Send Karl Rove to Jail

posted by Peter Rothberg on 07/22/2008 @ 6:47pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Newsvine
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (81)

Subscribe Now

Karl Rove has spent a career putting politics before due process, democracy and civil rights. So it's not surprising that when recently faced with a subpoena from Congress, Rove refused to testify. This refusal was a violation of federal law -- Rove's attorney Robert Luskin asserted executive privilege as an excuse to ignore Congress; however, President Bush has not invoked the privilege. (And why would he since that would be an admission that the President sought advice on the politicization of the Department of Justice.)

Since Rove regards the law with such contempt, it's high time the law and Congress hold him in contempt as well. Our friends at Brave New Films have launched a new video campaign and petition asking the House Judiciary Committee to cite former presidential adviser Karl Rove with contempt for failing to comply with a Congressional subpoena. The video explains the issues surrounding Rove's failure to testify and makes a compelling case that he should be held in contempt and sent to jail. Watch the video and sign the petition.

The video has already been viewed over 90,000 times and nearly 65,000 people have signed the petition. Next week BNF will hold a press conference in Washington, DC after the petition is delivered and the goal is secure at least 100,000 signatures before then. Add your name to this growing protest.

Comments (81)

Peter,

When are you and the rest of Electric Kool Ade Acid Trip Gang going to give up this nonsense?

Rove did the right thing in ignoring Congress. All they are looking for is a way to make political media spin moments for the fall campaign. This has absolutely nothing to do with justice or the Constitution.

It is just political gamemanship.

but I guess you and your merry pranksters can keep it up; it keeps you busy..

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:52pm
I can't stand Rove because he called me and my son unpatriotic while my son was in Iraq, fighting for his right to say that. But He's not going to jail. The House Judiciary Committee is a joke. Six months from now you'll hardly ever hear Rove's name mentioned unless he a guest commentator on Hannity.

Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:59pm
Peter, When are you and the rest of Electric Kool Ade Acid Trip Gang going to give up this nonsense? Rove did the right thing in ignoring Congress. All they are looking for is a way to make political media spin moments for the fall campaign. This has absolutely nothing to do with justice or the Constitution. It is just political gamemanship. but I guess you and your merry pranksters can keep it up; it keeps you busy.. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 6:52pm

Still LVL. Doesn't matter their reason for doing it. Ignoring a subpoena is illegal. You always claim the left has no respect for the rule of law but you are defending Rove for breaking the law. He has to come before the House Judiciary because executive privilege won't apply here. If he doesn't, then like any other citizen he should be put in jail for his crime.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:12pm
That's pretty outrageous GRITS. Another thing to hold against Rove. I hope your son is doing well.

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 07/22/2008 @ 7:13pm
I can't stand Rove because he called me and my son unpatriotic while my son was in Iraq, fighting for his right to say that. But He's not going to jail. The House Judiciary Committee is a joke. Six months from now you'll hardly ever hear Rove's name mentioned unless he a guest commentator on Hannity. Posted by frankgrits at 07/22/2008 @ 6:59pm

Did he directly call your son and you unpatriotic? Like did you meet him? Because I am honestly surprised you didn't deck him for that.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:14pm
"This has absolutely nothing to do with justice or the Constitution"

you know, that's funny, because the constitution allows for the congress to practice the role of 'oversight,' an extension of which is subpoena authority.

so to claim that this isn't about congress performing its oath to uphold the constitution, then you are woefully incorrect.

while reading comments from neocons, i often wonder if we speak a totally different language.

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 7:26pm
it's abundantly clear that there is (really, i'm not kidding) a two-tiered system of justice in this country:

1) for the wealthy and well-connected

2) for the rest of us

how is this *not* about justice, again liberty?

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 7:27pm
there will probably be no citation for contempt let alone enforcement of it by the 'justice' department, our 'leadership' is a cynical joke -

Posted by Zero at 07/22/2008 @ 7:42pm
Still LVL. Doesn't matter their reason for doing it. Ignoring a subpoena is illegal. You always claim the left has no respect for the rule of law but you are defending Rove for breaking the law. He has to come before the House Judiciary because executive privilege won't apply here. If he doesn't, then like any other citizen he should be put in jail for his crime.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 7:12pm

All counsel given to a President is privileged and thus comes under executive privilege. He is not breaking the law and there will be no criminal action.

Furthermore you criticize politicians and then blindly accept that this is a nonpartisan action? You are either being naive or dishonest.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:44pm
Grits, had that personal experience never happened one can imagine how you'd find a way to use this to, per usual -- griticize -- Obama.

Posted by winyahn at 07/22/2008 @ 8:52pm
<i>All counsel given to a President is privileged and thus comes under executive privilege. He is not breaking the law and there will be no criminal action.</i>

Sorry LL, but a privilege has to be invoked by a party with a right to invoke it before it can apply. It is the President's privilege, not that of his ex-aides. Rove has no standing to invoke it. You also overlook the fact that the privilege, when properly invoked, is only a presumption and not absolute. Hence SCOTUS's overruling of it in United States v. Nixon, using a "competing interests" argument.

