« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Rove Can Claim Privilege Only When Asked About Bush
We've obtained a copy of the agreement on Karl Rove and Harriet Miers' testimony about the US Attorney firings, and it appears to answer some of our initial questions.
Are any subjects off limits?
The scope of the interviews will be limited to: (1) facts relating to the evaluation of, decision to dismiss, or decision to replace the former U.S. Attorneys in question; the alleged decisions to retain certain U.S. Attorneys; and any allegations of selective prosecution related thereto; and (2) testimony or representations made by Department of Justice officials to Congress on the U.S. Attorneys matter. For the period beginning on March 9, 2007 (the date of the Committee's first written demand for information from the White House), interviews will not include the content of conversations involving: (i) Mr. Rove and members of the White House Counsel's office; or (ii) Ms. Miers and members of the White House Counsel's office. In the case of Mr. Rove, the interview also will include facts relating to the prosecution of Alabama governor Don Siegelman.
And when can Rove and Miers claim executive privilege?
As to official privileges, counsel will direct witnesses not to respond to questions only when questions relate to communications to or from the President or when questions are outside the scope of questioning set forth above.
You can see the whole thing here.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
In other words, the answers to all questions will be:
"I'm trying to recall that, but I don't recall, because my recollection is fuzzy and I can only testify to what I truly do recall and I am having a hard time recalling what I recall. I'm trying to give my best testimony and want to testify truthfully, so my best answer is I don't recall."
March 5, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that this is behind closed doors makes the testimony worthless as far as I'm concerned. I'll give the Obama admin props for a lot of things, but its moves on executive power are deeply worrying.
March 5, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you on the Obama executive power moves. I thought I was voting against this sort of thing when I voted for Obama.
I’ve yet to see an executive privilege claim that wasn’t to cover up criminal or unethical behavior. There might be some, but I am unaware of them.
March 5, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am actually not that concerned. The king put obama in a terrible position with his executive privilege claims. Obama would have to have the doj defend them or face a battle with the king over the claims, which isn't necessarily a good idea. Also, it has only been 45 days and everyone wants obama to do 180s on everything. That's not possible or realistic.
I was actually happy that the torture memos were released. That was surprising and a good thing. No privilege was claimed with that crap.
Nah, I am not concerned yet. Let's see what happens with the privilege claim and the state secrets claim during obama's administration. I will wager a bet that we won't hear too many of those types of claims. Obama is a constitutional law professor after all.
March 5, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allright, I'll bite. Why would a battle with Bush over these claims be a bad idea? I think that's a fight we want to have, isn't it?
I am extremely disappointed with the way Obama has either refused to deal with (or actually continued) Bush era abuses. I wish progressives would stop making excuses for him.
Still, apparently no word on whether these transcripts will be made available to the public, eh?
March 5, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couple of points and I am guessing on alot of this and am not interested in trying to figure out the ins and outs of the situation where one executive takes over for another executive, but here is a shot:
1. The privilege is applicable to the office not the person. The office still exists and asserted the privilege, only the people have changed. I would think that the new attorneys representing the office would still have to defend and assert the privilege as it was applied by the office under the old holder of the office.
2. Why get into a food fight and wind up going all the way to the supremes concerning the assertion of the privilege. The congress doesn't want that, nor does the president.
3. Basically, the "compromise" deals with the issue as both sides currently perceive the privilege as it applies to communications with the president. I definitely don't like the compromise, but it deals with it in some ways appropriately.
4. Obama doesn't want to waste precious time with this crap. Congress can if it wants to and obama has gotten congress what it wanted two years ago, in part.
Basically, we have too many problems right now that need to be addressed and obama wants to move forward and address those problems. Congress can deal with the old problems if it so chooses, but obama wants to limit his involvement as much as possible, which makes sense.
March 5, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, they don't have to answer questions about "the content of conversations" they had with anybody and they don't have to answer questions about TO and From conversations with Bush or his office.
Exactly what CAN they talk about? NOTHING.
This is just a SHOW to pass the time away...hoping Dems forget the past 8 years.
March 5, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can put a lot of the blame for this on Obama. If he had made it clear that he wouldn’t support the claims for “executive privilege”, and that he would order the U.S. Attorney to enforce a contempt of Congress charge, Conyers would not have been forced to be so accommodating.
March 5, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
OT
Proper executive privilege is a good thing, like physician/patient, lawyer/client, husband/wife, or priest/penitent privileges. It promotes free discussion, making the specific relationship work better for all. Back on topic, what we have here is probably improper executive privilege, and Congress can hold Rove and Miers in contempt, attempt to put them in jail, and then promote Congress's position in the legal suit Rove and Miers would press.
But Congress won't because it's afraid of what the Supreme Court might decide and the current executive is afraid to do anything for the same fear. This is how it's always played out in the past -- with a settlement. The less the Obama administration has to deal with questions of executive privilege, the happier it will be, as would any administration.
March 5, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This deal means Conyers and his committee will ask the questions - is that right ?
I would much rather see the Senate committee, especially Leahy and Whitehouse, ask the questions.
Conyers and his committee did not do as well in my view.
March 5, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact it isn't going to be public and with all the caveats pisses me off. Rove should be perp walked into the House Hearing room in hand cuffs and leg irons.
March 5, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
the lack of consequence for Bush-era war crimes, for subordinating and abusing our justice system, well, it's more maddening and infuriating to me than any other issue out there.
Wall Street, CEO bonuses, the Madoff and Stanford ponzi schemes, the entire financial meltdown are all devastating, and have ruined the lives of millions of Americans for sure.
But the destruction of our judicial branch penetrates my core with knife-edged clarity.
It's somehow more personal.
March 5, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't this the same deal Conyers rejected last year?
How is it different? Behind closed doors, no oath, transcript only, executive privilege still claimed.
Either they (Conyers et al) have the answers they need via the documents obtained in transfer of power or they're "looking forward" while providing a meaningless show of holding Rove et al accountable.
Without handcuffs and meaningful jail time for Rove, the Congress will effectively absolve the entire Bush regime.
March 5, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking it's the same thing Rove offered to do a long time ago. But spun for left-wing consumption.
March 5, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seemingly and/or possibly Sad, Appalling, Corrupt and Disgusting.
Seemingly or possibly the 'Same Pack of Lies' with the seemingly same disingenuous, deception and/or dishonesty within the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches (seemingly to include the so-called US Senate Truth Commission, etcetra) with the pre-exclusion!! of US Constitutional Bill of Rights mandated Testimony and to be held in (permanent!!??) undefined Secrecy and with apparently a pre-determined Press Release from the (initial??!!) Subpoenaed Individuals.
Also, it is presumably and seemingly expected from a reasonable person that a Democracy and Law is not consistent with the enactment of the Death Penalty, Torture (both Internationally and Domestically!!), Legal//Illegal Rendition (and/or unheard and disappearances), Legal//Illegal Secrecy (Wiretaps etcetra), Seemingly Fraudulent Signing Statements, Patriot Act, Illegal War(s), the illegal and/or un-constitutional etcetra abolishing of Habeas Corpus and numerous other seemingly allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors (and/or with Fraud, Waste and Abuse).
It seemingly appears clear and unmistakable and that a reasonable person would concur that there must be a full and complete endeavor and effort at these and this level of concern to have a unfettered application towards the Truth, Oversight and Accountability, Transparency and seemingly in the hopes for Truth, Redemption, Salvation (and seemingly therefore with proper and forthright efforts and endeavors towards forgiveness and penance concerns).
Finally and in closing, tpmreaders may recall a recent blog comment reply that I would presume found the recent President Obama 'State of the Union' address with all our US Executive, Legislative and Judicial Leaders and Members Present seemingly to some extent disturbing and/or offensive to our great Country and Democracy.
Please note that as Senator Kennedy and President Obama are apparently meeting today in a highly publicized event in reference to Health Care, Education etcetra, I would expect that PROPER AND FORTHRIGHT!! consideration be given to Immigration as the Sunset of 245i on 12/15/1990 has now left approximately 30 million undocumented and/or (I presume legal term: alien) workers in our great country [example: (and that have also seemingly been directly and/or indirectly employed etcetra, to include by our US Government)(Katrina)].
Hopefully, TPM will allow me to offer corrections, modifications, explanations and/or removal of this blog comment reply as necessary and as it is not my intent to offend anyone.
March 5, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every one wants to see Rove in tar and fethers, walking to the Hill. It's not going to happen.
This scoundrel knows how to weasel out of responsibilities and accountability. A public hearing would become a reality tv-show with Rove trying to be at his funniest and skirting the questions while ridiculing the process and those wanting to know the truth.(See Michael A above)
Those who negotiated this hearing deal with him did an ecellent job ....and know him well.
March 5, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should read ....'Sunset of 245i on 12/15/1999' not 12/15/1990.
March 5, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction. You had me worried there for a moment.
March 5, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, you win +1 internets.
March 5, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So- it's a whitewash.
March 5, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And still no comments about White House Legal Counsel Greg Craig and his old law firm representing all the Bush characters in this drama. The Committee members will ask no questions, only one Democratic and one Republican lawyer. The transcript won't be released unless all parties agree -- so if Karl has a bad day, he can stop it. The documents Craig is finally going to give the committee legal staff, can't be released or copied, and on and on. Conyers has put forth a valiant effort, but Rove is laughing.
If you read the "Accommodation" you'll see that Craig and his old law firm mentor, Emmet Flood, representing W, will both be sitting in on the unsworn recitations. Calling further witnesses, except possibly one, also has been bargained away.
March 6, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink