Rove Subpoenaed in Congressional Probe

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by solvs, May 23, 2008.

  1. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #1
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/rove-subpoenaed.html
    I would have never believed it if I didn't see it, and better late than never I suppose, but I can't help thinking they're just playing politics before the upcoming elections.
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    He will ignore it with the presidents help. Fact is we have a federal govt thats 100% broken. We need to remove all of congress and this president and hold draft dodging Rove to the Law. The same Rove who outed a CIA agent and got away with it.
     
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    You are probably correct. This is simply a marketing ploy for the general election.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    They're completely playing politics. All of a sudden, they're doing something they should have done years ago? Please- too little, too late. But I'm still glad it's happening.
     
  5. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #5
    I'll be surprised if he manages to be able to "recall" anything of substance.
     
  6. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #6
    I think this was held up in the Justice Department and by Rove, and his attorney. Rove said, through his attorney, he would voluntarily testify before the committee. Then, they began stalling. It was only a few days ago, when his attorney announced to Congress, he would not appear. The INJustice Department had earlier refused to involve themselves (as they have doing for the past +7 years.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    He's been subpoenaed, he has to appear now. If he doesn't, he's going to be in a lot more trouble.
     
  8. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #8
    At worst only for as long as it takes Bush to pen a pardon. I don't think the law ever anticipated the entire executive branch being in contempt of Congress, but that's what we've got.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    True enough. How about we indict Bush too? There won't be a pardon then.
     
  10. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    Only way to prevent pardons for any active members of the administration, Bush included, is for Congress to start impeachment proceedings. What are the chances of that happening? Slim to none.

    Personally, if the Democrats hold onto the House, I'd like to see the Judiciary Committee do just that in order to prevent January 2009 blanket pardons for Bush, Cheney, and Rice. In early 2009, Conyers just might do it in order to put the question of the prosecution of war crimes in the hands of, hopefully, the incoming Obama Justice Department. Think of, say, Attorney General Deval Patrick or John Edwards heading up a probe into Bush war crimes. Warms the cockles of my heart dreaming about it.
     
  11. solvs thread starter macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    Apparently he's doing just that. Claiming executive privilege. Problem is, he can only claim that if he went over this with the President. Which he's been saying he hasn't done. So he either sticks with saying they weren't involved so they don't get in trouble, which removes executive privilege from the equation, or he turns around and says the exact opposite of what he has been to get his executive privilege. But that still doesn't protect him, and brings them into it too. The new meme is that it's a waste of money and time to go after them. Even forgetting all the money this administration and the previous Congress wasted, if we could afford millions of dollars to go after the Clenis' bj, I think we should spare a little time to find out what we already know about the not so ethical things this administration and it's cohorts have done, and are still doing. Of course, as has been said, this should have been done a long time ago.

    Rove Doesn't Deny Involvement in Siegelman Case, Dismisses Role In GOP Decline
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    His recall seems to be pretty good on the subject matter when he's not under oath. He's been in print, on the radio, and on the TV detailing why he's not guilty. He just won't go under oath and make the same claim. One wonders why...

    Well, don't forget, Rove was subpoenaed over a year ago on a different matter (which he's also currently ignoring). Also, the information that prompted this subpoena is relatively recent. So I don't think you can say this is just a marketing ploy.

    Oh you poor naive SOB. Guess who is in charge of enforcing Congressional subpoenas? The Justice Department. That's right, the Bush Justice Department is in charge of enforcing subpoenas into investigating whether the Bush Justice Department has been improperly used for partisan political purposes. Three guesses which way they'll find, and the first two don't count.

    I'll give you a hint: Rove (and others) have been successfully ignoring a Congressional subpoena for over a year now. He's not in any trouble at all.
     
  13. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #13
    Mactastic, this time the situation is different than in the past. To begin with, Rove will be very hard pressed to use 'executive privilege'. He is on record as saying he was completely uninvolved with the Siegelman case, and no discussions took place between Bush and him. So, no EP could have taken place. The statute for EP is very clear. It is not granted just for working for the President, or it is not granted as a 'blanket' protection.

    Second, and maybe most importantly, the Congressional committee did thing a little differently this time. If DoJ refused to enforce the subpoena (which they did), Congress will have Rove arrested and brought before them. Conyers has already committed to following this path until Rove comes before them. If after being arrested, Rove still refuses to testify, he will be held in contempt of Congress, and will remain incarcerated. Finally, Bush is not able to pardon him for 'contempt'. He also cannot pardon him for a crime, if he is not charged with one.

    I think Rove will come before the committee. What he does when he gets there is anyone's guess. If he takes the 5th, it will certainly rip holes in his claim of innocence. He could just lie, but if caught, he would be in serious trouble. My guess is he will stonewall. He might find that difficult. He has been running his mouth and is on the record, in too many places. I think he realizes he is in a very tough jam, of his own making. There is too much evidence against him. Sometimes this is how the powerful and corrupt get brought down. They become so arrogant, and have a feeling of invincibility, they get careless. If Rove does get brought down, it should become a national holiday.
     
  14. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #14
    speaking of defying congressional subpoenas, is anything happening about Harriet Meiers' refusal to testify. I'm recalling that she was cited for contempt of congress for refusing to testify, but did anything actually happen as a result of that? Or was it just an empty gesture on the part of congress?
     
  15. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #15
    It was not an 'empty gesture'. Her case is actually pretty interesting. She is claiming EP. Her assertion is not without merits. However, it is quite possible that much of her sought testimony may be outside the limits of the statute. It would certainly explain her refusal to even show up. Regardless, she is not allowed to simply ignore the subpoena.

    The committee has not proceeded against her yet. They have an investigation in progress to build a case for conspiracy. She cannot use the EP protection, if a crime has been committed, and she is named as a co-conspirator.

    On a side-note: The way Leon Jaworski was able to obtain the Nixon tapes was a two fold attack. He argued in front of the Supreme Court that EP cannot be granted, if the requested evidence was part of a felony. The second part was very clever indeed. When the grand jury handed their indictments, they were for Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Stans, Colson, Porter, McGruder, and Mitchell. They also wanted to also indict Nixon. Instead, Jaworski had them name him as 'and unindicted co-conspirator. Nixon's lawyers were going to argue that he was still covered by the statute, even though many of his former staff were not. This revelation, which was a closely held secret, completely blew their case apart. Len Garnet had all his eggs in one basket. He had nothing left and Jaworski won his lawsuit. A few months later, Nixon was waving good-bye. Those were the good old days, when we had a Supreme Court, a professional forth estate, and the Country still was governed by the rule of law.
     

Share This Page