What we have here is only a generalized assumption that the communications in question were needed for key Executive functions (no indication of military, diplomatic or national security secrets) against the fact that Congress is exercising its legitimate oversight function and Rove's information is key to that.

Posted by brunowe at 07/22/2008 @ 9:19pm
Can the leftwingnuts get any funnier than this? We have a do nothing undemocratic congress trying to upsurb the constitution, supreme court, and executive branch powers in a purely partison attempt to grab the reins of government for themselves. Why don't they read the constitution they are sworn to uphold and do some real business for the people for a change?That would really be different!!!

They are more like little children sent to school to learn who instead write in their books, daydream, then on any real test haven't got a clue!

Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/22/2008 @ 9:43pm
its going to be really funny to watch these people babbling about the "unitary president" and "executive privilege" turn into horribly angry, angry figures demanding impeachment, hanging, etc. for people in the upcoming Democratic presidential administration, when these figures do anything at all controversial or even things not at all controversial.

Posted by Zero at 07/22/2008 @ 9:45pm
The thing that goads me about this issue is that the current administration has provided us with 'itself' as the sole arbiter of what constitutes justice... by allowing no other viewpoints or interpretations of it's actions to 'encroach' upon it's 'sovereignty'.

But... the US is supposed to be governed by a 'balance of power'... with no single branch consistently 'deciding' the constitutional relevance of all of it's own actions... in their entirety.

For the public welfare, for the common good.

So... though I am not calling for 'blood'... or jail... it is actually only accountability I am wishing for in our Government today.

An administration that 'answers to no one'... in a Democracy founded on the principles implicit in the 'checks and balance' of power between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches... and indeed... the 'separation of powers'...

...is a dangerous precedent to set.

You could almost call it 'undemocratic'.

Maybe we should consider taking our system of government in to the shop for a tune-up...;^) ...it doesn't seem to be firing on all of it's cylinders lately...

Posted by ttr at 07/22/2008 @ 10:01pm
liberty, if it is found that obama had instructed his top aide to remove conservative lawmakers from the justice department, and replace them with liberal lawmakers, and then obama invokes executive privilege, where will you stand on the matter of oversight?

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 10:19pm
"We have a do nothing undemocratic congress trying to upsurb the constitution, supreme court, and executive branch powers in a purely partison attempt to grab the reins of government for themselves"

it is readily apparent that this person has either:

a) not read the constitution

or

b) not read the constitution

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 10:21pm
let's keep in mind, redriver, that bush did exactly that (i.e. take the reins of government for himself), in that he:

a) stacked the courts with conservative judges

b) stacked the judiciary with conservative lawmakers

c) appointed alberto gonzales as attorney general

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 10:22pm
liberty, if it is found that obama had instructed his top aide to remove conservative lawmakers from the justice department, and replace them with liberal lawmakers, and then obama invokes executive privilege, where will you stand on the matter of oversight?

Where will YOU stand on the matter, Darla?

Posted by woodyee at 07/22/2008 @ 10:23pm
Where will YOU stand on the matter, Darla?

Posted by woodyee at 07/22/2008 @ 10:23pm

oh, i think i know the answer.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 10:26pm
i stand with the LAW.

law = king

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 11:08pm
PETER, PETER.....is this really you? Very out of character! Cause....

You're always trying to bust somebody OUT of jail.......Hehehehe!

IF I ever land in jail......I'll make that ONE phone call to you.....

I know, I know.....a couple of good days on Wall St. does that to me.......refuels my HAPPINESS...oh, too bad Dolly isn't coming our way.....we need the rain....Mexico is stealing OUR rain.....waaaaaaaa!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:15pm
careful what you wish for.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 11:17pm
....wish....

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 11:17pm

Glanced another thread and you're "overseas"? or over the sea, as in on a Cruise?

Your wife is finishing when? Are you all planning to stay in N. Detroit to be the last to turn out the lights?.....to save the earth, of course!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:30pm
All counsel given to a President is privileged and thus comes under executive privilege. He is not breaking the law and there will be no criminal action. Furthermore you criticize politicians and then blindly accept that this is a nonpartisan action? You are either being naive or dishonest. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:44pm

I never once claimed it was partisan.

"Doesn't matter their reason for doing it."

I think that says to me that I didn't say it was partisan. I said that their reason doesn't matter.

"All counsel given to a President is privileged and thus comes under executive privilege. He is not breaking the law and there will be no criminal action."

Doesn't the President have to envoke executive privilege?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 11:37pm
liberty, if it is found that obama had instructed his top aide to remove conservative lawmakers from the justice department, and replace them with liberal lawmakers, and then obama invokes executive privilege, where will you stand on the matter of oversight?

Posted by darladoon at 07/22/2008 @ 10:19pm

The same answer I have always given: any president is within his/her authority to dismiss them. They serve at the pleasure of the president.

this was never an issue of legal vs illegal.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 11:45pm
i meant outside the u.s.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 11:23pm

That clears up your being "overseas". BTW, you do know that "sea" south of you is the Detroit River.....and not the Detroit Sea?

