Wednesday, March 21, 2007

The Subpoenas are Coming

It looks like Rove will get one:

A House committee was to vote Wednesday to authorize subpoenas for political director Karl Rove and other administration officials despite Bush's declaration a day earlier that Democrats must accept his offer to allow the officials to talk privately to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.
President "you're not the boss of me" isn't happy:
Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?
"Absolutely," Bush declared Tuesday in televised remarks from the White House.
Democrats promptly rejected the offer and announced that they would start authorizing subpoenas within 24 hours.
"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.
Sure, that's the reason. Bush is worried about separation of powers. That's cute.

Thankfully, it doesn't look like Democrats are going for Bush's offer of secret interviews that would let officials lie to congress with impunity:
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, dismissed the White House offer.
"It's sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here," Schumer said.
The article I've linked also includes this incredibly corporate sounding statement from Bush:
In his statement Tuesday, Bush said: "I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who have resigned. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the attorney general's decision, and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret that these resignations turned into such a public spectacle." The president did not refer to any of the prosecutors by name or elaborate further.
This is disgusting self-absolution of sin. Call being fired "resigned," offer a firm sounding stance on what's happened, and express regret that the person you've fired is having a problem with being fired (and in this case, regret that anyone noticed). It's like hitting someone with a car and saying, "I'm sorry you're upset that you borke your leg on my car."