Rove Refuses to Testify

[Da Skinna]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ena/index.html

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


Karl Rove's lawyers says he is immune from a congressional subpoena.

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.

Don't Miss
Letter explaning why Rove refuses to testify (PDF)
Chairwoman's ruling on privilege claims (PDF)
"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.

What makes him better than any Russian scumsucking politician anyways?

Honestly, this guy's got a lot of balls, and still Americans are led to believe they should protect him.

[bushbush]

jail the motherer. He is disrespecting the procedure.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

jail him for contempt of court.

[Winter]

jail him for contempt of court.

It's contempt of Congress, and he certainly deserves it.

[RZZZA]

jail him.

executive privilege doesnt apply, and besides, he had to show up to invoke executive privilege and he didnt even do that.

Rove is showing massive disrespect to congress and hence to the american political system of 3 branches, checks and balances. jail him.

[Kanaric]

Shouldn't executive privilege only apply to the president, if anyone at all for that matter. Why does some random douche bag get the benefits?

If hes done nothing wrong then he should defend his actions. Not hide behind some garbage that probably was never intended to apply to him or anyone.

[RZZZA]

IIRC executive privilege only applies to talks you have with the president about security matters, Karl admitted publically that he held no such talks with the president about at least some of the things congress wants him to testify about.

So this excuse of executive privilege makes no sense on many different levels


with this executive branches definition of executive privilege, checks and balances cannot be exercised

[Kanaric]

I guess it will have the effect of people thinking hes going to be hiding something even if he is not then, just like pleading the fifth. Seems like a stupid move, it would be less suspicious to just go there and dodge questions and tell half-truths like everyone else who congress calls up from this administration.

Hell its even their talking point that firing these people was in their power, so what does he have to fear? He should just argue that same point

[RZZZA]

yeah thats what i dont understand, if this administration is so brave and comfortable with flaunting their king-like power over the other branches then why dont they jus let rove go there and restate the things that he's already stated-on MSNBC and on Fox news and to reporters from newspapers.

Apparently they are brave but only to a point. They don't want to give the democrats in congress a political circus on national T.V., they arent comfortable in Rove's ability to stand up to the heat.

remember, these are the guys who threw people like scooter libby and harriet myers under the bus, specifically to keep people like rove and like cheney out of the hot seat.

[JP226]

yeah thats what i dont understand, if this administration is so brave and comfortable with flaunting their king-like power over the other branches then why dont they jus let rove go there and restate the things that he's already stated-on MSNBC and on Fox news and to reporters from newspapers.

Apparently they are brave but only to a point. They don't want to give the democrats in congress a political circus on national T.V., they arent comfortable in Rove's ability to stand up to the heat.

remember, these are the guys who threw people like scooter libby and harriet myers under the bus, specifically to keep people like rove and like cheney out of the hot seat.

i would think that one branch bowing to the other is kinda against the whole separation of powers thingy. I mean if you think congress has to right to question the executive, then i'm sure you wouldn't mind bush demanding testimony to him personnally of other congressional members. You are ok with bush demanding Pelosi to testify to him and then if she slips up he personally can have his people throw her in jail?

[bushbush]

i would think that one branch bowing to the other is kinda against the whole separation of powers thingy. I mean if you think congress has to right to question the executive, then i'm sure you wouldn't mind bush demanding testimony to him personnally of other congressional members. You are ok with bush demanding Pelosi to testify to him and then if she slips up he personally can have his people throw her in jail?

are you me?

is there a procedure for Bush to ask Congress members to testify?

but i know there is a procedure for the Congress to ask Rove to testify and he has to respect that procedure.

Good for Karl Rove! I like that guy. May he continue to stand up to the leftist morons who use whatever pretext they can--however scant--to take down conservatives.

leftist morons? ok, laws of America, laws of people, laws of the American congress, are leftists morons?

I know for some weird reason being conservative is like the new trend for young people (to get girls or some i dont know), but at least be rational and look at the existing laws and procedures, ahead of your own little ideology you probably don't even understand fully.

[Sphere]

i would think that one branch bowing to the other is kinda against the whole separation of powers thingy. I mean if you think congress has to right to question the executive, then i'm sure you wouldn't mind bush demanding testimony to him personnally of other congressional members. You are ok with bush demanding Pelosi to testify to him and then if she slips up he personally can have his people throw her in jail?

The congress has subpoena power, so does the judicial branch. You can always plead the fifth amendment if you have something to hide, but you cannot refuse to testify all together.

[bushbush]

The congress has subpoena power, so does the judicial branch. You can always plead the fifth amendment if you have something to hide, but you cannot refuse to testify all together.

he was just trying to somehow stand up for Rove (for some reasons) despite having absolutely no legal proceedings to back it up.