I'm in the middle of the book "Prey" by Crichton.....only the second of his..........not nearly as good as Jurassic Park....but same theme, man plays God!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/22/2008 @ 11:47pm
What really has to chap your knicker on this one is that no where does it say in the Constitution that executive privilege exists. No where does it say that a President has a right to invoke it. The argument was that it maintains the separation of powers. However it overrides the ability of the legislative and judicial branch to oversee the executive branch. It removes the system of checks and balances that is in place to stop one branch from gaining too much power.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 11:49pm
Some additional light:

"But Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said the criticism was "fatuous" because, before he took off, Rove had been directed by White House counsel Fred Fielding not to show up. The reason: as a former presidential adviser, the White House views anything he might say to the panel as covered by executive privilege. "What was he supposed to do, sit at home with his lights off?" said Luskin. "I understand that people are unhappy that he didn't show up." But the no-show "was not something we concocted so he could make money in Yalta." Rove himself did not respond to a request for comment. But last week in an appearance on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show, Rove dismissed the Democrats' demand for his testimony: "They want a circus," he said.

The dispute is far from over. Democratic members and aides said they expect judiciary chair Rep. John Conyers to push for a vote holding Rove in contempt of Congress--an act that would likely end up as part of an ongoing court battle over another executive privilege dispute involving White House chief of staff Josh Bolton and former chief counsel Harriet Miers, both of whom also ignored subpoenas involving the U.S. attorney firings. (The White House also last week invoked executive privilege in refusing to turn over to another House panel an FBI interview of Vice President Dick Cheney in the CIA leak case.) Democrats acknowledge they have few good options to enforce their subpoenas. But they hope to vent their frustrations at an upcoming hearing called by Conyers on "the imperial presidency," where they will give Rep. Dennis Kucinich an opportunity to argue his case for President Bush's impeachment. Republicans, for their part, derided the upcoming hearing as a waste of time. This is "merely political theater," said Rep. Lamar Smith, the judiciary panel's ranking Republican."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147776

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 12:11am
What really has to chap your knicker on this one is that no where does it say in the Constitution that executive privilege exists. No where does it say that a President has a right to invoke it. The argument was that it maintains the separation of powers. However it overrides the ability of the legislative and judicial branch to oversee the executive branch. It removes the system of checks and balances that is in place to stop one branch from gaining too much power.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 11:49pm

I can't believe you have the audacity to seriously make such statements. This has nothing to do with checks and balances or oversight.

It is about politics, end of statement. Nothing more.

I have little use for any Congress since the implementation of the 16th amendment (Republican or Democrat). They are virtually useless and merely exist to spend the money of others.

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain, 1894

As to the principle of Executive Privilege, it is as old as the nation itself.

Executive privilege, the right of the President to withhold certain information sought by another branch of government, was first claimed by President Jefferson in response to a subpoena from John Marshall in the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr. The Supreme Court's first major pronouncement on the issue, however, did not come until 1974 in United States v Richard Nixon. The case involved the refusal to President Nixon to turn over to Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski several hours of Oval Office tapes believed to concern the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. Although the Court unanimously concluded that the Constitution does indeed contain an executive privilege, the Court said the privilege was "presumptive" and not absolute. Balancing the interests in the Nixon case, the Court found the privilege not to extend to the requested Watergate tapes.

http://tinyurl.com/opwod

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 01:08am
Love to see it happen. rOve in orange, burnt. (Go Horns, er sorry...)

However, not to be too much of a pessimist, but isn't it up to the new con repub corrupted gestapo DoJ to carry out any court/congressional warrant for his arrest?

Like the new con repub gestapo DoJ is going to bring rOve in... really? er, like dic'tator hsuB powers like will just tell them like no and nothing will happen-- right?

How long has it been since congress had their own police to pull this off-- given the congressional repubs don't pull a mini committee dic'tator mandated coup to once again let illegality slide. (Skull and bones, man, skull and bones.)

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 01:25am
And if congress gets their police to arrest rOve and dic'tator hsuB tells his SS to surround and protect rOve from the congress, would anyone ever find out?

Wouldn't it be 24/7 McCave singing Bomb bomb...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 01:35am
liberty states:

"It is about politics, end of statement. Nothing more."

if this is true, then is it equally political if the executive chooses to assert executive privilege. or is he, meaning Bush, merely doing what's "normal"?

if you read further into the history of this executive power, you will also find:

".....executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns"

clearly (!), this is not a matter of national security. bush claims privilege only in matters in which he simply doesn't wanna embarass himself, or his aides.

and for you to prance around here and claim that this is all just "political," and yet bemoan congress' attempts to perform its sworn duty, is hypocritical on its face. you should know that. you're smart (sort of).

Posted by darladoon at 07/23/2008 @ 01:39am
it's only "political," in liberty's mind, when the republicans are weakened by it.

Posted by darladoon at 07/23/2008 @ 01:40am
and can liberty honestly respond to this conundrum:

if the executive can claim privilege only in cases in which national security is at risk, then how is it perfectly responsible to 'out' a CIA agent (which we now know originated within cheney's office)? doesn't it endanger national security to publicly release, multiple times, the identity of a woman who was SPYING on our enemies?

oh, that's just perfectly legitimate behavior in shit head's mind.....

