July 26th, 2007
01:03 PM ET
4 years ago

Rove to face subpoena

Watch Leahy announce Thursday he plans to subpoena Rove.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Thursday he will subpoena White House political adviser Karl Rove to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"We've now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys last year. Testimony and documents showed that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. (Scott) Jennings, and today I will subpoena Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings."

Jennings is deputy director of political affairs at the White House.


Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (35 Responses)
  1. Eugene, Orlando, FL

    Tot Tom and James, it is not uncommon for a president to ask for acrss the board resignations of these officals. I W and his band had done that it would be a non-issue as you claim. There is important principle at stake here. That is a word that this administration does not junderstand, along with honesty, integrity or Constitutional responsibility. The issue is this, if 9 of the best were fired for being honest, how many were retained for not being true to their duty? What deals did they make, corners cut, false charges entered, good cases dumped & who did those deals, if any, sell out? The investigatyion will not end until these are answered, nor should they. And there is a jail on Capitolhill. Congress can have culprits arrested for contempt with their own law officers and cool their heels there for years while the cases go through the courts. A fitting retirement plan for a corrupt politician I think and beyond Presdential interference or obstruction.

    July 26, 2007 05:25 pm at 5:25 pm |
  2. James, Phoenix AZ

    Douglas, Tony, Eugene – those who are offended because President Bush is using Executive Privilege....

    Does the use of EP cause suspicion? Sure.

    Does the use of EP mean something was done incorrectly? No.

    I'll share a secret... President Bush WANTS this show-down. He instructed Harriet Miers not to show up. He will instruct Karl Rove not to show.

    WHY?

    Because the President wants to determine the hard boundaries of EP. For all we know the President could be sandbagging this issue just to whip the democrats into a frenzy and then provide all the documentation to show it's a non-issue...just in time to embarrass those running for his office.

    However, I doubt it's such a creative move on his part. I suspect President Bush is tired of the incessant calls for testimony, document disclosures, etc. – just as Clinton did when pursued by Republicans. Which means the legitimacy of EP will be decided in Federal court. And here are the two outcomes: 1) If EP is upheld by Federal Court – game over for Dems doing any more interrogating. 2) If EP is rejected by federal courts – Bush and his attorneys will drag out the process so it becomes a non-issue at the next election.

    The censures, subpoenas, etc – all show for the Democrats so they can increase fund raising. When the base is furious – they'll give lots more money than when they're asleep.

    July 26, 2007 06:41 pm at 6:41 pm |
  3. Rick, Chicago Illinois

    James, Phoenix AZ .. Can you tell us when Clinton took the UNPRECEDENTED step of: 1) removing selected attorneys; 2) in mid-term; 3) for “performance issues” – after they received favorable reviews; and 4) just so he could use a buried provision in the renewed Patriot Act (that republicans promised they'd never use) to slip cronies and toadies into the vacant positions without Senate confirmation?

    Can ya?

    Answer: NO!

    And WHY NOT?

    Because there IS NO COMPARISON.

    And every single time you and your "28-percenter" followers post that baseless argument, you look like fools.

    Thanks for posting and allowing me to correct you.

    July 26, 2007 07:49 pm at 7:49 pm |
  4. Di, LA, CA

    Don't tell me we are finally taking our government back from the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. It's about frigging time we stood up to these nincompoops and took them to task. What arrogance. So unwarranted. Made a donation to Leahy today. Good man. Need to keep him around.

    July 27, 2007 01:04 am at 1:04 am |
  5. WDRussell East Liverpool, Ohio

    Our ELECTED officials want to question a non-elected political appointee.
    And some people posing as Americans don't like the idea.
    Oh no, Mr Bill.

    July 27, 2007 08:44 am at 8:44 am |
  6. KD, Dallas, TX

    I second every word of this....

    "Where is the outrage in this country? Let me make sure I understand this correctly. President Bill Clinton demonized by the EXTREME right for “what he did in the oval office” voted for impeachement and yet BUSH under this adminstration is directly responsible for the deaths of over 3600 of our American soldiers. He lied to get us in the war in the first place by cherry picking intelligence, refuses to allow his SR. staff to attend supoenas and he acts ABOVE the LAW…and no one is talking about impeachment!!!! What hypocrisy!! But then again we are talking about Repulicans! IMPEACH THE CRIMINAL (KARL ROVE) AND HIS CRONIES, THE CRIMINALS (BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE, GONZALEZ AND MIERS) !!!!"

    When you start looking at the obstruction of how this administration reacted to the whole 911 commission you wonder if the number of deaths they are responsible for isn't far greater than 3600. I would have to agree that is a topic way too uncomfortable to get into, so it remains ignored. But given present circumstances, Valerie Plame, Libby, judges, executive privelege, national security, etc, there comes a time when we have to look at what is going on in our government. This administration has the lowest approval rating since ratings were researched. Isn't it obvious why? People are tired of all of the secrecy and wondering what on earth is going on since it appears to be constantly covered up.

    July 27, 2007 11:25 am at 11:25 am |
  7. James, Phoenix AZ

    Rick ~ Chicago

    "And every single time you and your “28-percenter” followers post that baseless argument, you look like fools.

    Thanks for posting and allowing me to correct you"

    LOL – you're a crack up Rick. I think the only person that can compete with such a self-grandized view of themselves is Rush Limbaugh!

    Rick – answer this question... whether or not it was unprecedented.. was it illegal?

    (using a rick-ism)
    Was it??

    Answer: NO!

    And WHY NOT?

    Because current laws provide these US Attorneys are at-will employees (see Tom – Dedham, Mass 2:55)

    Every single time you (rick) post – you look like a ranting looney without command of facts, laws, or reason.

    Thanks for posting and exposing who you are.

    July 27, 2007 05:59 pm at 5:59 pm |
  8. Smiles, Wallkill, NY

    Don't let Doug Degroat fool you. I know that he has voted Republican across the board in several elections and he is actually quite fond of Bush!

    August 13, 2007 02:30 pm at 2:30 pm |
1 2