Rove’s Lawyer On Subpoena In Siegelman Case: It’s All Dan Abrams’s Fault
Rove’s Lawyer On Subpoena In Siegelman Case: It’s All Dan Abrams’s Fault
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee threatened to subpoena former White House adviser Karl Rove, unless he agrees by May 12 to testify about his role in the allegedly political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.
Yesterday, MSNBC’s Dan Abrams reported that Rove will now only “talk about it with the committee, and only if no transcript is made, and if it’s not done under oath.” Furthermore, according to Abrams, Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin is “blaming us” for the subpoena threat because of an incriminating e-mail exchange that was taken “out of context.” As Luskin wrote to the Committee on April 29:
Your invitation is premised on reports that I had expressed Mr. Rove’s “willingness to testify before the committee.” The report in question was based on an e-mail exchange with a producer for a cable news network and was taken grossly out of context.
Watch Abrams’s segment:
But Luskin’s statements to MSNBC were not “grossly taken out of context.” Yesterday, Abrams provided the exact e-mail exchange with Luskin. Luskin clearly said, “sure” to Rove testifying if subpoenaed:
From: Verdict with Dan Abrams
To: Robert Luskin
Sent: April 07, 2008 4:59 PMSorry. Let me be more clear. Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?
From: Robert Luskin
To: Verdict with Dan Abrams
Sent: April 07, 2008 6:59 PMSure. Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assume he has: something to hide, even though — gov siegelman’s uncorroborated assertions aside — there’s literally no credible evidence whatsoever to substantiate his charges. I would hope that you’d get around to mentioning that fact.
Rove and Luskin have regularly assaulted MSNBC for its reporting on the story. In a 2,100-word letter containing 58 questions, written on April 13, Rove blasted Abrams personally. Luskin criticized Abrams in an Roll Call interview earlier this month, hinting that Rove would hide behind executive privilege to avoid testifying.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Boo frickin’ hoo.
What a whiner.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pmSo Rove’s lawyer is a bald-faced liar, and lies even when it can easily be proven (just so long as it isn’t a prosecutable lie). No surprise there.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pmOh well, my GOD! We simply cannot have Mr. Piggy testifying UNDER OATH!!!
No, no, no, no, no!!! Can’t have that!! EVER!!!
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pmNo wonder Rove and the rest of the White House conveniently neglected to back up those millions of e-mails.
Just how were Luskin’s written words taken out of context?
PEACE
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pmBy the time all the investigations have run their course, Karl Rove will be more disgraced than Roy Cohn.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 pmExecutive priviledge ? Are all employees in the White House executives ? How nice to be able to hide behind that shield, can I use that if my taxes are audited ?
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pmHow about if Congress sends its Sargent at Arms and just frog march turd blossom right to the steps of the Capital? If there is no penalty for ignoring the will of Congress, they will forever be marginalized and abused.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pmRove would hide behind executive privilege to avoid testifying???
Rove still works for the White House?
WORST, MOST CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 pmHmmmm no notes can be taken and no oath taken, sure sounds like bush and cheney’s testimony for 9/11 Commission doesn’t it? So, lets see I can lie and you can’t prove it, sounds like a get out of jail free card. I think the Mafia has more ethics.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 pmI’m glad Dan left his cushy MSNBC GM post to return full-time to calling bullshit.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pmAh, the tried and true “only if no transcript is made, and if it’s not done under oath”
tactic.
Subpoena his ass, and use INHERENT CONTEMPT, GODDAMIT!
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pmI do so love to watch that rat-bastard squirm.
Let’s don’t take him down just yet. Let’s play with him for awhile first.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 pmAnd in the 2,100 word letter to Abrams, Rove didn’t flat out deny his involvement in the Siegelman case. Wonder why that is?
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pmShackle him and haul him off like they did Seigelman. Quit playing nice with these creeps!
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 pmStratRat;
you mean that for the last several years, Congress has not been marginalized and abused?
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pmDo these people even know what the word “context” means?
I don’t think they do.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm“They keep using that word.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 pmI do not think it means what they think it means.”
Indigo Montoya.
hahahahahahahahahahahah
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pmIs it just me or do other people get the feeling that Dan Abrams can bring it. The “I dare you” comment in the video clip is a direct shot at Rove and his lawyer. Great preface by stating they can change their minds but don’t use his show as a feeble excuse.
Is it also lost that Rove’s lawyer was describing what congress needs to establish and Rove’s assistance could verify he is not guilty but would rather stonewall the process. I’m reminded of the right wing mantra of recent past. If you have nothing to hide it shouldn’t matter if they bug your phone calls or not.
Well Mr. Rove, stand before congress and provide the answers that can add credence to these false accusations. Stand before the american people and answer the questions that the duly elected officials we americans have put in place and let us, We the People of The United States of America decide.
Keep it up Dan.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pmThe lawyer made the mistake of presuming that his client would testify if subpoenaed because that is common legal practice. A subpoena is compulsory and one can normally be jailed for not complying with it. Unless of course you are the right hand man of a President who has no respect for the rule of law.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pmAs Luskin wrote to the Committee on April 29:
Your invitation is premised on reports that I had expressed Mr. Rove’s “willingness to testify before the committee.”
wow… quite the eogtist…
actually, the “invitation” (see, even the crooks don’t take it seriously)
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pmis premised on rove’s role in the allegedly political prosecution of former
Alabama governor Don Siegelman.
What ever happened to separation of powers? The executive branch operates independently of the legislative branch.
freedomspeaks.com – speak out. be heard.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pmWait a second…turd blossom NO LONGER WORKS in the white house. How in the world can he claim “executive privilege” ??
If he is a private citizen it appears to me that he has two choices – 1) Lie or 2) take the fifth.
Is there another option??
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pmWinski Says:
Wait a second…turd blossom NO LONGER WORKS in the white house. How in the world can he claim “executive privilege” ??
If he is a private citizen it appears to me that he has two choices – 1) Lie or 2) take the fifth.
Is there another option??
The other option does not exist because it contains the requirement that Congress gives a hoot about being disrespected and abused. The requirement is also null and void because Congress feels they can win a bigger margin in November, so they are willing to be spit at by Rove’s lawyers. They are allowing illegality to continue because they feel it makes their chances better in the fall. Our politicians are devoted solely to their respective parties, not our country. That much is clear.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pmIf Rove claims “executive privilege” in relation to what he did vis a vis Siegelman, doesn’t that imply presidential involvement, too? Congress really needs to impeach Bush & Cheney, and eliminate the cover of executive privilege altogether.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pmWell, he could testify and tell the truth, but I wouldn’t count on that…
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pmNo transcrips and not under oath???!!!!! Rove is a WAR CRIMINAL. He should be waterboarded if he refuses to unswer… I would waterboard him either way!!!! even after he unswer it! Please, lets us have a bit o pay back time!
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pmOk, executive privilege covers one whether they are currently working in the White House or not. The privilege protects certain conversations. Not unlike attorney-client privilege, you would not want your prior attorney to testify as to your conversations just because he had left the firm representing you.
Now, note the limits of executive privilege. It covers the communication and not the individual. Rove would have to appear and assert the privilege to each question asked. There is a purpose for such a procedure. It places the questions and their context within the committee investigation that would later be used to determine whether the privilege applies. Rove should be made to go through such a process. It would not only be embarrassing publicly (not unlike the old mafia dons of old) but it would also provide a clear road map to the American people and the courts as to what was being asked and why. This is because -
Executive privilege is not absolute. It is strongest when there are policy conversations involving national security. It is weaker when it involves policy discussions on less important matters. It is almost non existent when the investigation involves potentially criminal acts such as obstruction of justice.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pmSqueal like a piggy, boy!
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pmExcuse me, if Rove (as he claims) never spoke to the President about this, then how can he claim executive privilege?
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pmThis little piggy went to market
This little piggy stayed home
This little piggy was subpoenaed
A little piggy named Rove
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pmHey Rove, MAN UP and testify you wuss. Just kidding, I suspect we’ll all be walking on water before the turdblossom would be able to MAN UP.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pmLuskin is the joke of all attorneys. Taking out of out context? Next, it will be “my dog ate my homework” excuse.
Memo to Luskin: Those were your exact words.
Good luck Luskin trying to get yourself and your client, Tubby McTreason Rove, out of this mess. You just cornered your client where he has to testify.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pmYesterday, MSNBC’s Dan Abrams reported that Rove will now only “talk about it with the committee, and only if no transcript is made, and if it’s not done under oath.”
He learned his lesson from Fitzgerald. Who says he’s dumer than a rock? He can learn simple things….
Cheers,
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 pmOh, BTW:
If he’s willing to do so if not on the record, and not under under oath, that kind of destroys any potential claim of “executive privilege”, doesn’t it?
Cheers,
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pmRove is a private citizen now. I understand the concept of “executive privilege” but I believe it would have to be promulgated by the Executive branch, not by the private citizen Rove. And I believe it also indicates there were then discussions between Rove and those in the Exec. branch (i.e. Bush or Cheney probably) about Siegelman. If Bush does the same thing he did with, for instance, Harriet Miers, he “forbid” her to even respond to the subpeona and show up before a committee! And the Senate did NOTHING further about it. That’s what the problem is and they should move forward on Inherent Contempt because they have no other choice.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmNo executive privilege can be claimed here in any case…the Seligman case has nothing to do with any work Rove did in his job at the White House. This has no imprimateur of White House confidentiality…
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 amRove may well be a “stuck pig” on this one.