« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rove Refuses House Judiciary Subpoena
Just last week, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) subpoenaed a big chunk of the Bush Administration to talk to the Committee about the Valerie Plame leak scandal. Among those listed to testify: Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett and Andrew Card.
And, predictably, Rove is the first one to thumb his nose at the Committee.
In a letter from Rove's attorney to Chairman Conyers, Robert Luskin writes:
While I understand that you would prefer-- and the Congress has taken the position in the pending litigation-- that Mr. Rove appear in person and assert any applicable privileges on a question by question basis, Mr. Rove is simply not free to accede to the Committee's view and take a position inconsistent with that asserted by the White House in the litigation. Mr. Rove will respectfully decline to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process in response to subpoena directed to this subject.
Our old friend executive privilege, rears its head again.
Advertisement
Comments (27)
Get the Sargent-at-Arms, stat. Drag his ass in for contempt of congress already!
July 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things will overcome Executive priviledge:
1) Arrest on charges of inherent Contempt, and use Congress' own powers to compel testimony.
2)Initiate Impeachment Hearings. Not against Rove: against Bush, or Cheney. Rove can then be compelled to testify.
there is absolutely no other way of doing this. And we must recall, the Bush Admin has been quietly laying the groundwork against Congress investigating its own malfeasance in the future, by asserting that Exec priviledge extends to prior Administrations as well (disappointing conservative diehards who wanted Sandy Berger investigated further, but no doubt welcome to the short-term strategists of the Clinton Admin and the Dems generally).
July 4, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Claims of executive privilege, a court-created doctrine, can and have been be litigated in court. In my view it would be better to have a court limit the doctrine to disallow Rove, et al.'s bogus claims, than to have the Capitol Police simply haul them in, and then have another administration reurge such broad claims.
It's not as if there's enough time either way to get anything out of them that would affect the election in four months. I'd bet that Susan McDougal's example would be persuasive to some of them (but not Scotty).
Someone should ask the Purse-Lipped Piece of Shyte whether or not he will waive the claim of executive privilege (it is, after all, his alone). If he says yes, controversy over. If he says no, it hurts McSame in the fall.
July 4, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Wigmarx, this will not work. Executive priviledge will work UNLESS A CRIMINAL INVESIGATION IS IN THE WORKS. US. v. Nixon, in which the concept was tackled head-on, was a ruling in the context of a criminal investigation.
The courts have already upheld Bush's claims, in effect, telling Congress to use Inherent Contempt or forget about it.
The intolerable problem here is not how it it affect the election. It is that the system of checks abnd balances has been upended for all to see.
Why should we believe Obama's words, if we know that he is operating unchecked? Why should any president's words be believed, if he or she can commit his crimes without fear of reprisal?
July 4, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're going to have to wait until after inauguration to move on the junta, Pinky included. The House and Senate know damn well that a pardon awaits every legal action and that legal matters before the election would shut much of Congress down.
There is no question that the American people demand justice, and should our government ultimately fail in the Bushist prosecutions, the underlying reason supporting the Second Amendment will become quite clear and acted upon unreservedly.
July 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing to stop Bush from issuing pardons before any legal action is taken.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
July 4, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Executive privilege belongs to the President and exists to protect the President's ability to get candid advice. In the absence of a criminal investigation, Rove is likely correct to refuse to disclose his communications with the President regarding the Plame matter.
Executive privilege does not extend, however, to communications between Rove and, for instance, members of the press. Or Rove and his subordinates. Congress should be able to get that information.
The claim of privilege, however, has been radically widened. The claim is not just that communications with the President are privileged, the claim is that Executive Privilege "confers upon him immunity from process." That is, nothing that a presidential advisor knows, says or does can be discovered.
It calls to mind the centuries of debate relating to the "divine right" of kings. In its simplest terms, the Rove assertion is that we are a nation of men, not of laws, and his man trumps everybody else.
July 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ursus -- you are mistaken. Rove is not being asked to testify about Valerie Plame -- he is being questioned about the politicized firings of U.S. attorneys. The White House has made public statements that it was not involved in the firings, so how can Rove say he is invoking executive privilege. Also, YOU MUST APPEAR TO INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE. That is what is being litigated in the DC District Court with regard to Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton.
In a broader context, you cannot hide behind blanket privilege assertions; instead, you must try to answer each question and if it implicates communications between the Witness and President, then you can invoke the privilege.
July 6, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the WH has already stated that the President was not involved in and did not know of the USA firings. THEREFORE, as I suggested above, the claim is entirely bogus and does not depend on the existence of a criminal case.
