers said. “This motion allows the Committee to pursue good faith negotiations. We are continuing our talks with the White House, along with the Senate, but we must protect the interest of the Congress and the American people by maintaining the option to move forward with our investigation with or without continued cooperation from the Administration.”

“We have worked toward voluntary cooperation, but we have to prepare for the possibility that the White House will continue to hide the truth,” said CAL Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez. “This Congress respects White House prerogatives as a safeguard for the internal deliberations on the legitimate creation of policy, but they are not a ‘get out of jail free’ card. There must be accountability.”

The motion authorizes the Chairman to issue subpoenas at his discretion for the officials to appear before the Committee relating to the ongoing investigation. It also authorizes Conyers to subpoena additional documents relating to the issue – specifically, unredacted documents that have not previously been provided.

Tony Snow told reporters this morning, “The question they’ve got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?”

And if the White House’s offer of private, no-transcript, no-swearing in, no-internal WH document “interviews” would get Dems the truth, I have no doubt they’d take it.

At long last. Yes!

  • The same kind of language that infuriated me during the Clinton impeachment now sounds good and that’s because now it is based on something real.

  • Question for Tony Snowjob: “The questiomn you’ve got to ask yourself, punk, is – do you feel lucky? Well? Do you? Because you’re merely a minor rat on a sinking ship.”

  • I think the American people can tell who’s providing the “political spectacle” and who’s getting the truth. Time for Dems to take every BS statement they make, and ask the viewer whether it doesn’t sound like the politics of desperation.

  • someone needs to ask Snow the obvious: “Tony, wouldn’t an oath help in getting the truth? What is the problem, exactly, in Rove and Miers talking under oath, or the American people hearing what they have to say?”

    If his head explodes, will there be anything in it?

  • someone needs to ask Snow the obvious: “Tony, wouldn’t an oath help in getting the truth? What is the problem, exactly, in Rove and Miers talking under oath, or the American people hearing what they have to say?”

    Seriously. WTF is the point of having reports at the White House if they can’t won’t ask the most obvious question.

  • “…having reportERS at the White House…”

    That’s what I get for not previewing…

  • I hope they wouldn’t take it.

    Because the purpose of such hearings is not simply to “get at the truth.” The purpose is a responsible government with consequences when those who govern do wrong.

    We’ve seen many times during this Administration when “the truth” has been acknowledged, as the wrongdoer takes “full responsibility,” and then gets a promotion.

    This is not responsible government.

  • I liked the phrase CB used in an earlier post today. I’m going to use it liberally (how else?!) when talking with my neighbors out here in the exurbia of Bedford, Indiana, the reddest part of the first red state called for Bush in 2000. “What problem do (they) have with the phrase “So help me, God?”

    After Tony Baloney uttered the words, “getting the truth,” was it immediately followed by a strong smell of sulfur?

  • This works for Bush in that its not about Iraq. Political food fight between the President (shorttimer) and Congress does take much of the spotlight away from the Surge.

  • Maybe someone in the White House pressroom should grow big brass ones and ask Tony Snow why it’s different when Shrubby’s minions are subpoened rather than Bill Clinton’s.

    • Comments are closed.