Rove subpeonaed by House

[RightIsWrong]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24778787/

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday subpoenaed former White House top political adviser Karl Rove to testify about whether the White House improperly meddled with the Justice Department.

Accusations of politics influencing decisions at the department led to last year's resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

I'm sure that he is going to get some blanket "He don't need to testify" from Bush...but I really thought that Conyer's statements were funny and completely relevant to Bush's requirements of secrecy from his top advisers:

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate."

"Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters," Conyers said.

 

[Robor]

How much do you want to bet he pulls an Alberto 'I don't recall' Gonzalez?

 

[jpeyton]

Right now, I'd equate the GOP brand to ValuJet right after Flight 592.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Rove is a nosegay of all virtues.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Rove is a nosegay of all virtues.

:laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

I suspect that Rove can show up and answer only the questions he wants to answer and the house won't be able to do anything about it.

You can post all the rules and powers of congress you want, but they are not going to arrest Rove and throw him in some kind of congressional jail cell for refusing to answer questions.

And if the Supreme Court is asked to become involved they will most likely claim that this is a political fight between these two branches of government and refuse to get involved.

Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that Rove can show up and answer only the questions he wants to answer and the house won't be able to do anything about it.

You can post all the rules and powers of congress you want, but they are not going to arrest Rove and throw him in some kind of congressional jail cell for refusing to answer questions.

And if the Supreme Court is asked to become involved they will most likely claim that this is a political fight between these two branches of government and refuse to get involved.

Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

At this point I see no reason for them to push for a subpoena that they know Rove will refuse unless they are willing to call his bluff. As far as the courts are concerned, I read the same analysis you're getting this from but I'm not sure I agree with it. If the executive is attempting to exert executive privilege that is directly interfering with Congress performing its constitutional duties as in this case, I could certainly see them ruling on if presidential advisers get the same protections as the president does. (I also think it's almost certain they will rule they do not)

I for one genuinely hope they send the sergeant at arms out to arrest Rove like they did in the past. Congress BADLY needs to reassert its powers vis a vis the executive, and I can think of no better way then unilaterally enforcing a contempt of congress citation while the executive squeals.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that Rove can show up and answer only the questions he wants to answer and the house won't be able to do anything about it.

You can post all the rules and powers of congress you want, but they are not going to arrest Rove and throw him in some kind of congressional jail cell for refusing to answer questions.

And if the Supreme Court is asked to become involved they will most likely claim that this is a political fight between these two branches of government and refuse to get involved.

Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

Your blind defense of this administration is sickening. :disgust:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

Goodling admitted during her congressional testimony for which she was granted immunity that the DOJ staffing practices took personal political views into consideration and that doing so was illegal.

Course you can't expect her to know what's legal or not, she did go to Regent University after all.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that Rove can show up and answer only the questions he wants to answer and the house won't be able to do anything about it.

You can post all the rules and powers of congress you want, but they are not going to arrest Rove and throw him in some kind of congressional jail cell for refusing to answer questions.

And if the Supreme Court is asked to become involved they will most likely claim that this is a political fight between these two branches of government and refuse to get involved.

Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

Your blind defense of this administration is sickening. :disgust:

It really is.

 

[Vic]

One thing seems certain, no matter what happens this fall, Rove's future is not bright.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Topic Title: Rove subpeonaed by House

We'll see if the democrats have the fortitude to follow through with this. Can you say "constitutional showdown about presidential powers"? This could be better than any of the current sitcoms.

*waiting for good results on the edge of my seat*

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Topic Title: Rove subpeonaed by House
Topic Summary: I guess I picked a bad day to be a Republican

No, it's a good day to be a Republican. Your party doesn't stand a chance until they rid themselves of the stench of the Bushwhackos criminality, including treason, murder, torture, war crimes, war profiteering and general lying about all of what they've done.

The damage they've done to our nation will take decades to overcome so it won't happen overnight, but forcing Rove to testify under oath is a good first step toward bringing all of those assholes to justice for their crimes.

