Karl Rove was recently subpoenaed to testify before a House Judiciary subcommitee regarding allegations of political pressure placed on the Justice Department. He refused.

 

The White House has cited executive privilege, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify.

Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance, although he has offered to answer questions specifically on the Siegelman case

Edited July 15, 200817 yr by Cycloneman

He'll get away with it as usual.

He'll get away with it as usual.

Of course he will. It's a non-extradition country. There is literally nothing the US can do to get him here.

 

Well, except kidnap him, like we've kidnapped people before, but I somehow doubt that's going to happen.

Ukraine just might do the congress a favor and kick that hated man out for the wolves to get him. Im curious how is this going to play out further.

Nah, nothing is gonna happen. I mean now if Rove was getting blow jobs out of wedlock or something and lied when asked about it inappropriately then we might be able to do something, but as is, this kind of thing we have no experience dealing with.

Nah, nothing is gonna happen. I mean now if Rove was getting blow jobs out of wedlock or something and lied when asked about it inappropriately then we might be able to do something, but as is, this kind of thing we have no experience dealing with.

 

True.

There are times in which we do need a man behind the grassy knoll.

He'll get away with it as usual.

it's hardly "getting away with it" if there is no legal standing for congress on this issue. last time i checked, this is a battle between the executive and legislative branches and no determination has been made as to which side has constitutional mandate. i'm not even sure this is something the supreme court would (or could) hear, which ultimately means there ain't much congress can do.

 

taks

There are times in which we do need a man behind the grassy knoll.

 

Mmmm... sugar frosted greasy knoll.

He'll get away with it as usual.

it's hardly "getting away with it" if there is no legal standing for congress on this issue. last time i checked, this is a battle between the executive and legislative branches and no determination has been made as to which side has constitutional mandate. i'm not even sure this is something the supreme court would (or could) hear, which ultimately means there ain't much congress can do.

 

taks

Congress has plenty of legal standing:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

 

Whenever a witness summoned as mentioned in section 192 of this title fails to appear to testify or fails to produce any books, papers, rec

Rove could argue that he has an affirmative defense against these actions under executive privilege. But that legal principle has never been clearly defined, and since the facts of the offense are clear, he would bear the burden of proving that it excuses him.

that's what i was getting at, not so much his showing up or not. congress is trying to get him to testify on inner workings of the white house, which they don't necessarily have a legal right to ask (well, asking ain't the problem, but punishing him for not answering may be). i agree he should have shown up if he was properly summoned.

 

Personally, I think it's a really weak argument. I can see the privilege preventing him from telling the Committee about certain elements of his conversations with the President, but I don't see how it could possibly give him leave to ignore the summons entirely. If he showed up and answered every question with alternating pleas of executive privilege, the 5th amendment privilege agains self-incrimination, and the Ollie North "I do not recall," there is little that Congress can do to him. (Although the press would have a field day.) But that's an entirely different issue than skipping out on the summons entirely.

agreed.

 

taks

perhaps the congress is trying to put rove in a position where the publicity and the focus upon his not knowing/refusing to answer kills most of his political capital?

I'm pretty sure Rove's political capital is dead. Nobody wants to touch the guy.

I'm pretty sure Rove's political capital is dead. Nobody wants to touch the guy.

 

Not even Herve Caen.

Update: Turns out he's come back to the US, but Congress is still deciding on contempt charges.

Appearing at a gathering of television critics in Beverly Hills, Rove and network executive John Moody brushed aside suggestions that Rove's continued involvement in the presidential race, informal or not, might pose a conflict in his capacity as a Fox News contributor.

A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Edited July 16, 200817 yr by Cycloneman

I hope they do cite him for contempt.

given that he's returned, so goes the notion that he went to crimea to avoid extradition.

 

taks

The question now is why did he go there. HE MUST BE A TERRORIST!

 

Send him to Gitmo now!

The question now is why did he go there. HE MUST BE A TERRORIST!

 

Send him to Gitmo now!

 

Judging by that video, I don't think Gitmo would be much of a punishment.

this is one of those times I really wish Bill Hicks and Kurt Vonnegut were alive, atleast they could make this crap funny.

this is one of those times I really wish Bill Hicks and Kurt Vonnegut were alive, atleast they could make this crap funny.

 

We both know that even if pancreatic cancer hadn't killed him, Bill would have died trying to singlehandedly storm the whitehouse after the election rigging business.

this is one of those times I really wish Bill Hicks and Kurt Vonnegut were alive, atleast they could make this crap funny.

 

We both know that even if pancreatic cancer hadn't killed him, Bill would have died trying to singlehandedly storm the whitehouse after the election rigging business.

 

He tried to, but his "People-who-hate-People"-platform never really got off. Frankly, they didn't even got together in the first place, if you catch my drift.

 

If Rove would've been involved hurting a jew somewhere, the Mossad would've taken care of him before we know it

"People who hate people! Come together!"

 

"No!"

 

If Rove would've been involved hurting a jew somewhere, the Mossad would've taken care of him before we know it

 

Or he could go on a hunting trip with **** Cheney

The saga continues!

 

Four Iowans attempt citizens arrest of Karl Rove.

After entering her plea, the judge asked Shaw, "Mamn, what were you doing at the Wakonda Country Club?"

 

"I was attempting to make a citizen's arrest of Karl Rove, your honor," Shaw answered.

 

"Well," the judge looked up and said, "it's about time."