In what is now an almost mocking level of contempt, Karl Rove has refused to appear before Congress despite a subpoena to do so. While claiming executive privilege, there is no justification for the failure to appear and to answer any questions on the firing of U.S. attorneys. The question is what will the Democratic Congress do beyond expressions of outrage. It is a question that I will discuss on the Dan Abrams show tonight.
Rove is claiming immunity despite the fact that there are obvious many questions that could not possibly be covered by executive privilege. He was first subpoenaed in May. Committee Chair John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairperson Linda Sanchez have already rejected the claim and threatened prosecution. However, Attorney General Mukasey has blocked giving the case to the grand jury. That leaves Congress’ inherent contempt authority, discussed here.
Congress stopped holding contempt trials after the Justice Department insisted that it would be represent the institution in court. With the open effort to protect officials by Mukasey, Congress now must choose between using its inherent authority or to accept open contempt of its authority.
For today’s story, click here.
An Upset Patty said..
That Rove is a citizen now, has nothing to do with Acts or Omissions he committed while he was part of the Bush Administration.
————–
You’re right.
The fact that he once committed acts and omissions at the White House in no way changes his civillian status.
He is a private citizen now, and just like you, or me, has absolutely no protection from his time at the White House, unless the President invokes executive privilege.
Which he has not.
Thus, as a private citizen, he may be arrested, and Congress cannot be blocked for attacking another branch of the govt.
Because he is a private citizen.
😐
Or “fugitive” if you prefer.
I’m sorry, is there a point to that ramble, or are you just upset?
I apoligized for misdetecting your apparent sarcasm, did I not?
Are you saying that I now should be sorry that I did?
I CAN be quite sarcastic, however I was being very direct with you.
That Rove is a citizen now, has nothing to do with Acts or Omissions he committed while he was part of the Bush Administration.
I am not going to read your, nor any newbies’ series of posts.
What point would you like to make most? Just once-if you could
have us pay attention?
We do listen, here – up to a point.
Q: What do they call Karl Rove taking flight to evade prosecution?
😐
A: Snake on an Airplane.
I’m just getting to know the players.
However with regards to “russ”, it would seem I already “have his number”.
😀
Oh, sorry Patty.
I’m new here, so pardon my saracasticlly challenged interprative skills.
Excuse me, Bartlebee? You are preaching to the choir
– director…
Of course, if you’re looking to provoke a defense for congress from one of us, you might try Daily Kos.
We’re not in the habit of defending the complicit.
russ
1, July 10, 2008 at 10:10 pm
SOMEONE ELSES WORDS:
——————
Sorry russ, when you turn to posting articles you found interesting, you’ve pretty much said you’re out.
😐
But go easy on that keyboard. Replacing them can really add up.
Patty C
1, July 10, 2008 at 9:55 pm
BARTLEBEE – Don’t ‘help’ us 2%’ers – PLEASE!
As much as I resent it, Rove is, in some ways,’covered’ for whatever Acts or Ommissions he committed WHILE EMPLOYED as a key member of the Bush advisory staff – but certainly not everything
————-
“MISTER” Rove, is a private citizen.
Secondly, “Executive Privilege” doesn’t “cover” an individual for “whatever acts or ommissions he committed”.
Executive Privilege is not a panacea for providing anonymity to anyone working at the White House.
It is NOT a Constitutional provision, and has already been defined by the SCOTUS, as being applicable to matters of national security.
Additionally, even at the invocation of it, the prosecutor merely needs to demonstrate reasonable provocation for testimony on an issue where it has been invoked, to still compell the official to testify under oath (See US vs Nixon).
And since the President has not invoked Executive Privilege, your points are thus moot anyway.
A more applicable use of your time would be in expounding on foriegn extradition laws, given Mr Rove has taken flight to evade.
😐
I’m assuming the 2 percent refers to the active portion of your brain?
EDITORIAL:
A germ of truth for Congress: We’re sick of you and that is why your approval rating is in single digits.
Published Thursday, July 10, 2008
Today would be a good one to sneeze in the face of Congress — to deliver a “germ of truth” about the body’s continued misdirection.
On the morning agenda was an appearance by former Bush advisor Karl Rove. He didn’t honor a subpoena to testify about influence peddling, so House members are in a tizzy.
Some contend he improperly pressured staff to fire federal prosecutors who were Democrats. And quite likely, they’re correct. Like many administrations, from ones at city hall to the White House, the one led by President George Bush is run by political hacks who reached the top by crushing their opponents. So why haggle about Rove? He’s certainly not the only gunslinger in a city of angels. All of Washington is being held hostage by gunslingers, both Republican and Democrat.
