CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › House subpoenas Rove; Rove tells House to fuck off
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

House subpoenas Rove; Rove tells House to fuck off

post #1 of 8
7/10/08 at 11:00pm
Thread Starter 
Link.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political guru, refused to obey an order to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday.

Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove was "immune" from the subpoena the committee had issued, arguing that the committee could not compel him to testify due to "executive privilege."

The panel is investigating allegations that Rove and his White House allies dismissed U.S. attorneys and prosecuted officials who they saw as political opponents.

The panel subpoenaed Rove in May after his lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, made clear the former White House deputy chief of staff would not appear voluntarily.

Luskin responded immediately that Rove still would not appear, prompting a threat of prosecution from the Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

"A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote.

"We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal to even appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez said Thursday morning when Rove failed to show up. "The courts have made clear that no one -- not even the president -- is immune from compulsory process. That is what the Supreme Court rules in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones."

In May, Conyers contrasted Rove's refusal to testify before Congress with his paid work as a commentator for the Fox News Channel and Newsweek magazine.

"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."

Rove's lawyer cited a letter from the Justice Department saying Rove is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony." He said Rove is willing to submit to an "informal interview" or to answer written questions about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, whose ouster Rove is accused of orchestrating.

"Threatening Mr. Rove with sanctions will not in any way expedite the resolution of the issue," Luskin wrote in a letter to the panel on Wednesday.

Luskin noted in May that his client had already received a separate subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee. "While the [House] committee has the authority to issue a subpoena, it is hard to see what this will accomplish, apart from a 'Groundhog Day' replay of the same issues that are already the subject of litigation," the lawyer wrote, referring to a movie in which a person lives the same day over and over again.

Luskin added that "issues of executive privilege and separation of powers" could limit Rove's testimony.

In response, Conyers said the two committees are focusing on different matters, with the House committee delving into the prosecution of the former Alabama governor, a Democrat who lost his bid for re-election in 2002 and was convicted on corruption charges in 2006.

Conyers also noted that other former White House officials have testified under subpoena in the past and have dealt with issues of executive privilege on a case-by-case basis. "Mr. Rove should follow the same course," he said.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, called the subpoena "a sham."

The Democratic-controlled Congress has been battling for months to force the White House to disclose information about the firing of the attorneys and the prosecution of Siegelman.

Current and former White House aides have refused to testify, citing executive privilege.
All this talk of "executive privilege" is starting to sound more and more Nixonian. I hope they find him in contempt and throw his ass in federal prison.
Reply
post #2 of 8
7/10/08 at 11:38pm
I don't think Rove's lawyer can invoke executive privilege. I think that's up to the White House. And doesn't EP have something to do with National Security? And doesn't this blatant flouting of process show something of a flaw in your system of checks and balances? Reminds me of a Kids in the Hall skit.

Lawyer: Did you or did you not kill blah blah blah.

Defendant (sittingi n the witness' stand with a cup of coffee): No. Man, this is so easy!

Laywer: Damn!
Reply
post #3 of 8
7/11/08 at 12:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
I don't think Rove's lawyer can invoke executive privilege. I think that's up to the White House. And doesn't EP have something to do with National Security? And doesn't this blatant flouting of process show something of a flaw in your system of checks and balances? Reminds me of a Kids in the Hall skit.

Lawyer: Did you or did you not kill blah blah blah.

Defendant (sittingi n the witness' stand with a cup of coffee): No. Man, this is so easy!

Laywer: Damn!
His lawyer can't invoke EP, but he can argue whether or not his client falls under it. President Bush invoked EPseveral times when Congress attempted a subpoena on Rove, Miers, Bolten, and several staffers, so there would be precedent on this attempt.

That said, EP can apply to matters outside to national security. The only problem that I see with this usage of EP and Senator Pat Leahy actually comments similarly is that EP should only apply when the President is directly involved with the issue. Therefore, we either have President Bush protecting his friends by preventing them to testify about fired U.S. Attorneys and Don Siegelman... or President Bush was directly involved in the firing of these attorneys and the political attack on Siegelman.

The idea of EP works if communication between governmental officials and the president is very sensitive and public consumption of knowledge could be potentially detrimental to the work of the government.

That said, the definition is kinda broad, so it's not hard to imagine that Presidents since Nixon have used it for reasons that stretch the idea of EP.

Even as a Republican (disaffected as I am), I'm disgusted by this attempt to stamp out the truth and I hope Rove gets to sit in the hot seat.
Reply
post #4 of 8
7/11/08 at 12:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
The only problem that I see with this usage of EP and Senator Pat Leahy actually comments similarly is that EP should only apply when the President is directly involved with the issue....

