House Approves Subpoenas For Rove, Miers

Here we go.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote, but with some ``no'' votes heard, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the ``media spectacle'' that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.

So we're set up for a Supreme Court showdown where Bush will invoke "executive privilege" in an attempt to enshrine forever the Nixonian notion that the incumbent of the White House gets a free ride from oversight.

The Carpetbagger looks at the strength of Bush's claims:

How strong is the executive privilege claim in this case? Not very. For one thing, the scandal has nothing to do with “military, diplomatic or national security secrets,” where the Supreme Court says executive privilege is strongest. For another, the Bush administration has already disclosed thousands of pages of documents on the subject, and in some cases, partial disclosure can waive the privilege.

And from a purely political perspective, it hardly helps the White House that the Bush gang used to have an entirely different opinion of executive privilege when Clinton was in office.

Consider this gem from Tony Snow in 1998, which Glenn Greenwald uncovered:

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.

Yet it seems to me that the White House has expected this confrontation for some time even if they didn't expect this to be the issue that provoked it. And they seem to relish the possibility. Are they that sure of the Supreme Court already?

Update I have to say, I think House Dems are framing this exactly right. Rahm Emmanuel said today that: "The White House says they have nothing to hide, but evidently, they are willing to speak only behind closed doors, but not under oath," ... "Our goal is to finally get to the truth, but not to create a confrontation."

Which sets out the truth - that all the underhanded actions and confrontational attitudes are over at the White House.

And Linda Sánchez says that while Congress respects White House wishes to be able to debate internally without restrictions, that shouldn't be a "get out of jail free card". I think we should be hearing that phrase far more in the near future.