News and Politics | February 05, 2009 | 32 comments

Rove says he won't comply with congressional subpoenas

Image
bansheewail
One questioner asked Rove whether he would comply with Congressional
subpoenas. Rove was subpoenaed last month to testify to the House Judiciary Committee about his knowledge surrounding the firings of US Attorneys and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

Rove "said he would not, and cited Janet Reno, President Clinton's attorney general, as his authority in resisting Congressional infringements on executive privilege."

His answer seems to contrast the sentiment of his Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who told an investigative reporter earlier this week that Rove was cooperating with two Justice Department probes into the US Attorney firings and the Siegelman case.

"One President at a time, Karl, you dumbass.", Bansheewail.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Politics Obama Barack Obama 10 more
  3.     
    |

32 comments // Rove says he won't comply with congressional subpoenas

  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • How about a new sitcom …let’s call it “The Inmates”…

      Scene 1 : In the shower...

      Cheney : Oups, dropped my soap Karl !

      Greek Chorus : Don’t bend over if you are smart !

      Rove : I’ll get Scooter…

      Cheney : Mossad wisked him back !

      Karl, I’m in a wheel chair, my back is gone...

      Greek Chorus : Don’t bend over if you are smart !

      Tune in next week and hear Karl say….OUUUUUCH !

    • 3 years ago
  • 24French
  • dariusvons
  • mik661
  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  
    • For the average American ignoring a subpoena can get them thrown in jail. Rove has knowledge about the issue so there should not be an exception for him. The law on executive privilege should be changed except in cases involving national security.

    • 3 years ago
  • Scarabus
    • 0
      Scarabus  
    • Brendan, you might conceivably be right. However, the otherwise consistent pattern of White House involvement in absolutely everything else--arguably most disastrously in preventing NASA scientists from making public their evidence on global warming--means that a reasonable person would find it hardly credible that in this one department they weren't involved.

      And no reasonable person can be expected to take either your word for it or mine. Especially since so many people directly involved have testified on the record that the White House was deeply involved.

      More important, regardless of what you or I might *think*, Karl Rove *knows* first hand. The extra-constitutional concept of "executive privilege" might be of positive benefit to our democracy--but only if it is reserved for matters involving national security and international relations. It cannot be allowed in matters of politics or illegality.

      If Rove can make the case that this involves delicate matters relating to national security, then let him do so. The privilege will hold. Everyone can go home happy. If he can't make that case, though, then he must either testify or go to jail.

      Wouldn't matter which party or which executive were involved. Tom Daschle should have paid his taxes. Tom DeLay should have honored the laws governing campaign finance. If Raul Emanuel were involved, I'd maintain the same position: If it involves national security or delicate matters of international relations, I'm grudgingly OK with a claim of executive privilege. If it involves purely political, let alone illegal, matters, then no. Testify or go to jail.

      The executive branch, bottom to top and back again, is no more above the law than any other citizen of this nation. Democracy is defined by rule of law. Dictatorship is defined by such principles as blanket executive privilege and immunity from legal accountability.

      I wouldn't want Cheney or Bush to be an absolute dictator. And I rather suspect you wouldn't want Obama or Biden to be an absolute dictator. The same rules must apply to everyone.

    • 3 years ago
  • WillKing
    • 0
      WillKing  
    • Scarabus:

      Thank You, Scarabus, for taking the TIME, and the thought process to post something of merit and worth. I wish, no, I Hope, that more take a keen eye to how you responded to this issue and post comments likewise. Tricky situations with no seemingly clear cut responses (vs reactions) need more people like yourself. Thanks Again.

    • 3 years ago
  • WillKing
    • 0
      WillKing  
    • Scarabus:

      Call the "rest" of "us" out? Interesting how you group yourself in with everyone else and assume I'm speaking about everyone else and yourself.

      Passive Aggressive? Jesus you should listen to yourself.
      I was complimenting a well written post on a website I rarely visit because of the reduction of stories that matter to me or in general in my opinion but more so, I rarely return because of comments like the one you just left.

    • 3 years ago
  • kennymotown
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • Everything is executive privelege. How can you expect your subordinates to commit criminal acts for you if they half to go to court to explain them?

    • 3 years ago
  • blood77
  • aswift1
  • Ayahuasca2012
  • Scarabus
    • 0
      Scarabus  
    • Congress had better show some cojones here, even if that means sending their own master-at-arms to arrest the smarmy little bastard. Our nation needs to preserve what's left of the balance of powers.

    • 3 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • Bren589
  • capt_ayhab
  • nursediesel
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • I hope he does resist them.

      Then I hope his ass gets fried for being in contempt of Congress.

      It's the least he deserves.

      What an arrogant asshole, all he would have to do is testify about it. Does he really care about Bush's legacy that much? Or does he just think he's above the law?

    • 3 years ago
  • Alex_French
  • neocongo
  • blood77
  • webejjs
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • webejjs:

      How is asking someone to appear before congress to be asked questions under oath the same as holding someone indefinitely with no charge or proof of crime and torturing them whether they release information or not?

      Are you a Republican troll being a complete tool or did you honestly think that was a good question?

    • 3 years ago
  • krush_productions
  • webejjs
    • 0
      webejjs  
    • You can't arrest him for citing executive privilege. It's a stretch to even blame him. It's a perfectly legal response on Rove's part. Why is Congress even wasting its time sending the subpoena? It's just chest puffing.

      I'm not a fan of Rove by any stretch of the imagination but if we start bending and breaking laws to throw him in jail, aren't we just stooping to his level?

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • webejjs:

      Hardly.

      If he complies with the subpoena all he has to do is stand in front of congress and answer questions. Sure they'll be embarrassing because he'll have to admit to the American public that he's a criminal, but then he gets to walk away a free man.

      We're not overstretching at -all-, this is what should be done on a BASIC level.

      We're not prosecuting, hell, we're not even -investigating-.

      We're asking -one- guy to come in and testify about some bullshit the Bush administration did.

      And Rove won't do it, because he's a criminal who thinks he's above the law and doesn't have to answer to anyone.

      That's what's happening right now.

    • 3 years ago
  • k8_hj
  • aswift1
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • seriously...why haven't they just sent the marshall's after him already? fuckin arrest the fucktard (I love that word)

    • 3 years ago
  • bansheewail
  • bluestranger
more from News and Politics:

top videos