White House 'Crashers' Slapped With Subpoenas

Dec. 9, 2009 — -- They masqueraded on White House grounds, shook hands with the president and then went on national television to talk about it. Now Tareq and Michaele Salahi say they intend to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves when faced with congressional subpoenas to testify under oath.

The House Committee on Homeland Security overwhelmingly passed separate resolutions today compelling the embattled White House "crashers" to testify, but Republicans' attempt to subpoena White House social secretary Desiree Rogers failed in a party-line vote.

The committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Peter King of New York has insisted Rogers explain her decision not to have a staff member assist Secret Service agents checking in guests at the Nov. 24 state dinner. The White House has cited separation of powers in refusing to allow Rogers to testify.

"If we are to get the full picture of that evening, we have to know why the decision was made. What prompted the social secretary's office, after so many years, not to have people there that night," King said today. "We are not looking for constitutional confrontation. If the White House would reach out and try to find some sort of compromise, we would certainly be amenable to considering that." King admitted attempts to reach such a compromise have so far been futile.

Meanwhile, the committee approved both resolutions subpoenaing the Salahis to appear on Jan. 20, 2010, to explain why and how they managed to attend the White House state dinner without an official invitation.

In a statement through their lawyer Tuesday, the Salahis warned they will exercise their Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questions, saying the committee should not bother to summon them.

"We respectfully request that the Committee on Homeland Security accept the Salahis' declarations in lieu of summoning them to appear at a public hearing or any other setting," the letter reads. "Requiring the Salahis to personally appear for the sole purpose of invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege will result in an unnecessary media spectacle from which no facts relevant to the Committee's inquiry will be determined," their lawyer wrote.