Should Karl Rove have to testify?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Should Karl Rove have to testify?
3
Thu, 01-29-2009 - 11:17am

Karl Rove asks President Obama to intervene on his behalf

http://www.examiner.com/x-1172-Birmingham-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2009m1d28-Karl-Rove-asks-President-Obama-to-intervene-on-his-behalf


Karl Rove's lawyer has made a plea on his behalf asking that he not be asked to testify, citing executive privilege.  Executive privilege usually refers to Presidents, not their advisers.  



Karl Rove has been subpoenaed to testify before congressional panel on February 2 regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman.


Rove was called to testify before Congress last July and refused.  Then President George Bush backed Rove in his decision not to testify.  Rove could have been held in contempt of congress but wasn't.  U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected the "absolute immunity" that the White House and Bush said protected the executive branch from investigation by the Congress.


Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers has subpoenaed Rove to testify on February 2 regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys and the investigation and subsequent conviction of Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman.  


It seems unlikely that President Obama will support Rove's plea for executive privilege but the Obama administration has said it will respond to Rove's request in the next few days.


Karl Rove's history of underhanded tactics is long and sordid. At the tender age of 19, he broke into the campaign of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, stole a letterhead and printed fake campaign rally fliers that promised free food and beer and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters.  Soon afterward, Rove dropped out of college and went to work as the Executive Director of the College Republican National Committee before becoming the national chairman, which is how he met the Bush family.


In 2003,  retired ambassador, Joseph Wilson published an opinion piece in the New York Times that suggested the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence findings to justify going to war with Iraq.  Shortly after the publication, the name of Wilson's wife was identified as a CIA operative.  The evidence points to Rove as the architect of the leak.


Karl Rove has until now enjoyed a long successful but shady career employing underhanded tricks to obfuscate the truth and win elections for Republicans.  He has been so successful at dirty tricks that the term "Rovian" has entered into the national vernacular to denote underhanded tactics that border on criminal.


Rove is the mastermind behind the trumped up charges that convicted Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that sent the former Democratic governor to prison for nine months before an appeals judge ordered his release after finding troublesome evidence that the charges and the conviction were false.


Rove is being called to testify about his role in the conviction of Governor Siegelman and U.S. attorneys.  It would seem that Rove's lawyer has learned a few tricks from his client in asking President Obama to intervene on his clients behalf.


*****************************************************


 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18062.html


Rep. John Conyers Jr.’s decision to subpoena Karl Rove to testify about the “politicization” of the Bush Justice Department has dumped a thorny legal question in the laps of President Barack Obama’s White House lawyers before they’ve even had time to settle into their new jobs.

Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had a subpoena served on Rove on Tuesday. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, immediately forwarded the subpoena to White House counsel Greg Craig for guidance on how the Obama administration wants Rove to respond.

Former President George W. Bush maintained that senior White House aides had enjoyed “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoenas. As a result, the Bush Justice Department refused to seek criminal contempt charges for executive branch officials who failed to answer demands from Congress.

During the presidential campaign, Obama indicated that he rejected Bush’s take on absolute immunity as a general matter. Craig promised that an Obama White House would “be much more transparent than” the Bush administration had been in dealing with Congress — and added that Bush White House officials did not pay “adequate deference to either the House or Senate.”

But now Obama administration lawyers will have to confront the question in the specific context of the Judiciary investigation into Bush’s Justice Department. And as much as some Democrats would like to see Rove forced to testify, they’re also aware that Republicans could someday retake control of the House or Senate — and that Obama administration officials could then be on the receiving end of congressional subpoenas.

“This wasn’t a fight they wanted right now, that’s for sure,” a Democratic lawmaker said of the White House legal team.

Conyers was unapologetic in an interview with Politico Tuesday.

Although a Democratic insider told Politico that White House officials were warned that the subpoena was coming, Conyers said he didn’t tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that he was about to issue it.

“I don’t do heads-ups,” Conyers said.

A senior Pelosi aide said the speaker “totally supports” Conyers’ attempt to get to the bottom of the Justice Department’s 2006 firing of U.S. attorneys, the dispute that first led a battle over congressional subpoenas between the Bush White House and Capitol Hill.

“We’re authorized to do it; it’s in the rules,” Conyers said. “No. 2, all they have to do is show up and talk to me. If you don’t, the question is what we do about it. But why anticipate problems until we arrive at them?”


The rules package adopted by the House on the first day of the 111th Congress authorized the Judiciary Committee to continue pursuit of a civil lawsuit against former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former White House chief of staff Josh Bolten over the extent of executive privilege in such inter-branch fights. A federal judge ruled for the Judiciary Committee last year, but the Bush White House appealed the ruling. Oral arguments in that case are not scheduled until May.

The Rove subpoena demands a response by Feb. 2, but neither side expects the issue to be resolved that quickly.

Photobucket  The WeatherPixie 

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2008
Thu, 01-29-2009 - 6:09pm
Should Karl Rove have to testify?
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-04-2009
Thu, 01-29-2009 - 6:25pm
Of course Rove should have to testify.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 01-30-2009 - 10:34am

"I hope Obama doesn't intervene."


I don't believe he will.


>"During the presidential campaign, Obama indicated that he rejected Bush’s take on absolute immunity as a general matter. Craig promised that an Obama White House would “be much more transparent than” the Bush administration had been in dealing with Congress — and added that Bush White House officials did not pay “adequate deference to either the House or Senate.”"<


Rove is one

 


Photobucket&nbs