That said, the definition is kinda broad, so it's not hard to imagine that Presidents since Nixon have used it for reasons that stretch the idea of EP.
It is not broad. It does not matter whether the President is directly involved or not. If either of those things were true, uh, hello: Nixon called, and he wants his tapes back.
Reply
post #5 of 8
7/11/08 at 1:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nibblonian View Post
It is not broad. It does not matter whether the President is directly involved or not. If either of those things were true, uh, hello: Nixon called, and he wants his tapes back.
The definition of executive privilege IS broad. ANY conversation that the President deems of executive privilege can be declared rightfully so, whether its national security related or not. That's the problem. US V. Nixon only limited executive privilege if and only if that information could be used in a criminal trial.

If this wasn't true, then why have presidents after Nixon requested executive privilege if the conversation was not related to national security?

Clinton attempted to block Ken Starr from accessing his aides in 1998 and a federal court ruled against him for the same reasons US v. Nixon was decided.

This matter is almost identical as Congress wishes to investigate potential criminal matters against the President and his staffers. Congress has every right to challenge this.
Reply
post #6 of 8
7/11/08 at 2:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
His lawyer can't invoke EP, but he can argue whether or not his client falls under it. President Bush invoked EPseveral times when Congress attempted a subpoena on Rove, Miers, Bolten, and several staffers, so there would be precedent on this attempt.
Yes, I pay attention.

Quote:
That said, EP can apply to matters outside to national security. The only problem that I see with this usage of EP and Senator Pat Leahy actually comments similarly is that EP should only apply when the President is directly involved with the issue.
The only problem? It shouldn't be used to cover up perfidy the way it has been under the Bush Administration. I'd consider that a problem.

Quote:
Therefore, we either have President Bush protecting his friends by preventing them to testify about fired U.S. Attorneys and Don Siegelman... or President Bush was directly involved in the firing of these attorneys and the political attack on Siegelman.
According to McClellan, Bush was personally involved. Scotty asked. That sounds like a good reason for EP not to apply. I thought Americans didn't like kings.

Quote:
The idea of EP works if communication between governmental officials and the president is very sensitive and public consumption of knowledge could be potentially detrimental to the work of the government.
Which in this case is to be scheming political bastards, it seems.

Quote:
That said, the definition is kinda broad, so it's not hard to imagine that Presidents since Nixon have used it for reasons that stretch the idea of EP.
You don't need to imagine, it's happening before your eyes. Rove wasn't even a part of the Bush Administration as did Rumsfeld or Rice or Gonzales. He didn't have a role in government, just in politics.

Quote:
Even as a Republican (disaffected as I am), I'm disgusted by this attempt to stamp out the truth and I hope Rove gets to sit in the hot seat.
Even as a Republican? Are Republicans generally okay with attempts to stamp out the truth?

As someone who's neither Democrat nor Republican but really hates to see the most powerful government in the world - and its military - being run by criminals who seem to be getting away with it, I hope so too. Even if Rove's lawyer can finagle the EP argument, jail the bastard for defying the subpoena until that case is made.

And televise the arrest!
Reply
post #7 of 8
7/11/08 at 2:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
The definition of executive privilege IS broad. ANY conversation that the President deems of executive privilege can be declared rightfully so, whether its national security related or not. That's the problem. US V. Nixon only limited executive privilege if and only if that information could be used in a criminal trial.
That definition of executive privilege is wildly incorrect and overbroad, but I'll get to that later. Anyway, checks on "executive privilege" exist to prevent the President from, um, breaking the law, so I can't imagine it would come up outside of a criminal trial anyway. Isn't that what we have FOIA for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz
If this wasn't true, then why have presidents after Nixon requested executive privilege if the conversation was not related to national security?
Because Presidents don't define what is or isn't executive privilege; the Supreme Court does. Calling something "executive privilege" is another name for trying to exclude the entire judicial branch from considering the legality of something the President does - it's an extension of "if the president does it, that means it's not illegal." It came, shockingly enough, from the same person who said that, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Warren Burger, US v. Nixon
Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 . Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution.
(emphasis added)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz
Clinton attempted to block Ken Starr from accessing his aides in 1998 and a federal court ruled against him for the same reasons US v. Nixon was decided.
The same reasons - like the fact that there was no need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. The holding of US v. Nixon was that the President cannot evoke executive privilege to dodge submitting facts to a criminal trial unless they involved sensitive matters of national security and/or diplomacy. That still leaves a lot for a President to get away with, but he can't dodge questions about blowjobs, break-ins, or DoJ firings.
Reply
post #8 of 8
7/11/08 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Warren Burger, US v. Nixon
Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e. g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 . Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution.
This is what Muharulz was saying. This ruling's limitations on Executive Privilege apply to criminal trials and the sensitive communications were to be inspected in camera, or behind closed doors. Here, we are talking about communications that are high-level, but not necessarily regarding "military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets." Congress is not seeking to question Rove as part of a criminal trial. And they want his testimony to be public, not in camera. In short, the Nixon case doesn't seem to answer any of the questions being raised here.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › House subpoenas Rove; Rove tells House to fuck off