There are a few things we’d rather members of Congress would address — no matter their party:
• Let’s start with health care. The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement programs are in shambles & care providers can’t recover their own costs.
• The nation needs a forward-looking energy policy — not one that’s locked in the greasy past. Domestic petroleum products fall far short of meeting U.S. demands. More supply is available, but action is needed to provide access. Overall, much, much more work must be done to develop alternative, renewable energy sources. If the supply runs too low, our country could fall into chaos.
• We need to re-regulate our financial markets. They’ve become a legal casino where swindlers can dupe investors who are in such a big hurry to get filthy rich that they don’t read the fine print, not that they could understand it.
These are the things average Americans worry about. Throw Karl Rove to the talk show hosts and bloggers. They deserve each other.
That kind of “advice” is hard to find.
russ
1, July 10, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Bartlebee: Again I say there has not even been a contempt vote in the full House yet. That may not occur, if it ever does, for another two or more weeks. Rove is acting under the advice of attorneys far more versed in law than Mr. Turley
—————
Well, I’d have to agree with you that I doubt Mr Turley would have come up with such good “advice”, like pleading a defense that isn’t applicable in the case, and subsequently, “advising” him to flee the country.
russ
1, July 10, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Bartebee: your little witch hunt on Rove is getting sooooo old
———
😀
Witch Hunt, ay?
Ok.I’ll bite.
A. It wasn’t us who told Rove to violate the Hatch Act, and several other laws.
B. You are correct in labeling Mr Roves stonewalling his obligation to testify like any American citizen would, “old”.
In fact its getting quite old.
C. Unless Mr Rove has powers of sorcery that we are not yet privy to, then the term “witch hunt” doesn’t work.
😐
course… he did disappear pretty fast today.
BARTLEBEE – Don’t ‘help’ us 2%’ers – PLEASE!
As much as I resent it, Rove is, in some ways,’covered’ for whatever Acts or Ommissions he committed WHILE EMPLOYED as a key member of the Bush advisory staff – but certainly not everything.
He knows that!
I think it’s safe to say ‘we’ ALL know it…
+++++
Sure does.
Unfortunately it doesn’t exist for private citizens.
Like Karl Rove. 😐
Also, unfortunately for your argument, and for Mr Rove, President Bush has not invoked executive privilege for the Turdblossom in this case. 😐
Also, unfortunately, for your argument, and for Mr Rove, the courts have already ruled that Executive Privilege applies ONLY in a few, special circumstances, like matters of National Security, and Intelligence.
NOT in helping Turdblossom stay out of jail for screwing around with the Justice Dept.
Got any other Red Herrings you’d like to serve up there Sparky?
russ
1, July 10, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I find it interesting that not once have I seen someone offer balance to Mr. Turley’s statements on the liberal MSNBC in a debate type setting, whether it is on Abrams or on Countdown. I guess they just don’t know how to pick up the phone and call a conservative to be on the show like Oreilly knows how to pick up the phone and call a liberal to be on his show
—————-
Well speak of the …..er…well you know.
An excellent comment Russ.
Allow me to assist you on that one.
Its because the conservatives only have shills, not educated scholars of law, like Mr Turley, who are willing to go out and prostitute themselves for this, the most corrupt republican administration in US history.
Mr Turley is not a hack, like the idiots you people put on television to shill for you, and your people know this.
Any neocon shmuck, dumb enough to go on split screen with Jonathan Turley, a constitutional expert and scholar, is going to expose all of your red herrings and lies, in one felt swoop.
In a nutshell, it’s be like putting Don Knotts in a boxing ring with Riddick Bowe.
😐
Not a picture your people want the American public to see.
Bartebee: your little witch hunt on Rove is getting sooooo old. I love the way Rove is thumbing his nose at liberals inane antics, and of course America doesn’t give a rip about something that is just blatant stage playing.
God Bless Carl Rove!
Barebee: Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Democrats to do anything more about his thumbing his nose at them; they know they don’t want to push it to the Supreme Court.
Bartlebee: Again I say there has not even been a contempt vote in the full House yet. That may not occur, if it ever does, for another two or more weeks. Rove is acting under the advice of attorneys far more versed in law than Mr. Turley, who is all conjecture, opinion, and no substance either, just as you.
Good point rafflaw.
Of course, to be fair, its quite likley russ is out shopping for a new keyboard.
I find it interesting that not once have I seen someone offer balance to Mr. Turley’s statements on the liberal MSNBC in a debate type setting, whether it is on Abrams or on Countdown. I guess they just don’t know how to pick up the phone and call a conservative to be on the show like Oreilly knows how to pick up the phone and call a liberal to be on his show.