Rove’s Lawyer Backtracks On Testimony Promise, Hints Rove Will Hide Behind Executive Privilege
Rove’s Lawyer Backtracks On Testimony Promise, Hints Rove Will Hide Behind Executive Privilege
On April 7, Karl Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin reportedly promised to MSNBC that, if subpoenaed, his client would testify in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, who went to jail for corruption charges and now says Rove may have played a role in pushing a political prosecution. MSNBC’s Dan Abrams reported:
ABRAMS: We asked this question to his attorney: Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case? The answer we got — “Sure.”
Watch it:
Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI), joined by members Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Artur Davis (D-AL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), wrote to Rove and requested that he testify before the committee about the politicization of the Justice Department, including the prosecution of Siegelman.
But now Luskin is saying that Rove won’t testify unless the White House says he can, claiming that MSNBC took his comments “out of context.” Roll Call reports:
MSNBC provided Roll Call with an e-mail exchange with Luskin that the network broadcast in which a producer asked, “Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?”
“Sure,” wrote Luskin, according to the e-mail. “Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide.”
But in an interview with Roll Call, Luskin said that his MSNBC comments were taken out of context.
“Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide,” but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.
Rove has previously fought congressional efforts to force him to testify in the U.S. attorney scandal through the invocation of executive privilege by the White House.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Remember, if a Republican is elected in 08 we will never find out the truth fully.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:58 amlol we knew this was coming
April 18th, 2008 at 9:59 amI always love when you have the entire conversation repeated verbatim and the person claims his quote was taken out of context….
April 18th, 2008 at 10:00 amOf COURSE our lovely Little Turdblossom won’t testify. Of COURSE he will hide behind this Executive Privilege bull****. What more did we actually expect? Taken out of context my ass. They’ve said one thing and done another for so many years, why anyone would actually take them at their WORD is beyond laughable.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:02 amOnce again, traitor Karl Rove proves that he is a coward. He can dish it out but can’t take it. Rove proves that he has no courage.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:03 amAh, we hear about executive privilege, but there seems to be no definition for the term. It must be one of those things that exists somewhere but nobody knows its meaning. Is it some sort of a dinasaur?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:04 amCats, please enlarge your statement to include all Republicans, and then it’ll make even more sense.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:05 amLittle KKKarl is so predictable. He can work for FoxSnooze and slather his steaming little pile of crapola all over the airwaves but don’t ask him to show up in court and talk about his own actions. That would be . . . how do you say . . . “accepting responsibility for one’s own actions”. We certainly shouldn’t expect that from a neocon.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:05 amThere’s no definition of Executive Privilege, there is no definition of Victory in Iraq, there is no definition of The War On Terrah, there is no definition regarding ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ there is no definition of America anymore.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:06 amRenege, retract, retreat back under your rock, Rove, you slimey ba$turd.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:06 amDid we TRULY think there was a chance he would testify? I mean, really??? Since Don Siegleman doesn’t have anything to do with the Executive branch of the government, why WOULDN’T a subpeona be enforceable? You can’t shield this shit-stain on every topic that comes up!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:09 amThis will be interesting. How can Rove use EP? He is no longer in Bush’s employ, so that’s out. Is he going to say that Bush had something to do with the politically motivated prosecution of Siegelman? If so, then I guess he could use EP. But, does he really want to go there?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:10 amI saw this coming from the moment his lawyer said he’d testify. Honestly, the first words out of my mouth were “no, he won’t”.
Oaths mean nothing. Subpoenas mean nothing. Rule of law means nothing.
Time to scrap the entire DOJ, too. They don’t protect the law. They don’t protect the constitution. They protect the president and the party.
Shills. Lackeys. Stooges.
