If I were on Obama's team, I would find a way to ignore Luskin's letter, stating more pressing matters as the reason, ie, 850 billion recovery package being worked on. He should just direct Luskin to the current law which probably states either Rove goes to Congress willfully or has a warrant issued for his arrest.

This really isn't Obama's main problem right now.

Is it too much to hope that this scoundrel of a man who has been involved with almost every major scandal of the bush administration, (Plame outing, US Attorney firings, Politicalization of the DoJ, imprisonment of Gov Siegelmann, Disenfranchisement of the Af Am vote come to mind) chould have to face the justice he worked so hard to subvert?

A girl can dream....

Why in the world should the Obama administration be asked to or required to offer an "opinion" on something like this. MAYBE if the Reps in Congress had seen fit to get the nation an Attorney General, a question could be asked about the governments likely position if the issue made it to the Courts ....... but Obama's opinion counts little more than yours or mine as to whether the courts will require Rove to comply. It's just a gimmick to put Obama in an uncomfortable spot, and I HOPE the White House just says "huh? what are you asking us for?" If and when there is a subpoena for information/testimony regarding Obama's own administration, that's soon enough for them to map out their position(s) on executive privilege.

Sorry, Karl -- hate to break it to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you.

I hope that Obama sticks it to Rove.

That would make my day!

The ball is in the Senate's court, not Obama's. The only question to be answered by the Executive Branch is does Executive Privilege have the same attributes as a Presidential Pardon - once given its a get-out-of-jail card. I would think the OLC would be the people making this determination. I'm wondering how Dawn Johnsen will answer it.

The ball is in the hands of the leadership of the Democratic House and Senate majorities. Republicans in the House and Senate are holding our country's economic welfare hostage trying to force Obama into giving the Bush administration a free pass on their criminal actions if Obama wants their support for his economic policies. They are playing hard ball politics implying that they will take our country down before they give in. If Democratic leaders are willing to play the same game with Obama, they can force Obama to go after Bushies and still insure that Obama's policies get the votes to pass. Of course Obama would like bi-partisan political support, but Republicans are saying they'd rather take our country down than provide it. Democrats are in the position to provide accountability and justice as well as the votes to get Obama's policies passed. But in order to force Obama's hand, they have to be willing to tell Obama that he needs their majority support much more than the unnecessary luxury of minority Republican support, and if he wants it, he has to allow them to fully investigate and prosecute the crooks in the Bush administration. The only real change that will take place in the Republican Party will be the result of attrition. The common good is not politically advantageous to those who seek the power to maintain their positions of economic superiority and control over people they see as inferior beings. Accommodation is not in their nature.

Even more than seeing him punished, I would just love for Rove topuff up with arrogant indignation and say something akin to "You can't handle the truth.."

The one thing Obama really mustn't do is simply support Bush's expansion of executive privilege without getting the courts involved. The Bush administrations end run around the rule of law and court's role as arbiter in that needs to end, not be reinforced.

I could see Obama stepping aside and saying fight it out in court, it's Bush's claim not mine. The last person the new White House needs to negotiate anything with is George Bush.

Two possibilities:

One, Obama does nothing. Why should he respond to a claim of privilege made by a former employee of a previous administration? That's like my wife's first husband asserting MY marital privilege (not his) over conversations he had with the ex prior our present marriage. Not gonna fly. It's neither mine to give or his to invoke.
Second possibility, Obama points to the EO regarding privilege of ex-presidents' documents, and says Rove's gotta talk, since the Obama administration doesn't think Rove's - or Miers', or Gonzo's - claims of privilege any longer apply.

Rove and the rethugs may think it's a trap, and they certainly intend it to be, but what I think they don't get is that Obama, et. al. don't give a squirt, since they have no intention of hiding behind such BS maneuvers anyway.

Am I the only one to find this patently ridiculous?

First of all, the courts have ruled consistently that executive privelege is to be given the greatest deference in matters of national security. Political shenanigans at the DoJ do not remotely qualify as matters of national security.

Second, are not the questions Rove would be asked relevant? I've been following the U.S. attorneys matter pretty closely, and it seems that most of the action went on between Rove's political shop and the high officials at Justice. Merely because he worked in the executive branch does not give Rove the right to invoke executive privelege. He was the executive of nothing. He was a political adviser to the president, without Constitutional duties. The privelege is meant for communications between the President and his advisers, in order to encourage honest advice. Is Rove's assertion of the privelege simply audacious, or is it a clue that Bush actually was involved in the act of firing the prosecutors, as he and his staff have denied? It would seem that if the President was not involved, he can't claim executive privelege. I should add I'm not a lawyer, but I know what makes sense.

What a pair on this guy. Maybe I'm a reckless young man and maybe I would regret it when the Republicans retake control of Congress in 2050, but I think it's time to give the Sargeant-at-Arms something to do.

Obama should play as little a role in this as possible. He should let this be a congressional matter, period.

On a side note, wouldn't it be funny to see Rove smiling and waving as he walked into Congress to testify and watch reactions from Republicans as he walks over to shake their hands?

WWDD?

What Would Dennis Do?

I thought that Obama just decided that presidents - including himself - can't just arbitrarily decide matters of 'executive priviledge.' That it's a legal matter for the attorney general to decide - ie Eric Holder. Maybe it was a bad idea for Rove to launch his campaign against Holder's confirmation?

I don't see how "this is squarely in Obama's court" - just because Rove's lawyer wants to pretend that it is If Rove chooses to ignore the subpoena, Conyers refers the matter to the new attorney general for prosecution. That's the way it works, and I don't see any need for Obama to get directly involved in the process at this stage.

Rove needs to do a lot more twisting in the wind before we break open the big fat pinata and watch the goodies fall out.

Why is it in Obama's "court"? Why would the executive have a say in whether or not a Congressional subpoena should be enforced?