[Shi Huangdi]

leftist morons? ok, laws of America, laws of people, laws of the American congress, are leftists morons?

what are you talking about, there are serious criminal allegations here and the integrity of the american system lies in the balance. It should be in the interest of every american to see rove acknowledge congressional authority

Let me ask you both a question. When Bill Clinton disobeyed American law and trampled on American justice, were you as concerned as you are now?

The Bush administration has done nothing criminal whatsoever. Any allegations against it are either deliberately phony, or unintentional misunderstandings. Democrats are just trying to win points with the 70% of Americans who don't like Bush. They think it'll help Obama win in November.

this isnt about taking down conservatives, because conservatives & republicans are amongst the ones accusing rove of wrongdoing and calling for him to appear before congress. This is about upholding rule of law, ensuring the integrity of our governmental system, and yes, getting to the bottom of these allegations swirling around rove.

Not all Republicans are conservatives (at least not in my opinion), and a lot of them have thrown in with the Democrats, trying to gain popularity by bashing the Bush administration. Like that idiot Scott McClellan, whom Bob Dole so aptly called a "miserable little creature".

I know for some weird reason being conservative is like the new trend for young people (to get girls or some i dont know), but at least be rational and look at the existing laws and procedures, ahead of your own little ideology you probably don't even understand fully.

LOL, I haven't noticed any particular trend like that, but that's great if it's true. But trust me, I'm not doing it to attract girls...although the better looking ones do tend to be conservative. Example: Compare Michelle Malkin to Rosie O'Donnell.

[Sphere]

Let me ask you both a question. When Bill Clinton disobeyed American law and trampled on American justice, were you as concerned as you are now?

Clinton had a fair trial as outlined in the Constitution for his actions. The end of term pardons were sleazy but not illegal.

The Bush administration has done nothing criminal whatsoever. Any allegations against it are either deliberately phony, or unintentional misunderstandings. Democrats are just trying to win points with the 70% of Americans who don't like Bush. They think it'll help Obama win in November.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/17_dean.html. Read this interview of John Dean, Nixons Cheif of Staff who was convicted during the Watergate trials. He disagrees with you.

[Kscott]

Let me ask you both a question. When Bill Clinton disobeyed American law and trampled on American justice, were you as concerned as you are now?

Such as? The use of force in Bosnia is all I can think of, and to be honest, presidents have been doing such actions since Jefferson. So no, nothing Clinton did really concerned me. Getting a bj in the oval office is really none of my business.

The Bush administration has done nothing criminal whatsoever. Any allegations against it are either deliberately phony, or unintentional misunderstandings. Democrats are just trying to win points with the 70% of Americans who don't like Bush. They think it'll help Obama win in November.

Interesting. And how do you know this? How can you possibly assert something like this when it is becoming painfully obvious that Rove has done some extremely dubious things.

Not all Republicans are conservatives (at least not in my opinion), and a lot of them have thrown in with the Democrats, trying to gain popularity by bashing the Bush administration. Like that idiot Scott McClellan, whom Bob Dole so aptly called a "miserable little creature".

Or maybe they have legitimate reasons to bash Bush. There is plenty to criticize him for and not too much to praise him for.

LOL, I haven't noticed any particular trend like that, but that's great if it's true. But trust me, I'm not doing it to attract girls...although the better looking ones do tend to be conservative. Example: Compare Michelle Malkin to Rosie O'Donnell.

Lol what b.s. That is the biased example I have seen anyone give.

For example, I could say, liberal girls tend to be more attractive. Example: Compare Angelina Jo Lee to margaret thatcher. However such an example is clearly unfair. If you do not see how both of our examples are ridiculous then you seriously need to take a course on logic.

[Shi Huangdi]

Such as? The use of force in Bosnia is all I can think of, and to be honest, presidents have been doing such actions since Jefferson. So no, nothing Clinton did really concerned me. Getting a bj in the oval office is really none of my business.

Such as lying under oath to the Supreme Court, and being held in contempt by it.

Interesting. And how do you know this? How can you possibly assert something like this when it is becoming painfully obvious that Rove has done some extremely dubious things.

Or maybe they have legitimate reasons to bash Bush. There is plenty to criticize him for and not too much to praise him for.

It isn't painfully obvious to me. And that article said that he's refusing to testify because of executive privelege. What's wrong with that? Sure, it may look fishy to you, but he has a right to do that.

I appreciate that Bush's efforts have kept our homeland safe from terrorist attacks for the last 7 years.

Lol what b.s. That is the biased example I have seen anyone give.

For example, I could say, liberal girls tend to be more attractive. Example: Compare Angelina Jo Lee to margaret thatcher. However such an example is clearly unfair. If you do not see how both of our examples are ridiculous then you seriously need to take a course on logic.

Lol, ok, fair enough. The difference here, though, is that I was comparing two media personalities, while you compared a politician and a Hollywood actress. And anyway I'm not much of an Angeline Jolie fan, but I will admit that Jessica Alba beats them all...and she's probably a liberal.

[bushbush]

Let me ask you both a question. When Bill Clinton disobeyed American law and trampled on American justice, were you as concerned as you are now?

relevance?

The Bush administration has done nothing criminal whatsoever. Any allegations against it are either deliberately phony, or unintentional misunderstandings. Democrats are just trying to win points with the 70% of Americans who don't like Bush. They think it'll help Obama win in November.

didn't do anything wrong, then go testify, tell the congressmen in their face either "i didn't do anything" or "i will use my executive privilege (reasonable or not)". He claimed he never had those conversations with Bush, yet he wanted to claim those non-existing conversation as executive privilege?

the key here is respecting the procedures of American political system. Congress has the right to ask the executive to testify in order to check and balance them on what they are doing. If Karl Rove doesn't respect that, he is putting a giant middle finger on the American people. He should be arrested, put in a cage, and drag to the Congress to testify.

Not all Republicans are conservatives (at least not in my opinion), and a lot of them have thrown in with the Democrats, trying to gain popularity by bashing the Bush administration. Like that idiot Scott McClellan, whom Bob Dole so aptly called a "miserable little creature".

so if a man feels like to speak truth after 7 years of lying, he is not an idiot? You conservatives throw people under the bus pretty fast eh?

LOL, I haven't noticed any particular trend like that, but that's great if it's true. But trust me, I'm not doing it to attract girls...although the better looking ones do tend to be conservative. Example: Compare Michelle Malkin to Rosie O'Donnell.

anything is better than Ann Coulter.

[Shi Huangdi]

so if a man feels like to speak truth after 7 years of lying, he is not an idiot? You conservatives throw people under the bus pretty fast eh?

We throw cowards and traitors under the bus, yes. McClellan is a coward. If he saw problems with the administration, he was more than welcome to speak up while he was in office. But did he? No--he kept mooching off Bush's kindness, and then stabbed him in the back a few years later. A real man would have quit his job, exposed the corruption, and been straightforward about it. McClellan is a wimp who just wants a job in an Obama administration. And then he'll turn on Obama too, first chance he gets. I have no respect for McClellan.

anything is better than Ann Coulter.

She may not be Jessica Alba, but I appreciate her intelligence and her ruthless sense of humor . LOL I know I started all that but don't we have other threads for discussing girls?

...and Bush was only elected once...

Bush won the 2000 election fair and square. You don't win elections by winning the popular vote. You win them by winning the electoral vote. And by the way, John Kerry lost the popular vote on 2004 by about 5,000,000. But if he had gotten just 50,000 more votes in the right place, he would have won the electoral college and been elected President. I'll bet you wouldn't have complained then.

And how is it not painfully obvious something dubious has not occurred. The first time EVER attorney generals have been fired midterm, for what appears to be purely partisan means. It shows absolutely no respect for the institutions of our country.

I don't know much about that situation. But if it's legal for the President (or Karl Rove, or whoever it was) to fire the Attorney General, then why is everybody fussing? Sure, maybe it was done with ulterior and partisan motives. But if it was legal, then so what?

Any president would have gone to war in Afghanistan. So really Bush cannot get too much credit there. And Iraq really had nothing to do with homeland security so we cant credit him there.

Any British Prime Minister would have gone to war with Germany. Does that mean the Winston Churchill deserves no credit?

Umm actually Iraq had a lot to do with homeland security. We had conclusive intelligence that they had/were developing biological, chemical, and nuclear WMD's, and none of that intelligence has been disproven. And there is also evidence that Hussein was training terrorists.

I guess you can credit him for "protecting" us with the patriot act. Though it seems rather hypocritical that the "small" government party passed the most invasive use of federal power to date. It always amazes me conservatives regard the second amendment as holy, yet for some reason the fourth doesn't matter at all.

I don't know enough about the Patriot Act to defend it. I favor it, because I know that its purpose is to keep us safe and not to invade our privacy. But I have had my own questions about whether it was the right thing to do or not. It's something I'm not really sure about.

Indeed, nobody questions his intelligence. He is very similar to Cheney. Both are very competent men, the only problem is they are extremely corrupt.

Where's the evidence that Cheney is corrupt?

[Winter]

i would think that one branch bowing to the other is kinda against the whole separation of powers thingy. I mean if you think congress has to right to question the executive, then i'm sure you wouldn't mind bush demanding testimony to him personnally of other congressional members. You are ok with bush demanding Pelosi to testify to him and then if she slips up he personally can have his people throw her in jail?

Since when does bush have any judicial authority whatsoever? Congress has the right to hold hearings, even full trials, if they wish, but bush has no power of the kind.