And it’s not going to get better any time soon.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:10 amEveryone knew to expect this scenario, lies, deceit, arrogance, along with total and complete incompetence hallmark the present administration, and Americans still have to endure this farce of a government. Hopefully this will soon change.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:12 amJust so I have this straight:
Executive Privilege covers private conversations with the Executive pertaining to national security interests and policy issues. Bush has stated flatly that he had no involvement in the removal/replacement of all these judges. So Executive Privilege applies how? If Bush is lying and was involved there would be criminal implications in which case Executive Privilege applies how? WHY DOES NOONE ON THE HILL CALL THEM ON THIS SH1T?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:16 amDan Abrams just fell off the applecart. After 8 years of this BS, what kind of fool would believe Karl Rove’s lawyer about anything, much less a ludicrous assurance that Rove would obey the law and honor a Congressional subpoena.
The entire defense by the Bush administration in this case is that they knew nothing about it.
Rove will undoubtedly claim executive priviledge in a case which the executive claims no involvement.
Figure that one out.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:16 amoohhh, but i bet john conyers will issue a sternly worded letter….
April 18th, 2008 at 10:20 amABRAMS IS GOING TO HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THIS….
WHO SAID FRIDAY IS NO FUN NEWS-WISE?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:20 amIf Rove hides behind Executive Privilege, it would truly be refreshing if Congress challenges that with vigor.
According to Chief Justice Burger in United States v. Nixon in 1974, EP is to be applied in cases where oversight of the President would impair national security concerns.
Bill Clinton tried to invoke EP to save his butt and lost when challenged, for the above reason.
During Dubya’s term, we have seen EP invoked to protect executive branch staffers for reasons having nothing to do with national security. Furthermore, because EP is for allowing the PRESIDENT the power to do what he needs to for national security, there would a natural implication that the PRESIDENT has had something to do with the U.S. Attorney mess, the Siegelman matter, and any number of other things contributing to slime under the rock.
If EP rears its ugly head, Dubya seriously needs to be asked why any alleged Rove/Siegelman association has to do with either the President or national security.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:22 amexecutive privilege :The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decisionmaking processes of the executive branch. As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation.
Since this is a criminal investigation, and he has pertinent information how can he use Executive Privilege in this particular case? If he has nothing to hide or be ashamed of then he has nothing to worry about. This should give the Judiciary Committee a heads up that something is seriously wrong here. He should have to testify or be thrown in jail like every other person. Rove resigned he shouldn’t be protected anymore.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:23 amThat he wouldn’t testify was a given. That the truth will not be found if st. mccain is elected is a given. What I am afraid of is that we will get another pelosi maneuver and the new dem president will say let us put the past to rest, give Sieligman a pardon and not review any of what has happened over the last eight years.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:24 amRove’s a 1st class pussy. (no offense, opposite gender)
Rove & Kristol are girlie-boys, acting tough but too chickenshit to ever ‘face the music’.
Why are these two assclowns still getting air time? It’s not like they ever contribute anything to our Democracy. Their role is to stir things up, cast innuendo & suspicion on Democrats, deny any accountability for their own actions and build false impressions about the Bush League administration.
1-20-09 / End of an Error
April 18th, 2008 at 10:26 amSince the justice dept won’t enforce the subpeona, the Senate should use their Sergeant at Arms to arrest him. No foolin’, this guy has the authority to do this if so ordered.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:30 amI find it really interesting that there would even be the invocation of Executive Privilege in this case. Karl Rove may THINK he is above the law - that the Bushbots will protect him - yet I’m starting to get this itchy feeling in my head he really won’t be able to escape this time. Am I having an Audacity of Hope moment, or has the worm actually turned?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:32 amOnce a big, fat, wuss, always a big, fat, wuss.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:33 amtime to write a harshly-worded letter!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:39 amSachem Says:
Since the justice dept won’t enforce the subpeona, the Senate should use their Sergeant at Arms to arrest him. No foolin’, this guy has the authority to do this if so ordered.
That is true. It is called Inherent Contempt of Congress. Nancy Pelosi can order his arrest. He can be dragged in chains to the Capitol, tried on the spot by the House of Representitives, and jailed until the end of the current Congressional session.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:44 amBush league-
Wikipedia: Bush league is a general term used to describe an action or thing as being amateur, inferior or crude.
