Congress rejects White House conditions(Conyers and Leahy send Fred letters)

Source: CNN

Story Highlights• NEW: Letters to White House counsel formally reject testimony proposal
• Senate panel authorizes subpoenas, but does not issue them
• White House offers "nothing, nothing, nothing," panel chairman says
• Majority Leader Reid suggests oath needed when Karl Rove speaks

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Key congressional committee chairmen sent letters Thursday formally rejecting a White House proposal specifying the conditions under which White House aides could be interviewed by Congress about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

The letters to White House counsel Fred Fielding followed the Senate Judiciary Committee's authorization of subpoenas for political adviser Karl Rove, former counsel Harriet Miers and their top aides.

Both houses of Congress authorized subpoenas this week, but have not yet issued any. The authorization does not mean subpoenas will be issued, but they could be if White House officials do not agree to testify under oath voluntarily.

President Bush has offered to allow Congress to interview the officials without oath or transcription of testimony and in private. The president said he will not allow them to testify under oath because it would damage their ability to give him their "candid advice."

Still, the letters left room for negotiation.



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/us.attorneys.firings/index.html?section=cnn_latest

---

House Dems to White House: Let's Talk
By Paul Kiel - March 22, 2007, 6:33 PM
With subpoenas at the ready, House Democrats wrote White House counsel Fred Fielding today to tell him that they "remain committed to seeking a cooperative resolution."

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA), who oversaw a vote yesterday to authorize the issuance of subpoenas for Karl Rove and other White House officials, signed the letter. You can read it here.

Under the solution Fielding laid out in a letter sent Tuesday, Rove and others would be offered to the committee in closed meetings, with a limited number of participants, with no oath and with no transcript. The letter also said that the White House would not turn over any internal White House communications.

Democrats have said no deal. "e cannot accept your proposal for a number of reasons, and would sincerely hope that your office will work with us," says the letter sent today.

more:http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002851.php

link to letter: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fieldinghouseltr/?resultpage=1&

pdf link to Leahy's letter:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200703/3-22-07%20Fielding%20Dem%20letter.pdf

for the of Miffy, get on with it.

A couple of days ago I wrote an OP entitled "just issue the goddamn subpoenas now. I got quickly taken to task and sent off to read why issuing them now weakens the hand of the dems.

Pat Leahy isn't only a Senator, he was State's Attny for Chittendon County for eight years. He's a savvy old prosecutor. Subpoenas in a non criminal case- which this is- are strengthened if the party issuing them tries to come to an accomodation with the party being subpoenaed. There's ample precedent.

In short, they know what they're doing.

another snip

Neither Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont nor Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the Democratic chairmen of the judiciary panels, appeared in any rush to issue the subpoenas.

"I'll issue them when we're ready," Leahy said Thursday night, adding that he wants to see more documents and await the outcome of a hearing on the matter next week.

Democrats said their action gave them a bargaining chip in negotiations with Bush. The White House has said the aides would provide only limited interviews with select lawmakers behind closed doors, without a transcript and not under oath.

"We all would like them to get off their mountain and come down and negotiate," Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

A court clash with the executive branch over subpoenas could produce months and even years of legal wrangling, possibly delaying an opportunity for lawmakers to question Bush's top aides until after he leaves office.

more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors

Sampson is supposed to testify on Thursday, Gonzo has promised an appearance as well(Bush has said he should go talk to them not that he meant it). I doubt Gonzo will appear and that is what will get the ball rolling.

The amazing part of the * admin is that while everyone else in D.C. knows that there are tipping points for everything and everyone, Karl and George and Dick have lost touch with reality and nothing that happens in the outside world (outside their own heads) has any impact on them.

The Plame leak eventually came out. We already know why these prosecutors were fired. The senate has taken away the only real actionable piece: Alberto cannot fill these positions without senate approval.

So, what's really on the table?

I think it's true that all we want is a public spectacle, because everything else will out on it's one, and they all know it.

The real purpose is to stop the iraq occupation, and if the congress has the votes today, that's even starting to happen.

Now the talk on Iraq isn't if but when.

We're winning, people. It doesn't matter if they serve the subpoenas. We're winning.

IMO Leahy should get answers NOW! Start unravelling the crimes or these awful crimes won't end up coming out at all (at least not for years). Begin the Healing of our country, and the world now!

:mad: