Political Browser: The Post's Daily Guide to Politics on the Web MORE »
Page 2 of 2   <      

Hill Subpoenas Approved for Rice, Other Bush Officials

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"This all took place in my role as national security adviser," she said. "There is a constitutional principle. There is a separation of powers and advisers to the president under that constitutional principle are not generally required to go and testify in Congress."

A Democratic committee aide had earlier rejected that assertion, providing a lengthy list of White House aides, including chiefs of staffs, senior advisers and counsels, who provided testimony to the GOP-run oversight committee during the Clinton administration. He said that if Rice defied the subpoena, the committee and then the full House could vote to find her in contempt before she could litigate a claim of executive privilege. The political costs of such a fight would be too great for Rice or the White House, he said.

Most of yesterday's subpoenas were linked at least tangentially to the U.S. attorney firings, which have sparked an uproar in Congress that has nearly cost Gonzales his job.

In his continuing bid to mend fences on Capitol Hill, Gonzales paid a visit yesterday to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who angrily took to the Senate floor last month to say that the attorney general had lied to him about the removal of a U.S. attorney in Arkansas. Pryor said after the meeting that he told Gonzales it would be best for the Justice Department if he resigned.

Gonzales will appear again on May 10 before the House Judiciary Committee, the panel announced yesterday. The committee's investigators hope that, by that time, they will have secured an interview with Goodling.

"Ms. Goodling appears to be a key witness for us, as to any possible undue influence or improper interference, and as to any internal discussions as to how forthcoming to be to Congress," said Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

Fratto and a Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the grant of immunity to Goodling, who resigned from her post earlier this month.

The office of Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, said he declined to comment.

More than half the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted to grant Goodling immunity. While he warned that the vote could have serious consequences, Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), the committee's ranking Republican, said "the public has a strong interest in knowing the truth in this situation and knowing it now."

Under the deal -- known in legal parlance as "limited-use immunity" -- Goodling could not be prosecuted for anything she truthfully tells Congress. Some Democrats have questioned whether prior testimony to Congress by some senior Justice Department officials, such as Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, amounted to knowingly making false statements to Congress.

McNulty has acknowledged several misstatements in February testimony, blaming them on poor preparation by Goodling and other aides.

Staff writers Michael Abramowitz and Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.


<       2


More in the Politics Section

Campaign Finance -- Presidential Race

2008 Fundraising

See who is giving to the '08 presidential candidates.

Latest Politics Blog Updates

© 2007 The Washington Post Company