Does anyone know if Cheney et al have formally received the subpoenas yet ?

[steve2470]

I know Cheney and others were subpoenaed but have they actually received them yet ? Just curious.

[tyedyeto]

1. The way I read it....

Their 'offices' have been subpeoned, not the persons.

Is this correct?

[L. Coyote]

2. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy issued subpoenas Wednesday

Senate Judiciary Committee Issues Subpoenas
For Legal Basis Of Bush Administration’s
Domestic Surveillance Program
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200706/062707a.html

WASHINGTON (Wednesday, June 27) – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), in consultation with Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), issued subpoenas Wednesday for documents relating to the authorization and legal justification for the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Chairman Leahy issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice, the Office of the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council for documents relating to the Committee’s inquiry into the warrantless electronic surveillance program. The subpoenas seek documents related to authorization and reauthorization of the program or programs; the legal analysis or opinions about the surveillance; orders, decisions, or opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) concerning the surveillance; agreements between the Executive Branch and telecommunications or other companies regarding liability for assisting with or participating in the surveillance; and documents concerning the shutting down of an investigation of the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) relating to the surveillance.

“Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program,” Chairman Leahy wrote in letters accompanying the subpoenas to Bush Administration officials. “All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.”

“There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this Committee,” Leahy wrote. “The Administration cannot thwart the Congress’s conduct of its constitutional duties with sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege. The Committee seeks no intimate operational facts and we are willing to accommodate legitimate redactions of the documents we seek to eliminate reference to these details.”

Last week the Committee, in a bipartisan vote of 13-3, authorized Chairman Leahy to issue subpoenas for documents and information related to the domestic surveillance program. The Committee has requested the legal justification for the program several times since it was first revealed in December 2005. The deadline for providing the Committee the information is July 18.

PDF LINKS:
Subpoena packet for documents from the White House, sent via Fred Fielding, Esq.
Subpoena packet for documents from the Office of the Vice President, sent via Shannen Coffin, Esq.
Subpoena packet for documents from the Department of Justice, sent via A.G. Alberto Gonzales
Subpoena packet for documents from the National Security Council, sent via Richard Klingler, Esq.

[steve2470]

3. it looks like they have formally received them

I was just wondering when the legal clock was going to start. Thanks for digging that up.

[aquart]

5. I guess the clock starts when those lawyers receive them.

Think Gonzales will lose his packet?

[L. Coyote]

6. He had to give it to a young underling right away, due to amnesia problems.

[yy4me]

8. No, he will not remember getting the packet.

[tyedyeto]

4. Does this mean * and the Dick?

Chairman Leahy issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice, the Office of the White House, the Office of the Vice President and the National Security Council for documents relating to the Committee’s inquiry into the warrantless electronic surveillance program.

Who is the office? The person or the underlings?

[L. Coyote]

7. It is EVERYONE, without exeption, working there. These are very sweeping writs.

June 27, 2007

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275

Fred Fielding, Esq.
Counsel to the President, Office of Counsel to the President
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Rm 154
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Fielding:

For more than five years, the Bush Administration intercepted conversations of
Americans in the United States without warrants and without following the procedures of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The President confirmed this fact soon
after it became public in December 2005. Since that time, the Senate Judiciary
Committee has conducted an inquiry into this warrantless electronic surveillance. Over
the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the
Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about
the authorization of and legal justification for this program. All requests have been
rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration
witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection.

Therefore, attached is a subpoena for documents related to the Committee's inquiry into
the program or programs of warrantless electronic surveillance. The subpoena seeks,
among other things, documents related to authorization and reauthorization of that
surveillance; legal analysis or opinions about the surveillance; orders, decisions, or
opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) concerning the
surveillance; agreements between the Executive Branch and telecommunications or other
companies regarding liability for assisting with or participating in the surveillance; and
documents concerning the shutting down of an investigation of the Department of
Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning the surveillance.

This Committee's inquiry into this warrantless electronic surveillance is essential to the
performance of its constitutional legislative and oversight responsibilities. .....

the Judiciary Committee is charged with oversight of the Executive Branch in
the areas of constitutional protections and the civil liberties of Americans. The
warrantless electronic surveillance program directly impacts those responsibilities. We
cannot conduct this oversight without knowing the legal arguments the Administration
has used to justify interception of the communications of Americans without a warrant.
This Committee would be abdicating its responsibility if it failed to examine Executive
Branch actions simply because we are told they have stopped. We have been given no
assurance that these activities, or similar ones, will not resume based on the same or
similar legal arguments. This Committee must conduct oversight to consider whether it
wishes to act, through legislation or otherwise, to prevent such recurrence.

Oversight is also necessary to determine whether the Administration has conducted itself
appropriately in carrying out and defending this warrantless surveillance. The testimony
of former Deputy Attorney General James Corney before this Committee raises serious
questions about the Administration's commitment to the rule of law. He testified that
only the prospect of a mass resignation of virtually every senior officer in the Department
of Justice caused the President to address serious Justice Department concerns about
legality of the program. This came after the program had already been operating for
more than two years. Later, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked during
testimony before this Committee whether senior Justice Department officials expressed
reservations about the warrantless surveillance program, the Attorney General responded
"I do not believe that these DOJ officials ... had concerns about this program." That
response, at the very least, calls into question the Attorney General's candor with this
Committee.

Finally, when the Department of Justice's own Office of Professional Responsibility
(OPR) began an internal investigation into the role of Department of Justice attorneys in
the authorization and oversight of the warrantless surveillance program, the Department
of Justice and the White House denied the investigators the clearances they needed,
thereby shutting the investigation down. The head of OPR has noted that in its 31-year
history OPR has never before been prevented from pursuing an investigation. This
action, too, raises questions about the Administration's motives and behavior.

There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this
Committee. The Administration cannot thwart the Congress's conduct of its
constitutional duties with sweeping assertions of secrecy and privilege. The Committee
seeks no intimate operational facts and we are willing to accommodate legitimate
redactions of the documents we seek to eliminate reference to these details. We ask that
you segregate any documents containing classified national security information and
deliver those separately to the Office of Senate Security in Room S-407 of the Capitol,
..............