Karl Rove Subpoenaed - Again

[BSmith1068]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) issued a new subpoena yesterday to former Bush White House aide Karl Rove, months after Rove deflected an earlier effort to compel his testimony about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and other political disputes that swirled around the Justice Department.

Conyers's committee subpoenaed Rove on May 22, calling on him to testify about his contacts with department officials in the Bush era. But Rove rebuffed the summons, saying he was barred from testifying because of executive privilege.

Yesterday's subpoena may test the limits of that power for the first time since George W. Bush left office, legal experts said. Some Democratic lawyers have suggested that an executive order issued by President Obama last week governing presidential records could make it easier for citizens and lawmakers to gather information about Bush administration controversies.

"Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it," Conyers said. "After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."

Robert D. Luskin, an attorney for Rove, said his client will "abide by a final decision from the courts." Luskin noted that Bush, in a letter to Rove, recently reasserted executive privilege.

"It's generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege as to matters occurring during their term," Luskin said. "We'll solicit the views of the new White House counsel and, if there is a disagreement, assume that the matter will be resolved among the courts, the president and the former president."

In last week's executive order, Obama directed officials at the National Archives to consult with Justice Department lawyers and the White House counsel "concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege."

The language, according to W. Neil Eggleston, a White House associate counsel during the Clinton administration, leaves open the possibility that more information could emerge in some long-running controversies.

The House Judiciary Committee previously sued for access to information about the firing of the U.S. attorneys. The case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after a federal judge rejected Bush's claim of "absolute immunity." Lawyers for the Justice Department must file their latest position in the case with the appeals court by Feb. 18.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...01/26/AR2009012602157.html?hpid=moreheadlines

So – will Karl Rove be able to weasel out of this subpoena as well, or will he be compelled to testify? If he does testify, do you think he will plead the 5th?

 

[Miles Teg]

No, he won't. This time we actually have an independent Justice Department; and Conyers knows it.

 

[Phlegmak]

When will he be waterboarded?

 

[BSmith1068]

Does former President Bush have any say in claiming executive privilege now that he is out of office?

 

[Adrogans]

Yes in regards to records. I do not know if he can in regards to actual people though.

 

[IglooDame]

No, he won't. This time we actually have an independent Justice Department; and Conyers knows it.

Correction: this time we actually have a Democratic Justice Department. For this specific case the difference is immaterial, though.

 

[Miles Teg]

Correction: this time we actually have a Democratic Justice Department. For this specific case the difference is immaterial, though.

True, true, but look at the people the President is stocking the Office of Legal Council with. These are not the kind of who are inclined to believe that 'when the president does it it's not illegal".

 

[amadeus]

Uhh... and why was the firings of U.S. attorneys illegal again?

If so, we need to get some of Clinton's men up on the stand. Let's remember that Clinton fired 93 attorneys, including one that was investigating the Whitewater scandal.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh, please:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

 

[GenMarshall]

when I see it, I'll believe it. Rove should go through with this.

 

[BSmith1068]

Oh, please:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

I especially like this paragraph (bold mine):

Update: In case there was still any lingering doubt among conservatives on this point, in White House documents released today, there’s an email to Harriet Miers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), in which Sampsons admits that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.”

 

[bathsheba666]

The fig leaf of some Republicans on these forums is...
....you can't put Bush on trial, there's no evidence.

But there's no problem if Bush fires the people who could find the evidence.....

Neat, and completely transparent.

But, hey, we forgot why we fired them, so it must be ok....

 

[Death_Machine]

Nobody in the Bush administration will be prosecuted because the current administration will not want to set the precedent where it could happen to them as well. They're all in cahoots.

 

[amadeus]

Oh, please:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

Clinton didn't fire attorneys for political retribution? So what did the Whitewater investigator get canned for? Unpaid parking tickets? Dog pooped on the neighbor's yard and he didn't scoop it up?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I see you didn't even bother to read the article because you already know "the truth". Good for you.

 

[amadeus]

I see you didn't even bother to read the article because you already know "the truth". Good for you.

I see you didn't answer my question.

 

[Miles Teg]

Clinton didn't fire attorneys for political retribution? So what did the Whitewater investigator get canned for? Unpaid parking tickets? Dog pooped on the neighbor's yard and he didn't scoop it up?

Wait, are we talking about Robert Fiske? The guy that concluded that the Clintons did nothing wrong?

 

[Simple Simon]

When will he be waterboarded?

that's what I am wondering, too!

 

[FriendlyFire]

Uhh... and why was the firings of U.S. attorneys illegal again?

If so, we need to get some of Clinton's men up on the stand. Let's remember that Clinton fired 93 attorneys, including one that was investigating the Whitewater scandal.

Clinton should have done what Bush did simply refuse to testify under oath.

 

[MobBoss]

I see you didn't even bother to read the article because you already know "the truth". Good for you.

Heh, since when is 'truth' found on those biased websites anyway?

I mean, thats funny right there, I dont care who you are.