Rove Escapes Testimony, For Now...
-
fast2writeWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration, according to a story just out on Newsweek's Website [link below].. His lawyer, Robert Luskin, says he has asked the House Judiciary Committee to postpone its deposition of Rove until he hears back from the White House. The committee has agreed to put off the deposition -- but only for a few weeks. So far new White House counsel Greg Craig hasn't responded. He could have a conflict of interest on his hands due his friendship with former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, and his past representation of Karl Rove, which is not dealt with in the Newsweek article. In fact, it's pretty much just reported briefly here:
http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/01/29/rove-escapes-testimony-for-now/
<!--break-->
The video's there too, with O'Reilly offering Rove a tunnel to hide in. Stay tuned...
Monday House Judiciary Committee Hearing Delayed
http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/01/26/house-judiciary-committee-subpoena...
- fast2write's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-
- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000
-
42,758 of 60,000
-
94,686 of 100,000
Comments
The deposition hearing should be held...
should Rove, with or without his lawyer's advice, choose to ignore the hearing, an immediate vote for Contempt Of Congress should be scheduled and held. Rove should be picked up on this charge and jailed pending resolution.
Enough of this endless delay.
Obama, thanks to Bushco, has the power to declare Rove an 'enemy combatant' and jailed on that basis.
Ordinary people do not get this sort of 'consideration' at any time. Karl and Harriet need to be locked up pending their testimony starting immediately.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
After reading what I could find this morning on Rove...
Perhaps what should happen to Karl and Harriet:
Have them picked up wherever they are; rendition them to Gitmo immediately as enemy combatants; apply a little waterboarding, a little electricity to sensitive parts, have them chased down corridors by dogs, and then just forget about them.
No need to bother Pelosi/Hoyer/Reid about any of it.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt if on the way out of the country, Rush was bundled up as well and taken for a little ride.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Democratic leadership
What a great idea. Problem is, our leadership will not act. Even in these slam-dunk cases.
INHERENT CONTEMPT
Congress has no need of the White House to enforce its own subpoenas and should not want its help. Conyers should ask the Capitol Police to do for Rove what they do for anyone who speaks too loudly in a hearing: lock him up. USE INHERENT CONTEMPT!
Democratic past
I see more of the same from our Democratic leaders from the White House down thru both Houses of congress when it comes to setting the past aside, letting the oppurtunity to do the right thing for the American People just fade away. We have a slam-dunk case of correcting some of the criminal actions of the past adminstration, and OUR leaders seem to be ignoring the chances to do what's demanded for "We the People". Our Constitution directs our leaders toward possible conviction of anyone found guilty of criminal acts while serving "We the People".
Maybe if we would make phone calls to our elected officals in Washington, who were elected to represent their constituents, [which they have a solid record of ignoring], would be forced to listen to "We the People". With Congressional elections coming in 2010, let these people know that "WE" mean what we say. Otherwise, they'll continue to ignore us. Eventually the criminal elements and particapants of the past 8 years will completly fade away. We've already seen that Corporate America's News Media won't do anything but deny and point fingers away from the real news.
It's up to us to change this rut that the Democrats have excepted as the Norm because our elected leaders refuse to represent the majority of the people.
Actually, the Constitution
Actually, the Constitution mentions nothing about Congress proceeding with "possible conviction of anyone found guilty of criminal acts while serving 'We the People'." There is a provision enabling impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but there are no criminal penalties attached to that process -- only removal from office.
On the other hand, our codified laws, which were judged to be "Constitutional" at the time they were enacted, DO call for the prosecution of provable criminal acts. That job is relegated to the Justice Department, and NOT the Congress. Joe McCarthy found that out the hard way.
The various Congressional Committees can investigate anything they wish to, and make reccommendations to Justice, but they have no power to prosecute, or conduct trials (except in the case of impeachment, or certain cases of contempt of Congress). That is precisely why we have three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. -- each with their own distinct, and somewhat limited, powers and areas of responsibility.
All of the major players in the former Dubya administration are (on orders from Dubya) claiming "executive privilege." The Constituionality of each of those nebulous claims will need to be decided (possibly by the SCOTUS) before Congressional, or Judicial, subpeonas can be enforced, and any subsequent viable prosecution can go forward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
P. S. The use of "inherent contempt" by Congress has never been tested against formal claims of "executive privilege," and is not likely to hold water until a Federal Court rules on the claims. It is also very doubtful that the Capitol Police, or any other enforcement agency, would act on a request to arrest those claiming executive privilege, without a court (Judicial) order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
The combined Congress is charged with the responsibility to enact laws, but has very little power to directly enforce them. That is one of the reasons that Congressional Committees routinely grant "immunity" to suspected criminals in exchange for their testimony, and as an incentive to abandon their Fifth Amendment invocations.
Being a nation of laws can be a real bitch, depending on which side of the legal fence you're on. Dictators and Anarchists don't have that "problem."
Good...
...information Bill.
Thanks.