[Davis Democrats] Senator Leahy : Compliance Deadline August 7:constitutional test for Karl Rove and White House

[John Chendo]

------ Forwarded Message
From: John Chendo <jac07 at dcn.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:50:53 -0700

Subject: Senator Leahy : Compliance Deadline August 7:constitutional
showdown



A constitutional showdown is imminent - what will Leahy do if ex-White House
officials refuse to comply now that a federal judge says that they must?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/senate_reacts_to_judges_ru
ling.php

Senate Reacts To Court Ruling With New Call For Testimony From Rove And
Bolten
By Andrew Tilghman 
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/profile/atilghman>  - July 31,
2008, 6:56PM


Just hours after a federal judge shot down the White House's claim to
sweeping immunity from Congressional oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
fired off a round of letters renewing his demand for testimony from Karl
Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to White House Counsel
Fred Fielding asking whether the two officials will agree to testify in
light of today's ruling
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/breaking_hjc_wins_contemp
t_of.php>  against the Bush administration's blanket claim of executive
privilege.

The investigation at issue is the allegedly political firings
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php>  of eight U.S. attorneys.
The Senate committee issued subpoenas in June and July 2007 for Bolton and
Rove to testify on Capitol Hill.

"Today's decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove's refusal
to comply with the Committee's subpoenas moot," Leahy wrote in the letter
<http://judiciary.senate.gov/>  to Fielding.

Leahy also sent a terse letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking
whether he planned to rescind the legal memos based on the theory of blanket
executive privileged that the judge dismissed today.

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will
withdraw the erroneous [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion from Stephen
Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with
congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court's decision will cause you to
re-evaluate your memos and those from [Office of Legal Counsel] in support
of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the
U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims
used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak
of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution,
and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's
decision-making. Which of these do you now intend to withdraw?

Leahy sounds like he's asking for a complete surrender in this ongoing
battle over White House officials' testimony. But there's a lot of
litigation still to go in this case.


------ End of Forwarded Message

------ End of Forwarded Message