Karl Rove to testify in front of Congress - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 03-04-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

View: Rove, Miers agree to questioning about U.S. attorney firings
Source: CNN
posted with the TFP thread generator

Rove, Miers agree to questioning about U.S. attorney firings
Rove, Miers agree to questioning about U.S. attorney firings

* Story Highlights
* Questions are about allegations of improper political influence in Justice Department
* Statement: Both to give depositions; claims of privilege will be "significantly limited"
* Bush administration insisted the firings of nine U.S. attorneys were legal
* Questions about reasons for firings remain unanswered, critics say

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former White House political adviser Karl Rove and counsel Harriet Miers have agreed to face questions from Congress about allegations of improper political influence in the Justice Department, the House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday.

Both will give depositions to investigators from the committee, and claims of privilege will be "significantly limited," according to a statement from the committee.

Rove and Miers had been resisting congressional subpoenas about the matter since the House Judiciary Committee began trying to force Miers to testify in 2006. The Bush White House resisted, claiming she could not be compelled to appear. But a federal judge in Washington ruled that the former Bush administration officials had no grounds to invoke executive privilege in the case.

The committee, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, has been investigating claims that Rove and his White House allies fired U.S. attorneys for political reasons and prosecuted officials whom they saw as opponents. Conyers called the agreement "a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight."

"It is also a vindication of the search for truth," Conyers said in a statement accompanying the announcement. "I am determined to have it known whether U.S. attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."

The controversy stems from the 2006 firings of the top federal prosecutors in nine U.S. cities, some of whom were singled out because they were considered insufficiently "loyal Bushies," according to one e-mail from a former Justice Department official uncovered in the probe.

U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. But the Justice Department's description of the firings as "performance-related" once the shake-up became public triggered an outcry from the fired lawyers and led to allegations of political influence on Justice Department hiring decisions and cases.

In September, the department's internal watchdog found the process behind the firings "fundamentally flawed" and sharply criticized top Justice officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Its report called for an outside probe to examine potential charges, and Gonzales' successor, Michael Mukasey, appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the case.

The Bush White House insisted the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys were legal. But Democrats said the central questions behind the dismissals -- who decided the prosecutors should be ousted and why -- remain unanswered.

Rove was former President Bush's top political adviser for most of his two terms, and Miers was the top White House legal adviser from 2005 until early 2007. They had been resisting congressional subpoenas in the investigation, citing executive privilege.

Rob Saliterman, a spokesman for the former president, issued a statement saying the deal had been reached "at the urging of the Obama administration and in consideration of the executive branch interests at stake." The agreement "satisfies the Committee's desire for additional information and will finally put this matter to rest," Saliterman said.

Congress went to court to enforce the subpoenas, and a federal judge in Washington ruled last year that the former Bush administration officials had no grounds to invoke executive privilege. After Rove received a new subpoena in January, the Obama administration said it was reviewing whether Rove and Miers were still covered by executive privilege and worked to clear the way for Wednesday's agreement.

White House counsel Greg Craig said the deal allows the committee to go forward with its investigation.

"The president is pleased that the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably and that they have committed to work in good faith to bring about a timely and final resolution of this matter, which is in the interest of the American people," Craig said in a statement from the White House.

The Justice Department will file a joint motion from Congress and the administration to put the court case on hold, Justice officials said, allowing it to be reopened if necessary.

CNN's Ed Henry and Terry Frieden contributed to this report.

I have always said that there is some sort of due process if someone believes that there is evidence to show wrong doing. Many people here seem to think that it should not happen in the first place, and while I can agree that it may be the Utopian view, it does happen. The recourses for wrong doings is that no one is above the law. It is a matter of convincing a court to do their duty and responsibility.

I'm interested in seeing this unfold.

ASU2003 · 03-04-2009, 05:45 PM

I have to say that I am more interested in how they will solve the problems we currently are facing, not rehashing old grudges.

inBOIL · 03-04-2009, 06:24 PM

This isn't (or shouldn't be) about rehashing old grudges, but about showing people in government that they will not be protected if they break the law. For too long there has been a de facto immunity from prosecution for people working in the executive branch, or working on orders from the president. If we're really lucky, that may start to come to an end in the near future.

shakran · 03-04-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I have to say that I am more interested in how they will solve the problems we currently are facing, not rehashing old grudges.

Because government officials are used to being immune from prosecution for their acts of criminal wrongdoings which land us in messes like this, they don't feel any qualms about being criminals while in office. Yes, we must solve the problems we have right now, but we must also address the root causes of the problems. Theft is almost nonexistant in Saudi Arabia because everyone there knows that if you steal and get caught (and you probably WILL get caught), you will lose your hand. I would suggest that some politicians think that if they can only create enough havoc by the time they leave office, we won't go after them because we'll be too busy fixing what they broke. Perhaps if we proved that theory wrong, we'd cut down a bit on the crookedness.

roachboy · 03-05-2009, 06:00 AM

the torture business seems to me a war crime that should be prosecuted unless we collectively really do think that war crimes only happen when a country looses a war. but i doubt that the prosecutions that i think should happen will, simply because the actions were framed by interpretations of executive power and state prerogatives in the context of a state of exception. it may have been done in grand fascist legal theory style, but it falls within the exercise of state power directly and so may in the end be immune. but i think for political reasons, the bush people should stand trial for this--otherwise saying that "we" oppose torture means nothing.

the actions regarding prosecutors seems far more straightforward an abuse of power, a mode of corruption that is eminently prosecutable and should be. much of this nonsense was carried out on the basis of an extrordinary arrogance, before the conservative house of cards collapsed and the dream of a thousand year retro-reich (the "permament republican majorities") along with it. whether the charges will stand or not in court is a separate question.

03-04-2009, 06:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	This isn't (or shouldn't be) about rehashing old grudges, but about showing people in government that they will not be protected if they break the law. For too long there has been a de facto immunity from prosecution for people working in the executive branch, or working on orders from the president. If we're really lucky, that may start to come to an end in the near future. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

03-05-2009, 06:00 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the torture business seems to me a war crime that should be prosecuted unless we collectively really do think that war crimes only happen when a country looses a war. but i doubt that the prosecutions that i think should happen will, simply because the actions were framed by interpretations of executive power and state prerogatives in the context of a state of exception. it may have been done in grand fascist legal theory style, but it falls within the exercise of state power directly and so may in the end be immune. but i think for political reasons, the bush people should stand trial for this--otherwise saying that "we" oppose torture means nothing. the actions regarding prosecutors seems far more straightforward an abuse of power, a mode of corruption that is eminently prosecutable and should be. much of this nonsense was carried out on the basis of an extrordinary arrogance, before the conservative house of cards collapsed and the dream of a thousand year retro-reich (the "permament republican majorities") along with it. whether the charges will stand or not in court is a separate question. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-04-2009, 05:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I have to say that I am more interested in how they will solve the problems we currently are facing, not rehashing old grudges.