Judiciary Subcommittee Issues Subpoenas for Hearing on Case of Fired U.S. Attorneys

[cal04]

The House Judiciary Committee released the following statement:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers today issued subpoenas against certain former U.S. Attorneys who were recently fired by the Bush Administration. The subpoenas were authorized by the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law (CAL), chaired by Congresswoman Linda Sánchez.

The subpoenas require former U.S. Attorneys David C. Iglesias, Carol Lam, H.E. Cummins, III, and John McKay to appear before a CAL Subcommittee hearing next week.

“The former U.S. Attorneys are alleging very serious charges against the Administration and we need to hear from them,” Chairman Conyers said. “We want to hear their stories and we want the Administration to address the charges head on so that we can get to the bottom of this.”

“We decided to issue subpoenas only as a last resort,” said Chairwoman Sánchez. “We need to get to the bottom of whether competency in upholding the law is being sacrificed for political ideology.”

Subcommittee members voted this afternoon in a public meeting. The subpoenas will be issued this evening for the U.S. Attorneys to appear before the subcommittee on Tuesday, March 6, at 2:00 pm in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will consider a bill by Congressman Howard Berman that would reverse a new provision in the USA PATRIOT Act allowing the Attorney General to indefinitely appoint federal prosecutors through the end of the Bush Administration without Senate confirmation.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=77

[rodeodance]

1. oh ho ho..............

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. Could this precipitate the impeachment?

[Diane R]

Let's recommend this!

[rodeodance]

4. you betcha!

[rodeodance]

3. look what else the hearing will consider:

“We decided to issue subpoenas only as a last resort,” said Chairwoman Sánchez. “We need to get to the bottom of whether competency in upholding the law is being sacrificed for political ideology.”

Subcommittee members voted this afternoon in a public meeting. The subpoenas will be issued this evening for the U.S. Attorneys to appear before the subcommittee on Tuesday, March 6, at 2:00 pm in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will consider a bill by Congressman Howard Berman that would reverse a new provision in the USA PATRIOT Act allowing the Attorney General to indefinitely appoint federal prosecutors through the end of the Bush Administration without Senate confirmation.

[ninkasi]

6. Yes, that needs to be reversed

It's time to start taking away the powers that Bush has stolen, and that's just one of many that should be corrected.

[ninkasi]

5. Good!

Finally, Conyers has subpoena power, and can investigate this thoroughly corrupt, incompetent administration. This should get good.
:popcorn: I'm stocking up on it now.

[fooj]

7. Glad to give this the 5th!

[robinlynne]

8. Conyers, Feingold, Boxer, McKinney. my heros. wish there were more to

name. (of course there are....just saying.)

[cal04]

9. House panel subpoenas fired federal prosecutors

The first high-profile subpoenas of the 110th Democratic-led Congress were issued on Thursday in an investigation of the firings of at least eight federal prosecutors by the Bush administration.

With critics suggesting possible political mischief in the dismissals, a House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee subpoenaed four of the former U.S. attorneys to appear before the panel next week.

They include one who, according to a U.S. senator, has told congressional aides he believes he was ousted because he resisted pressure to indict in an investigation in New Mexico, which could have helped Republicans before the 2006 elections.

"We need to get to the bottom of whether competency in upholding the law is being sacrificed for political ideology," said Rep. Linda Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat and chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070302/pl_nm/usa_congress_prosecutors_dc

[Vidar]

10. K&R.

[Igel]

11. I read this yesterday, and couldn't understand why they

needed subpoenas. Then I read elsewhere that the prosecutors refused to testify voluntarily and would only testify under subpoena.

Now, this strikes me as strange: Some have spoken out independently. I can't help but wonder if there's not some legal protection in being forced to testify under oath, and some legal jeopardy in testifying voluntarily.