Bush: “No subpoenas!” House: “Tough!”
by Hanlon on March 21, 2007 at 1:56 pmI was wondering exactly what Bush was planning on doing when he said that he would resist any efforts to make Rove, Miers, etc to testify under oath. I may get to find out, since the House Judiciary Committee basically told Bush to cram it, they’re going to have their subpoenas.
The House Judiciary subcommittee vote was to authorize subpoenas. It does not mean that subpoenas will be issued; only that they could be if the four White House officials Democrats want to question do not voluntarily testify under oath.
But the act puts congressional Democrats on a collision course with President Bush. He said Tuesday that the four — top political adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and their two deputies — could be interviewed in the matter, but no oath could be administered and no transcript would be taken.
Not technically a guarantee, but it appears that we have an assurance that these four will give an official testimony.
What baffles me is how terrified Bush and the boys seem to be of testifying under oath and on the record. Whatever they want to be said, they don’t want it to have to be true and they don’t want it to be subject to fact-checking. Comments like this confuse me:
“I would strongly prefer that we postpone the issuance of subpoenas until we’ve had a chance to get the White House, who has made an offer to comply, to review the Department of Justice documents,” said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Florida.
I don’t see what the big deal is with a subpoena. It’s a document that means you have to get on the stand and tell the truth about something. Oh no, not that. You’d think simply telling the truth would be easy for these guys, if it’s true that they didn’t do anything wrong.
Chris Matthews said there’s a chance that Rove may fall subject to being asked about absolutely everything, which is a valid concern but certainly not enough to cause such a furor about having him on the stand. All that means is they’re afraid he may be asked to speak under oath about other instances of corruption. If they were all innocent across the boards it would just be a waste of his time to be asked about the other things. Or maybe I’m crazy.
Posted: March 21st, 2007 under Attorneys, justice.



