« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Quelle Surprise: Rove A No-Show, Again, For US Attorneys Testimony
So today was the day that Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary committee to testify about the US Attorney firings. And of course, Rove didn't show.
That wasn't a surprise. After getting the deadline pushed back, Rove had already publicly indicated he didn't plan on being there, citing President Bush's claim of executive privilege. Rove's lawyer had then asked for a second postponement, a request that Judiciary chair John Conyers had declined to grant.
It's a bit unclear where things go now. The next key date is March 4th -- the new deadline for the Obama administration to weigh in on the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten case, in which President Bush also asserted executive privilege. The new administration's stance on that case could well also determine how a judge would rule on the Rove case, should the issue go to court.
And given Rove's continuing failure to cooperate, it looks like that's where we're heading.
Josh
Zachary
The only reason we are headed there is that the Democrats in Congress refuse to exercise their rights to swear out an arrest warrant and have Rove's ass hauled off to jail until they are ready to hear his testimony. Rove has proven that he is a flight/no-show risk and should not be given bail.
Let the Republicans and the courts react to the Democrats instead of the Democrats always waiting until the Republicans act (or don't act in this case) and then responding as wimps.
The "Oh, we can't do anything" stance by Democrats has worn more than thin.
February 23, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I am afraid our Congress has Stockholm Syndrome, too many years of being reamed has left them emascualted.
February 23, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
All these ancient DEMS NEED TO BE REPLACED,with fire in the belly younger Dems.CONYERS is a toothless tiger,and has out stayed his usefulness.
If this were an average citizen,we'd be hauled in,for contempt.
February 23, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
catty,
correct, since all Conyers and Leahy do is bloviate with no consequences for the Bush/Cheney gang, they should just STF up.
February 23, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah. You're just spouting off.
Conyers is doing a lot given the difficult situation. Try learning some history and politics before knee-jerking.
February 23, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try to learn history and politics? What, is our political process strictly for those in the know? No, expecting the politicians we send to Washington to do the right thing does not take special knowledge of history or the inner working of our political establishment.
Congress is so unpopular because it is such an insider's club, and I have no idea why some people just cannot understand that. It takes inner machinations to get anything accomplished, out of view of the public eye. And judging by the results, the only measure available to average American citizens, the Democrats haven't been doing very well since they got the majority in 2006.
February 23, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, actually it does help to know something about what you're complaining about. You know, the responsibility of an informed electorate, in a democracy, and all that good stuff. Get a clue.
FYI it's a complicated issue and Conyers is doing all he can. Rove is claiming executive privledge, which isn't a black/white issue so Conyers can't just dismiss that immediately as you'd like him to. That's why it requires some sort of ruling as to whether Rove's claim is valid, and that's difficult now given all the other priorities and political reality.
Again, either inform yourself or don't presume to have an opinion. An uninformed opinion is less than worthless.
February 24, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Rove is claiming executive privledge"
Fine. Let Rove claim it from a jail cell. He has been in contempt of congress for some time now by failing to show up in answer to a legally executed subpoena. That in itself is a crime and Conyers has been negligent in not using any of the power he has to force Rove to appear, or suffer the consequences of ignoring a subpoena.
Take a stand, throw Rove in jail for not showing up in answer to the subpoena and then negotiate whether or not "executive priviledge" applies to whether or not he is required to give testimony once he appears as required by the subpoena.
Those are two separate issues and should be traeated seperately.
February 24, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good job repeating your previous conclusion. Now perhaps you could try your hand at addressing the response?
When you suggested that Rove had committed a crime and could easily be thrown in jail, the response was that it was not at all clear that the act was criminal, and that he could not be thrown in jail without Obama or a court intervening. Faced with such a response, it is laughably inadequate to simply repeat that Rove had committed a crime and should be thrown in jail.
Also, such foolishness tends to reinforce claims that you are ignorant of the relevant issues.
February 24, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, it's so complicated! Suuure!
Anybody who thinks more could be done about Rove obviously doesn't know enough and shouldn't have an opinion! What an elitist.
February 24, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no. The charge isn't that anyone who thinks more could be done doesn't know enough...it's that anyone who thinks this is a cut and dried issue and that Conyers can act alone to have Rove locked up doesn't know enough. There's plenty of room for informed people to want more action. They should probably be seeking it from Obama. But just going around screaming about how Conyers is a wuss and won't do his job belies a genuine ignorance of what is going on here. Which is to say it's pretty much useless, and while such people certainly have the right to an opinion, they are likely to be called out for their ignorance if they share it in public.
If elitism means saying something when people make false conclusions from no facts, we need a lot more elitism around. Particularly in the press.
February 24, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
Conyers and Leahy have been working with this "executive privilage" claim for two years, they should have resolved it by now.
February 25, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the spirit of the NEW understanding of bipartisanship, cuff him and frog march his fat pink ass into a cell to rot until he "sings".
February 23, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell does Rove have to do to get his ass locked up for contempt? No respect or truth telling to congress. I'm totally disgusted and feel that Obama's DOJ and AG better act to compel Rove to the stand or they will be viewed as the "problem" when it comes to truth telling. How is it possible that this "turd" get over time after time!
February 23, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Due process, people. Obama has only been in office a few weeks. That is when the clock started. Any heavy-handed moves will result in a loss of public support. Period. So chill out. They can't do anything significant with or to him until the Obama administration makes its executive privilege determination.
February 23, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the key here was on the issue of transparency and truth. Heavy handed(?) to make turd blossum just freakin appear...this isn't rocket science, Mr. Fuzz, it is called justice and congressional oversight!
February 23, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Hotheads always calling for heads, but would never stick their own neck out nor know how to win these battles.
As much as I agree that Bush and Rove are way over the line in asserting executive privilege in an abuse of power investigation, it's still a complicated issue that has to play out through due process.
Politically, Obama (or any President) can't afford to take on the last Administration while trying to get his own Administration in gear and do all he has to economically, in Iraq, etc. If Conyers or Obama move too aggressively they'll appear too zealous and lose public support. People who've never managed or had to fire people don't understand how delicate a process picking a political fight actually is.
February 23, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
To an extent this is true but do you think Obama would gain or lose support by pressuring Holder to arrest Rove for contempt?? Imagine the headlines...only Fox would rage.
February 23, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, face it – the Obama Administration is going to side with Bush on this one. I could collect links to what they have been saying about this very issue but I would expect someone who seems to be speaking with such authority to know what they are talking about.
All of this "don't rush to judgment" is just stalling tactics. People can see what is happening in front of their face, and if you don't like them talking about it then prepare for a few years of disappointment, dude.
February 23, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your opinions are baseless. Just pulled out of your nether regions.
February 24, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? No they aren't, if all you can do is sit on your ass an anonymously pick a fight then what good are you? Nothing but a child.
February 24, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I've been paying attention and reading what Obama and co have said on this. And I don't see any indication of their plans...just an indication of severe caution. So, if you've really got something you can link to, I for one would love to see it. Of course I find it hard to believe that they really tipped their hand in a meaningful way (hint: "we want to look forward" isn't it) without it getting plastered all over the headlines.
Furthermore, I'm not sure I'm willing to fault him even if he does side with Bush and let this go. It annoys me a lot of the time that so many good progressives with the right ideas and the right values are so completely devoid of any understanding of political reality. I'm confident that Obama would love to have Rove in the slammer as much as anyone...but he, unlike you, recognizes the minefield this whole project represents. Which would you rather have: all Bush's cronies in jail, or universal health care and EFCA? It's an easy call for me.
February 24, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Yeah! Wait till conyers sends out a strongly worded letter! That will show him!
February 23, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove calling Obama's bluff?
Somehow I don't think Rove would have taken this action without this little tell from Obama's top lawyer Gregory Craig:
“The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened. But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle.”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/probes-of-bush-administration/obamas-top-lawyer-says-obama-doesnt-want-to-weaken-presidency/
So Rove is calling Obama's "bluff", daring Obama to reverse course on "weakening" the presidency.
February 23, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will be plenty of time to get upset if Obama upholds the Bush executive privilege claim. If not, them there will probably be some empty cells at GITMO for Rove to become acquainted with.
February 23, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know that if I ever get subpoenaed by Congress I can just flip them the bird.
February 23, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and the DOJ will side with Bush. Is there any doubt???? If it will decrease the power the of the presidency, you can't expect him to do it. This is up to Congress. Plain and simple. It's time they took back the power the ceded so quickly.
February 23, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This little story over the weekend says it all:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article
/ALeqM5hsG0My2Q3Eu9Sj2PSupnj4xeQXxAD96G4J9G0
While not directly related to the Rove/Conyers circle-jerk above, it proved to me once and for all that Obama is going to protect former Bush officials in ALL cases and not just those issues that apply to "national security".
Protecting each others asses is simply THE most important thing to these lying, cheating, self-dealing scum-bag politicians.
Period.
Now there's some scum-baggery we can believe in...
February 23, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record the point of this rant was to say that anybody who thinks Obama will rule any differently than Bush on this issue is delusional at best.
But go ahead, wait for Obama to side with Bush yet again. Then you can get on to pretending Obama is any different than Bush on the next issue.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Maybe by 2012 you will have figured it out...
February 23, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like a lot of Republican trolls have popped up since January. Go figyah.
February 23, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So everybody who isn't an Obamabot is a Republican?
How convenient!
It's amazing how consistently Obamabots NEVER address the substance of a comment but instead just accuse people of being ReThugs and trolls.
So predictable...
February 23, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't include everyone for what one commenter said in reply. Pressuring Obama to support the constitution certainly does not mean you don't support him and his agenda. But thinking Obama is no different than Bush is delusional...completely different in character...still that doesn't mean he can't be corrupted by power. But look at what he's walked into...there may be a lot of sneaking in through the backdoor on a number of issues. All we can do is keep the pressure on to not carry on the Bush approach.
This one is really more on congress. I believe Obama and Holder are both stalling or avoiding Bush accountability to concentrate on more emergency issues that necessitate their attention right now. But we must never let him avoid permanently.
February 23, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about your "apply pressure" slogan or whatever. You don't understand the issues or know where to apply pressure to achieve your goals. In fact you're applying pressure entirely backwards.
Try reading some of the posts here from people who understand the constitutional issues, why it's complex, and why the due process is slow and politically sensitive. Then you'll understand why knee-jerk responses and slogans aren't helping. This isn't something that can be rammed through cause you're impatient.
February 24, 2009 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No but people like you who look for every oppurtunity to bash Obama, after one whole month, certainly are either GOP trolls, or just utterly clueless and whiny. Same difference really.
February 24, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right, I'm sure they all look the same from your limousine!
February 24, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohh Noooooess! Time for Conyers to send another strongly worded letter!
Ha! Take that Rove! Ignore the US Congress at your peril!
*sobs*
February 23, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
ctal,
I wonder if Conyers and Leahy realize they're looking like bloviating eunichs.
February 23, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I hate to break it to you but it's not a simple issue legally.
Technically he's claiming Executive Privilege which was in fact asserted by Bush. Until that's shot down by some ruling we're in legal limbo about whether Conyers can or can't force testimony from Rove. Which Conyers doesn't have the authority to do. He's a member of Congress, not the executive/judiciary.
All the blowhards in this thread could inform themselves of the basics once in a while, just to surprise everyone.
February 23, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. He did not reply or reveal his intention...he just didn't show up where he could have asserted executive privilege claims. That IS contempt of congress. It's not the same as making claims to avoid appearing...it's not showing up at all ...like flipping congress the finger.
(Why do you feel it necessary to comment and then insult other commenters?)
February 23, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. Why don't you try and actually think about it?
Yes, Rove didn't show. Yes we know you're peeved about this. AND? What happens next?
Clue: Rove didn't show because he knew he didn't have to, at this moment. Conyers requested him anyways, becasue he's gradually building the case against Rove, waiting for a moment when he could actually charge Rove with contempt, expected it to be upheld Constitutionally, and enforced.
If Conyers tries to charge him with contempt now, then Rove asserts EP. Then it becomes a Constitutional issue, that could be dragged out all the way to the SCotUS unless there was a political compromise along the way. That would take years, and would be a huge distraction to other issues like the economy. Also, neither side really wants to pull the trigger now becasue there is no clear advantage at present and would be a dangerous roll of the dice that could make or break either party.
Rove is hoping to run out the string further, Conyers and Obama are waiting for developments which favor them politically.
February 24, 2009 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two issues here.
1. Rove refusing to appear before congress after being given a legally issued subpoena.
He failed to show up and should be prosecuted - if for no other reason than to insure that the rule of law is the rule of the land.
2. Rove claiming "executive priviledge" concerning any questions he may be asked.
This can be argued while Rove is spending time in jail for refusal to show up as subpoenaed.
I doubt that "executive priviledge" extends to him answering the question: "What is your name?"
February 24, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I call bullshit!
Judith Miller did show up, but refused to disclose her sources when asked. She landed in jail for months.
Rove just doesn't bother to show up. And he remains free, apparently without consequences.
The difference? Miller was just a journalist. Rove is a well-connected political operative who has plenty to tell and lots of powerful people who don't want him to do so.
Different set of laws for different levels of power.
PEACE
February 23, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a F**KING travesty....a complete "miscarriage of justice" write, call, e-mail..! Jam their phone lines, crash their computers, whatever... but get through to Congress ...this will not stand!..we want justice!! (..if it were you, Mr. or Ms. Average Citizen..do you think you would be allowed to pull this Rove/Bush, Bull Sh*t...?)
February 23, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Send Conyers some Viagra to cure his impotence. I am waiting for Conyers to stop bleating like a wounded sheep and start charging like an aggravated bull. He should cite Rove for contempt of Congress TODAY and haul him in.
Obama has been a major disappointment in this regard and he deserves our opprobrium as well. Despite his campaign advertising, he has been more like Bush in the area of executive power and the maintenance of government secrecy than I would like. I am sorely disappointed. I fear that Obama is counting on the progressives to support him as the best alternative regardless, but I am through with holding my nose and voting for someone who doesn't stand up for what's right.
February 23, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just sent Obama an e-mail asking him to enforce the contempt of congress citations. All they do with letters like mine is count them, but enough letters have an effect. I still think Obama's instinct is to do the right thing, but he's being pushed from the right, and we need to push back.
February 23, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arrest him.
February 23, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough with the Conyers hate, how is the man supposed to accomplish anything when first it was Bush and his Executive Privilege claims, now it's Obama's lawyer and the same damn thing.
Gregory Craig, essentially gave Rove an open invitation to do this with his statement.
The ball is in Obama's court, not Conyer's, as far as I can tell.
February 23, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears clear and unmistakeable !!!!!
that the Honorable John Conyers, Chairman of the US Congressional Judicary Committee must immediately issue a Arrest Warrent for Appearance for Mr. Karl Rove before the end of today or give a clear and compelling, reason and explanation for not doing so!!!!!!!!
Especially on behalf of our US Constitutional Bill Of Rights!!!!!!
And within our Democracy and Democratic form of our Government!!!!
February 23, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allowing Karl Rove to be above the law is not going to happen because we won't let it.
President Obama told us it is our duty to hold him accountable. He promised us he would take the Constitution seriously. Now the ball is in our court. We are being forced to do whatever it takes. We are responsible for shaping our destiny.
President Obama's words to us:
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.
February 23, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done!
February 23, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Congress have any options now that Rove ignored them? If so, what are they?
Can they send some law enforcement agency to bring Rove in?
February 23, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
y--y-- you mean, rove snubbed conyers? OH NOES!!!
How, how, how could that have happened? and is it time for another Sternly Worded Letter? Cus those ALWAYS work.
February 23, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The message seems to be clear. Laws are for chumps.
February 23, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And rules are for suckers!!
February 23, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
someone, please post a number or email address or some form of "call to action" that all of us can get behind to bring unrelenting pressure on the Obama administration to pursue justice.
The power is in our hands.
Look what happened with Facebook; tried to change its legal guidelines, members revolted and less than 48 hours later, they had to revert back to the original guidelines.
Why should this be any different?
February 23, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
so instead of crying to a blogger who shares your sympathies, I hope you are all writing letters to your representatives in Congress and the White House.
February 23, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrote my congressman and Speaker Pelosi. http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
February 23, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks,
I guess it's hard to boycott the justice department. During the Bush administration, there were very few who resigned or threatened to leave if laws were broken.
Are there any who would do that if they're not allowed to pursue those who broke those laws?
February 23, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is one thing to claim exec priv., but you still have to show up to do so. Contempt of Congress by being a no-show. Exec priv. has nothing to do with it.
February 23, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the REAL world, the pigs ARE more equal...
Too bad it has come to this... due process for commoners is entirely different than due process for important people (of BOTH mobs)... of course, "WE the COMMONERS cannot help but put the same mobsters back in power... over and over and over and...
February 23, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure would make Rove's appearances easier if he was sitting in jail for Contempt of Congress.
("hello COngressional Dems, your spine is holding, Line 2!")
February 23, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's his excuse? Hasn't Bush's attorney already said Rove isn't covered by Exec. Privilege? How can he just refuse to testify? I don't understand the law but I do see how ordinary people can come to disrespect it when they see this kind of behavior.
February 23, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite the opposite.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240
February 23, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Newsweek article is from almost a month ago. I could have sworn I heard in the past week that they were no longer asserting EP. That's what led to the announcement that Rove would show up this week and all the anticipation that pronouncement generated. Or did I just dream it all? Somebody, help me out here.
February 23, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove is not currently asserting EP.
That doesn't mean Rove can't assert it later. Actually, he still can, at the moment he was about to face consequences.
Which would then make it a Constitutional issue that could drag out for years and get really ugly and potentially divide people as much as the Clinton impeachment.
Which is why Conyers can't just haul him in, cause Rove still can assert EP and will never actually be hauled in. Not for years anyways.
Understand? That's why this is a unpredictable political brinkmanship with potentially huge consequences, a fight nobody really wants to go all-in on right now. Both sides are positioning themselves.
Anyone already stressed and impatient is only going to get more so before it's over.
February 24, 2009 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Asserting that "executive priviledge" allows anyone to ignore a subpoena is ridiculous.
There is absolutely no case law in which any ruling was that anyone has any right to ignore a subpoena.
February 24, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arrest the S-B. If no message is sent that these creetins are not above the law, they will continue to arrogantly thumb their nose at. Rove is the case to use as an example. Throw the book at him and the rest with comply.
February 23, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let’s all watch Conyers make Rove quake in his boots. Don’t threaten Conyers he might actually do nothing. Conyers couldn’t get a J walker to testify. What an awful example if a weak dick leader. Conyers must go now. Why can’t he bring Rove to justice? You and I would never be allowed to get away this bullshit. Conyers seems content to be bitched slapped by Robe forever. Conyers no bite and no bark.
February 23, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems will never hold Rove or anyone else from the Bush years really accountable for their actions. Too many Dems are implicated in various Bush/Cheney skullduggeries, one way and another, and they certainly don't want the boat rocked.
February 23, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen up, Mr. President:
"He who passively accepts evil
is as much involved in it
as he who helps to perpetrate it.
"He who accepts evil
without protesting against it
is really cooperating with it."
--- Martin Luther King
February 23, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say is "UNBELIEVABLE". I have been understanding and patient with the Obama's administration during the few weeks he has been in office, I think he has done a great job. However, I will be very disappointed if the DOJ allow Karl and the others to get off with this non-sense. This will certainly ware on the patients of all loyal Democrats.
February 23, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complicit yeah, but some went overboard in Bush's administration...well beyond any dems actions...like politicizing the DoJ and corrupt prosecutions and blocked prosecutions. Dems can safely bust their asses.
February 23, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one think it's great. I hope they never get him to testify. I like knowing that if I ever piss off the government so bad they want to drag my ass in front of congress, I can just not show up.