Every one of them should be tried, convicted and sentenced to lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride. Waterboarding isn't torture. They said so, themselves, and we can believe them... right? :roll:

 

[RightIsWrong]

FYI Harvey.....

You really should re-watch Airplane! once again.

Steve McCroskey: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking.
Steve McCroskey: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking.
Steve McCroskey: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Steve McCroskey: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that Rove can show up and answer only the questions he wants to answer and the house won't be able to do anything about it.

You can post all the rules and powers of congress you want, but they are not going to arrest Rove and throw him in some kind of congressional jail cell for refusing to answer questions.

And if the Supreme Court is asked to become involved they will most likely claim that this is a political fight between these two branches of government and refuse to get involved.

Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

Your blind defense of this administration is sickening. :disgust:

Actually I am defending the right of executive privilege.

The courts have ruled that the President and his advisors have the right to keep their deliberations private from congress, unless they are trying to hide law breaking.

Furthermore, the President has the right to fire any of these DAs at any time for any reason. Congress is just trying to score political points because they see a possible problem with the timing of their terminations.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that Rove can show up and answer only the questions he wants to answer and the house won't be able to do anything about it.

You can post all the rules and powers of congress you want, but they are not going to arrest Rove and throw him in some kind of congressional jail cell for refusing to answer questions.

And if the Supreme Court is asked to become involved they will most likely claim that this is a political fight between these two branches of government and refuse to get involved.

Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

Your blind defense of this administration is sickening. :disgust:

Actually I am defending the right of executive privilege.

The courts have ruled that the President and his advisors have the right to keep their deliberations private from congress, unless they are trying to hide law breaking.

Furthermore, the President has the right to fire any of these DAs at any time for any reason. Congress is just trying to score political points because they see a possible problem with the timing of their terminations.

If they were trying to impede an investigation, they were breaking the law. That is what Congress is attempting to find out.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Actually I am defending the right of executive privilege.

You would. It's the only scant hope your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have to avoid having to explain their treason, murder, torture, war crimes and general lies to Congress and the American people.

"Executive privilege" is not unlimited, and it probably doesn't apply in this case.

First, they claimed Bush wasn't in the loop regarding the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. If that's so, there was no communication with the "executive" and no privilege applies.

Then, there were all of those e-mails sent through the RNC's account, instead of from the Whitehouse so no privilege applies to those communications, either.

Time and again you've proven that you'll lie at the drop of a hat as long as it suits your perverted personal agenda. :roll:

:music: JAIL TO THE THIEF! :music:

 

[Lemon law]

It does not look to be a good week to be Karl Rove, he and Miers are already ducking a Senate subpoena. The GOP may have a filibuster power in the Senate but the house can designate a duly constituted law enforcement official to frog march Rove back to Washington. The white house will have to ask the courts to stop them with the onus on the white house.These are powers the house has always had, recently they have expected the executive branch to do the job better, but the house cannot count on GWB.

This is going to be very interesting. And in terms of law violations, a grant of immunity from prosecution was granted to Monica Goodling, a similar grant of immunity in exchange for honest testimony may not be an option for Karl. The house has broad constitutional granted powers including the power to imprison. If anyone thinks its not illegal to politically tamper with the justice department, that someone did not watch Monica Goodling pee her pants. She can still be recalled for additional testimony, and Karl's luck may run out.

Since Karl is not yet charged with a crime, we must wonder if GWB can grant immunity. As Conyers has mentioned, he has been crowing about this for quite awhile, and as they say, you have a right to remain silent, but what you said can and will be used against. Maybe the GWB fan boys can maintain this is solely politically motivated, but I think the smart money is going to be on what Conyers has and we don't know about yet.

For Rove and Miers being in Texas allows that quick trip to Mexico, but thereafter they may have to scurry somewhere else because we have an extradition treaty with Mexico.

 

[sprok]

meh, i'm sure rove will get an 11th hour pardon from gwb at the end of this year if anything happens to him.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Actually I am defending the right of executive privilege.

