• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Karl Rove Ignores Congressoinal Subpoena

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Prehaps a federal marshall should drag him before Congress in shackles.

Edit: Link

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate ? perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.

Lawmakers subpoenaed Rove in May in an effort to force him to talk about whether he played a role in prosecutors' decisions to pursue cases against Democrats, such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, or in firing federal prosecutors considered disloyal to the Bush administration.

Rove had been scheduled to appear at the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. A placard with his name sat in front of an empty chair at the witness table, with a handful of protesters behind it calling for Rove to be arrested.

Possible contempt charge
A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

House Republicans called Thursday's proceedings a political stunt and said if Democrats truly wanted information they would take Rove up on an offer he made to discuss the matter informally.

The House already has voted to hold two of President Bush's confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with its inquiry into whether the administration fired nine federal prosecutors in 2006 for political reasons.

The case, involving White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, is in federal court and may not be resolved before Bush's term ends in January.

The White House has cited executive privilege, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify.

Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance, although he has offered to answer questions specifically on the Siegelman case ? but only with no transcript taken and not under oath.

Democrats have rejected the offer because the testimony would not be sworn and, they say, could create a confusing record.

Rove has insisted publicly that he never tried to influence Justice Department decisions and was not even aware of the Siegelman prosecution until it landed in the news.

Siegelman ? an unusually successful Democrat in a heavily Republican state ? was charged with accepting and concealing a contribution to his campaign to start a state education lottery, in exchange for appointing a hospital executive to a regulatory board.

He was sentenced last year to more than seven years in prison but was released in March when a federal appeals court ruled Siegelman had raised "substantial questions of fact and law" in his appeal.

Siegelman and others have alleged the prosecution was pushed by GOP operatives ? including Rove, a longtime Texas strategist who was heavily involved in Alabama politics before working at the White House. A former Republican campaign volunteer from Alabama told congressional attorneys last year that she overheard conversations suggesting that Rove pressed Justice officials in Washington to prosecute Siegelman.

The career prosecutors who handled Siegelman's case have insisted that Rove had nothing to do with it, emphasizing that the former governor was convicted by a jury.
 
I really wish that Congress would get the sergeant at arms back into things. I know that it wouldn't do much to bolster the institutional weakness that's been setting in over the last 50 years or so, but it would at least be a pretty good symbolic gesture to have 'ol Karl locked up in the basement by him.
 
He's Immune!

Man, sh!t is really going to hit the fan if the whole government becomes Democratic. I would be scared if I were Rove.


There will be lots of investigations, you can be assured of that.

 
The Siegelman matter is the courts. Why shouldn't that be where Rove is subpoena's and questioned?

Otherwise, I don't see much coming of this, at least not this year.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Fern
The Siegelman matter is the courts. Why shouldn't that be where Rove is subpoena's and questioned?

Otherwise, I don't see much coming of this, at least not this year.

Fern

I don't see this actually being addressed until Bush is out of office. I honestly think the Democrats didn't want to have a big fight with him over this which is why they waited so long for contempt citations, subpoenas, etc. because of the election. Now they get to look tough without actually doing anything.

That's really a shame though, because this ridiculous assertion of executive privilege that's now extending all through the executive branch needs to be slapped down, and hard.
 
I don't see this being addressed at all. I truly expect there to be a lot of pardons that are retroactive to half the administration on Bush's way out the door. He will just hand them to the assistant on the way out with a little smarmy look and bungled quip.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
The Siegelman matter is the courts. Why shouldn't that be where Rove is subpoena's and questioned?
Fern

Because it's not the court's job to *investigate* and *oversee* the administration. It's Congress's.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Fern
The Siegelman matter is the courts. Why shouldn't that be where Rove is subpoena's and questioned?
Fern

Because it's not the court's job to *investigate* and *oversee* the administration. It's Congress's.

I understand that. But I believe the allegation is that he (Rove) unfairly/unlawfully injected himself into the case - the one before the court.

It seems to me that prosecutorial malpractice should not be ignored by the court hearing the case, and just left up to others. So, I'm thinking the court should be looking in to it. Apparently the judge at least somewhat agrees, else he wouldn't have turned the guy loose.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
He's Immune!

Man, sh!t is really going to hit the fan if the whole government becomes Democratic. I would be scared if I were Rove.


There will be lots of investigations, you can be assured of that.

There will be a blanket amnesty from Bush before he leaves, you can be assured of THAT!

 
Well, this is the house's chance to grow a backbone, congress can arrest and jail him, and then the courts will be forced to rule rather than kick the can on down the road.

Time will now tell. all in takes is a raw majority in the house, and then its game on.
 
Congress should send Rove where he belongs, to Guantanamo, along with the rest of the Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, and war profiteers.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Fern
The Siegelman matter is the courts. Why shouldn't that be where Rove is subpoena's and questioned?
Fern

Because it's not the court's job to *investigate* and *oversee* the administration. It's Congress's.

I understand that. But I believe the allegation is that he (Rove) unfairly/unlawfully injected himself into the case - the one before the court.

It seems to me that prosecutorial malpractice should not be ignored by the court hearing the case, and just left up to others. So, I'm thinking the court should be looking in to it. Apparently the judge at least somewhat agrees, else he wouldn't have turned the guy loose.

Fern

There are different issues regarding the same incident. The courts are looking into the issues in their realm, but Robe's role is not in their scope. He's in Congress's scope.

In the broadest sense, Congress has the right to investigate issues in fact-finding efforts, simply as 'issues affecting society' for them to decide whether to do anything.

In particular here, there are issues whether improper political activities were going on. Henry Waxman is already planning a bill to stop funding completely political people like Rove at taxpayer expense, coming out of the history from this White House. Right now they're just getting the facts of what happened.

The White House is playing its game of pursuing presidential power at all costs, and denying Congress the ability to investigate is their goal.

Executive Privilege is a narrow privilege this White House wants to greatly expand, at the cost of the ability to control bad behavior by the Cogress and the public.

Of course, to the right-wingers in this forum who are fond of the great expansion of powers to this administration, they're cheering the White House on. They'd be at home in Russia.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, this is the house's chance to grow a backbone, congress can arrest and jail him, and then the courts will be forced to rule rather than kick the can on down the road.

Time will now tell. all in takes is a raw majority in the house, and then its game on.

I'm not sure the current speaker has the balls. I mean that as a convenient jab, not a sexist comment - some other women would have them.

However, I don't like that it's even an issue. I don't want oru government on the cutting edge of battles between the branches where 'the most balls' in the battles win.

I want a government of people who put the public interest first and are not pursuing a radical agenda against it.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, this is the house's chance to grow a backbone, congress can arrest and jail him, and then the courts will be forced to rule rather than kick the can on down the road.

Time will now tell. all in takes is a raw majority in the house, and then its game on.

I'm not sure the current speaker has the balls. I mean that as a convenient jab, not a sexist comment - some other women would have them.

However, I don't like that it's even an issue. I don't want oru government on the cutting edge of battles between the branches where 'the most balls' in the battles win.

I want a government of people who put the public interest first and are not pursuing a radical agenda against it.

Pathetic. Why are only Republicans guilty until proven innocent? Your party is a joke.
 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
He's Immune!

Man, sh!t is really going to hit the fan if the whole government becomes Democratic. I would be scared if I were Rove.


There will be lots of investigations, you can be assured of that.

There will be a blanket amnesty from Bush before he leaves, you can be assured of THAT!

I don't believe he can issue a pardon for crimes not yet discovered or charged can he?
 
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, this is the house's chance to grow a backbone, congress can arrest and jail him, and then the courts will be forced to rule rather than kick the can on down the road.

Time will now tell. all in takes is a raw majority in the house, and then its game on.

I'm not sure the current speaker has the balls. I mean that as a convenient jab, not a sexist comment - some other women would have them.

However, I don't like that it's even an issue. I don't want oru government on the cutting edge of battles between the branches where 'the most balls' in the battles win.

I want a government of people who put the public interest first and are not pursuing a radical agenda against it.

Pathetic. Why are only Republicans guilty until proven innocent? Your party is a joke.

No! What's pathetic is your post. Neither post you quoted by Craig234 or Lemon law said anything about Republicans or Democrats. :roll:

For now, we're stuck with a Congress with a very scant Democratic majority and a Republican minority that can block anything at any time. It would be nice if some majority of them could somehow find the balls to uphold the law, instead of caving to the Bushwhacko traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers.

Turning to the Bushwhacko administration, they really are guilty. That has been proven over and over. Search the forum for threads with links to the proof before you embarrass yourself by denying it. If you do deny it, I promise I'll dig up at least one of my "macros" and post it with all the links you need.

Of course, I still expect you to deny it, but at least, everyone else will know you're blowing neocon smoke. :laugh:
 
If one only has contempt for Congress, do they really need to issue a subpoena for you to confirm that? With an approval rating of 9%, I'd think Congress should know pretty much everyone has contempt for them.

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
If one only has contempt for Congress, do they really need to issue a subpoena for you to confirm that? With an approval rating of 9%, I'd think Congress should know pretty much everyone has contempt for them.

Chuck

Congress is a bloody joke. They need to solve American's problems instead of witch hunts.
 
Duwelon asks--Pathetic. Why are only Republicans guilty until proven innocent? Your party is a joke.

And I ask why Rove refuses to testify under oath and show he is innocent? Pathetic in my opinion. And exactly the problem, Rove is afraid to say under oath what he he bragged
in private. There is too much evidence to ignore and perjury before congress gets very serious.

So he wants to get a lie for free card. Its all academic really, Rove is almost certainly going to jail after the chimp and chief is gone anyway. Messing with the justice department for political purposes is illegal and it just a matter of time before some of his fellow rats fink him out with the proof.
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
He's Immune!

Man, sh!t is really going to hit the fan if the whole government becomes Democratic. I would be scared if I were Rove.


There will be lots of investigations, you can be assured of that.

There will be a blanket amnesty from Bush before he leaves, you can be assured of THAT!

I don't believe he can issue a pardon for crimes not yet discovered or charged can he?

Yes, he can. There is precedence:

Ford preemptively pardons Nixon

Pappy Bush pardons Iran-Contra conspirators before their trials begin
 
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: chucky2
If one only has contempt for Congress, do they really need to issue a subpoena for you to confirm that? With an approval rating of 9%, I'd think Congress should know pretty much everyone has contempt for them.

Chuck

Congress is a bloody joke. They need to solve American's main problem instead of witch hunts.
Isn't it a little late in the game to start impeachment hearings?

 
Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not sure the current speaker has the balls. I mean that as a convenient jab, not a sexist comment - some other women would have them.

I recommend using the gender-neutral term "gonads", to aviod such confusion. 😉
 
I think they should wait to investigate until bush is out of office and can't pardon anybody. That way they can swing from the gallows. I'm not a nice person. I want blood.
 
Back
Top