February 23, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two questions here. The somewhat more difficult one involves what limits involving requested information might reasonably be asserted here. While these may well be conditional, I think those matters should, with a little good faith and work, be resolvable.
The other question, the really outrageous one, involves the notion that former Whitehouse officials may thumb their noses at Congressional subpoenas as they may choose. “Bush’s brain” needs to be arrested for flaunting his imagined privileges.
Now the far out part: Because Congress has no effective police force they should deputize a bounty hunter to arrest this outlaw and put him in the Capitol Building’s cooler for a while. It just might get to court pretty quickly then.
February 23, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on the issue but I think too many of the commenters have been overly critical of the performance of House Democrats and particularly Mr Conyers.
This is just another test to see the direction of this administration and whether we have a country of laws by which all must abide or we have a country ruled by men.
While I am not a lawyer, I have read one who is a lawyer and makes some sense of where this things stands and what comes next, Scott Horton:
So now, again, we face the question of contempt. Will the Obama Administration follow the precedent of the Bush Administration by instructing the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia not to enforce Congress’s contempt sanctions after they are voted? Enforcement is not discretionary. In the language of the statute it’s mandated. It is a straightforward test of the rule-of-law premises of our Constitution, and for the Obama team it presents a clear test: do they value the Constitution more highly than the imperial powers that the Bush team left them?
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004445
February 24, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well there's a problem with that becasue it greatly oversimplifies and misunderstands the Constitution and Separation of Powers. It's also a rather simplistic argument that either naively or deliberately fails to game out likely scenarios. Scenarios that make clear it's a complex and slow moving chess game.
Which is also why many paid writers seeking readership tend to dumb the issue down enormously.
First off, Executive Privilege is considered a Constitutional issue and would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court if all parties entrench.
Rove has said he doesn't claim EP, becasue he supposedly did nothing wrong. But, hasn't said it under oath so it's not binding in any way and he could claim EP again later. If threatened with contempt, or of it becomes clear he would be charged with wrongdoing, then he'd either cut a deal and testify to avoid charges (unlikely unless he was really caught red handed) or he would revert to claiming EP thereby avoiding any Congressional subpoena indefinitely, until it was either resolved by the SCotUS or politically.
Rove's choice would depend heavily on the political climate and timing.
If Rove thinks the Administration and Conyers are weakened politically, embattled on other issues and at risk of losing popular support due to the economy and whatnot, he'd try to fight it all the way to SCotUS. If the Admin and Conyers are popular, passing their other agenda and the economy is recovering and such, then Rove will be more likely to cut a deal.
Which is why the Admin isn't going to immediately pick this fight so soon after taking office. They'll wait for an advantage.
And right now Obama is doing the smart thing, the rope-a-dope again. Letting the GOP play the partisan obstructionists, while the GOP popularity continues declining disproportionately and Obama maintains popular support.
February 24, 2009 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's a slow-moving insider's baseball game. Now everybody shut up and let the elite figure this out. Just like they did with the Iraq war, military commissions, telecom immunity, etc.
A big part of the problem is that these insiders would rather spit on the rabble instead of politely try to explain their take. People are angry and don't want to listen because they feel betrayed by the pols on the issues above, and loads more.
And a-holes like you do not help. You obviously have your ear to the ground on this issue, but you are a complete fucking snob about it and only exacerbate the problem.
February 24, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haul this lying, criminal pig's fat butt off to jail for Contempt of Congress. Period.
February 24, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have THE math and it says you are wrong, Joe. My butt is not fat.
February 24, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seemingly appears that it is clear and unmistakeable that the Honorable US Congressional Judicary Chairman John Conyers must immediately and publically mention and/or state to 'We the People' if and/or why he has not issued an arrest warrent(s) and/or letter to the US Attorney General Eric Holder for an arrest warrent for Mr. Karl Rove and/or et all as applicable in reference to the Congressional Subpeona and contempt of Congress Subponea(s) that apparently neither Mr. Rove and his seemingly and/or apparently his Legal Representation have failed and/or to adequately respond to these numerous Congressional Subpoenas.
February 24, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink