Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Leahy issues subpoena for Rove e-mails

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:56 PM
Original message
Leahy issues subpoena for Rove e-mails
Source: The Hill

Leahy issues subpoena for Rove e-mails
By Klaus Marre
May 02, 2007

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) issued a subpoena Wednesday for all e-mails from White House adviser Karl Rove that relate to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

Attached please find a subpoena compelling the Department by May 15 to produce any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove related to the Committees investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justices politicization of the hiring and firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House account, (2) Republican National Committee account, or (3) other account, in the possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice, Leahy said in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The senator had requested the information from Gonzales when the attorney general testified before the committee and in a follow-up letter. However, Leahy said that Gonzales did not respond.

I continue to hope that the Department will cooperate with the Committees investigation, but it is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the Committees inquiry have not been produced, Leahy said in the letter.

<SNIP>



Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/leahy-issues-subpoena-for-rove-e-mails-2007-05-02.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. For a "bring transparency back to government" regime, the bush cartel
sure are doing a ton of cover-ups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. This creepy administration
has a lot to cover-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's on.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastic cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Now it's on (lyrics by Grandaddy)
Bust the lock off the front door
Once you're outside you won't want to hide anymore
Light the light on the front porch
Once it's on you're never wanna turn it off anymore
And now it's on

Now it's on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. There must be some mistake, surely rove has nothing to hide, why the subpoena?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Just another example of those Democrat witch hunts you keep hearing about.
More proof you just can't put them libberuls in charge of nuffin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. now we are really going to see the poop fly!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'd like to see all of KKKarl's
emails regarding Election '04....but this is a very good start.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. YES, just a start. Here is LEAHY's complete page for GONZALES' SUBPOENA
Edited on Wed May-02-07 02:43 PM by L. Coyote
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200705/050207.html

Chairman Leahy Issues Subpoena For Lost Karl Rove E-Mails

Compels Attorney General To Provide E-Mails To Judiciary Committee
In Connection With Panels Probe Of U.S. Attorney Firings And Politicization Within Dept. Of Justice

WASHINGTON (Wednesday, May 2) Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Wednesday issued a subpoena to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales compelling the Department of Justice to provide all Karl Rove e-mails in its possession related to the panels ongoing investigation into the mass firings of federal prosecutors.

Rove, a senior political advisor to President Bush, and the White House political operation -- which Rove heads have been linked to the project that resulted in the unprecedented firings of several well-performing federal prosecutors, according to information gathered by the Committee through documents, interviews and testimony. Several of the dismissed prosecutors have testified under oath and said in public that they were unaware of performance problems and believe political influence was a factor in their firings.

Leahy requested the e-mails first at the Committees oversight hearing with the Attorney General on April 19, 2007, and then again in a letter to the Attorney General on April 25, 2007. The Attorney General has failed to respond to those earlier requests.

Included below and as a PDF document:

* Text of the letter sent to Attorney General Gonzales;
* Text of the subpoena issued as well as relevant attachment;
* Text of 4/25/07 letter from Leahy seeking the Rove e-mails;
* Excerpt from 4/19/07 SJC Oversight Hearing w. Attorney General Gonzales;
* Press report containing Roves attorneys comments suggesting Dept. Of Justice has relevant e-mails in its possession.

# # # # #

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

At the hearing last Thursday and again in a letter dated April 25, 2007, I asked you whether you would provide Karl Roves e-mails in the possession of the Justice Department to the Committee without a subpoena. His lawyer stated publicly that these emails, many of which have been reported lost, were turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as part of the investigation into the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer by officials in the Administration that led to the conviction of I. Lewis Scooter Libby. You responded at the hearing that you did not know but would check and get back to me. I have not heard back from you since in response to my question or the letter.

Attached please find a subpoena compelling the Department by May 15 to produce any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove related to the Committees investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justices politicization of the hiring and firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House account, (2) Republican National Committee account, or (3) other account, in the possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice. This subpoena includes any such emails that were obtained by Mr. Fitzgerald as part of the Plame investigation.

I continue to hope that the Department will cooperate with the Committees investigation, but it is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the Committees inquiry have not been produced, such as a confidential order revealed yesterday by the press that you issued in March 2006 delegating to two of your aides, former Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson and former White House Liaison Monica Goodling, authority over the hiring and firing of most political employees of the Justice Department.

Indeed, despite multiple requests for the Department to produce documents voluntarily related to the Committees investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department, the Departments production of documents has been selective and incomplete. Many documents have been withheld or redacted without any legal basis being set forth. In addition, to date, the Department has yet to provide the Committee with the precise scope of the production, any assurance that a preservation order was issued to prevent the loss or destruction of documents, and a complete privilege log that provides the basis for withholdings and redactions. In document productions and interviews with Department employees, the Department continues to insist on providing information within only a highly limited scope inconsistent with the Committees inquiry and over the Committees objection.

I look forward to your compliance with the Judiciary Committees subpoena by the May 15 return date. I also ask for an immediate response to and full compliance with the outstanding requests for information by the Committee and its members to avoid further subpoenas.

Sincerely,



PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

# # # # #

Text of Subpoena

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Congress of the United States

To Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, Greeting:

Pursuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States, on May 15, 2007, at 2:00 oclock p.m., at their committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to testify what you know relative to the Committees inquiry into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justices politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A under the terms and conditions stated therein. A personal appearance at the above-referenced date and time will not be necessary if the documents described in Attachment A are delivered to the Committees offices prior to the scheduled return.



Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.

To any Committee staff member or U.S. Marshal to serve and return.



Given under my hand, by authority vested

in me by the Committee, on this 2nd day

of May , 2007__.





Senator Patrick Leahy /s/

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Attachment A

Documents Subpoenaed

1. Complete and unredacted versions of any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove related to the Committees investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justices politicization of the hiring and firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House account, (2) Republican National Committee Account, or (3) other account, in the possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice, including any such emails that were obtained by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as part of the investigation into the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer by officials in the Administration that led to the conviction of I. Lewis Scooter Libby. The documents produced shall include, but not be limited to:

A. Documents related to the Administrations evaluation of, and decisions to remove and/or replace, U.S. Attorneys since President Bushs re-election.

B. Documents related to the selection, discussion and evaluation of possible replacements for any U.S. Attorney, including interim or acting appointments.

C. Documents related to the performance and decision-making of U.S. Attorneys, including in cases involving public corruption specifically or broadly, voter fraud, vote suppression, and enforcement or non-enforcement of civil rights laws protecting voting rights.

D. Documents related to the hiring, firing, appointment, removal, or resignation of career and political personnel at the Department of Justice, including documents related to the policies for and White House or Department officials involved in the hiring, firing, appointment, removal, or resignation of career and political personnel.

Instructions

1. In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agent, employee, or representative acting on your behalf. You are also required to produce documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control or any third party.

2. No documents as defined herein called for by this request shall be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee. If you have knowledge that any subpoenaed document as defined herein has been destroyed, discarded, or lost, identify the subpoenaed document and provide an explanation of the destruction, discarding, loss or disposal and the date at which then document was destroyed, discarded or lost.

3. This subpoena is continuing in nature. Any document not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date shall be provided immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto with an explanation of why it was not located or discovered by the return date.

4. If you believe any responsive documents are protected by a privilege, please provide a privilege log which (1) identifies any and all responsive documents to which the privilege is asserted, (2) sets forth the date, type, addressee(s), author(s) (and, if different, the preparer and signatory), general subject matter, and indicated or known circulation of the document, and (3) states the privilege asserted in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim of privilege.

5. Production with respect to each document shall include all electronic versions and data files from email applications as well as from word processing, spreadsheet, or other electronic data repositories applicable to any attachments, and shall be provided to the Committee where possible in its native file format and shall include all original metadata for each electronic documents or data file.

Definitions

1. The term document as used in this subpoena includes all emails, memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, files, records, and other documents, data or information in any form, whether physical or electronic, maintained on any digital repository or electronic media, and should be construed as it is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The terms related and relating with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly to mean anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, concerns, states, refers to, deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the subject.

3. The terms including and includes, with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly so that specification of any particular matter shall not be construed to exclude any documents that you have reason to believe the Committee might regard as responsive.

4. The terms Department of Justice and Department includes without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.

5. The terms you and your include you individually, in your capacity as Attorney General, as well as the Department of Justice, and, without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.

# # # # #

(4/25/07Letter From Chairman Leahy To Dept. of Justice Seeking Rove E-Mails)

April 25, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

At the hearing last Thursday, I asked you to provide Karl Rove's e-mails in the possession of the Justice Department. You responded that you did not know but would check and get back to me. I have not heard back from you since.

Please respond to my questions about Mr. Rove's e-mails, whether they are in the custody of the Department of Justice, and whether they will be provided without a subpoena.

