Judiciary Committee Secures Rove's and Miers' Testimony

by Deb Cupples | You've gotta love John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.  Since early 2007, he's been trying to get to the bottom of the apparently political firing of nine U.S. Attorneys -- and he's still trying. 

It's too easy for politicians to rely on the public's forgetfulness, use phrases like "Let's move on," and let people get away with terrible behavior.  Not Conyers, though.  He said that he'd keep his eye on the ball, and that's just what he's doing.  I, as a taxpayer, am thankful. 

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee stated:

"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." (House Judiciary Committee)

I spent many hours watching hearings of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about the fired U.S. Attorney scandal (see overview here).  I'd like to live to see the day that we taxpayers learn what really happened.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Rep. Alan Grayson "Apologizes" to Rush Limbaugh

* Doctor Group Settles Another Medicare Fraud Suit

* AIG Gets Another $30 Billion, the Real Scandal, and Executive Looting 

* Cleaning up Corporate and Political Culture Would Help Economy

* Greenspan Finally Admits Flaws of De-Regulation

.

Comments

[flowerplough]

Deb, you spent many hours watching hearings of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees about the fired U.S. Attorney scandal and would like to live to see the day that we taxpayers learn what really happened, eh? And any curiousity 'bout Clinton's firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys in '93? Regarding the intern molester's failed attempt to provide some cover for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), Presidential (then, and still?)media-member-spokesman George Stephanopoulos said it was not unusual for a president to ask for such resignations, although Republicans said presidents in the past have not asked for mass resignations, replacing them over a period of time as replacements were found.

Stephanopoulos said only those U.S. attorneys who are in the middle of trials will be allowed to continue working and said an interim appointee could capably pick up Stephens's investigation of the House Post Office scandal, with no serious disruption or political interference....

[Deb]

Hi Flower,

This is not an R vs. D thing. I don't understand why you treat it like you and I are rooting for different football teams. We're both taxpayers.

Fact: it's not unusual for a NEW president to fire ALL U.S. Attorneys so that he can appoint new ones.

What IS unprecedented is that Bush fired only 9 of them -- and it WASN'T when he was new or even at the beginning of his second term.

It was in 2006 -- after Duke Cunningham and some other big Rs were facing legal hot water.

Those are very important distinctions.

[Charles]

And watch as that important fact is never, ever acknowledged.

And watch.
And watch.
And watch.