Bush Sent Rove a Letter Blocking His Appearance Before Congress

[kpete]

Bush Sent Rove a Letter Blocking His Appearance Before Congress
Written by Jason Leopold
Monday, 26 January 2009 15:03

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has followed through on a promise last year to continue an investigation into the role the Bush administration played in the decision to fire nine federal prosecutors and the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman by issuing a subpoena to a key figure believed to have played a role in both scandals: former White House political adviser Karl Rove.

“I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” Conyers said in a prepared statement. “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.”

The subpoena demands that Rove appear before Congress for a deposition on Feb. 2, at 10 a.m.

But it appears unlikely Rove will show up to give testimony to the committee.

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, told the Washington Post Monday that George W. Bush recently sent a letter to Rove and reasserted executive privilege claims in blocking him from appearing before Congress to testify. It’s unknown when Bush sent Rove the letter or whether it was specifically intended to respond to Congress’s anticipated subpoena for the former political adviser’s testimony about the U.S. Attorney firings. Luskin did not return calls or respond to e-mails for further comment about Bush’s letter.

more at:
http://www.pubrecord.org/politics/644-rove-subpoenaed-by-congress-for-testimony-in-us-attorney-firings.html
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39331

[tekisui]

1. You can't get a note from a nobody, and act like its a doctor's note.

ARREST HIM!

[Pryderi]

2. Why would I believe anything that Jason Leopold writes? He's like Drudge.

[susu369]

11. Please

Educate yourself before spouting off trash like that.

[Pryderi]

14. JASON LEOPOLD GUARANTEED that Rove was going to be indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald!

Leopold ruined his rep, not me.

The only truth I *might* trust is that he quoted the Washington Post.

[susu369]

24. Must add

Leopold's editor, Marc Ash, stood solidly behind the story of Rove's indictment. We really don't know what happened. Personally, I believe that the indictment was indeed drawn up to file on Friday afternoon, and for some unknown reason, Fitzgerald postponed it. Why? Who knows.

Back to 2009, Leopold is a tireless reporter and does not deserve to be compared to Drudge. Have you visited his web site www.pubrecord.org? That's proof of his hard work. Buzzflash.com constantly uses his reporting.

I think you are being too harsh and following some misguided hype from the past.

Peace.

[Goblinmonger]

38. I think I know what happened.

Just like previously in his career, Leopold lied like the lying bastard he is and Ash believed him. To call Leopold a "journalist" or a "reporter" is an insult to the profession.

[MissHoneychurch]

3. How can * block Rove from the Congress

now that he isn't pResident anymore?

[ThomWV]

4. And so the great question - can Bush's protection extend beyond his Presidency?

[tularetom]

5. When you ain't the executive you can't claim executive privilege

Can ya?

[zipplewrath]

7. I suspect you can

Obviously only limited to issues that occurred or involved actions and policies during your time as chief executive. His problem of course is that he can't claim executive privilege from the chief executive and the Justice department. Ultimately, that will be where his trouble would lie. The could collect information and then choose to release it to Congress. Obama hasn't indicated he'd be particularly interested in doing so.

[ThomWV]

8. No, but if Obama wishes to be able to protect his own people he might protect Rove

If Obama does not extend executive privilege to Rove as an adviser to the Office of the President - because the President must have the ability to receive information or opinions from people unfettered by the taint of prospective persecution, we are told - just as he would to his own staff.

If he doesn't protect Rove now how will he be able to make his own claim for executive privilege when the time comes?

[dorkulon]

15. I can imagine how the argument goes.

The idea behind executive privilege is that the Pres and his advisors need to feel complete comfort in exchanging ideas, and that publicizing their conversations infringes on that. If that's the standard, then the fact that their remarks would be publicized after the administration leaves office doesn't really change the equation. If you'd bite your tongue if your remarks would go public now or next week, you're likely to bite your tongue if they're to be publicized in a few years.

The real problem with executive privilege is that it is total bullshit from start to finish. If public scrutiny causes presidential advisors to hold back advice that is illegal or immoral, that can only be a good thing.

[Johonny]

18. The difference is

It doesn't matter now if Rove bites his tongue. The man he advised is no longer president. He's not the head of the executive branch anymore. The fact the free flow of ideas from his advisers might be compromised doesn't matter.

