Faux news analysis on subpoena power -- looks good for us.

[pnwmom]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260222,00.html

SNIP

Louis Fisher, a constitutional law specialist for the Library of Congress, said that should Conyers decide to go ahead and sign off on subpoenas and issue them, it could be a short time before Rove, Miers or anyone else would testify. The possibility of a contempt charge on someone's resume usually is enough to get them to comply, he said.

Fisher said that while the White House might be considering invoking executive privilege — the broad claim that members of the administration shouldn't have to testify because of constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch — the White House might have a hard time proving that.

For instance, Miers is no longer a member of the administration, drawing into question how clearly the lines of the executive branch are drawn. He also said that as recently as 2004, the White House backed off executive privilege claims when it allowed then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath before the Sept. 11 Commission.

Fisher said if Miers, Rove or anyone else chose to ignore the subpoenas they could be found in contempt, but the charge first would need to be put before a vote of the full House or Senate.

SNIP

[NastyRiffraff]

1. Whoa! Bring it on!

Fisher said if Miers, Rove or anyone else chose to ignore the subpoenas they could be found in contempt, but the charge first would need to be put before a vote of the full House or Senate.

One little word, "or" makes all the difference. I have great hopes for the House charging with contempt. Lieberman would whine, sob, and quote Ted Wells ("Give them back to me!")

[monarch]

2. Yeah and where is the "Clinton did it" chorus where

the refrain would actually be relevant as in listing the various Clinton White House staffers who actually did testify before Congress.