Sincerely,



PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

# # # # #

Excerpt of CQ Transcript of Chairman Leahy questioning during 4/19/07 SJC Oversight Hearing w/ Attorney General Gonzales --

LEAHY: Mr. Attorney General, late last week, the White House spokesperson claimed an unknown number of e-mails, including those of Karl Rove, from both White House accounts and apparently those sent or received using political Republican National Committee accounts, were lost.

And Mr. Rove's attorney, in the investigation that led to Scooter Libby's conviction for lying suggested that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a part of the Department of Justice, obtained all of Mr. Rove's e-mails as part of the investigation into the leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative.

If that is the case, those e-mails would be in your possession or in the possession of the Department of Justice.

What do we have to do to obtain Mr. Rove's e-mails relevant to the development and implementation of the plan to replace U.S. attorneys and the committee's investigation into that matter?

GONZALES: Senator, I was not aware that -- I didn't see that article. I wasn't aware that Mr. Fitzgerald had that information or if, in fact, the department still has that information.

So I'd have to go back and look to see what, in fact, the facts are.

LEAHY: If he does have the information, and it involves e-mails relevant to the development and implementation of the U.S. attorneys plan...

GONZALES: Senator, I believe that those -- well, I don't have the answer to that, Senator. I know that they're of interest to the committee, and obviously the department wants to be cooperative with the committee.

There may be White House equities here that need to be considered, and so...

LEAHY: We're not talking about e-mails from the president. In fact, the president doesn't use e-mail, as I understand.

Am I right?

GONZALES: As far as I know that's correct, sir. But the fact that they may have been communications over an RNC account doesn't mean that they're not presidential records. If in fact relates to government business, and they're transmitted over an RNC account, they could nonetheless be presidential records. And so there would be a governmental interest -- a White House interest in those records.

LEAHY: These are records supposedly that were lost, though.

GONZALES: Senator, I don't know...

LEAHY: Are they there or aren't they there?

GONZALES: What I'm saying is, is if in fact they exist...

LEAHY: Well, what was -- let me ask you this. The White House Counsel's office is responsible for the establishment and oversight of these kind of internal rules, conduct.

When you served as the White House counsel, you were there four years. What was the policy and practice with regard to Karl Rove and other political operatives at the White House using Republican National Committee e-mail accounts to conduct official government business?

GONZALES: Well, of course, Senator...

LEAHY: That'd be a policy set by your office.

What was the policy?

GONZALES: Senator, there were a few people in the White House, as I recall, who had -- who use non-governmental communications equipment. That was done actually, quite frankly, for legitimate reasons in terms of not wanting to violate the Hatch Act and using government facilities for political activity that is permitted under the Hatch Act for certain individuals in the White House.

LEAHY: But how many -- but what was the policy?

Could they conduct official business on those...

GONZALES: I think the intent of the policy as I recall, Senator, is that those e-mails were to be used primarily for non-governmental purposes, but in fact -- but if there was governmental communications communicated over these non-governmental communications equipment, that there ought to be some kind of effort to preserve that communication if in fact it was a presidential record.

LEAHY: There ought to be, or was your policy that there had to be?

GONZALES: I think the policy -- I have to go back and look at -- the policy was that it should be preserved. Printed out, or somehow forwarded to a government computer.

LEAHY: Are we talking about two or three computers, or a number of computers?

GONZALES: Senator, I don't recall the number.

LEAHY: If the White House spokesperson said as many as 50 past, current White House officials had these separate RNC or other outside e-mail accounts to conduct official business, would that sound accurate?

GONZALES: Sir, I'd have no way of knowing.

LEAHY: Well, as White House counsel, did you conduct any audit or oversight of the use of non-governmental e-mails by White House personnel?

GONZALES: Senator, I don't recall there being an audit. We provided guidance, but I don't recall such an audit.

LEAHY: Is anyone investigating this issue now?

GONZALES: At the Department of Justice or at the White House?

LEAHY: Are you aware of anyone investigating this issue now?

GONZALES: Senator, from what I understand in the papers, is that I think the Counsel's Office is looking to see what happened here. I don't know if that's what you mean by an investigation.

I think there is an effort, but I haven't spoken to the Counsel's Office about this issue as to whether or not they're doing an investigation to see what happened.

LEAHY: And you're not doing any investigation from the Department of Justice?

GONZALES: Senator, I'm not aware that there is an investigation that's ongoing with respect to this issue.

# # # # #

Associated Press clip of Roves Attorney (emphasis added) -

April 13, 2007 Friday 8:42 PM GMT

Lawyer for top White House official says Rove did not delete e-mails sought in prosecutors firing probe

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

The lawyer for Karl Rove, chief political adviser to President George W. Bush, dismissed the notion Friday that Rove intentionally deleted his e-mails from a Republican-sponsored server.

Rove mistakenly believed that the communications were being preserved in accordance with the law, attorney Robert Luskin said.

The issue arose because the White House and Republican National Committee have said they may have lost e-mails from Rove and other administration officials. Democratically chaired congressional committees want those e-mails for their investigations into the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

The mystery of the missing e-mails is just one part of a furor over the firings of eight U.S. prosecutors that has threatened Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' job and thrown his Justice Department into turmoil.

For now, Bush is standing by his longtime friend from Texas, who has spent weeks huddled in his fifth-floor conference room at the Justice Department preparing to tell his story to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Rove's "understanding starting very, very early in the administration was that those e-mails were being archived," said Rove attorney Luskin.

The prosecutor probing the Valerie Plame spy case saw and copied all of Rove's e-mails from his various accounts after searching Rove's laptop, his home computer, and the handheld computer devices he used for both the White House and Republican National Committee, Luskin said.

The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, subpoenaed the e-mails from the White House, the committee and Bush's re-election campaign, he added.

"There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record," Luskin said.

Any e-mails Rove deleted were the type of routine deletions people make to keep their inboxes orderly, Luskin said. He said Rove had no idea the e-mails were being deleted from the server, a central computer that managed the e-mail.

On Thursday, one Democratic committee chairman said his understanding was that the committee believed Rove might have been deleting his e-mails and in 2005 took action to preserve them in accordance with the law and pending legal action.

New documents released Friday by the Justice Department may shed additional light, but their release prompted Gonzales' one-time chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to postpone a closed-door interview with congressional investigators.

The missing e-mails posed some of the weightiest questions of a sprawling political and legal conflict between the Bush administration and Democrats in Congress.

Democrats are questioning whether any White House officials purposely sent e-mails about official business on the RNC server then deleted them, in violation of the law to avoid scrutiny.

White House officials say they can't rule that out, but that the administration is making an honest and aggressive effort to recover anything that was lost. "We have no indications that there was improper intent when using these RNC e-mails," spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday.

Luskin said Rove didn't know that deleting e-mails from his RNC inbox also deleted them from the RNC's server. That system was changed in 2005.

Rove voluntarily allowed investigators in the Plame case to review his laptop and copy the entire hard drive, from which investigators could have recovered even deleted e-mails, Luskin said.

As the investigation was winding down, Luskin said, prosecutors came to his office and reviewed all the documents including e-mails he had collected to be sure both sides a complete set.

Luskin said he has not heard from Fitzgerald's office and said that, if Fitzgerald believed any e-mails were destroyed, he would have called. Fitzgerald's office declined comment.

The White House did not immediately respond to Luskin's comments.

Separately, the White House was confronted with unrelated questions about the possible loss of e-mails from aides' government accounts.

Perino said she could not rule out that millions of White House e-mails could have been lost when staffers' accounts were converted to Microsoft Outlook from Lotus Notes. It was a rolling process, she said, which occurred in the first couple of years of the administration, which took office in January 2001.

"I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million e-mails lost," she said. "There was no intent to have lost them."

Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo and Pete Yost contributed to this report.

# # # # #
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Nice
<snip> from the subpoena:

To Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, Greeting:

Pursuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States, on May 15, 2007, at 2:00 oclock p.m., at their committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to testify what you know relative to the Committees inquiry into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justices politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A under the terms and conditions stated therein. A personal appearance at the above-referenced date and time will not be necessary if the documents described in Attachment A are delivered to the Committees offices prior to the scheduled return.



Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. "Hereof fail not"
Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. I wonder how the folks over at the
RNC are taking this? May 15....2:00 pm....got it circled on my calendar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
48. I posted below before I read the entire thread. This is
precisely what I'm hoping for also! Drip, drip, drip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapere aude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Funny how they think they should have access to all of our emails and phone calls.
Just what are they afraid of and what do they have to hide?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Good point!!!!!!!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stimbox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes!!!!!
:applause: :woohoo: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. Time to pull out the spray can of Fascist-B-Gone.
Some roaches are really resistant. Somehow I just don't see this group going down. Not with pardons all around. Not without impeachment convictions.

