Karl Rove Claims Executive Privilege: Refuses To Testify About Siegelman Prosecution

[Hot Potato Mash]

Run time: 06:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVUnWNK5r68   Posted on YouTube: May 22, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 22, 2008 By DU Member: Hot Potato Mash Views on DU: 3057

 
Only in this Bush administration can one repeatedly state that they know absolutely nothing about a matter and then claim executive privilege as the reason for refusing to testify before Congress about said matter. But that is exactly what Karl Rove did today.

Thus, despite claiming no knowledge about the Siegelman prosecution, Rove is now admitting that he advised the President about it.

In any case, by exerting executive privilege Rove has now made former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's claims that he was wrongfully prosecuted that much stronger. Why on earth would President Bush have had any conversations about the Siegelman matter with Rove? This would seem improper on its face.

The above video is another Bush League Justice segment with Dan Abrams' interviewing Representative Linda Sanchez about what happens next.

[Monk06]

1. On the bright side Sieglman's appreal is almost certain to succeed as

as well as the inevitable lawsuit for malicious
prosecution.

[LakeSamish706]

2. Please Democratic Congress Critters... Hold this POS in Inherent Contempt and...

send out the DC cops to take him in leg irons to the dungon....

[AndyTiedye]

3. Make Karl do the Frog March

[Divine Discontent]

12. Karl has so much as said he expects to be tried

so what are the people in DC waiting on, force him to come speak...


sheesh..

[DUlover2909]

4. I always try to keep an open mind but now I am convinced. Siegelman was railroaded.

Karl Rove is dodging and sidestepping.

Question. Are the Dems not being as aggressive as they could be in order to cement this whole "executive privilege" shit into case law? I wonder how the pukes would feel if the Dems railroaded one of theirs and did exactly the same thing that Josh Bolten, Harriet Meirs, and now Karl Rove are now doing? What if it was a death penalty case against someone and the primary witness claimed executive privilege?

[mmm413]

22. The case law on this was established during the Nixon debacle.

What always amazes me is that all these people have denied having conversations with Bush about any of this and then claim executive privilege; which only applies in conversations WITH the president. So if they didn't discuss it with Bush, then executive privilege doesn't apply. Conyers and Leahy have already brought this up. The court case involving Bolton and Miers should put this to rest. But I don't have high hopes considering the state of the judiciary. Mukasey should be impeached and removed from office immediately since he refuses to do his job and thwarts Congressional investigations. He was a judge, for crying out loud, and has such contempt for the law. FYI, I've worked for lawyers for over 30 years.

[klook]

29. Thanks for the clear-eyed perspective.

and welcome to DU!

[iconicgnom]

5. I'll believe it when I see it

To date the US Congress has done absolutely *nothing* to hold the Bush Administration accountable. Nothing. They hold these hearings and look so stern, like they practice in a mirror every morning. But when push comes to shove the Bush Admin walks right them over and dances on their stern-looking faces every time. Sorry, but the Dem Congress is a laughing stock.

This, after 8 yrs during which truly unbelievable crimes against humanity have not only been committed, but *proven* every place but the US court of law, which has become a mockery of itself.

[Indenturedebtor]

18. Yep. More grandstanding, more bark with no bite

It's pitiful. It's shameful. It's like watching the skinny kid that hasn't gone through puberty yet getting shoved into a locker every single day. The kid doesn't even protest, he just cries quietly.

[sasquatch]

6. Diplomacy obviously hasn't worked, arrest his ass

[Frisbee]

7. Rove just figures....

talking to the Dems would be appeasing them. And he is no appeaser! War criminal yes, but no appeaser!

[Gonnuts]

8. First we must try to diplomatic ...

... which this gang of thugs takes for weakness - which in this case it is - and then rove will piss all over you and tell you it's raining.

So now what Conyers? You finally going to issue a "nice" subpoena and than wait another two months and huff & puff, maybe hold your breath until rove shows-up? Or maybe you'll wait until there's another 9/11 that covered-up the 3-Trillion Dollars rumseld said was missing Sept. 10, 2001 and has never been mentioned again - just how much of that money did you get Mr. Conyers? After all there has to be a reason these bastards are still walking free, and it certainly isn't because they're innocent. You've had enough evidence on numerous crimes to have charged them with and what have you done? Played nice?

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem, and so far you seem like that latter.

[pingzing58]

9. And our Dem. House keeps supporting the fu**king admin. Idiots.

[mac2]

11. I agree.

[mac2]

10. Arrest him and bring him to court.

Enforce the law Congress. No one is above the law even the "Rove".

[L. Coyote]

13. Good to see Bush implicated by Rove. That is big news, as is the DoJ investigation.

Also, it is good to see the Dems are proceeding in a manner that is
not subject to whining Rs claiming simple partisanship. It is also
important to realize Congress is serving all the People, not just the
Dem bashers lurking on DU and ranting idiots who can never be appeased.

[Hot Potato Mash]

14. I think you mean that Congress serves all

corporations, not people. Surely just a typo! (:

[L. Coyote]

15. No. Do you know anyone in Congress? Congress is composed of members

and some certainly serve the corporate interests almost exclusively.

But, let's try to be rational, a rare commodity around here.
There is no "Congress" in the sense you use the term,
just the sum of the actions of the members.

Some of those members are ever vigilant and unrelenting.

You have just spit in the face of Senator Edward Kennedy!!
Insulting may great Americans by painting Congress with one wide brush is not just
simplistic, it is not rational and does a disservice to many great Dems.

It also is counter-productive. I say support the great members, and work to defeat
the corrupt ones with reasoned arguments, not senseless rants or inane comments.

[Hot Potato Mash]

17. Unreasonable, Senseless and Inane

While I did mean my post in jest, the truth is that there are very few "vigilant and unrelenting" members of Congress. The fact is that Congress members spend the bulk of their time raising money for reelection and corporate America is only too happy to oblige. As a result the main constituency of Congress is Big Money interests, not the American people. This is evidenced by law after law after law that benefits corporate America and the elite at the expense of most Americans. Congress members don't fear losing your vote but they do fear not raising enough money to compete with their opponent who will get the money if they don't. Heck, the majority of them are from gerrymandered districts anyway which is why well over 90% of them win reelection every 2 years despite ridiculously low Congressional approval ratings.

Finally, you criticize me for what was a joke but then have the temerity to add that I "spit in the face of Senator Edward Kennedy"? Talk about your senseless and inane comments. How the heck does one take a lighthearted one line statement about Congress and get to spitting in Senator Kennedy's face? This is especially disgusting given the recent news about the Senator.

And for the record, I interned for Senator Kennedy many moons ago and hold him in the highest regards. Get a grip.

[L. Coyote]

19. Easy to say it was jest after the fact. You said it, now you say you did not really say it?

Well, at least now we know not to take you seriously!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L. Coyote]

28. I stand by my words and my work on DU over the years. And I believe

I make a valid point.

I found the video on YouTube, and I posted it.
DU detects the duplicates automatically in Political videos.
You post duplicates on YouTube, not?

[Zodiak]

21. I agree completely.

In order to separate the wheat from the chaff, one must know who the good guys and bad guys are. Amazingly, there are members of Congress in both categories.

But I take umbrage with your stance on senseless rants and inane comments...how about just a little bit of them? :)

[orleans]

16. k&r n/t

[lovuian]

23. He's afraid and He is having to come to JUSTICE

who will protect Rove??? He knows so MUCH

[still_one]

24. If Clinton couldn't claim executive priviledge for Clinton verses Paula Jones

NEITHER CAN THAT SOB

[santamargarita]

25. What Executive Privilege? He's just another asshole working for Fox News!

-

[netgui68]

26. Throw the whole Bush gang in the dungeon

and melt the key..bunch of liars and crooks

[RT Atlanta]

27. How does he argue the "privilege" applies to him?

That is what I am hung up on: how does rove argue (or should I say, in "good faith") that the privilege even applies to him... especially since he's no longer employed by the Executive Branch of our government.