In an interview with FoxNews about his upcoming testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, he said: " Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued."
He's right. I for one would love to see him have to answer for his actions in a setting that he cannot weasel out of. Clearly he intends to do so, and it seems he has negotiated an agreement that limits the scope of inquiry. He will not testify to any conversations with President Bush about the federal prosecutor firings.
I don't understand how he gets to limit a congressional oversight inquiry, which is their constitutional duty. He had previously refused to even appear, citing executive privilege. But his boss is no longer president, so how does Rove still get to dictate terms?
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers calls it a victory and vindication. To me it seems too little and too late, but better than nothing. Initially, it will be conducted by committee staff in private but under oath, and the transcript will be released. Later public hearings may be held with questioning by committee members themselves. I think this is the usual procedure for congressional hearings: staff interviews first, then public hearings. So maybe we'll actually get to see Karl being grilled.
Perhaps the biggest victory, however, is that the committee will get the documents it has been seeking -- all those emails, at least the ones they didn't destroy.
Ralph
Perhaps the biggest victory, however, is that the committee will get the documents it has been seeking -- all those emails, at least the ones they didn't destroy.
Ralph
Slight correction: Karl Rove and Harriet Myers will not testify under oath; but that's a technicality, because lying in a congressional deposition or testimony carries the same perjury penalties as lying under oath.
ReplyDeleteI'll bring the sauce!
ReplyDelete