End game. Check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
11. Why does Leahy think this is going to work?
The senator had requested the information from Gonzales when the attorney general testified before the committee and in a follow-up letter. However, Leahy said that Gonzales did not respond.

Was the request directed at Gonzales a subpoena?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #11
49. No.
It was a request.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_Leo_Criley Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you Sen. Patrick Leahy
Deadline, 15th of May. The Ides of May.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/leahy-issues-subpoena-for-rove-e-mails-2007-05-02.html

Indeed, despite multiple requests for the Department to produce documents voluntarily related to the Committees investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department, the Departments production of documents has been selective and incomplete, Leahy added. Many documents have been withheld or redacted without any legal basis being set forth."

"Leahy said the Department of Justice has until May 15 to comply with the subpoena."

Here we go...

glc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. Time to draft some Sunshine Law legislation, too!!
Make it a damn Constitutional Amendment!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. Awesome - they actually did it! This is huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. Its about time Thanks Leahy
now lets see if they are in contempt of Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
17. Sure Thing Pal
Turn over documents that might incriminate me...Yeah, sure thing pal.
Unless there are behind the scenes employees with a conscience the only way any incriminating emails or documents will turn up would be by accident only. Leahy needs to subpoena and confiscate some hard drives and extract information himself. After what we already know about the DoJ's recent activities how can they possibly be trusted to truly cooperate? They have been run by the WH since Gonzales became AG. Just look at the charts showing communications between them that were shown at Gonzales' testimony. I am waiting for a group of FBI agents to escort Gonzales and Rove off in handcuffs. I bet lots of incriminating documents will then appear, along with emails and testimonies and confessions. 6yrs of corruption, 4 years without oversight. Who is threatened by a subpoena?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. That is pretty much the question I was gonna ask.
Will the DOJ enforce a subpoena against itself? They own the US Marshals who normally enforce Congressional subpoenas. I do trust, however, that the Dems may have a few tricks up their sleeves. Who knows what they might not already have, as gifts from various disgruntled DOJ employees & whatnot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. Lovely!
Godspeed, Pat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. "Cooperate"----how many believe that will happen?
Karl Rove has never cooperated.....Gonzales did not respond! What does this tell you about the people in charge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
22. This could finally be the end of Rove
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. Why bother, it will just be ignored as is the trend started by Sleeza
and we do nothing about it. hmmmmmf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
25. fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties
Who knew politics were this much fun?!

:kick:
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
28. No room in these documents for the slightest of loopholes...
AIR TIGHT!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
29. Leahy must have
been able to recover the erased email. At the beginning of his call for Gonzales to testify, Leahy stated, in no uncertain terms, that deleted email can be recovered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarryNite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
31. Then what?
"Leahy said the Department of Justice has until May 15 to comply with the subpoena."

What happens if they don't comply? I'm so tired of everything taking so damn long!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soulcore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. God, me too! Can we please stop posturing and threatening
and actually DO something for a change?

Maybe in this decade, yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
32. Here's the CNN link:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/02/gonzales.subpoena/index.html

Rove's attorney said publicly that the e-mails -- many of which were reported to be "lost" -- had been turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, according to Leahy.

Fitzgerald was using them in his investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Rove's lawyer said. That probe led to the conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.

Leahy said when he questioned Gonzales about the location of the e-mails at the hearing, he said he would look into it and get back to the senator.

"You responded at the hearing that you did not know but would check and get back to me. I have not heard back from you since in response to my question or the letter," Leahy said in the letter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
34. YES!
Go Leahy!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
35. Senate Subpoenas Gonzales on Rove E-Mail
Source: ap


http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070502/D8OSE81G1.html

Senate Subpoenas Gonzales on Rove E-Mail


May 2, 3:17 PM (ET)

By LAURIE KELLMAN


WASHINGTON (AP) - Senators subpoenaed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Wednesday, ordering him to provide all e-mails related to presidential adviser Karl Rove and the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

"It is troubling that significant documents highly relevant to the committee's inquiry have not been produced," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote in a letter to Gonzales. The subpoena gives Gonzales until May 15 to turn over the information.

Not accepting the White House's explanation that some of the Rove-related e-mails may have been lost, Leahy subpoenaed any in the custody of the Justice Department. Leahy pointed to Rove's lawyer's statement that some of those the White House claims might be lost had been turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as part of the investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

It was unclear whether any of those were related to the prosecutor firings, but congressional investigators believe that if Fitzgerald could retrieve some e-mails for his investigation, the ones related to the firings of U.S. attorneys are recoverable as well.

.............

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070502/D8OSE81G1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. And when he ignores that subpoena?
Then what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Hold mock hearings with Herve Villechaize playing the Gonzo role
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. That's the question on all of this stuff
I am getting comfortable with the fact that nothing is going to happen to any of these people. Politically-motivated hirings, firings, and prosecutions. Vote-rigging, voter-roll purges. 2-billion-dollar-per-week spending in Iraq with no accountability or hope for success. Unauthorized phone taps, e-mail surveilance, and wire taps. Paying journalists to catapult the propaganda. Outing CIA agents because their spouses told the truth. And ofcourse refusal to be held accountable by any court.

It's all going to go completely unpunished.

I can't wait for the revolution to start, frankly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. Subpoena Rove.
I want him in front of Congress, cameras, and under oath.

Question him on his entire political life.

Expose Bush's Brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. they may find items in the emails that may be useful in other investigations?
voter frausd and such like
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
41. On KO today, Prof Jonathan Turley
(for whom I have those special feelings) said Leahy had the WH by the short hairs (paraphrased) and that he was really smart to go after those emails aggressively. Via process of elimination of who exactly ordered the attorney firings, it points right at the White House.

Go get 'em Dems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. turley: my hero! (sigh) i love this guy.
saw him on olbermann too. i was trying to follow the business about monica goodling and the oliver north comparison. would love to hear it again, but it's not up on youtube yet.

so...he said we need to investigate it this fully before we get monica to testify (otherwise it would be an olie north deal and we couldn't prosecute her because this partial immunity is only with her words and we can't hold her words against her.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #42
53. Jonathan Turley video here


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/countdownturley-on-goodling-and-karl-roves-e-mail/

The part about Monica Goodling immunity and investigating her thoroughly before she testifies begins about 2:30 (entire segment is 6:10)

My favorite section is the last minute or so (beginning at 4:52) about Leahy going after the Rove emails.

Electric quotes from Jonathan Turley:

I think Leahy is ...unstoppable.

and

I think he's going to succeed.

I have watched it about 3 times. Wow! Love it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. thank you sooo much! i love this! i'm bookmarking this one! n/t
Edited on Fri May-04-07 01:49 AM by orleans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. You are sooo very welcome!
Glad to be of service!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
51. Yes, atomickitty, but the WHY of the investigation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 04:56 AM
Response to Original message
43. It's hard to imagine anything transparent in such a deep shade of murk.
Simply expecting to find the truth among such a huge pile of total shit is a bit naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Seedersandleechers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
45. These people are criminals
Any and all significant e-mails has already been deleted and will not be brought forward. Repercussions of "lost" e-mails will be none. Makes me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
46. I would like to see a subpoena for his 2004 election eve
correspondence with Blackwell et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
47. KNR! ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
50. Man, that sure a poorly worded letter.
It says that the subpoena asks for emails related to the investigation, instead of emails related to prosecutorial independence.

I hope the subpoenas get it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
52. These emails pave the way to impeachment. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
56. Leahy's chances of this subpoena actually producing
anything worthwhile are somewhere between nil and nada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-04-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Did you see Jonathan Turley on Countdown Wed.?
I posted a link up thread to Crooks and Liars where you can see the segment.
This portion, very close to the end, was very promising:

Olbermann: On this other matter of the Rove emails, is Sen Leahy more likely to get them because he's targeting the people who received them? Will it ultimately matter or has the White House successfully insulated itself from any of these probes whether they're criminal or otherwise?

Turley: I think Leahy is, at this point, unstoppable... because of the mistakes this White House has made and these allegations.

There's a misconception that Executive Privilege is an absolute protection for the White House. It is NOT. Even when it applies, and it may not apply, the courts says it can be overcome by a compelling interest in Congress. Leahy is now investigating possible crimes.

He's had statements made to Congress that appear quite clearly to be false. Those are very compelling situations and he's being very smart. He's asking first for emails that go to Justice Dept officials. He's entitled to those emails because they dead-ended in the Justice Dept which fall under his jurisdiction. It's a smart move. And if those emails show any evidence of crime, than he's going to be a bulldozer and he's going straight for the White House, and I think he's going to succeed.

I hope he's right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-05-07 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. I hope he's right also but I've been led down these
blind alleys countless times over the last six years. Maybe this time?

I'm not holding my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 29th 2022, 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC