Bill Scher: The Evidence Points To Rove

[marmar]

from OurFuture.org:


The Evidence Points To Rove
Submitted by Bill Scher on July 26, 2007 - 3:39pm.


A long-standing Weekend Watchdog question is why Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., hadn't exercised his authority to issue a subpoena to Karl Rove and other White House officials and their role in the Prosecutor Purge.

Since then, several staffers have been subpoenaed. But today, Leahy finally subpoenaed Rove and his deputy.

Why has it taken this long? Leahy's speech on the Senate floor indicates his team was patiently collecting evidence to justify taking this step:

We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year.

Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings.

The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases.

It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.

The Carpetbagger Report praises Leahy's deliberative handling of the matter:

Good for Leahy. The point has always been to follow the facts. The first step was getting testimony from Justice Department officials, who implicated White House officials. So, the next was to speak to White House aides like Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers. Step Three, naturally, is getting information from Karl Rove and his deputy, J. Scott Jennings.

Obviously, if the White House refuses to cooperate when it comes to Miers, the Bush gang certainly won’t cooperate in making Rove and Jennings available, but that’s not how Leahy is looking at this. He’s conducting an investigation, a crime may have been committed, and they have pertinent information. They won’t appear voluntarily, so they’re getting subpoenas.

And if they don’t show, they can be subject to contempt charges, too.

Hard to argue with the professional approach being taken. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/evidence_points_rove?tx=3

[goclark]

1. Yes!

[Bitwit1234]

2. They say Leahy was a former prosecutor and he knows how to gather the goods

We were all chomping at the bit to get rove, get rove but Leahy with the patience of a wise one, wanted to be sure he had the "evidence" and he must have it...damn if it rains all day tomorrow they sun will be shinning for me.