Posted by darladoon at 07/23/2008 @ 01:44am
and can liberty honestly respond to this conundrum:

if the executive can claim privilege only in cases in which national security is at risk, then how is it perfectly responsible to 'out' a CIA agent (which we now know originated within cheney's office)? doesn't it endanger national security to publicly release, multiple times, the identity of a woman who was SPYING on our enemies?

oh, that's just perfectly legitimate behavior in shit head's mind.....

Posted by darladoon at 07/23/2008 @ 01:44am

No conundrum here at all.

1. First of all, executive privilege is not limited to issues of national security. That is a pure media spin by the Dems in Congress. I noted some of the history of Exec. Priv and it started with the treason trial of Aaron Burr. It has been used by nearly every president and national security was seldom the reason.

2. In fact, the sharing of information about Valerie Plame Wilson did not originate in the VP's office, but in State via Richard Armitage.

3. And no it obviously did not endanger national security because Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the original "leaker" and he did not seek any prosecution against Armitage or anyone else on that issue. Do you perhaps have a statement from the CIA that National Security interests were compromised or damaged because of any incident involving Plame/Wilson?

BTW have you completed your move to Canada? What city did you move to? How is the herb business there?

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 02:29am
Rove in jail?

ALGORE belongs in jail.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 07:09am
All counsel given to a President is privileged and thus comes under executive privilege. He is not breaking the law and there will be no criminal action.

Furthermore you criticize politicians and then blindly accept that this is a nonpartisan action? You are either being naive or dishonest.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/22/2008 @ 8:44pm

Liverlips, You know no bounds of being full of shit. So, by your own standards, Monica Lewinsky was just providing President Clinton counsel and therefore what took place in the oval office would fall under executive privilege.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/23/2008 @ 07:42am
Rove in jail?

ALGORE belongs in jail.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 07:09am

Poor poor JoMa...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 08:40am
Even 1/2 a mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/23/2008 @ 08:54am
"Oddly", LVLIB forgets that if Rove feels that something he WOULD testify to is "executive privelege" and counsel to the President and therefore he is not obliged to present it to Congress, he can say so...

WHEN HE TESTIFIES.

But he CANNOT just ignore a subpeona because of what he THINKS Congress will ask him about.

If something is priveleged, he can make that claim after he is sworn in and begins his testimony...perfectly acceptable.

If something would INCRIMINATE him...he can plead the Fifth Amendment.

But there's no "executive privelege" to ...NOT SHOW UP AT ALL.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/23/2008 @ 09:13am
"1. First of all, executive privilege is not limited to issues of national security. That is a pure media spin by the Dems in Congress. I noted some of the history of Exec. Priv and it started with the treason trial of Aaron Burr. It has been used by nearly every president and national security was seldom the reason."

True, but the interests preserved by executive privilege are less weighty when they don't involve national security. Further, you can state it's about politics as much as you like, but a political purge of US Attorneys in order to push possibly spurious voter fraud cases is very much within Congress's oversight responsibility.

Of course, MaskD's point about Rove's ignoring the subpeona is spot on.

Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2008 @ 09:45am
"In fact, the sharing of information about Valerie Plame Wilson did not originate in the VP's office, but in State via Richard Armitage"

wrong. lewis libby. who works for the VP. thanks.

"Do you perhaps have a statement from the CIA that National Security interests were compromised or damaged because of any incident involving Plame/Wilson?"

talk about falling for the spin! outing a spy does not endanger national security?! that's all the evidence one needs to prove that, YES, outing a spy endangers national security, you dolt!

Posted by darladoon at 07/23/2008 @ 10:38am
Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2008 @ 09:45am

See, that's why LVLIB's argument is disengenuous (and why likely it is WH/Repub talking points).

Rove is perfectly able to go before Congress and invoke exec privelege or plesd the 5th...

he is NOT allowed to "just decide" not to GO and ignore a subpeona.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/23/2008 @ 10:42am
shall we just say that, if valerie plame, after being outed, was kidnapped, and brutally tortured......

and revealed state secrets......

hello?

Posted by darladoon at 07/23/2008 @ 10:43am
Executive privilege, the right of the President to withhold certain information sought by another branch of government, was first claimed by President Jefferson in response to a subpoena from John Marshall in the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr. The Supreme Court's first major pronouncement on the issue, however, did not come until 1974 in United States v Richard Nixon. The case involved the refusal to President Nixon to turn over to Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski several hours of Oval Office tapes believed to concern the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. Although the Court unanimously concluded that the Constitution does indeed contain an executive privilege, the Court said the privilege was "presumptive" and not absolute. Balancing the interests in the Nixon case, the Court found the privilege not to extend to the requested Watergate tapes. http://tinyurl.com/opwod Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 01:08am

Yes it is as old as the nation. But it is not Constitutionally protected. Read up on it. The Supreme Court acted to preserve someting that was not within the powers of the President to have. Like I said it's not about their reasons. It's the law. The President and his advisers are not above the law. Of course if a Demo circumvents the law you are all up in arms about it. But now that it is Bush you are fine with him and his gaggle of advisers breaking the law.

We live in this country therefore we are bound to follow it's laws. Just like you were fine with those protesters who broke into The School of Americas going to jail. They knowingly broke the law therefore they went to jail. Rove knowingly broke the law by not answering Congresses subpoena.

The Supreme Court could easily dissolve executive privilege because it is not Constitutionally protected.

Also I don't know what you mean by no need to for Congress. Are you suggesting we transform this country in a dictatorship? In which case you are much much farther right than I ever thought if you would rather we have a dictatorship.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/23/2008 @ 2:28pm
Of course, MaskD's point about Rove's ignoring the subpeona is spot on.

Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2008 @ 09:45am

Wrong. It has been over a hundred years since anyone was forced to come to Congress when claiming executive privilege. There is substantial precedent for ignoring the Democratic goons in Congress.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 2:50pm
See, that's why LVLIB's argument is disengenuous (and why likely it is WH/Repub talking points).

Rove is perfectly able to go before Congress and invoke exec privelege or plesd the 5th...

he is NOT allowed to "just decide" not to GO and ignore a subpeona.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/23/2008 @ 10:42am

Sorry to disappoint Mask, but I have never gotten talking points from the GOP including the Bush WH. I ignore them in order to rely on my own opinions.

And as I noted to Brunowe, yes he is allowed to ignore Congress.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 2:53pm
But it is not Constitutionally protected. Read up on it. The Supreme Court acted to preserve someting that was not within the powers of the President to have. Like I said it's not about their reasons. It's the law. The President and his advisers are not above the law. Of course if a Demo circumvents the law you are all up in arms about it. But now that it is Bush you are fine with him and his gaggle of advisers breaking the law.

We live in this country therefore we are bound to follow it's laws. Just like you were fine with those protesters who broke into The School of Americas going to jail. They knowingly broke the law therefore they went to jail. Rove knowingly broke the law by not answering Congresses subpoena.

The Supreme Court could easily dissolve executive privilege because it is not Constitutionally protected.

Also I don't know what you mean by no need to for Congress. Are you suggesting we transform this country in a dictatorship? In which case you are much much farther right than I ever thought if you would rather we have a dictatorship.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/23/2008 @ 2:28pm

Excuse me but who put you above the Supreme Court to decide that they were not within their authority to determine that executive privilege is constitutional?

Unless we get a SCOTUS that determines that the constitution doesn't provide a seperation of powers and the executive is somehow subservient to the Congress, they will never rule executive privilege unconstitutional.

I did not say there is no need for Congress.

"I have little use for any Congress since the implementation of the 16th amendment (Republican or Democrat). They are virtually useless and merely exist to spend the money of others."

Every Congress since the implementation of the 16th amendment has been power hungry to steal from the citizens and spend it as they see fit. That is one of the greatest tyranny's of our history.

Of course I don't want a dictatorship. But if we took away Congress's power to be dictatorial in stealing from the tax payers, maybe we could get a true Congress again. And if both parties stopped with using the Congressional Committees as power play tools to provoke media spin against who ever is President, maybe they could be an effective arm of government. But I stand by my comment. The Congress of the past 100 years is a worthless, arm of government at this time. I think we should limit their time in session to under a 100 days per year. They would probably do less damage to the country that way.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/23/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2008 @ 09:45am

Wrong.

I stand correct on that one point. It seems that both Eisenhower and JFK ordered their subordinates not to testify.

However, Rove's assertion is still misplaced. It is the president's privilege to assert, not his.

Posted by brunowe at 07/23/2008 @ 3:03pm
Rove in jail? ALGORE belongs in jail. Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/23/2008 @ 07:09am

What laws has he broken?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/23/2008 @ 3:05pm
lvliberty,

it is truly saddening to see you defend someone as slimy as carl rove.

i bet you like to tell your congregation what a great guy judas iscariot was.

so sad.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 10:43pm
LVLIB is of course disengenuous on many levels.....

1. He has no CONSTITUTIONAL basis for claiming that Rove can simply IGNORE a subpeona from Congress....if he did, Ollie North could have done that, couldn't he? As well as Erlichman and John Dean?

2. He would say the exact OPPOSITE if it was a GOP Congress and they subpeonaed a member of a Democratic White House....and he and EVERYBODY ELSE knows it.

His defense of Rove's actions is purely partisan.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:19am
Maskdelta, I agree based on the fact that Bush hasn't invoked executive privilege. Had he done so, than Congress would've had to go to court to get the subpeona enforced. Absent such an action by Bush, Rove has a contempt citation coming.

Posted by brunowe at 07/24/2008 @ 10:02am
What laws has he broken?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/23/2008 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Fraud..selling "enviromental repairs"...

he belongs is a booth at the state fair at best.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/24/2008 @ 11:27am
i bet you like to tell your congregation what a great guy judas iscariot was.

so sad.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/23/2008 @ 10:43pm

Well, Jesus certainly did act more in phase of democratic principles than republican. Therefore, under Liverlips views, Jesus deserved to be crucified for opposing the big business of the Roman Empire.

Note that Livelips is quick to defend executive privilege for W outting justice attorney, cia agents and so on, but Bill Clinton shouldn't be able to use executive privilege over a blow job. I guess that a bj is a much larger sin than outting under cover agents, politicizing the department of justice and so on.

Liv sees the world through red tinted glasses...republican red full of hatred of his fellow man, and fear that someone will cut ahead of him in the line for the cookie jar.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/24/2008 @ 12:35pm
Fraud..selling "enviromental repairs"...

he belongs is a booth at the state fair at best. . Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/24/2008 @ 11:27am

Yeah him and all the hundreds of thousands of scientists and teachers that don't agree with your 'educated' analysis...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/24/2008 @ 1:29pm
LVLIB is of course disengenuous on many levels.....

1. He has no CONSTITUTIONAL basis for claiming that Rove can simply IGNORE a subpeona from Congress....if he did, Ollie North could have done that, couldn't he? As well as Erlichman and John Dean?

2. He would say the exact OPPOSITE if it was a GOP Congress and they subpeonaed a member of a Democratic White House....and he and EVERYBODY ELSE knows it.

His defense of Rove's actions is purely partisan.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 09:19am

1. North did not serve as a counselor to the president as Rove did.

2. No I wouldn't. I am consistent in my disdain for both Republican and Democratic Congress'

As to Dean, he was a sellout to Nixon. Never was actually loyal to him and as he has long demonstrated, was never even a conservative. He has in fact admitted to Amy Goodman among others that he is a lib.

Ehrlichman was not part of an executive privilege fight. Nixon agreed to have his staff testify and then Ehrlichman and Haldeman resigned from the White House prior to testifying.

Nixon's executive privilege fight took place later over the tapes.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/24/2008 @ 2:48pm

LVLIB, there is nothing "national security" about Karl Rove's counsel to the President...and you know it.

AND IF THERE WAS, why wouldn't Rove call for a CLOSED session WITH sworn testimony....instead of trying to find an out by saying he'd "come by and talk to individual Congress-people" NOT under oath?

This is partisan politics for you...you're scared to DEATH that Rove, connected to the hip to Bush and now helping McCain would get nailed for something just before the election.

And I really, really, really doubt that you were so gung-ho for exec priv when it was Clinton, Ken Starr, "Whitewater", "Travelgate", or whatever.....call it a hunch.

Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 3:42pm
This topic has always interested me for a couple of reasons.

1. Where under the Constitution does Congress claim to have subpeona power?

2. If they do issue a subpeona, where under the Constitution do they claim to have the power to enforce the subpeona?

3. If the subpeona is ignored, where under the Constitution do they claim the authority to encarcarate?

When dealing with the issues of Due Process, where does Congress claim under the constitution to be the Police investigaing the crimes, the Judges and Juries prounouncing guilt, and the jailing authority carrying out sentencing?

If this were related directly to a law making activity most people would probably understand these rights, but what proposed legislation is being considered that requies the input of Karl Rove?

Observations:

1. If I were Karl Rove I would ignore this subpeona as well, and not even waste the breath cliaming executive privilege.

2. If I was Congress, I would try to enforce the subpeona

3. If I were the court, I would issue a decision to Congress directing them to seek the prosecution in the regular court system of Karl Rove under the law for whatever law it is they think he broke.

But lets not confuse the issue. Rove is correct, the hearing will be nothing short of a circus, with all congressmen making long blowhard speeches and asking no questions for which they want answers.

Case in point, Richard Simmons is testifying to Congress today, they will likely have Barry Bonds back in for a chat, and then Ronald McDonald next week to talk about happy meal toys. These hearings have been a joke since long before the clinton years, although that is where the art form was perfected.

If you think that these hearings are serious, you are a retard.

Posted by WallStreet at 07/24/2008 @ 6:34pm
As an aside, I am all for the hearings. I think they would make for great entertainment if Rove is stupid enough to show up.

Posted by WallStreet at 07/24/2008 @ 6:35pm
"This topic has always interested me for a couple of reasons.

1. Where under the Constitution does Congress claim to have subpeona power?

2. If they do issue a subpeona, where under the Constitution do they claim to have the power to enforce the subpeona?

3. If the subpeona is ignored, where under the Constitution do they claim the authority to encarcarate?

When dealing with the issues of Due Process, where does Congress claim under the constitution to be the Police investigaing the crimes, the Judges and Juries prounouncing guilt, and the jailing authority carrying out sentencing? "

The Constitution grants Congress legislative power. That had traditionally included both conducting investigations and compelling testimony (specifically, such power had been exercised by Parliament and colonial assemblies). This is, in fact, a necessary adjunct to both its legislative and oversight responsibilities. The power to compel testimony must perforce include the power to hold recalcitrant individuals in contempt of Congress (something upheld by SCOTUS in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 204 (1821).

A person held in contempt can only be held until he either testifies or the session of Congress ends. Presumably, the party so incarcerated could file a habeas writ.

