Ball In Obama's Court On Rove's US Attorney Testimony

[babylonsister]

Ball In Obama's Court On Rove's US Attorney Testimony
By Zachary Roth - January 27, 2009, 1:04PM


On the question of whether we'll get to the bottom of the Bush White House's role in the US Attorney firings, it's starting to look more and more like the ball is squarely in President Obama's court.

Yesterday, as we noted, House Judiciary chair John Conyers issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, ordering him to testify about the affair February 2nd and declaring ominously: "It's time for him to talk."

(Rove, making a claim to executive privilege backed by President Bush, had defied a subpoena issued by the last Congress. That Congress ended before the full House could vote on contempt charges against Rove.)

And just now, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told TPMmuckraker that he had already forwarded Conyers' subpoena to the Obama White House, asking them to give an opinion as to whether President Bush retains his ability to assert executive privilege.

In other words, the Obama White House will decide, essentially, whether to back Rove's claim of privilege, or to deny it. (And given that Rove is supposed to appear February 2, that decision from the White House should come soon.) In the latter case, said Luskin, a negotiation would ensue between the Obama White House, President Bush, and Rove. That would likely result in the matter going to court.

more...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/ball_in_obamas_court_on_roves_us_attorney_testimon.php

[Winterblues]

1. This will be a key test whether Change really has come to America.

If Obama says all the Bush* Cabal can thumb their nose at Congress how is he any better than the one he replaced?

[BzaDem]

2. I would have to see his reasoning, but if Obama doesn't enforce the subpeona I will be disappointed.

It is one thing to assert executive privilege to a specific question asked once Rove is being questioned by Congress. For example, if Conyers asked Rove about a conversation he had with Bush, that would be one thing.

But the Siegelman matter has nothing to do with Bush, and Rove should not be allowed to avoid showing up at all to answer questions about it (or anything else where the specific question doesn't infringe on any privilege).