Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama.
Rove follows in the footsteps of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten by refusing to testify, citing executive privilege. Considering that the two previous refusals by Miers and Bolten are tied up in court, Rove's will be as well and there will not be a resolution to the situation before Bush's term runs out. Rove had previously stated that he was willing to informally meet with the committee, but would not do so under oath.
As for the actual substance of the investigation, there isn't one. This mainly concerns the firing of lawyers at the Justice Department for what some say were political reasons. Even if the motive for dismissing them was purely political, there is nothing the Democrats can do about it. They all served at the pleasure of the President and could be dismissed at any time. Republicans made a stink about Clinton when he fired everyone at Justice, but all they could do was complain, as it is well within the President's power to do so.
The side issue revolves around Rove's supposed role in getting the former governor of Alabama indicted. The story linking Rove to the prosecutions was proven false months ago (funny how the story doesn't mention that crucial piece of information), but for some reason the Democrats are still pursuing something that never happened.
Essentially, this is your tax dollars hard at work. Not working to increase energy supplies, lessen your tax burden or fix entitlements, but hosting the Salem Witch Trials: 2K8.
"The story linking Rove to the prosecutions was proven false months ago (funny how the story doesn't mention that crucial piece of information), but for some reason the Democrats are still pursuing something that never happened."
HAHAHAHAHA, yeah, he's innocent right? If he's so innocent why would he refuse to testify and silence the critics? Seriously though, nice try.
Posted By: Guest#0063 (Guest) on July 10, 2008 at 11:22 PM
"HAHAHAHAHA, yeah, he's innocent right? If he's so innocent why would he refuse to testify and silence the critics? Seriously though, nice try."
Funny, that's the same logic that's shot down every time some right-winger tries to use it. E. g.:
"If you aren't planning anything untoward, you don't have to worry about domestic surveillance"
"If Muslims weren't planning terrorist attacks, we wouldn't be capturing them."
Innocence until proven guilt cuts both ways, and applies to RWCAMs (Rich White Christian American Men) as much as anyone.
Posted By: Paul from ForF wks 8/25/67 (Registered) on July 10, 2008 at 11:50 PM
It's pointless for him to testify. He's not going to answer any questions related to decision making due to executive privilege.
As for the Alabama thing, there is no reason for him to go on the Hill and get badgered by Congress over a falsified story. Why should he dignify it?
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on July 11, 2008 at 12:39 AM
But Chris, what IS this executive privilege bullshit? Is that a real law, and who does it apply to? I think Rove is slime, of course, even if he's innocent on this issue, but that doesn't REALLY matter when we're facing someone, with incidentally no official position these days, blatantly refusing a congressional subpoena on the grounds of "I don't feel like being subpoena'd", does it?
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on July 11, 2008 at 02:21 AM
Andrew,
Excellent question. Executive privilege is a lot like lawyer/client or doctor/patient, but between the president and his advisors. Essentially the rationale behind it is that in order for the president to be able to make decisions, his advisors must be able to be completely candid with him, which means those conversations are kept private.
It has been recognized by the Supreme Court, but there are restrictions on how far the privilege reaches, depending on what the conversation covers and the circumstances under which the advisor or documents are being sought. Presidents of course try to expand the reach of the privilege, while the legislature tries to shrink it. Even though Rove left the White House that privilege still attaches, and only the White House can waive it. (Much like your former lawyer or doctor cannot waive your privilege without your permission even if they don't work for you anymore.)
Considering most hearings like these are political stunts and fishing expeditions, it doesn't surprise me that he refused to go, rather than wasting his time and everyone else's.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on July 11, 2008 at 08:11 AM
"As for the Alabama thing, there is no reason for him to go on the Hill and get badgered by Congress over a falsified story. Why should he dignify it?"
Maybe to try to restore some faith in the republican party. While Rove may be escaping scott free in this whole ordeal with the Justices being fired and the Govenor being indicted and all the other crap thats gone down. this whole refusal to testify crap and all the BS that surrounded the firing of the lawyers. All the lies the refusal to comment the pretending to not recall. It has shattered American's faith in the Republican party. the only people still buying this crap are delusional stooges who can't see past the end of their own nose. If he truly is innocent he should testify under oath to the fullest extent Congress wishes, and he should do this for the benefit of the party.
Posted By: stronelis (Guest) on July 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM
"They all served at the pleasure of the President and could be dismissed at any time."
First, thanks for reintroducing that homoerotic expression. Second, can anyone explain to me why the President has such authority over what I would consider an extension of the judicial branch? Wielding total power over the Justice Department doesn't seem like the kind of thing the founders would approve of. The Justice Department is NOT meant as Bush's personal toy. Executive privilege is bullshit. He works for us and we have every right to know what he's doing on our time. Anything short of military blueprints should be fair game.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on July 11, 2008 at 01:03 PM
The Justice Department is part of the executive branch, which enforces the law. To have it as part of the judicial branch would violate the whole checks and balances thing.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Registered) on July 11, 2008 at 04:44 PM
STAY CURRENT