Congress subpoenas Karl Rove again

[GroundedSailor]

Link

Link

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats renewed their effort to force former White House aide Karl Rove to testify in a probe into Justice Department controversies, presenting a challenge to President Barack Obama, who will have to decide whether to defend his predecessor's legal arguments.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on Monday issued a subpoena to Mr. Rove, seeking his appearance at a deposition Feb. 2. Mr. Conyers wants the former aide to President George W. Bush to answer questions on the Justice Department's firings of U.S. attorneys in 2006, among other matters.

For more than a year, the Bush administration blocked congressional demands for testimony from Mr. Rove and other Bush aides. The White House's assertion of executive privilege prompted the aides to refuse even to show up for a hearing. A judge last year, in a limited ruling, said the privilege didn't protect the aides from having to appear, even if they refused to answer questions.

"Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it," Mr. Conyers said. "After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."

President Obama previously criticized the Bush executive-privilege claims. But presidents have a history of guarding the principle of executive privilege, even when it is claimed by a predecessor of a different political stripe. President Bush angered Republicans early in his term by using privilege to block several congressional inquiries into decisions by the administration of President Bill Clinton.

Robert Luskin, Mr. Rove's attorney, said Mr. Rove recently received a renewed privilege assertion from President Bush, before the president left office. Mr. Luskin said he would consult with Mr. Obama's White House counsel to determine the Obama administration's stance.

There is some dispute in legal circles over whether a president's executive privilege claim continues to be in force after he leaves office if his successor doesn't enforce it.

"At the end of the day Rove will do what he is told," Mr. Luskin said.

How long is he going to hide behind executive privilege? That executive is no longer in power and Obama may or may not protect him. I hope he doesn't.

If there's 2 people I would like to see face consequences for their actions, Rove is one and Dick Cheney the other.

 

[Robor]

They *all* need to be held accountable - Bush, Rove, Cheney, Obama, Biden, etc. All of them.

 

[Lemon law]

I applaud the action, if nothing else, its sending Rove the message that he can hide behind someone else to delay his testimony, but it does not get him out of testifying. And as the GOP found out with Gonzales, little white lies will not due, democrats cross check facts, and ole Karl has some tall explaining to do.

 

[heyheybooboo]

From a constitutional law dude in Salon 2 years ago ...

... refusals to comply with subpoenas become criminal where they are grounded not in good faith (even if questionable) assertions of privilege, but where, instead, a contempt for the rule of law is evidenced because one party abuses legitimate privileges in order to shield itself from investigation and accountability.

What the Bush administration is asserting here is the power to abolish that distinction, to immunize itself completely from the threat of criminal prosecution in those cases where it plainly abuses the assertion of privilege (as it is undoubtedly doing now) in order to immunize itself from accountability under the law.

.... This latest assertion of power -- to literally block U.S. Attorneys from prosecuting executive branch employees -- is but another reflection of the lawlessness prevailing in our country, not a new revelation. We know the administration breaks laws with impunity and believes it can. That is no longer in question. The only real question is what, if anything, we are willing to do about that.

Yes, it is true that, as various Democratic statements are claiming, this theory poses a constitutional crisis since, yet again, the President declares the other two branches of government impotent and himself omnipotent. But we have had such a crisis for the last five years. We have just chosen to ignore it, to acquiesce to it, to allow it to fester.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Robor
They *all* need to be held accountable - Bush, Rove, Cheney, Obama, Biden, etc. All of them.

Bingo.... If only.

 

[CaptnKirk]

His bleat of 'Executive Privilege' is a joke - Bush ain't the 'Executive' anymore,
he's more like the perverbial 'Turd in the Punchbowl'

 

[Fear No Evil]

I guess Obama and the democrats have fixed all the other more important issues.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I guess Obama and the democrats have fixed all the other more important issues.

A this point you can't throw Obama in the mix. This is all congress.

 

[Atreus21]

What did Rove do?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I guess Obama and the democrats have fixed all the other more important issues.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implicit in the Fear NO Evil implication here is that either the dems can go back and punish past miscreants or move forward on their own agenda, but they can't do both.

Which of course is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Because a set of some democrats can go back and explore the issues of where we went wrong, which then allows corrective actions so we do not repeat these same mistakes. And if need be, in the course of these investigations, if criminal acts were committed, we may need to punish those criminal wrong doers to doubly send the message, of not repeating the same mistakes.

Meanwhile, the rest of the democratic and republican party can move on and get a national agenda passed as we deal with present and future issues.

And I think we can do both with no problem at all. When the past facts come out, the past facts will come out, and then the truth can liberate us all rather than divide us in acrimonious debate over mere suspicions.

Nor is this like President Nixon's watergate problems the ate like a cancer on his Presidency, because GWB&co are now out of power, and the new President and congress is in no way paralyzed like Nixon was prior to his resignation. And when Ford pardoned Nixon, we failed to go back, learn the lessons, apply the corrections, so we got later abuses of executive power.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What did Rove do?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not exactly sure yet, but it strongly looks like ROVE ILLEGALLY politicized the Justice Department. And yes, Atreus 21, that is defined as a crime under Federal law.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
I guess Obama and the democrats have fixed all the other more important issues.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implicit in the Fear NO Evil implication here is that either the dems can go back and punish past miscreants or move forward on their own agenda, but they can't do both.

Which of course is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Because a set of some democrats can go back and explore the issues of where we went wrong, which then allows corrective actions so we do not repeat these same mistakes. And if need be, in the course of these investigations, if criminal acts were committed, we may need to punish those criminal wrong doers to doubly send the message, of not repeating the same mistakes.

Meanwhile, the rest of the democratic and republican party can move on and get a national agenda passed as we deal with present and future issues.

And I think we can do both with no problem at all. When the past facts come out, the past facts will come out, and then the truth can liberate us all rather than divide us in acrimonious debate over mere suspicions.

Nor is this like President Nixon's watergate problems the ate like a cancer on his Presidency, because GWB&co are now out of power, and the new President and congress is in no way paralyzed like Nixon was prior to his resignation. And when Ford pardoned Nixon, we failed to go back, learn the lessons, apply the corrections, so we got later abuses of executive power.

We can do both. The question is whether or not we are willing to pay for it. I know I am, but I also know that there are a lot of people upset over the number of staff employees already. There is one thing that Obama and no other person can do. That is, no one can create the 48 hour day. If we want more to get done within an allotted amount of time without giving any other priorities the shaft then there needs to be more staff and that means more money. Now, I don't know if there is already enough hired to make that happen. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't, but that is not the point. The point is simply that people need to accept that such things do cost money.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What did Rove do?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not exactly sure yet, but it strongly looks like ROVE ILLEGALLY politicized the Justice Department. And yes, Atreus 21, that is defined as a crime under Federal law.

How does it appear that he politicized it?

 

[Jeffg010]

And what is this going to prove all he has to do is plead the 5th and you get nothing.

 

[Lemon law]

If Atreus21 is not smart enough to answer his own question of, "How does it appear that he politicized it?", he either has not paid any attention to the evidence or is in denial about it. But to explain, federal laws say the Justice Department should be bi-partisan, and when a political operative like Karl Rove is calling the shots for the Justice department, suggesting only democrats and not republicans should be prosecuted by US attorney's, that is a fairly clear violation of the law when Karl Rove should keep his gribby grubby hands off of ANY internal Justice Department matters.

As for the Jeffg010 question, lots of ways to skin that cat, if nothing else, you can sweat the little rats who will give up Karl to save their own skins. Or there is the Monica Goodling way, immunity from prosecution, and Rove loses that 5'th amendment protections as he sells many others to the wolves. Ole Scooty Fibby tried that game and trapped himself, and this time there will be no GWB to pardon all of Rove's little criminal games away.

Personally I wonder if Rove will flee the country rather than testify, but this time, when Rove gets the subpoena, he better come or go fugitive. Or he will find a Federal Marshall at his door with a body attachment to haul his ass before the committee. And may start out facing contempt of congress charges for ignoring past subpoenas.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush is too big to prosecute.

 

[Genx87]

The econonmy shitting itself and this is what these people are worrying about?

This ought to be fun to watch.

 

[irwincur]

Giant waste of time and resources if you ask me. Why don't we focus on real problems and move ahead.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Maybe they should just lynch the guy and be done with it. Meanwhile...Rome burns.

 

[jman19]

Waste of time. Yes, Karl Rove is a giant douche but there are more important issues confronting the nation right now.

 

[Xavier434]

I think the idea is to show all of our politicians both now and in the future that there will be consequences for your actions. I always felt that the single largest problem with political corruption of any kind was the lack of enforcement. That is a real problem that we do need to focus on. That doesn't mean we should ignore other problems or make this one top priority, but it is not like our government isn't capable of multitasking.

 

[sactoking]

Without taking a stand on whether or not executive privilege should have been invoked in the first place:

The fact that the administration Rove worked for is no longer in office shouldn't invalidate a legal executive privilege claim. The argument that Bush is no longer in office is specious, at best.

HIPAA doesn't stop protecting you if you change doctors, nor does attorney-client privilege cease when you change attorneys. Non-Disclosure Agreements are not voided if you quit your job. Classified information doesn't become declassified when the head of the CIA changes. Actions protected by executive privilege are STILL protected when the executive office changes hands.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If Atreus21 is not smart enough to answer his own question of, "How does it appear that he politicized it?", he either has not paid any attention to the evidence or is in denial about it. But to explain, federal laws say the Justice Department should be bi-partisan, and when a political operative like Karl Rove is calling the shots for the Justice department, suggesting only democrats and not republicans should be prosecuted by US attorney's, that is a fairly clear violation of the law when Karl Rove should keep his gribby grubby hands off of ANY internal Justice Department matters.

As for the Jeffg010 question, lots of ways to skin that cat, if nothing else, you can sweat the little rats who will give up Karl to save their own skins. Or there is the Monica Goodling way, immunity from prosecution, and Rove loses that 5'th amendment protections as he sells many others to the wolves. Ole Scooty Fibby tried that game and trapped himself, and this time there will be no GWB to pardon all of Rove's little criminal games away.

Personally I wonder if Rove will flee the country rather than testify, but this time, when Rove gets the subpoena, he better come or go fugitive. Or he will find a Federal Marshall at his door with a body attachment to haul his ass before the committee. And may start out facing contempt of congress charges for ignoring past subpoenas.

There is a Federal Law that "mandates" the Justice department be bi-partisan?? What about any other party like Green or Libertarian? Which 2 does the Justice Department have to be fair with?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: sactoking
Without taking a stand on whether or not executive privilege should have been invoked in the first place:

The fact that the administration Rove worked for is no longer in office shouldn't invalidate a legal executive privilege claim. The argument that Bush is no longer in office is specious, at best.

HIPAA doesn't stop protecting you if you change doctors, nor does attorney-client privilege cease when you change attorneys. Non-Disclosure Agreements are not voided if you quit your job. Classified information doesn't become declassified when the head of the CIA changes. Actions protected by executive privilege are STILL protected when the executive office changes hands.

Umm. So it would be OK for Bush to release national security secrets because he is no longer President? Of course certain rules still apply after he is out of office.

 

[fskimospy]

To all the people saying "Why are they bothering with this when we have problems with the economy!?" Congress can do more than one thing at the same time.

If you can point to any legislation or proposed legislation that would be beneficial to the economy that is being held up by insufficient floor time for discussion, etc, then maybe I'll agree with you. I find that pretty unlikely though. This is a good thing for our country, as the executive branch is currently totally unaccountable to the Congress. Anything that limits executive power in any way at this point is something I whole heartedly welcome.