The courts have ruled that the President and his advisors have the right to keep their deliberations private from congress, unless they are trying to hide law breaking.

Furthermore, the President has the right to fire any of these DAs at any time for any reason. Congress is just trying to score political points because they see a possible problem with the timing of their terminations.

I am going to guess that your opinion of "Executive Privilege" will change 180deg if/when Obama (or another democrat) becomes President.

Kinda of like all the other partisan republicans (like Sean Hannity) all did 180's when Bush got elected. Everything that Clinton wasn't allowed to do suddenly became totally acceptable.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Actually I am defending the right of executive privilege.

The courts have ruled that the President and his advisors have the right to keep their deliberations private from congress, unless they are trying to hide law breaking.

Furthermore, the President has the right to fire any of these DAs at any time for any reason. Congress is just trying to score political points because they see a possible problem with the timing of their terminations.

The falsehoods in your post are huge.

The "right" of executive privilege was basically invented by the Nixon Administration to try to thwart being caught by Congress for their criminal conduct. Funny how administrations for the nearly 200 years before that had not needed to invent it, and how the founding fathers had not seen fit to mention or define it. The courts upheld a *narrow* right in the Nixon case, but he was still largely accountable.

Did Nixon have the 'executive privilege' right to keep the most secret discussions in the Oval Office he'd taped from Congress? Ask any of the 9 Justices then - they'll say the same.

We're not talking here mostly about any direct discussions by advisors with Bush, but discussions between advisors.

You also falesly minimize the case for wrongful use of the Justice Department for inappropriate, politicized prosecutions.

You are not being honest at all in portraying the issue as *Congress* trying to exploit the politics on 'timing' (any more than the Congress was to blame for politics in Watergate).

The case for that abuse is staggering and it's an affront to ANY patriotic American; it is up to you whether you want to join that group.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suspect that Rove can show up and answer only the questions he wants to answer and the house won't be able to do anything about it.

You can post all the rules and powers of congress you want, but they are not going to arrest Rove and throw him in some kind of congressional jail cell for refusing to answer questions.

And if the Supreme Court is asked to become involved they will most likely claim that this is a political fight between these two branches of government and refuse to get involved.

Despite all the noise made by the Democrats no one has ever claimed that any laws were broken when these people were let go. Bush has the right to fire any of them at any time for any reason.

Your blind defense of this administration is sickening. :disgust:

Actually I am defending the right of executive privilege.

The courts have ruled that the President and his advisors have the right to keep their deliberations private from congress, unless they are trying to hide law breaking.

Furthermore, the President has the right to fire any of these DAs at any time for any reason. Congress is just trying to score political points because they see a possible problem with the timing of their terminations.

The courts have never ruled that the president's advisers have the right to keep their deliberations secret. Only that the president has a very limited right to direct advice in private.

In addition, the president does NOT actually have the right to fire any DA at any time for any reason. There are loads of reasons that the president could not legally fire someone for.

 

[Craig234]

Detail: the title of the people under discussion is US Attorney, not DA.

 

[Lemon law]

If the house of representatives chooses to reassert the constitutional power they have always had to compel testimony from Rove, its still GWB&co who must petition the courts to stop it. If the courts say no, GWB&co is the one stuck up the creek without a paddle.

Right now, quite a few republican senators just need an excuse to join the democrats in an impeach and convict GWB movement. Its really GWB&co that is skating on thin ice. A 27% approval rating will not improve in the denial of it all. But GWB impassioned defenders, please feel free to delude on.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The "right" of executive privilege was basically invented by the Nixon Administration to try to thwart being caught by Congress for their criminal conduct. Funny how administrations for the nearly 200 years before that had not needed to invent it.....
snip-

Nope.

George Washington was the 1st

From Findlaw

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY
(just a excerpt from the above article)

Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information.

For example, in 1796, President Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Accordingly, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House.

Link

Exec Priv is about as old as the USA, and the Nixon admin did not invent it.

Fern