Posted by brunowe at 07/24/2008 @ 11:38pm
Refusing a subpoena is not illegal when executive privilege is invoked -especially when it is purely political. This is the typical BS of trying to criminalize political difference. The separation of powers in the constitution is there for a reason. The judiciary committee of the House is a political arm otherwise it would not matter who controlled it - democrat or republican. I don't mind you guys harping endlessly on this because it keeps you busy expending energy that will never amount to anything.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/25/2008 @ 1:28pm
Refusing a subpoena is not illegal when executive privilege is invoked -especially when it is purely political.

First, no one with a standing to invoke the privilege has done so. Second, there is interest balancing that then has to be done by the court asked to enforce the subpeona. Third, investigating the AG's political purge of USAttys in order to push through spurious voter fraud cases is hardly political.

Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2008 @ 2:03pm
Send Karl Rove to jail. YUP. If my family had committed the crimes this guy did we would all be in jail for life plus 30. I guess there are crimes so horrendous that they they can't be punished.

Posted by julien38 at 07/25/2008 @ 2:20pm
So my folloow up question is: If Congress is not acting as a political wing of the Democrat party, and is truly interested as a matter of urgency and importance to determine the truth of Karl Roves involvment in these crimes, why have they not had Rove thrown in jail.

One would think that if they had the ability to do so, they would have done it already. Do they not have the authority? Or do they really not care? It is one or the other.

Posted by WallStreet at 07/25/2008 @ 8:21pm
What is in the minds of a large number of American people to give credence to the stinking propaganda of Karl Rove?

Posted by Sorelish at 07/25/2008 @ 11:03pm
Send him to jail...??? Why hasn't Execution been brought up ..?? The damage this one pig of a man has done to our country compares to that of ANY other TRAITOR.

Hang Em' High.

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/26/2008 @ 7:02pm
"No one with a standing to invoke the privilege (executive) has done so."

Uh, yes they have...President Bush extended it to all White House executive staff including advisors. The House Judiciary Committe is not a court! Since there is no criminal activity (except in the eyes of the political enemies), no court is going to take an interest in political issues. Treason?? The only people committing "treason" are the ones aiding and having sympathy with terrorists... The AGs? Every president has absolute power to select the AGs he wants. It is the ultimate political appointment. Bush kept many if not most of the Clinton appointees while Clinton, after taking office, fired them all and put his own selection in. Give it up! Your wasting you lives.

Posted by pyeatte at 07/26/2008 @ 9:22pm
What is in the minds of a large number of American people to give credence to the stinking propaganda of Karl Rove?

Posted by Sorelish at 07/25/2008 @ 11:03pm

you mean,

what ISN'T in the minds.........

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 10:56pm
"The AGs? Every president has absolute power to select the AGs he wants. It is the ultimate political appointment. Bush kept many if not most of the Clinton appointees while Clinton, after taking"

First, there is a difference between a wholesale replacement at the beginning of an administration and selectively firing USAttys who refused to push spurious voter fraud cases.

"The House Judiciary Committe is not a court! Since there is no criminal activity (except in the eyes of the political enemies), no court is going to take an interest in political issues. "

It still has every right to issue subpeonas and hold those recalcitrant in contempt.

"President Bush extended it to all White House executive staff including advisors."

He hasn't invoked it regarding the current subpeona.

Posted by brunowe at 07/27/2008 @ 05:20am
......there is a difference between a wholesale replacement at the beginning of an administration and selectively firing USAttys who refused to push spurious voter fraud cases.

Posted by brunowe at 07/27/2008 @ 05:20am

Yes, there is!

"a wholesale replacement at the beginning of an administration", while often done, is actually far more political AND ruthless!

Don't know what you do....but let's assume you work for somebody in some business/academic organization, two scenarios:

1) A new Big Cheeto comes in and replace ALL upper & middle management who aren't `like' them; and

2) The Big Cheeto brings in a handful of top management who proceed to lay out the agenda and maingoals of the Big Cheeto.

Now, IF you survived the very limited initial `swap outs', what should you do? Focus on what is expected of you even if you don't buy into Big Cheeto's priorities or selectively choose NOT to do what is expected. The choice, at the least, is yours to make, including resignation. The choice for Big Cheeto, is to fire you for not being a team player after what has been made clear, what the expectations are!

You may feel #1 is the `lesser evil', but I far prefer #2 where the decision is MINE! I like individual FREEDOM, to the extent possible as to staying with the team or not! Who's the real Liberal here?

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/27/2008 @ 12:21pm
"The choice for Big Cheeto, is to fire you for not being a team player after what has been made clear, what the expectations are!"

Except that being a "team player" does not require advancing spurious criminal cases. Further, to say that the replacement at the beginning is somehow worse overlooks that an incoming President will want to have his own team. That is perfectly normal.

Posted by brunowe at 07/27/2008 @ 8:29pm
Except that being a "team player" does not require advancing spurious criminal cases......

Posted by brunowe at 07/27/2008 @ 8:29pm

Weak....shouldn't bothered to respond! "spurious" or not, is up to grand juries and if goes to trial, seated juries. It isn't up to YOU!

And, I guess, you are in fact saying that Bush 43, by not replacing everybody, which surely many of those that otherwise would `normally' be replaced are grateful to stay on, is the Evil one! How interesting a perspective!

You're slipping!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/27/2008 @ 8:56pm
If this so cut and dry like all of the Bush apologists here tend to believe, THEN WHY DOES HE NOT JUST TESTIFY..?? WHY is El Presidente not allowing ANYONE that he's spoken with, on ANY subject, the OPPORTUNITY to show us simple minded Americans that there really IS NOTHING TO HIDE... Can any of you GUESS..??

I guess it dosen't bother you guys or make you say YEAH RIGHT, when some slimy DC lawyer uses some bullshit, clouded legal argument to explain why his Client dosen't wish to testify... Maybe its just me... Kinda like when the Repubs went nuts when Clinton says " Depends what the definition of is is.." when confronted with the High CRime of Recieving "GIFTS"

But I guess as long as this deceptive white house spews forth the "Executive Privelege" horseshit, we should all be content with KNOWING nothing was done illegally... I KNOW I'M BUYIN' IT. YOU..?

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/27/2008 @ 10:23pm
"Weak....shouldn't bothered to respond! "spurious" or not, is up to grand juries and if goes to trial, seated juries. It isn't up to YOU! "

On the contrary, it is part of the job of prosecutors to not bring a case if there is simply insufficient substantiation for it. Since these are public prosecutors, I am absolutely entitled to judge if they were fired for fulfulling that responsibility. Likewise, if the administration is pushing for prosecutors to bring cases that, as a matter of legal ethics, they shouldn't bring, that is very much my business.

"And, I guess, you are in fact saying that Bush 43, by not replacing everybody, which surely many of those that otherwise would `normally' be replaced are grateful to stay on, is the Evil one! How interesting a perspective!"

No, this isn't the same as a new CEO taking over a company. Certain positions are senior enough that a president will want to, and is entitled to, put his own appointees in. What we have here has nothing to do with that. These WERE his people, they got good performance reviews and they were arguably fired for not using the powers of their office for the political advantage of the White House.

Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 10:28am
.....I am absolutely entitled to judge if they were fired for fulfulling that responsibility......very much my business.

.......they were arguably fired for not using the powers of their office for the political advantage of the White House.

Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 10:28am

You may feel "entitled to judge" on any number of things, but that has no standing in a court of anything.....to be fair, same for me.....your BS is just worse! Proof? Rove is NOT in jail!

What politician you know of doesn't use their office for "political advantage"? Hey, look :::, there is wetness around your ears....hehehehe!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:19pm
What politician you know of doesn't use their office for "political advantage"? Hey, look :::, there is wetness around your ears....hehehehe!

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 3:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Again, there is a difference between most office and the responsibilities of the US Attorney. A prosecutor as a responsibility, as a matter of legal ethics, not to bring spurious cases. An attempt to force that change by firing otherwise able USAttys is scandal-worthy.

In fact, I would refer you to an article in today's NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/washington/29justice.html?_r=1&hp&oref =login Gonzales Aides Broke Laws in Hiring, Report Concludes

Several of the positions in DoJ are supposed to be career, non-political positions and Gonzales's aides used political criteria in hiring for them.

I quote one particularly interesting paragraph-- "And in another case cited by the inspector general, Ms. Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The candidate was regarded as "head and shoulders above the other candidates" in the view of officials in the executive office of United States attorneys, but they were forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable to Ms. Goodling."

Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 3:54pm
.....An attempt to force that change by firing otherwise able USAttys is scandal-worthy.

.....one particularly interesting paragraph-- "And in another case......they were forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable to Ms. Goodling."

Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 3:54pm

"able" folks fired for not singing Big Cheeto's tune? Sorry, I don't feel the outrage....and if the charges are consistently UNprosecutable with the next "able" US Attorney, perhaps Big Cheeto should feel some regret for firing Attorney #1....but, I wouldn't count on it. Not following orders usually don't endear anybody to their Big Cheetos!

Short of verifiable hiring discrimination based on race, creed, national origin& sexual orientation, Ms. Goodling can hire whoever she prefers. And that standard, is higher than what I would be HAPPY with!

BTW, ever thought the Demos are being "forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable" by over 90% of the blacks? And, potentially, isn't our country being forced to elect Magic for the same reason of the monolithic (& historically the largest in number) black votes?

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 7:56pm
That is simply incorrect. Further, not following order to bring spurious charges shouldn't get a USAtty fired. They represent the country, not the White House's political interest. Obviously the idea of using the federal prosecutor's office for pure political advantage doesn't bother you--as long as it's your side gaining the advantage.

Further, the article point out that the DoJ report labeled such actions as ILLEGAL misconduct.

Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 8:22pm
Potential voter fraud cases are partisan? Not in my America! Every case with a whiff of fraud needs to be checked out!!!!!

ILLEGAL misconduct? Where are the charges? or maybe, just a bit "spurious"?

Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 10:19pm
We're not talking about them not being checked out, we are talking about prosecutors being pressured to bring spurious cases. Incidentally, illegal misconduct was the language of the DoJ report.

Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 11:11pm