[dorkulon]

21. But it will have a chilling effect on current and future administrations, so the argument would go.

If executive privilege means anything, it would have to be a permanent condition even for former administrations.

Again, I am against the concept completely. But if Rove can be compelled to testify, it follows that any Obama advisor can be in eight years too. Therefore, they might be reticent to give their full counsel to him. Thus, the privilege is meaningless in the long term to any administration.

[Mr Rabble]

28. Or, they could simply follow the law. That might help.

Providing council and being afraid of getting called before congress are notions predicated on the idea that the administration is doing something illegal.

That simply can not be allowed in a free and open society.

Rove gets to testify, as does any other administration functionary...

[dorkulon]

31. I don't disagree, I'm just extrapolating how the legal argument will go.

As I've stated, I think the whole concept of Executive Privilege is bunk.

[Winterblues]

29. How chilling an effect did it have on the "Torture pResident" after so many of Clinton's

close personal aids had to testify before Congress. Didn't seem to matter one whit to Republicans at the time..

[dorkulon]

32. No one ever accused them of being consistent in their legal arguments.

They will use any argument at their disposal to avoid revealing anything about their actions. Just sayin'.

[Johonny]

36. I don't agree

It only has a chilling effect if you break the law. Other than that in general your advisers don't usually get called back to congress. Congress has oversight ability and in general focus on overseeing the current administration. It in general rarely looks backwards unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so. Which is why the rethugs loved calling on the Clinton Whitehouse over such things as Sox the cats christmas mailing list, but was not very interested in any of these people once they left office.

[my2sense]

6. WTH - Does Bush not understand

he's not running things anymore. Damn the note - get your raggedy butt up there as requested or take your ugly mug to jail.

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. Oh, this is getting interesting......

:popcorn:


Congress = 0 ( again)
Rove = 1

Conyers, your move.

Any predictions on how this will turn out?

My vote is Rethugs will play for time with lots of court filings.

My hope is Conyers will use power of Congress and send a marshall after Rove, then let the Courts chatter about it.

[rucky]

10. Jail Bush for obstruction. n/t

[blogslut]

12. But does "the letter" have any legal standing?

Just because Bush writes some letter, that doesn't mean it has any power legally. Maybe a judge should decide whether or not a former President can prevent a private citizen from testifying before congress. I wonder if there's ever been such a case.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

13. I guess it depends on who you ask. I'm sure Scalia, Thomas, etc. all think it's perfectly legal.

Now sane people on the other hand would probably disagree.

[ThomWV]

17. It would certainly test his notion of literal interpretation

In the last month how many times did both George Bush and Barack Obama proclaim openly that 'there is only one President at a time"? If that's true - as stated by both the current and previous Presidents - then Scalia would probably say its now Obama's call and Bush has no more say in the matter than you or I.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

19. Unfortunately these people are not known for their consistency. "Oh yeah sure

state rights except when it comes to state supreme courts and recounts and anything else I don't like."

[ZombieHorde]

22. "Now sane people on the other hand would probably disagree."

We'll see what Obama and congress have to say on the subject.

[kentuck]

16. Perhaps they should subpoena private citizen Bush?

And let him claim "executive privilege", as if he were still the President?

[Pryderi]

20. Here's the original Washington Post story

I wouldn't trust sourcing Leopold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602157.html

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. A broken clock is correct twice every 24 business hours

[Pryderi]

25. True, but you need a working clock to verify the time.

[madmom]

26. Jonathan Turley was talking about this on Olberman last night. He said

it would most likely have to go to court and they most likely would side with Obama since he is now the executive.

[jpak]

27. GROUNDHOG'S DAY KARL!!11

:rofl:

[dkofos]

30. ARREST THE MOTHERFUCKER

[spanone]

33. karl is now a private citizen, how could he defy a subpoena?

[Raskolnik]

34. Ohh, a scoop from Jason Leopold!? I'm sure it will be confirmed in 24 business hours.

Why anyone reads (much less believes) a word he says at this point baffles me.

[Strong Atheist]

35. I dunno. Has it been

24 business hours yet?

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

37. Jason Leopold is a gigantic douche

and anyone that listens to that "journalist" just doesn't get it.