July 9, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's now or never. Either congress calls Bush's bluff and hauls these asses into chambers courtesy of the Sgts of Arms of each, or we say, "so?" like Cheney, or, "the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper", like Bush. Obama is not going to go back after these guys in the next administration.
July 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the president directed Mr. Rove to assert executive privilege? If the privilege belongs only to the president, his subordinates/staff should have no power to invoke the privilege without authorization.
Here is a link to a Congressional Research Service report on Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege.
July 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise from this bag of offal.
What the hell is the matter with the congress?
Where the sun doesn't shine?
In the spirit of the day, I listened again to the words of Barbara Jordan at the outset of the impeachment proceedings against Nixon:
http://virgotex.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/listening-to-barbara-jordan-3-my-faith-in-the-constitution-is-whole/
July 4, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I brilliantly left out a sentence btw congress and where Exactly where do they hold session?
Fortunately, Barbara Jordan was eloquent and painstaking,
July 4, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impeach Bush and Cheney, already! In an impeachment trial, there's no executive privilege.
Until that time, Congress should arrest Rove and keep him in a DC city jail until he feels like cooperating.
July 4, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, Barbara Jordan was eloquent and painstaking-714 Day
Thank you for that link. It brought memories and made my day
July 4, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Conyers can go back to sleep now.
July 5, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
NBC dropped a little news blip this morning that Conyer's wife has been caught on tape accepting a bribe according to "officials." I believe Mrs. Conyers an elected official herself has been beating the drums for impeachment in Michigan. I find it really curious that suddenly, Mrs.Conyers is being accused of accepting a bribe at the same time that Rove's ass is in a sling. Let's also remember that Rove and company have a foothold in Justice. Warrantless wiretapping anyone?
July 5, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rove is a scofflaw and needs to be dealt with accordingly. I think he should be held to the highest standards in regards traffic laws, zoning, tax and especially criminal law, and prosecuted for as much as possible including treason .
July 5, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is almost a moot subject . . . Threats, threats and more threats and absolutely no action. I have lost hope. I doubt that Conyers will follow through on anything. He has legal options, either practice them or shut up!
July 5, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my understanding that the subpoena was, in part, to cover questions regarding Rove's involvement in the political prosecution of Don Siegelman. It's my understanding that he's already stated that he wasn't involved - so how can he LEGALLY claim executive privilege? I'm thinking that if Conyers pushes the Siegelman angle, this one won't hold water.
July 5, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The little people can hollar and scream and complain all they want. In the end, they are still nothing more than little people.
Important people do not need to pay attention to them anymore...
July 6, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505. Whoever corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Rove placing a huge bet on the next Attorney General being a Republican.
July 6, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The courts (including Little Georgie's appointments) have stated that if Congress wants Unkle Karl to testify, then Congress must gather up his corpulence and forcibly detain him and set his ass in chains before Congress in order to get ANYONE from Little Georgie's maladministration to testify.
Maybe we could subject Unkle Karl to the enhanced interrogation techniques that his beloved puppet and puppet-master have authorized. This would be fun, but since torture does not return truthful results I advise against it. I would suggest a concerted interrogation that lasts until Unkle Karl spills the beans...
July 7, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rove's attorney should be disbarred. It's not impossible to claim that executive privilege excuses Rove from testimony. But the claim that executive privilege excuses Rove from even appearing in person to claim it is bogus. And the claim that executive privilege excuses Rove from even having a subpoena served on him goes beyond frivolous.
I'm sure that it's possible to engage in a criminal conspiracy to violate USC 18 1505, and it appears to me that that's just what Rove's lawyer is doing.
July 7, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waterboard the son of a gun!
July 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think we need to waterboard the Democrats in Congress who have made a mockery checks and balances. As long as Democrats limit their responsibility to making speeches and writing angry letter, rather than hauling their butts into the pokey in the Capital cellar, Democrats can not realistically claim the moral high ground.
July 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the Sargent-At-Arms comment. Since the Bush DOJ is worthless in enforcing the law and the power of Congress, Congress should go back to the old practice of using its own staff to enforce subpenas. Send the Sargent to Fox News, drag Rove out in chains to the Capitol basement, and bring him before the committee in irons. THAT would get his attention, and make clear that the Congress is the branch invested by the Constitution with ultimate authority.
Congress should pass some enabling legislation to set up a Congressional Sargentry, complete with jail, police procedures, and system of enormous fines for disobedience.
July 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink