Question re. subpoenas is it a fishing expedition vis-a-vis a specific crime investigated?

I have been having a debate with a coworker about the impending constitutional showdown between the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. My friend maintains that this is a fishing expedition in that they do not have specific communications in mind when they are subpoenaing the documents or people (ie. Karl Rove). So, by his definition, they would have to be looking for specific emails or planning to question Rove on specific conversations for this to not be a fishing expedition.

Since I am not a lawyer, I do not have a sense as to what the law says here. I counter his argument that the Congress is now performing (finally!) its constitutional duty to oversee the Executive. How can they perform over-site without fishing? Is it fair to say that it is obvious that there the administration is covering something up and that is good enough to go fishing?

Bottom line: Is it fishing? and if it is, is that OK, legally?

As in any legal matter, the parties have the right to make document requests, call for depositions, issue interrogtories. The results of these actions can be rules inadmissible at trial but the information can be requested and in most cases must be provided.

By its very definition, over-site is fishing.

happen.

It's not fishing, it's checking up on how people and systems are performing.