Democrats Continue to Seek Testimony From Rove

[cal04]

Congressional Democrats said yesterday that they will continue to demand the testimony of senior White House adviser Karl Rove about a range of sensitive policy matters even after he leaves the West Wing at the end of the month.

"Karl Rove's resignation will not stop our inquiry into the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He has every bit as much of a legal obligation to reveal the truth once he steps down as he does today," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has helped lead the Senate Judiciary Committee's inquiry into the dismissals.

(snip)
Aides to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said he is considering whether to assert that a White House claim of immunity is not valid, which could lead to a committee vote next month holding Rove in contempt of Congress.

(snip)
Legal experts were divided on whether Rove's resignation heightens the likelihood of his testimony. Stanley Brand, former House general counsel, said the president's privilege claim will extend beyond Rove's days as a White House adviser. "He's too close to the king. This is the guy who's the king's alter ego," Brand said.

But Charles Tiefer, a constitutional scholar at the University of Baltimore, said some former White House staff members have testified in past confrontations, even though they claimed immunity while serving in the West Wing. Tiefer pointed to Oliver L. North, who declined to testify while still on President Reagan's National Security Council in 1986 but appeared in nationally televised hearings in 1987, after he had left the White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300778.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews

[Kagemusha]

1. That's the problem, isn't it? "Too close to the King."

That's the problem with what the system has evolved into. The US used to have presidents.

[LittleClarkie]

2. Can Bush still claim executive privledge with Rove out of office?

?