Couldn't they indict/prosecute Rove in his absence?

[garybeck]

Let's say he claims executive privalege and blows off the subpeona.

Rather than getting all tangled up in a legal showdown that is bound for the Republican dominated Supreme Court, and would focus on whether or not he needs to appear... why don't they indict and prosecute him without him being there? Wouldn't it be just the same as if he took the 5th?

I know criminals have fled and been convicted even though they're missing. Why not Rove?

then, assuming he's found guilty, then they could frog march him in hand cuffs, and it wouldn't be to some hearing or to testify in which case he'd probably just lie or take the 5th anyway; he'd be going straight to jail.

i'm not a lawyer or anything close to it. but if there's legal standing to do so, I'd just continue the investigation and if there' sufficient evidence to try him taking the 5th, then let him take the 5th in the comfort of his own home.

[ThomWV]

1. First you have to have a Justice Department and we don't have one yet.