This pretty well sums up Genghis Chimp’s legacy, eh?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:44 amBush league policies, Bush league actions, crude statements, amateur ‘players’ (Rove), and now, Executive Privilege being misused to protect Trudblossom.
He was willing to testify before he was unwilling to testify.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:45 amThe list of infractions by the Bush administration will be reveiled as soon as the new President takes over. That is to say if the President is Obama. Clinton and McCain are part of this status quo that protects eachother. Rove will testify! By force if need be.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:46 amBy now anyone still awake is aware that the present administration is above all laws domestic , international and moral!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:51 amRule of law ? Democracy ? Liberty and Justice for oil ?
First, this is merely a time honored tactic of the Bush administration and the Republican horde. Rove’s lawyer makes the broad statement that all that has been said about Rove is false. Rove is more than happy to testify under oath. The sound bite is out there. Rove is honest and willing to testify under oath so you can believe his story. Of course, he will never testify and the story will be given that it is not his fault because it was the President’s assertion of executive privilege that will prevent the testimony.
We know the executive privilege does covers national security and (to some extent) deliberation of policy. It does not cover the commission of a crime. The allegations of political prosecution would indeed involve criminal activity just as the replacement of US Atty’s to cover up wrong doing by the administration or to impact the outcome of an election would be a crime. Executive privilege is far more circumscribed under these circumstances. However, the president has sized up the Democratic Congress and understands that they will never impeach and create a constitutional crisis.
Democracy and our constitution is fragile. The Democrats seek to avoid a constitutional crisis. There already has been a crisis which has critically wounded the system of checks and balances in our government, permitted the executive to commit war crimes, shredded the fourth amendment and sold the government to high bidder corporate interests. We saw the Republicans perform their show trial against Clinton over matters that were de minimis. These are serious matters of the sort for which the impeachment power was intended. The Democrats will not avoid serious constitutional harm, their inaction will be responsible for the demise of our form of government.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:51 amwell, nothing new here.
it’s the same catch-22 they always hope to catch us up in: witnesses won’t testify because of EP, suggesting that the president was involved in the conversations, but without testimony, we don’t know what the involvement was, and so no one ever gets prosecuted for anything. this is classic gang behavior.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am“Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide,” but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.”
On other words Luskin is srguing that until executive privilege is defined (between WH and Congress), Rove will NOT testify BECAUSE he intends to invoke EP when the questions get awkward (and thus avoid using the 5th amendment which always looks bad.)
As EP has already been clearly defined (as MissHMolly notes regarding Nixon and Clinton) there’s NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE.
This is also of course a delaying tactic, which WILL WORK if COnyers et al fall for this bullshit, giving Rove & co. time to collude and cover tracks.(And don’t forget that the DOJ is a supporter of Bush’s bogus EP arguments).
Conyers needs to FORCE THE ISSUE: Ignore the WH, subpoeana Rove and hold him in contempt if he does not comply. If Rove claims he can’t testify because the WH ‘won’t let him’ then hold the WH in contempt and start IMPEACHMENT.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:54 amI guess that means we should all just SHUT UP and get back to work. We can write a sternly-worded letter to our Congressmen, but that’s about as effective as one from the Congress to the Bushbots.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:55 amBeing above the law when they hold these positions is EXACTLY why you find criminals in these positions.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:02 amDoofus Bush was installed as president to perform just the way they wanted. And he has. Gas prices and corporate profits through the roof, their wet dream of a war with no end in sight, tax breaks for the rich, increased poverty, unemployment, bankruptcy law, dollar at record low, debt at record high, etc, etc. And he’s still in office.
Ahhh, As the snake withers thru the grass so do the Great Lies of Turd Blossom shrivel from his lips.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:03 amSigning statements , domestic spying ,the destruction of Habeas Corpus , torture , illegal wars for oil based on transparent lies resulting in the deaths and maiming of millions ,the use of a private mercenary army on the streets of New Orleans , voting irregularities in 2 presidential elections , one of which was lost the other won by .6 of 1% on electronic voting machines and still above the law ?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am…….. NEW RULES .
JMOHR–” The Democrats will not avoid serious constitutional harm, their inaction will be responsible for the demise of our form of government”
Exactly right. Everyone caved on Iran-Contra to “avoid a constitutional crisis” or a Watergate redux.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:08 amBut Watergate was never a “constitutional crisis”. the impeachment proceedings were an affirmation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The evidence was there to kick Reagan out of office (and also Bush Sr.).
The acquiescence of Congress gave the notion of the “unitary executive” serious legs–it only required Bush Jr. and his conspirators to try it out, and so far it has WORKED for them.
The failure to hold the Executive Branch to account is the consiturional crisis, and NOT the effect of doing so.
How do these mommafobbers get to refuse subpoenas?
Solution: Arm a couple Congressional Sergeants-at-Arms and send ‘em out to pick up the malefactors.
Or get that blonde simian bail-buster from Hawaii…Dog?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:13 amhttp://thumbsnap.com/v/JHhXoFZC.jpg
Ha!! I knew he’d crawfish on this issue. It was only a matter of time.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:18 amPerhaps every citizen should refuse to testify in court using the fifth amendment or the “I don’t remember Republican mantra” or whatever other lame reason we can think up. If these people, granted so much power over us, don’t have to answer questions why should anybody else. How many cells are available to house us on contempt charges, not too many I’d guess. If the rule of law doesn’t apply to them then it shouldn’t apply to anybody. They have turned this country into one big free for all and we should all follow their lead and party on.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:22 amSept the 11th is the day the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile , helped assassinate it’s president and co ordinate the tortured deaths of 30 000 chileans ( daddy bush ran the operation as the head of the CIA), 10 times the number that died in the world trade center, after the conviction of Henry Kissinger as a war criminal the US dropped out of the world court .
April 18th, 2008 at 11:22 amNow we have dropped out of ALL courts , the murder of millions is all in a days work for our priveledged executives !
WHO IS ABOVE THE LAW ?
PLEASE MOVE WITH ALL SPEED TO USE YOUR POWERS FOR PROCEEDING TO INHERENT CONTEMPT AGAINST ANY AND ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES WHO CONTINUE TO THUMB THEIR NOSES AT YOUR COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PERMITTING OUR CONSTITUTION TO BE SHREDDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
-JEFFREY KRAVAT | July 11, 2007
Comment at this Ezra post.
BTW if you do this in the Senate, Dickhead Bruce Cheney would preside.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:30 amGet the waterboard ready. Karl’s a terrorist. He’s a threat to our way of life.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:46 amExecutive Privelege. Not just for covering up Tillman’s murder anymore, this amazing wand can cover up all manner of lies and deceit. Lay waste to the greatest country on earth and still remain untouched!
April 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pmI’m a freakin’ geen-yus. Not that this means anything other than having an IQ above room temperature; this is all totally predictable.
Cheers,
April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pmHate to say it, but whether or not executive priviledge truly applies is a red herring. The Shrub WH claims priviledge on **EVERYTHING**.
Congress could challenge the claim, but that just follows the rabbit down another path - but it would take years and also be diverted from the initial (should I say **REAL** path).
Like a magician, avoiding saying anything is all done with smoke and mirrors.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:22 pmWhile I fully expected Rove to avoid testifying at all costs, I must give props to Rove’s lawyer for the “my comments were taken out of context dodge.” It’s a classic feint. Keeps your opponent guessing. This strings the whole process out at least another month without doing a damn thing and brings Rove one month closer to pardon time.
-AF
April 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
Since the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, I do not understand how someone could invoke Executive Privilege (found nowhere in the constitution) to hide the commission of a crime. Just because he was working for the White House, that does not mean he is free to disregard the law. If I were Chairman Conyers, I would be prepared to have Rove arrested on the spot should he try to invoke EP.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pmOn April 13th, Rove wrote a lengthy open letter to Dan Abrams of MSNBC, claiming he had absolutely nothing to do with the Siegelman case. If this is true, how can he possibly invoke EP? If he had no involvement, then there is nothing to protect with EP.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm