Chairs Conyers and Sánchez: Rove Must Appear

[babylonsister]

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1383

Chairs Conyers and Sánchez: Rove Must Appear
June 16th, 2008 by Jesse Lee

From the Judiciary Committee:

Conyers and Sánchez: Rove Must Appear

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-CA, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee) sent a letter to Robert Luskin, attorney for former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, confirming their expectation that he appear and testify before the subcommittee on July 10. Committee staff had been negotiating with Luskin, but the discussions reached an impasse, with Luskin only offering to provide off-the-record interviews with Rove about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The subpoena was issued for testimony regarding the broader issue of politicization in the Justice Department, including the Siegelman matter.

“As Committee staff made clear, and as we indicated in our May 1 letter, the proposal that we somehow seek to separate the Siegelman matter from the broader issue of politicization of the Justice Department is unacceptable,” the letter states. “At this point, moreover, we have not even received a formal objection to the subpoena, which is a legal mandate that Mr. Rove appear as scheduled.”

Full text of the letter:

June 16, 2008

Mr. Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1350

Dear Mr. Luskin:

We are writing with respect to the pending subpoena for Mr. Rove’s appearance on July 10 before the Committee’s Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee and related discussions between you and Committee staff. We want to reemphasize that we expect Mr. Rove to attend the hearing. Any concerns about or objections to specific questions can be dealt with at that time. We also want to state, however, that while we remain willing to work to resolve any concerns on a cooperative basis, your recent proposal to hold an interview limited to the Siegelman matter does not meet the Committee’s oversight needs.

Specifically, we understand that you recently suggested to Committee staff that Mr. Rove would be willing to be interviewed by Committee members and staff, without a transcript or an oath, but also without prejudice to the Committee’s right to pursue its subpoena for sworn testimony. This is an important step forward, and stands in stark contrast to the White House’s demand that it would not allow the Committee to conduct a similar interview with Harriet Miers unless the Committee agreed in advance that it would not thereafter pursue such formal testimony. While we were encouraged by this suggestion, we also understand that you indicated more recently that any such interview that Mr. Rove would agree to prior to July 10 would be limited only to questions concerning the Siegelman matter.

As Committee staff made clear, and as we indicated in our May 1 letter, the proposal that we somehow seek to separate the Siegelman matter from the broader issue of politicization of the Justice Department is unacceptable. Indeed, your own April 29 letter appears to recognize that the Siegelman matter, other selective prosecution matters, and the U.S. Attorney firings are clearly related as part of the concerns regarding politicization of the Justice Department under this Administration that the Committee has been investigating. At this point, moreover, we have not even received a formal objection to the subpoena, which is a legal mandate that Mr. Rove appear as scheduled.

Accordingly, we hope and expect that Mr. Rove will appear on July 10, when any objections to specific questions on executive privilege or other grounds can be dealt with appropriately. We remain very willing to meet with you and your client to discuss this matter. Please direct any questions or communications to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-XXX-XXXX; fax: 202-XXX-XXXX).

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman

Linda T. Sánchez
Chair, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law

cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Chris Cannon

[Imagevision]

1. John Conyers, Jr. will you get results or just looking for attention?

[Seedersandleechers]

2. Yea right.

That letter ought to do it.:sarcasm:

[calimary]

3. KICK!

ANYTHING to get one of these bastards dragged in and forced to face justice!

ANYTHING!!!!

The question is, will our people actually DO anything to get this done?

[The Doctor.]

7. You know that the Republicans wouldn't hesitate for a SECOND to pull out all the stops.

They'd have invoked inherent contempt the day after President Gore declined to have an investigation into the foiled 9/11 attacks.

[L. Coyote]

8. If Gore had been allowed to serve his term, there may not have been 9/11 attacks.

[The Doctor.]

10. That's what I'm sayin'.

In fact I'm almost positive of it.

They would have been trying to impeach him just for a 'close call'... anything they could.

[calimary]

12. I'm saying it, too.

Certainly, there's no way to know. No way we could ever know, for certain.

But the mix of people bush brought in with him when he "TOOK" office, and their thinking, their attitudes toward American power (and its use), America's place in the world, the corporation's place in the world, and more often than not, the military-industrial corporation's place in the world, that entire mindset, would NOT have been well-represented, or even present, in a Gore administration. Gore wouldn't have surrounded himself with the neocon type - not in a million years. It's like me signing up for a local GOP GOTV night. They just don't fit.

Therefore, it's thinkable that the smack-across-the-face delivered to a bush regime, with a whole lot of saber-rattlers in it, with short fuses, Bibles, and a testosterone complex a mile wide and seven miles high would do more to further "the terrorists" agenda. Seems to me they know a little bit of psychology. They think - if we do this, what might be the result? Or what's the result we want, and how can we set it in motion - what should we do? Hit us hard where we all know they did hit us back in September of 2001. They evidently understand the hair-trigger hysteria mode into which many of us shift instinctively, and immmediately. They know how to fuck with us. They don't like us so they're determined to prove it to everyone by fucking with us. They think our behavior and general agenda priorities are loathsome and deserving of being fucked with. So that's what they do - in every imaginable way. They sent some of their biggest nutcases to crash several planes into buildings - the added benefit of two of those buildings being in the financial head AND heart of America. They send out an Osama video before every election here. They're fucking with us, to make our lives difficult until either we stop what we're doing to piss them off so much or we go away. They know that the kind of people who perpetrate AND profit from that kind of thing that pisses them off - virtually OVERpopulate an administration like junior's. That wouldn't have been so with a Gore administration.

Gore didn't surround himself with a majority crowd of guys (and a contradicta or two) who were famed for taking a hard line, with an us-versus-them mentality and an appreciation of murder-caliber toys. Gore's advisers would be far less likely to rush head-long and panting into a shoot-first-ask-questions-later response. When your philosophy and/or temperament tilts you toward that, what else could your expected response behavior possibly be? By contrast, those not already predisposed toward smacking a hornet's nest with a baseball bat or picking fights with people just to "show 'em who's boss" might present a different response behavior far more likely to promote a more peaceful outcome to whatever complication comes up.

It might have been that the 9/11 attacks were planned and put on standby to see who won the 2000 election. If bush took it, the go-ahead would have been given. If Gore had prevailed, they might have gone back to the drawing board, or perhaps they would have recognized an opportunity to relate to America using a slightly different mindset than that involving mayhem and murder.

BESIDES: Don't forget that Gore was already up on the threats of terrorism that our country was facing, familiar with fighting them, discouraging them, and combatting the sort of conditions that promote them. He was also a very prominent part of an outgoing administration that had warned the incoming bushies that terrorism would be a top concern for them. Gore would have implemented some of the recommendations of his Gore Commission that had concrete suggestions for airline security. It could be argued that Gore would have prevented the September 11 attacks because he would have continued treating terrorism as a top priority from the day he took office - at the levels it was pursued when Clinton was president.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4957

[samsingh]

11. i agree with you.

[midnight]

4. Thank you Mr. Conyers for letting Rove know you have some

questions for him to answer on July 10.

[11 Bravo]

5. In other words, tell that doughy shitbird to get his flabby ass in here most ricky-tick.

[spanone]

6. please, karl is way above the law, ya know

:sarcasm:

[madokie]

9. of all of this treasonous cabals participants roves will be the funnest ass to watch go down

its coming, I feel it in my bones

[pacalo]

13. Luskin has a "proposal to hold an interview" between Rove & the oversight committee?!

And that "any such interview" would be limited only to the Siegelman case?

Conyers better get this straight with Mr. Luskin: it's called testimony -- under oath, & any lies told by Rove are punishable by law.

Who made him a king to set the ground rules?

[Kablooie]

14. Strong words: "We hope and expect". Rove must be quaking in his shoes.

[Swamp Rat]

15. Good things come to those who wait.

:9




k&r

[Rex]

16. Hey Rove, start sweating it!

Guess George will need another war for distraction, it is his exit strategy. :eyes: