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.
127 thoughts on “Rove Again Refuses to Testify Under Subpoena”
Could you help me. For the most part, fear is nothing but an illusion. When you share it with someone else, it tends to disappear. Help me! I can not find sites on the: kitchen islands. I found only this – Kitchen islands work center. Airfare secrets save up to on airfare here are a few pointers to help you find dirt cheap airline tickets. Gt; gt; click to book cheap airline ticket onlinelt; lt; airline ticket cheap airline ticket europe. 😉 Thanks in advance. Kelman from Ireland.
Well they could if we had a congress Wayne.
Unfortunately all we’ve got is a room full of waterboy’s for the Executive branch, and Mukaskey will have to wait until we elect some actual congressmen and senators.
Can’t Congress impeach Attorney General Mukasey for failing to fulfill his oath to support and defend the Constitution? He is supposed to be an impartial protector of the law, is he not? It should not be a valid defense that he refused to prosecute wrongdoing in the administration because the president (or vice president, who is likely the one that’s really in charge) ordered him not to. Because if that were the case, then the president (or vice president) would not be taking care that the law be faithfully executed. So what is their defense of their lawlessness if all of their reasoning is circular and wrong?
In fact, so far, I’ve yet to hear one single valid complaint about any position or value I advocated when I came in, other than the fact that I didn’t roll over when the self defined blog bully’s told me to.
It seems if anyone dares respond to one of your unsolicted attacks that your panties bunch to a mass dense enough to create a black hole.
Which would account for the ones in your heads.
1, July 12, 2008 at 1:56 am
Karl Rove isn’t missing. He’s right here on this blog having a breakdown as Russ and Bartlebee. All that invective craves an audience.
Remember when the lunatics were just on a nice, distant fringe
I’m sorry, …er….”lindy lou” is it?
What exactly is it you’re accusing me of? I’m “Karl Rove” now?
You’re accusing me of being a neocon? Is that your position?
Or are you just another braindead member of this crybaby Chorale here this evening, trying to pile on the pile, without knowing why?
1, July 12, 2008 at 2:13 am
Thanks Bob, but, as you cogently and poetically point out, we’re in a battle with a madman
Perhaps to you its a battle.
And if so, its amazing in all your self important lectures you never mention the fact its a “battle” which you initiated.
Also still lacking, is the one coherent argument containing a fact or two that actually refutes any position I took, anywhere.
You accuse me of declaring myself “the winner”, (of what I’m not sure) when you yourself are sitting here declaring some sort of invisible victory over me, while mysteriously never seeming to produce the argument, facts, or even a coherent summary of the positions in which you profess superiority.
Perhaps in one of your “Bartlebee’s bad, and we’re all good” speeches, you might produce one single fact, at least summarily, so as to illuminate your “win”?
Comments are closed.