Comments on: Rove’s Lawyer Backtracks On Testimony Promise, Hints Rove Will Hide Behind Executive Privilege

By: follow the money

follow the money — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:32:58 +0000

rove?
Bush Did NOT Invoke Executive Privilege for Rove

Thursday, July 10, 2008

remember this one? on think progress.org…this website..

By: MyGodAreWeMoronsOrWhat

MyGodAreWeMoronsOrWhat — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:33:32 +0000

On 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.

By: Wayne A. Schneider

Wayne A. Schneider — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:52:09 +0000

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.

By: Anacher Forester

Anacher Forester — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:28:50 +0000

While 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
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

By: MapleStreet

MapleStreet — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:22:18 +0000

Hate 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.

By: zuch

zuch — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:01:49 +0000

I’m a freakin’ geen-yus. Not that this means anything other than having an IQ above room temperature; this is all totally predictable.

Cheers,

By: nanlichi

nanlichi — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:05:20 +0000

Executive 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!

By: Cal Malenky

Cal Malenky — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:46:59 +0000

Get the waterboard ready. Karl’s a terrorist. He’s a threat to our way of life.

By: Sachem

Sachem — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:30:13 +0000

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.

By: freeman

freeman — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:22:43 +0000

Sept 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 .
Now 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 ?

By: Shayne

Shayne — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:22:36 +0000

Perhaps 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.

By: IgnoranceIsNotBliss

IgnoranceIsNotBliss — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:18:47 +0000

Ha!! I knew he’d crawfish on this issue. It was only a matter of time.

By: tokin librul

tokin librul — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:13:03 +0000

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?
http://thumbsnap.com/v/JHhXoFZC.jpg

By: 5th Estate

5th Estate — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:08:07 +0000

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.
But 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.

By: freeman

freeman — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:06:46 +0000

Signing 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 ?
…….. NEW RULES .

By: flex

flex — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:03:09 +0000

Ahhh, As the snake withers thru the grass so do the Great Lies of Turd Blossom shrivel from his lips.

By: Keith H.

Keith H. — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:02:51 +0000

Being above the law when they hold these positions is EXACTLY why you find criminals in these positions.
Doofus 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.

By: GeeDubs

GeeDubs — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:55:28 +0000

I 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.

By: 5th Estate

5th Estate — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:54:41 +0000

“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.

By: stjack

stjack — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:52:02 +0000

well, 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.