Breaking: Turdblossom and Harriet to Testify

[kpete]

Source: emptywheel

Breaking: Turdblossom and Harriet to Testify
By: emptywheel Wednesday March 4, 2009 2:38 pm


And, just as importantly, the notion of Absolute Immunity dies a well-deserved death (via email).

In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited.

In addition, if the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.

The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.

Chairman Conyers issued the following statement:

"I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. 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."

You think maybe Rove's lost his 5 time's a charge charm with perjury?


Read more: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/04/breaking-turdblossom-and-miers-to-testify/

---

edited to include:
House Judiciary Committee Secures Rove and Miers Testimony in U.S. Attorney Firings
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090304.html



I’ve just updated the post with this–which addresses some questions you’ve asked:

Update on timing: The Committee is going to get the documents it had requested and read them before they do the interviews with Harriet and Karl. And the interviews will be done by staffers, with the option of doing a public hearing with questions from Congresspersons if that seems useful. So the timing for the moment seems to be driven by how quickly they get documents.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/04/breaking-turdblossom-and-miers-to-testify/

..............

UPDATE II:
Update: One more detail on logistics.
The documents and the transcripts will eventually be made public.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/04/breaking-turdblossom-and-miers-to-testify/

[jtrockville]

1. "under penalty of purjury"? does that mean UNDER OATH?

[The Wizard]

5. According to the dictionary

Perjury is bearing false witness or lying under oath. If Rove was under oath he'd deny he was sworn in.

[lisa58]

7. Lying to Congress is purjury whether an oath is taken or not...

...so it may not be "under oath"

[Catamount]

56. Since when does he care about an oath?

It's a shame we won't get to see any of this--and some speculate that they'll both invoke the 5th for anything really important.
I suppose it's better than nothing!

[lisa58]

10. Looks like it is Under Oath...

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3767535

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Actually, I believe it does mean under oath. That's not too important, though,

as long as there is a transcript. Under oath or not, they could face charges for lying to Congress, with the transcripts to prove what they said. Perjury is just the icing.

[HamdenRice]

79. Atheists should be happy that it is NOT necessarily UNDER OATH

but instead under penalty of perjury. When you step back and think of it for a minute, "under oath" is pretty archaic and superstitious. The oath is a "swear" before all knowing God that what the witness is saying is the truth, and an invitation for God to "smite thee" if what you say isn't true. In the good old days it allowed examining attorneys to scare the bejesus out of witnesses with preliminary questions about what the Bible says about lying and what God will do to them if they lie "under oath."

The more modern formulation is "under oath or affirmation," the latter being a (non-religious) statement that what is said is true, and "under threat of perjury" means that if the testimony isn't true, the person can be prosecuted for perjury.

[RufusTFirefly]

83. How modern a formulation is "oath or affirmation"?

Why, it's as modern as the Constitution, which uses the phrase multiple times.

The Constitution has always been a decidedly secular document. This isn't new.

[HamdenRice]

85. BY GRABTHAR'S HAMMER I SWEAR I WILL AVENGE THEE!!!

When we're talking about "swearing oaths" in European and American legal history, "modern" is a very relative term.

:rofl:

(Actually the Grabthar's hammer oath is pretty recent, dating only to the science fiction comedy, Galaxy Quest (1999)).

[RufusTFirefly]

86. Haha. Good point. I'd call the Enlightenment "modern" ...

... if it weren't for the fact that much of the country apparently wants to return to the age before then.

[ixion]

2. encouraging, but in public under oath is the only way, ultimately

I hope it happens. :bounce:

[Jackpine Radical]

41. I disagree about the public part.

Why provide them with a reason to claim national security interests? As long as there is a transcript, whatever they say is preserved and can be used against them.

[Politicalboi]

50. They're going to use

National Security no matter what. And I'm guessing that they will go along with it. I hope I'm wrong. It's been a long time coming.

[tomp]

87. but doesn't that mean we can't see the testimony? nt

[Hulk]

3. Haven't we seen this headline a few times before already??

I'll believe turdblossom and Miers report when I see it. I certainly HOPE they do, but at the same time, I doubt we will EVER get the truth out of that corrupt and criminal administration in ANY FORM or size.

rove is a lard ass prick, and the day he raises his hand on his 'good book' is the day hell freezes over.

[L. Coyote]

51. Justice Department investigation: "political considerations played a part in the firings"

An internal Justice Department investigation concluded that, despite the administration's denials, political considerations played a part in the firings of as many as four of the federal prosecutors.

The report singled out the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias in New Mexico as the most troubling. Iglesias's firing followed complaints from leading Republican political figures in New Mexico about his handling of voter fraud and public corruption cases. The report also found that Bud Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Arkansas, was forced out to make way for Timothy Griffin, who had previously been Rove's deputy in the White House political office.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey named a special prosecutor in September to investigate whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, other Bush administration officials or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the firings.

.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_aides_testimony

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. WTF? agreement reached with "the former Bush Administration"

That's a scary phrase... as bad as "zombie banks"

A former administration is not an entity, let alone an entity with which one can negotiate.

If former administrations members refuse to go along with the former administration does the former administration ask for their resignation from their former jobs?

[bbgrunt]

6. ...and one wonders what kind of concessions were given to reach an "agreement"

[Richard D]

30. My first thought.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. Maybe not much. Maybe the major concession was that U.S. marshals wouldn't

be handcuffing them and frogmarching them.

[Peace Patriot]

34. Yes, you've nailed the essence, Kurt_and_Hunter. The Bush Junta = the Mob.

Or, some foreign country. So, here's Rove, an ordinary U.S. citizen now, bargaining with Congress as if he were Iran or North Korea. And the reason is that he is a Bush Junta "made man." He is under their "protection." He gets to dictate terms to an official, equal branch of the U.S. government, like North Korea bargaining about bilateral or multilateral talks, or like Iran might bargain with UN inspectors about nuclear facilities, or like the U.S. might bargain at Koyoto treaty negotiations. Iran and North Korea and the U.S. have a right to do this. They are sovereign countries. Rove has no right to do this. He is not a foreign country. He is not a branch of government himself. He has no official status or power, except as an ordinary citizen. And the regime he worked for has ZERO POWER over Congress, and over the White House and the federal executive. None. Zero. Zilch. They are gone. They have NO power to say what documents are disclosed or who answers a Congressional subpoena, or what the terms of their testimony will be. Congress can bargain with him, for their own purposes. He has no power to bargain with them, except as a private citizen who has the right to take the 5th Amendment.

But, of course, this is only the theory of our democracy--a poor, fragile, dying, almost-corpse, from what I can see.

And I think we have to face it--even if our institutions and our better political leaders cannot, or will not, face it--that we have been occupied by a foreign power for eight years, that behaved just like a criminal gang, but of course a criminal gang writ large. Personally, I think somebody bargained with them, to get them out (and probably to prevent armageddon--the nuking of Iran). I think that's where "impeachment if off the table" came from. And I think they may still hold sway over the White House and Congress--perhaps in this respect: On the matter of, first, impeachment, and, now, investigation and prosecution, the Bush Junta principles have been immunized, and the question is, who are the "made men" who are included in that immunity, and/or how much sway do the principles have to conceal evidence of their crimes that might emerge from investigation, testimony or prosecution of lesser individuals who are not immunized--due to the immunity deal that was given them to get them out? In other words, The Deal gives them continuing power, at least as far as their crimes being exposed. (Exposure puts the current administration in a bind, and Congress, and also might assist the prosecution of the immunized principles in other countries, or in civil suits. So the immunity gives them some sway over the potential exposure.) I'm not sure how "made" Rove is. He is obviously a key to crimes of the principles. And that may be what this bargaining with Congress is all about. And he could have full immunity, in association with the principles' immunity. Hard to say.

---------

Edit: Just one other thought. What power do the Bushwhack principles have to enforce the terms of the immunity deal they were given, now that they are out of the White House? Blackmail dossiers? Other threatening powers? If my theory about all this is correct--that a Deal was given to them to get them out--why would the current administration and/or Congress, feel obliged to honor it, now that the threat posed by (I think mainly) Cheney and Rumsfeld (nuking Iran? martial law?) has been neutralized? There could be an alternative explanation for this VERY STRANGE protectiveness toward these MASTER CRIMINALS WHO HAVE LOOTED AND DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY--including that most of Democratic leaders were collusive on war, torture, spying and looting, and don't want to give up the imperial powers that were asserted. Or it could be a mixed bag of things. But somewhere in there is immunity for the worst crimes our government has ever committed. Of that I am fairly certain.

[The abyss]

70. Recommend for Peace Patriot’s comments.

As always, well spoken!

[earth mom]

76. Like many people here on DU have been saying all along. The BFEE = The Mafia.

:yoiks:

[Turbineguy]

8. When it comes time to give credit

to George W Bush for all the good things he's done, it will stand out that he gave Karl Rove the name "Turdblossom".

And that's what we got for our 8 years with that idiot.

[No Elephants]

77. Meh. I bet he heard someone else say it first.

[Demeter]

9. I'm Thinking They'll Both Take the Fifth

and we'll spend months trying to figure out the crimes...

[JDPriestly]

28. Of course, then they can just go down the line to Rove's and Harriet's assistants, etc.

Once they get the documents, they can probably put two and two together.

[Jackpine Radical]

43. Then let them. There is most likely sufficient independent evidence

to melt the grease off their collective goose.

[Beetwasher]

11. I'll Believe It When I See It

It would not surprise me in the least if Rove STILL fails to appear on the appointed day.

[BradBlog]

12. BREAKING: CONYERS REACHES AGREEMENT WITH ROVE, MIERS FOR SWORN TESTIMONY

Source: BRAD BLOG

BREAKING: CONYERS REACHES AGREEMENT WITH ROVE, MIERS FOR SWORN TESTIMONY

Just in from Conyers' office. Rove and Miers will testify, under oath, in "transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury"...

DETAILS, FULL STATEMENT FROM CONYERS:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6963


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6963

[Taverner]

13. So does this mean Rove will testify and not be prosecuted?

Or the other way around?

[Parche]

14. About Fukin Time

:woohoo: :hi:

[Beetwasher]

15. I'll Believe It When I See It

When I see Rove in front of Congress answering questions, then I'll believe it. Just what exactly was the deal? What's Rove getting? :shrug:

I would not put it past Rove to just not show up once again.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. Whoa........

That's a big deal. They're agreeing to something that's usually reserved for mere mortals.

And their case appealing this very matter hasn't yet been decided.

Very interesting..................

[AndyTiedye]

17. Agreement Should Be: Rove Either Testifies or Does the Frog March

[JDPriestly]

29. The testify or frog march may be the "agreement." The language

may have been used to save Rove's and Harriet's faces. Also, by agreeing to private depositions, they avoid a certain amount of public embarrassment. It's easier for them to lie in private and speak in generalities in private than to do so in public.

[rambler_american]

47. Why would ANYone

want to save either of those faces?

[Catamount]

65. That's what I'd like to see! n/t

[terisan]

18. I think this is the Theater of Politicians and Craig and Conyers will see that Rove goes free.

Craig works both sides.

Conyers played coy over impeachment-kept claiming he did not know people wanted investigation and then would say we have to have hearings....until the clock ran out on the Bush administration.

I may be cynical but i think the fix is in. Obama and Congress will keep using Bush adm revelations to distract and keep the base in line, while behind the scenes, the Roves and others will be reassured they are in no danger.

[beac]

19. "In an agreement "-- these words worry me. WHAT was in that agreement?

Immunity for KKKarl? Harriet gets one more chance to show her undying lurve for her Bushie by allowing herself to be thrown under the bus???

[spamlet2002]

20. transcribed depositions

what does this mean? like transcription/record is such a big concession.

i'm wondering if they'll get the questions in advance, and are being allowed to read their answers for the record, with little/stipulated follow-up. anyone can filibuster with prepared responses. e.g. rice's congressional testimony, lol

[JDPriestly]

31. A transcription is the process of recording an oral deposition in written form as I understand it.

The transcript is the written record (the document that the deponent (Bush and Harriet in this case) is supposed to sign within a certain period after the deposition) of the oral deposition.

A written deposition, as I understand, is a deposition in which both questions are submitted to the deponent (Bush and Harriet in this case) in writing and the deponent responds in writing.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. Yes. Transcribed simply means that a written record is made by someone like a court reporter

of everything that is said on the record. It preserves the testimony so that it can be used in further proceedings.

[creeksneakers2]

35. Its a concession from the Bush side

In prior offers Bushies insisted that no transcript be taken. That way, it would be almost impossible to build a case for perjury or lying to Congress. The Bushies could lie all they wanted.

[pleah]

21. So, they had to come to an AGREEMENT

to get the testimony! Rove should have been arrested for snubbing all the subpoenas!

I'm glad they are doing this, but shit, they should have done what they were supposed to do in the first place.

Now, will they get the documents they need or will this be a permanent delay?

[Hardrada]

22. And will elope shortly thereafter.

[jhain]

24. SPEWWWWW

CHOKED!

[jhain]

23. Hope They Can Find A NOMEX Covered Bible

So the book doesn't BURST into FLAMES.

[salguine]

25. Sheeeeit. Rove will run the whole show with a smirk on his fat fucking face.

[JDPriestly]

26. Anyone want to make a bet on how times Rove and Harriet will answer "I don't recall"s and

assert their Fifth Amendment rights? In addition, can they appear and assert the privilege after they appear?

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Can you say, "redacted?"

[notesdev]

33. Yep

On the **th *** of *****(1), **** ****(2) testified that ** ** secretly ***(3).


Footnotes:
1: Censored.
2: Censored.
3: Censored. And quite shocking too, but strangely appropriate.

[NewJeffCT]

So, they testify and take the 5th or say "I can't recall"...

sigh...

[L. Coyote]

32. Euphemism: "between the former Bush Administration and"?? Who is who??

There is no "former administration" so who was the agreement with?

Who is arguing the lawsuit for the government if not the Obama DOJ? That aspect is missing here.

Who is arguing before the judge/engaged in the case and motions at issue?

[benld74]

36. Under penalty of perjury - Do you really think THAT scares them after all they have done?,,,

UNLESS they can find something that sticks and are willing to make an example out of their past deeds against this country it will mean nothing more than another dog and pony show for CSPAN and whatever 'librul' edia decides to show it.

[deminks]

37. What happened to Josh Bolten and his subpoena?

Was he dropped and I missed it? Was he part of the "deal"?

[struggle4progress]

38. It is to our honor to have a gentleman such as Conyers in the US Senate

[Lint Head]

39. To me this is too little too late. Rove should be in jail while the investigation

goes on. That is what would happen to me or you if we tampered with the justice system.

This tells me that Roves ass is golden and is considered better than the average person.

Don't get your hopes up.

:dem:

[bdamomma]

45. it won't be public either. unfortunately.

[defendandprotect]

58. uh, oh ....hmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. I'm sure it will be a little more transparent than usual

[Xipe Totec]

46. Breaking Turdblossom - I like the sound of that! n/t

[L. Coyote]

48. WHERE WERE WE? Deja DU's

Jun-01-07 Raging Caging: What the heck is vote caging, and why should we care?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3295197
One aspect of the e-mail inquiry has to be the RNC vote-caging e-mails and their role in other USA firing e-mails.
Dahlia Lithwick -- http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/pagenum/all/#page_start
... Monica Goodling referred several times to "vote caging" possibly done by Arkansas' soon to be ex-interim, never-confirmed U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin. ... liberal talk radio, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the blogosphere went nuts. ... Is vote caging the most underreported part of this U.S. attorneys scandal or the most over-hyped? ... "Vote caging, what's that?" we e-mailed each other at Slate. ... Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters ...

Jun-03-07 GOP Voter Fraud Bigwig Complained to White House about Canned U.S. Attorney
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1031946

May-09-07 US Attorney Firing: Voter Fraud, Medicare Fraud, WHICH IS IT ???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x853813

Jul-25-07 Report Suggests Laws Broken in Attorney Firings
Washington Post - Amy Goldstein - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2929324
House Democrats, preparing for a vote today on contempt citations against President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel, produced a report yesterday that for the first time alleges specific ways that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys........ the memorandum asserts repeatedly that the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was the first administration official to broach the idea of firing U.S. attorneys shortly after the 2004 election -- an assertion the White House has said is not true. ...

Feb-22-08 Political Prisoner Don Siegelman: Will the 60 Minutes Spotlight Make a Difference?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2909551

Apr-21-08 - Rove-Protege, RNC Vote Cager, Tim Griffin Resigns As U.S. Attorney
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3183926&mesg_id=3188586
Lest we forget, Rove's protege was installed as USA in Arkansas after the Patriot Act was illegally amended to allow Bush to sneak in USA appointments without consulting with the Senate. Rove cannot forget this friend of his when he has to address his involvement in the process of firing and choosing USAs.

[femrap]

49. I want to see them

testify! Damn it!

[Politicalboi]

53. Me too

Bill Clinton had to testify on TV about a blow job and he was the President. This is a bunch of shit. They're gonna walk again and smile on their way out.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. Why did the former Bush admin have to agree?

Look:

"In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.)..."

[ElboRuum]

54. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I will believe this when I see it. Then and only then will I jump for joy.

[Ellipsis]

55. "Not technically under oath"

:wtf:

The interviews won't technically be under oath. But since the criminal penalties for lying to Congressional investigators are the same whether or not the interview is conducted under oath, that's not seen as a major hurdle in getting to the truth.



http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/agreement_sets_stage_for_rove_testimony_on_us_atto.php :wtf:

[merh]

72. according to The Hill

Rove and Miers will not testify in public but in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), who chairs the Judiciary panel, reached an agreement with Rove and Miers Wednesday.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rove-conyers-reach-deal-on-testimony-2009-03-04.html

Wasn't it Clinton's deposition testimony that caused him such grief?

[Ellipsis]

74. Yeah but he didn't have a get out of jail free card and I'm thinking Rove might...

...just have to wait and see. Larisa was working on a story she wasn't at liberty to discuss... I wonder when she'll post it.

G'Night.

[merh]

75. I'm afraid Craig will keep him out of jail

and nothing will come of this.

I'll keep an eye out for Larisa's article, thanks for the heads up.

gnite

[defendandprotect]

57. Good news . . . !!!

[struggle4progress]

59. Pelosi: Rove Deal Is "Victory For The Constitution" (TPM)

By Zachary Roth - March 4, 2009, 6:40PM

... Pelosi:

The agreement for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify upholds a fundamental principle: no one is above the law and Congressional subpoenas must be complied with.

As public officials, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. It is the institutional duty of Congress -- as an independent branch -- to ensure against abuse of power through meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch. When there are credible allegations about the politicization of law enforcement, the need for Congressional oversight is at its greatest.

In upholding our oaths of office, the House of Representatives was determined to preserve checks and balances -- the separation of powers that protects the rule of law. It brought action in court to enforce the Judiciary Committee's subpoenas, and won a major ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates dismissing the extreme position of absolute immunity from Congressional oversight advocated by the Bush Administration for former Administration officials. Under this agreement, the precedent established by Judge Bates' historic ruling rejecting this extreme Bush Administration doctrine will be preserved.

Today's agreement is a great victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. I appreciate the strong leadership of Chairman John Conyers and the assistance of the Obama Administration ...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/pelosi_rove_deal_is_victory_for_the_constitution.php

[struggle4progress]

60. Bush statement on Rove, Miers (TrailBlazers)

... From Bush spokesman Rob Saliterman: "At the urging of the Obama Administration, and in consideration of the Executive Branch interests at stake, we have reached an accommodation with the House Judiciary Committee that satisfies the Committee's desire for additional information and will finally put this matter to rest."

We'll see. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/03/bush-statement-on-rove-miers.html

[struggle4progress]

61. Deal means Rove, Miers will testify (The Hill)

By Susan Crabtree and Sam Youngman
Posted: 03/04/09 08:39 PM

The Obama administration has negotiated a deal between Karl Rove and the House Judiciary Committee that will lead to Rove’s written testimony next week on the firings of several U.S. attorneys ...

The Obama White House confirmed that “lawyers from the White House counsel’s office played an active role in moving the parties toward the accommodation,” while Bush’s office said it had reached the deal “at the urging of the Obama administration.”

At Obama’s urging “and in consideration of the executive branch interests at stake, we have reached an accommodation with the House Judiciary Committee that satisfies the committee’s desire for additional information and will finally put this matter to rest,” the statement from Bush’s office said.

Obama had every reason to bring the two parties to the table. Without a deal, he would have been in the awkward position of defending Rove’s executive privilege claim as a way to preserve the power of the executive branch and protect his aides from being forced to testify before Congress in the future ... http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/deal-means-rove-miers-will-testify-2009-03-04.html

[struggle4progress]

62. Rove, Conyers reach deal on testimony (The Hill)

By Susan Crabtree
Posted: 03/04/09 06:24 PM

... The committee also may depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. attorney firings, if the committee uncovers information requiring it.

The Bush administration also will hand over White House documents related to the inquiry, Conyers said.

Both the Senate and House Judiciary committees tried to compel Rove to testify last Congress, but President Bush invoked a broad executive privilege to protect his top aides from appearing publicly before the committees.

In a landmark decision last year, U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected key Bush White House claims of executive privilege. Through this agreement, the impact of that decision will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the panel can go back to court and the legal battle will continue ... http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rove-conyers-reach-deal-on-testimony-2009-03-04.html

[struggle4progress]

64. Ex-Bush advisor Karl Rove to testify in Congress (AFP)

... A federal court in Washington twice ruled in July and August that presidential aides were not allowed complete immunity from congressional subpoenas, after they refused to testify for two years before lawmakers ... A Justice Department report in September detailed "substantial evidence" that partisan politics played a key role in the 2006 "unprecedented removal" of nine federal prosecutors ... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jFjDXN-55STImeslg6PtTAxlle2A

[struggle4progress]

66. Rove, Miers Will Testify Over U.S. Attorney Firings (CBS)

Posted by Brian Montopoli

... The White House Counsel’s office played an active role in bringing the parties together towards an accommodation, an official told CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.

Knoller reports that the key to the agreement was that the Obama White House stopped short of acknowledging that "executive privilege" still applied to Rove and Miers -- though the House Judiciary statement says "it was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited" ...

“Today’s agreement between the House Committee and the former Administration is the product of a tremendous amount of hard work, patience, and flexibility on both sides,” White House Counsel Greg Craig said. “The agreement will allow the Committee to complete its investigation into the U.S. Attorneys matter and it will do so in the way such disputes have historically been resolved – through negotiation and accommodation between the legislative and executive branches" ... http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/04/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4843369.shtml

[iconicgnom]

This is the least of their crimes, but it's being made the most of.

Hopefully the buck stops with G W Bush, for crimes against humanity, and it doesn't end with lesser officials being scapegoated for lesser crimes.

[struggle4progress]

67. Rove, Miers to testify before U.S. House panel (Reuters)

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - ... In addition, the committee said in a statement that under the agreement it reached with the former president and his administration, it will receive Bush White House documents relevant to the 2006 dismissal of the U.S. attorneys and that any claims of executive privilege would be "significantly limited" ...

The accord follows a federal court ruling last year that rejected Bush administration claims that it was shielded from having to provide testimony or documents by such privilege ...

No immediate date was set for testimony by Rove or Miers, a congressional aide said ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52405U20090305

[struggle4progress]

68. Top Bush Aides to Testify in U.S. Attorneys' Firings (NYT)

... Under the agreement, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers will provide depositions and sworn public testimony about the firings, but the scope of their testimony will be limited to the dismissals and closely related issues.

Moreover, the two former Bush officials will not be asked about their conversations with Mr. Bush on the subject or their discussions with other members of the White House counsel’s office ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/us/politics/05rove.html

[classysassy]

69. Sir/m'am,I do not remember

I was not in the loop.

[Lindsey]

71. Let's not forget the act of treason, punishible by death,

involving the leaking of Valerie Plame's name. There are so many crimes, as we well know, it's hard to know where to start....

[BlueMTexpat]

73. Here's the Faux Noise version ...

EXCLUSIVE: Rove Warns of 'Show Trial,' Says Dems 'Would Love to Have Me Barbecued'
Karl Rove tells FOX News he is looking forward to telling the House Judiciary Committee about his alleged role in the firing of federal prosecutors and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

Although he says it could turn into a "show trial," Karl Rove tells FOX News he is looking forward to telling the House Judiciary Committee about his alleged role in the firing of federal prosecutors and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.
Until now, Rove had been shielded from testifying by his former boss, President George W. Bush, who had asserted executive privilege on Rove's behalf. But on Monday, lawyers for Bush and President Obama reached a deal that will allow Rove to be deposed by the Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Rep. John Conyers, Michigan Democrat
"We're closing in on Rove," Conyers was overheard saying by two people just off the House floor last year. "Someone's got to kick his ass."
Rove acknowledges that Conyers probably has more interest in him than in two other former Bush aides entangled in the case, White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.
]...]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/05/exclusive-rove-warns-trial-says-dems-love-barbecued/

:popcorn:

[Kolesar]

78. Seriously. I thought you were writing satire until I explored the link...eom

[flyarm]

80. Testimony "NOT UNDER OATH"

Testimony "NOT UNDER OATH"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/187652/page/2

Let's Make a Deal

However, Conyers' press release and CBS's report both state that public testimony may or may not follow the depositions.

And Newsweek says the depositions will be transcribed but not given under oath:

Then, after the documents are reviewed, Rove and Miers will be questioned in private by lawyers for the Judiciary Committee, with a transcript of the interviews made. But their testimony will not be given under oath and it will not be in public—at least not initially.

The judiciary panel will have the right to call the witnesses again later to testify in public if they wish, though this seems unlikely in the case of Miers; her former position as White House counsel will allow her to invoke some attorney-client privileges. House lawyers say the fact that the witnesses will not be testifying under oath is not particularly significant because they can still be criminally charged with making false statements to a congressional committee if it can be proved that they lied.

[RufusTFirefly]

81. Any connection between this "agreement" and...

... Conyers' last-minute invite to the Health Panel?

:tinfoilhat:


As for transcripts but no pictures, let's face it: The American public doesn't read, has a short attention span, and places a premium on pictures. The Abu Ghraib story broke months before the photographs came out but it didn't gain any traction until we saw those pictures.

Now where was I?

[Ikonoklast]

82. I hope someone on the committee goes off the reservation

and the first question they ask Rove is, "Who is Jeff Gannon and what is your relationship to him?".

Use the same tactics Ken Starr used when he knew he had absolutely nothing on Clinton for Whitewater, so he changed it into a witch hunt, hoping for perjury.

[flyarm]

84. AGREEMENT FOR ROVE AND MIERS

http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/03/090304-final-accomodation-agreement-_2_.pdf

[spamlet2002]

88. oh please

look at all the stipulations. this is just cover so the white house and conyers can preserve the illusion that they're doing something about it. follow-ups will be delayed, and rove/miers can claim they already cooperated and that any further questioning would be punitive. kind of transparent

[MadrasT]

89. Encouraging, but...

... I'll believe it when he shows up and "the pig squeals." And not one moment before.

Had the football yanked out from under my foot one too many times.

Just sayin'.

[Kurovski]

90. K&R. (nt)

[DisgustedTX]

91. Rove? He's been indicted since May 2005

Bahaha.