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.

Thompson: Salahis' Request To Not Appear Before Committee 'Irrelevant'

Committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sharply responded to the Salahis' letter today, saying "the grounds cited by the Salahis for their refusal to testify are irrelevant and have no bearing on the oversight activities of the House of Representatives."

Thompson said that by Jan. 20 the Salahis, who have insisted they were invited to the White House, will know whether criminal charges have been filed, suggesting their justification for pleading the fifth may then be tenuous.

However, if the Salahis do plead the fifth, Thompson told ABC News last week, there isn't much else the committee can do.

"This is America and self incrimination is left up to the individual," he said. "If they choose that, so be it. But we would have discharged our responsibility as members of the Homeland Security Committee to get as much of the facts around situation as possible."

Last week, the Salahis declined the committee's invitation to testify voluntarily at a hearing on the security breach. White House social secretary Desiree Rogers also did not appear.

U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan told the committee on Dec. 3 that his agency bears full responsibility for mistakenly allowing the Salahis inside the White House complex. He rejected any suggestion that the White House was partly to blame.

The Service has acknowledged proper procedures were not followed at one state dinner checkpoint where at least one agent actually checked a guest list for the Salahis' names and, not finding them there, still allowed the couple to proceed to the next checkpoint inside the White House complex.

"Human error occurred in the execution of our duties," Sullivan told the committee. "A mistake was made. In our line of work, we cannot afford even one mistake."

Three agents have been placed on paid administrative leave while the investigation is pending.

But Sullivan's explanation and acceptance of responsibility has failed to placate many Republicans who insist the White House staff bore some responsibility too.

Rep. King: White House Is 'Smacking Congress In The Face'

On "Good Morning America" Friday, King said the White House refusal to let Rogers answer questions on the basis of separation of powers amounts to "smacking Congress in the face."

"I think she should come up and explain what happened," King told ABC News' Bill Weir. "All I'm saying is they owe it to the Congress, they owe it to the American people to explain why for the first time in 20 years she decided to have no one from her office working with the Secret Service."

Prior to the Nov. 24 gala, the Secret Service and White House staff agreed that agents would solely control the guest list at various entry points – a break in protocol from previous administrations.

The White House has since reversed course in a tacit acknowledgement that the staff might have helped prevent the breach.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina has instructed Rogers' office to abide by precedent and have a White House staffer present at checkpoints during future official events.

"After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex," Messina wrote.

Still, committee chairman Thompson has said that regardless of whether a White House staffer was present, the Secret Service bears full responsibility.

"The social secretary, they plan parties," he said. "They don't provide security. And I think, to try to say somehow that individuals who plan parties have the primary responsibility for security is a stretch."