KEY POINTS:
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats defied President George W. Bush today and authorised legal orders to compel White House aides, including political adviser Karl Rove, to testify under oath about the firing of eight US prosecutors.
Moving closer to a high-stakes showdown, a House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee agreed on a voice vote to authorise subpoenas if Rove and others refuse to give sworn testimony before Congress.
"We have worked towards voluntary co-operation on this investigation, but we must prepare for the possibility that the Justice Department and White House will continue to hide the truth," said the panel's chairwoman, Democratic Representative Linda Sanchez of California.
The vote came a day after Bush vowed to oppose subpoenas. He offered instead to allow aides to answer questions, but only behind closed doors, not under oath and with no transcript taken of their exchanges.
Democrats called the offer unacceptable. A White House spokesman hailed it as "generous, reasonable."
Executive privilege
President Richard Nixon invoked it during Watergate, President Bill Clinton briefly asserted it during the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and Bush might next claim executive privilege in his battle with Congress.
Any court battle probably would turn on executive privilege, a legal doctrine invoked occasionally throughout US history to shield presidents and their aides from having to answer questions or turn over information to Congress or grand juries.
"That's the big question -- is Bush willing to go all the way on this?" one administration official asked. "Chances are he may feel this is worth it."
If Rove and others refuse to answer questions under oath, claiming executive privilege, it would likely be challenged in the courts, a Democratic aide in Congress said. "Absolutely," the aide said.
A judge then would have to decide if the person deserves executive privilege -- a process that could lead to lengthy litigation and appeals.
Recent firings
Recent disclosures about the firings of the prosecutors have ignited a firestorm over whether they were pushed out for political reasons. It has also prompted calls for the resignation of their former boss, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Bush has voiced support for Gonzales.
Representative Chris Cannon of Utah, ranking Republican on the subcommittee, denounced the authorisation of subpoenas as premature and counterproductive.
"The only purpose of subpoenas issued to the White House now is to fan the flames ... and hamper the public's ability to obtain the truth," Cannon said.
Compromise possible?
The panel's action authorised Democratic Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, to issue subpoenas to Rove and others if they refuse to testify before Congress publicly and under oath.
Conyers, who has not yet issued the subpoenas, said he was still hoping to work out a voluntary agreement with the White House and planned to have additional talks with officials there.
"Sometimes things look gloomy and then all of a sudden they look better," he said.
The White House was showing no signs of compromise.
"Are we going to change our conditions? No, but it's probably worth giving members of Congress a little time to think about this," spokesman Tony Snow said.
"If they issue subpoenas the offer is withdrawn because it means that they will not have responded to the offer, they will have rejected the offer," he added.
The House panel authorised Conyers, if needed, to subpoena Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley, Rove aide J. Scott Jennings and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was expected to authorise subpoenas of its own on Thursday.
A president can claim executive privilege to try to prevent his aides from testifying to Congress. But it can be challenged in court.
Congressional investigators are particularly interested in talking to Rove since one of his former aides replaced a fired prosecutor.
The administration has argued that the dismissals were largely related to performance problems. But critics charge prosecutors were dismissed to make room for administration allies or because the administration felt some were too tough on Republicans and too easy on Democrats.
Recently released documents showed the prosecutors were judged on such factors as their effectiveness as well as their loyalty to Bush and Gonzales.
- REUTERS
