Rove, Miers to be ‘interviewed’?

March 20, 2007

The Bush gang has been mulling over whether to let Karl Rove and Harriet Miers talk to lawmakers about the prosecutor purge scandal. This afternoon, the White House announced its response.

The White House will allow the president’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing of several U.S. attorneys was handled, but they will not testify under oath in the matter, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.

The announcement came after current White House counsel Fred Fielding met with members of the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, who had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.

CNN characterized this as an “announcement.” That’s true, but it’s probably better described as “an opening to further negotiations.”

Remember, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) more or less expected the White House to present this as an offer, and made it clear over the weekend that it wasn’t good enough. As the NYT reported, Leahy “insisted Sunday that Karl Rove and other top aides to President Bush must testify publicly and under oath.”

“I do not believe in this ‘We’ll have a private briefing for you where we’ll tell you everything,’ and they don’t,” Leahy said on ABC, adding: “I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this.”

In other words, Fielding is making an offer Leahy has already refused.

Paul Kiel added:

According to MSNBC just now, White House counsel Fred Fielding offered that Karl Rove and other White House officials be interviewed, but the testimony would be unsworn, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be permitted.

Both House and Senate Democrats already plan to vote on issuing subpoenas later this week.

Update: On CNN, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just told reporters that “[Fielding] said he wanted this to be a conversation rather than a hearing. A conversation’s fine. But let’s have a conversation under oath with a transcript so we can see what has happened and weigh the testimony of these particular witnesses against the others.”

Senate Democrats have no reason to go along with Fielding’s offer. Rove and Miers have important information to share; White House aides have testified under oath under similar circumstances in the past; and, frankly, Dems are playing the stronger political hand here. So why cave to such a weak offer? The only reason would be if Dems assume the Bush gang will fight a subpoena, and these private, transcript-less chats are the best they can get.

The Judiciary Committee may vote on subpoenas as early as tomorrow. I don’t expect Dems to accept Fielding’s offer, but we’ll see.

Time to start asking – loudly – what Rove is hiding? Behind closed doors? Not under oath? Why would an honest person decline to speak under oath?

Make it clear to the lowest-information voter. Republicans are afraid to speak under oath.

  • Wow, I really hope Dems don’t go the “this is the best we’re going to get” route.

    There is no reason not to have these “conversations” formally done as testimony. Unless, of course, there’s something to hide.

  • Getting nothing would be better than agreeing to these restrictions. Much better to be able to ask “what is Karl hiding? President Clinton testified under oath, why won’t Karl or Harriett?” And then say “the only reason someone would refuse to testify under oath is if they plan on lying.”

  • unsworn, inprivate, no transcript…

    wasn’t this what Cheney used when he sat Dumbya on his lap and “testified” to the 9-11 Commission while drinking water?

  • “The only reason would be if Dems assume the Bush gang will fight a subpoena, and these private, transcript-less chats are the best they can get.

    I’m not sure I buy the underlying premise. So what if BushCo fights the subpoena? Yeah, it slows down the taking of testimony, but that (a) only drags this out longer, which is bad for Bush; (b) it goes to the courts, where I think the Dems have a very good chance here based on precedent and the fact that e-mail of high-ranking WH folk and cabinet members has already been produced; and (c) it raises the visibility and political stakes, which, given that it also raises the extent it looks like BushCo is hiding something, is probably good for Dems.

    So I do not see any circumstances where the Fielding deal is “the best they can get.” They take the fight all the way and either get a win, and get public, under-oath testimony, or they get the Fielding deal plus a lot more bad press for Bush between now and when that ultimately happens.

  • So I do not see any circumstances where the Fielding deal is “the best they can get.” They take the fight all the way and either get a win, and get public, under-oath testimony, or they get the Fielding deal plus a lot more bad press for Bush between now and when that ultimately happens.

    Egg-zactly.

  • hang in there pat! let’s get this long-awaited “constitutional crisis” underway. this could be the start of what we’ve all been waiting a long time for 🙂 ……. (sorry if i sound too jubilant…….lol)

  • Ditto what Zeitgeist said @#7. If the White House resists the subpoenas and goes to court, there will be a lot of testimony under oath that even they can’t resist and you never know what will come out of it.

    Finally, the Wrong Wing is faced with a situation where there are literally no good outcomes for them. Whichever way they turn, they lose.

    Consequences. At long last, consequences.

  • I don’t understand…why would they not want to testify under oath? Is this a situation that allows them to mislead without consequence? There’s a penalty for lying either way so why are they insistent on not being under oath? Plus , is the Senate allowed to ask other questions…especially about Miers previous record in Texas. Also what happens to the Lam investigation that was leading to the WH? Is it still going on? Shouldn’t the already installed replacement attorneys be subjected to Senate approval? It’s the old song lyric by Joey Bacon that says “If you think I’m lying, why do you ask me questions? Do you think I’d lie about lying to you?” Does being under oath change anything?

  • Tom Cleaver asks: wasn’t this what Cheney used when he sat Dumbya on his lap and “testified” to the 9-11 Commission while drinking water?

    Yeah, and they looked guilty as sin back then, too. But those of us with the silver hats got a good drubbing for asking why they were acting so guilty.

    Sure would like to see what they said THAT day.

  • To me the more interesting thing is their refusal to allow transcripts. They are used to spinning lies as not being lies by now and it would be even easier if no written record exists of what they say. Without being under oath, there is no risk of criminal penalties.

  • First off, who wants to have an informal conversation with Miers and Rove? You’d have to bring in one of those priests to purify yourself.

    More importantly, Miers and Rove have such a lack of credibility that one would be skeptical of what they said even if they WERE under oath. Talking with them informally would be pointless and a waste of time.

  • We’ve known this moment would come – Bush’s Administration has consistently persued a policy of aggandizement of the Executive Branch, accountable to no one. For 6 years the GOP controlled Congress played along and it was only a matter of time once the Democrats took over that something like this would happen.
    The fact that they place those conditions doesn’t necessarily mean guilt or “something to hide” – although it certainly looks that way in the PR battle, doesn’t it? But basically these conditions are consistent with the idea that Executive branch officials, especially advisors to the President, aren’t accountible to anyone other than the President. If “testimony” is given voluntarily (i.e., not subpeonaed), not under oath (i.e., not coerced under the threat of perjury), and without a transcript (i.e., an informal briefing rather than official testimony), the fiction of the ascedant Presidency with all of its rights and privileges vis-a-vis the other branches remains intact.
    It is yet another example of how the Bushies are so fundamentally out of touch with America and what Americans see as what is “fair” and how you do things for the good of the country, rather than putting the percieved perogatives of office first. One would think that a “uniter not a divider” would do everything possible to make as much information available as possibile and do resolve the controversry (especially considering that there is a war that they keep comparing to WWII on) – but one would be wrong, wouldn’t they be?

  • Would someone please let Bush (and council) know that the Republican Congress has left the building.

    I can’t figure out if they are that stupid, confident, or just more time. What is the point of an informal meeting at this stage of the game anyways ?

    I hate these king of scenarios, we know they are guilty, they know they are guilty, yet they act like they are not, then refuse all means of getting the truth out. I wouldn’t budge if I was them either, why, it serves no purpose but making them look bad.

  • This strikes me as in poker, the kind of hand where the Dems clearly should go “all in”. Drag them through this kicking and screaming, and take them down one by one. Use the courts for exactly the reason they exist. Get to the truth. This private conversation thing needs to wither and die.

  • Ditto what Zeitgeist said @#7. If the White House resists the subpoenas and goes to court, there will be a lot of testimony under oath that even they can’t resist and you never know what will come out of it.

    If you are thinking that there would be testimony under oath as part of such legal proceedings, I don’t think that there would be. I assume the procedure would unfold as follows: (1) senate issues and serves subpoenas, (2) White House moves to quash subpoenas, and (3) the legal proceedings unfold on purely legal grounds with no testimony necessary. The other way would be (1) senate issues and serves subpoenas, (2) White House never complies, (3) Senate invokes whatever procedure it has to enforce subpoenas, and (4) the legal proceedings unfold on purely legal grounds with no testimony necessary.

    Anyway, that’s what I think would happen based on my experience…but I could be wrong.

  • this from salon’s war room:

    “Brinksmanship? You be the judge. Sen. Chuck Schumer says Fielding had made it clear that he didn’t want to negotiate” whether Rove and others would have to appear in an open hearing or under oath. “That doesn’t mean we’re not going to try,” the New York Democrat tells the Associated Press.”

    note to mr. fielding. i don’t think that the dems have any intention of negotiating, at least i hope they don’t. you’re in no position to negotiate any more, mr. fielding.

  • One thing’s for sure, if Bill Clinton asked to be “interviewed” under these conditions rather than testifying under oath, the Republicans would of course have seen the merits of the request.

    Note to Dems: GROW A PAIR.

  • It is indeed time to tell Mr. Fielding to “go fuck himself” and that he needs to get his naughty little imps washed up and presentable so that they can come and claim their misdeeds. Otherwise, every crowbar necessary must be brought to bear.

    ShrubCo has skated relentlessly for the last six years and our country has suffered mightily. Whatever it takes. It’s time to take out every tool in the box. Because ShrubCo knows they will need, (and they will use), every tool they’ve got to thwart and stifle every move made to pry them from under their rocks. They’ve known this was coming. This is a throw down for the the future of this country.

  • Republicans loathe testifying under oath, or before camers, or in front tape recorders, or where transcriptions will be produced … because they just hate being caught lying … which is what they do all the time.

    Jon Stewart makes wonderful use of playback to make people look ridiculous. You’d think anybody who had seen it once would be able to get around it, or even take advantage of it, but they never do.

    I don’t know what it is about conservatives generally, but they’re always being tripped up technology. Even when it’s their own technology (I’m thinking the Nixon tapes). They remind me of people who refuse to learn anything about computers.

  • I doubt this will convince any Dems to take their offer and vote against subpoenas, this will likely only piss them off. Republicans, however, will no doubt feel inclined to take the administrations “gracious” offer and vote against subpoena.

    We have the greater numbers, but is a simple majority all that is needed to issue a subpoena?

  • You know, I’d love to believe that the Dems were relishing a showdown, but I have beendisappointed too many times. Leahy has proven himself to be quite the chump over the years.

    This ties into a related point: Republicans always seem to have clear political objectives. They then relentlessly work to achieve them (e.g. First decide to destroy Bill Clinton then relentlessly pursue every whiff of a scandal until something sticks.)

    Now I’m not saying that GOP objectives are admirable. But the sleaze factor doesn’t detract from the fact that pursuing one’s goals is a laudable course of action.

    I really wonder what Leahy and Schumer are thinking. Do they go to bed at night pondering the endgame. Are they determined (as they should be) to get Rove and Gonzales removed? Or, as I suspect, do they simply wander through life, vaguely hoping to uncover “the truth” but otherwise not set on a particular course of action?

  • I’m a little tired of the “the Dems are going to investigate rather than legislate” screech coming from a panicked WH.

    I’d be answering “we’ll be done investigating when the WH is done covering up”, but that’s just me.

    It’s like if your house gets infected with roaches – sooner of later you’ve got to spend some time killing bugs.

  • Glen – I agree with you, but I understand why the WH does it: Tim “Auditioning for Tony Snow’s Job” Russert and Matt “Light News” Lauer gave the “people have little appetite for investigations, the Dems should just legislate” spin their full blessing this morning for an audience of millions.

    all together now: What liberal media?

    • Comments are closed.