Bush Lawyer directs Rove not to testify to Congress-again

[gunns]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240/?gt1=43002

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.

On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fieldingsent a letter (.pdf) to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove—even after he leaves office.

A nearly identical letter (.pdf) was also sent by Fielding the day before to a lawyer for former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition with the House Judiciary Committee. That letter reasserted the White House position that Miers has "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress about anything she did while she worked at the White House—a far-reaching claim that is being vigorously disputed by lawyers for the House of Representatives in court.

The letters set the stage for what is likely to be a highly contentious legal and political battle over an unresolved issue: whether a former president can assert "executive privilege"—and therefore prevent his aides from testifying before Congress—even after his term has expired.

"To my knowledge, these [letters] are unprecedented," said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in executive-privilege issues. "I'm aware of no sitting president that has tried to give an insurance policy to a former employee in regard to post-administration testimony." Shane likened the letter to Rove as an attempt to give his former aide a 'get-out-of-contempt-free card'."

The issue arose this week after House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced that he had subpoenaed Rove to be deposed under oath next Monday to answer questions about his alleged role in the firing of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman. Conyers, whose panel extensively investigated both matters last year, signaled that he has no intention of dropping them now just because Bush has left office. "After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him [Rove] to talk," Conyers said in a press release.

[gunns]

But it is unclear whether Rove—or Miers, who was found in contempt of Congress last year when she refused to honor an earlier subpoena—is close to doing so. Luskin said he did not solicit the letter from Fielding, but maintains that its contents give his client little choice in the matter.

Fielding's letter cited the aggressive position of the Bush Justice Department on executive-privilege issues. That doctrine essentially held that White House aides not only did not have to answer specific questions before Congress about their presidential duties, they didn't even have to show up in response to subpoenas because they had "absolute immunity."

"We anticipate that one or more committees of the United States Congress might again seek to compel Mr. Rove's appearance, testimony or documents on the subject of the U.S. attorneys matter," Fielding wrote. "Please advise Mr. Rove ... that the President continues to direct him not to provide information (whether in the form of testimony or documents) to the Congress in this matter …"

Reached Wednesday afternoon, Fielding declined to comment. But a former presidential aide, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters, said that the letter to Rove was "basically the same" as the one sent to Miers (and a third letter sent to former White House chief of staff Josh Bolten). "If the president was going to assert privilege," this source said, he had to do it before he left office on Jan. 20.

Luskin said that he forwarded a copy of Fielding's letter, as well as the subpoena he got from Conyers, to Obama's White House counsel, Greg Craig, and essentially asked for the new president's position on these matters.

So far, he said, Craig hasn't responded; Luskin also says he has asked the House Judiciary Committee to postpone its deposition of Rove until he hears back. The committee has agreed to put off the deposition—but only for a few weeks.

[gunns]

The issue is likely to come to a head soon. The Justice Department is due to state its position on executive privilege to the U.S. Court of Appeals in a few weeks in response to the House's attempt to enforce its previous subpoenas for Miers and Bolten, who were subpoenaed to turn over documents relating the U.S. attorneys firings. Both refused to comply, or even show up—relying on the Bush Justice Department's sweeping position on "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress.

Few legal observers expect the Obama Justice Department to endorse that position, but it remains an open question how the new administration will define the scope of presidential privilege. Bush's attempt to assert privilege even after he leaves office throws a new wrinkle into the dispute.

"We're in uncharted territory," Luskin said to NEWSWEEK when asked whether a former president can still assert executive privilege after he leaves office. He added that Rove has no personal objection to testifying and will cooperate with an ongoing Justice Department inquiry into the U.S. attorneys firing—although Luskin says he has not yet been contacted. (Rove is an occasional contributor to Newsweek).

A White House aide said Wednesday afternoon that Craig's office was still reviewing the issue.

[Spider]

well i guess it is better then the 1 armed man did it defense ..........

[Bronco Bob]

Just throw his ass in jail until he decides to cooperate.
That's what would happen to you or me if we refused.

[barryr]

Looks like the hatred for Rove continues. Meanwhile some politicians just got caught not paying their taxes for years. Oh, they're democrats, no biggie. Lets instead continue to look and search for something on a citizen of this country and hope we find something. Oh wait, isn't that what those opposed to the Patriot Act are worried would happen to countless citizens? Oh, I guess as long as they decide who to poke around, it's ok afterall.

[spdirty]

hope they do it...public perception would be "why you ****ers worried about Rove while this ****ing economy is in shambles. Hired you to fix it, not play stupid ass politics."

So yeah, do it Nancy. Haul all of em up there, and if they committed the crimes give em the time. Plus it keeps em occupied so they have less time to take more of our freedom away.

Then again, the American people gave em what, 30 more seats with a 9% approval rating?

[Spider]

hope they do it...public perception would be "why you ****ers worried about Rove while this ****ing economy is in shambles. Hired you to fix it, not play stupid ass politics."

So yeah, do it Nancy. Haul all of em up there, and if they committed the crimes give em the time. Plus it keeps em occupied so they have less time to take more of our freedom away.

Then again, the American people gave em what, 30 more seats with a 9% approval rating?

your republicans in the Senate is taking care of that ........ once the bill is vetoed , dems will have no worries

[gunns]

hope they do it...public perception would be "why you ****ers worried about Rove while this ****ing economy is in shambles. Hired you to fix it, not play stupid ass politics."

So yeah, do it Nancy. Haul all of em up there, and if they committed the crimes give em the time. Plus it keeps em occupied so they have less time to take more of our freedom away.

Then again, the American people gave em what, 30 more seats with a 9% approval rating?


LOL More of our freedoms away? You didn't have a problem with Bush doing that? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

Yeah, the Dem's were looking pretty shabby with that lousy 9% rating. Tells you what the American public thought of the Republicans who had ran things in Congress for 11 years.

[Bronco Bob]

Looks like the hatred for Rove continues. Meanwhile some politicians just got caught not paying their taxes for years.

He paid them. Problem solved. Rove testifies. Problem solved.

[rastaman]

hope they do it...public perception would be "why you ****ers worried about Rove while this ****ing economy is in shambles. Hired you to fix it, not play stupid ass politics."

So yeah, do it Nancy. Haul all of em up there, and if they committed the crimes give em the time. Plus it keeps em occupied so they have less time to take more of our freedom away.

Then again, the American people gave em what, 30 more seats with a 9% approval rating?

What's wrong you don't think the American people can walk and chew gum at the same time?

Don't worry, if Rove has done nothing wrong he will be proven innocent. The people's business can be conducted despite the fact there are hearings.

What does Rove have to hide??? He needs to be a man and go before the rule of law and stop trying to hide behind Bush's coat tails.

[rastaman]

Looks like the hatred for Rove continues. Meanwhile some politicians just got caught not paying their taxes for years. Oh, they're democrats, no biggie. Lets instead continue to look and search for something on a citizen of this country and hope we find something. Oh wait, isn't that what those opposed to the Patriot Act are worried would happen to countless citizens? Oh, I guess as long as they decide who to poke around, it's ok afterall.

Rove has always hated himself....so no one needs to waste time hating him. Rove is not above the law. If its proved he has taking liberties with his authority and position to break laws then he should be punished......plain and simple.

[Paladin]

Resonse to the OP: No sh*t, Sherlock......

[cutthemdown]

Just throw his ass in jail until he decides to cooperate.
That's what would happen to you or me if we refused.

What would happen to us if we didn't pay 128 grand in tax? Would the govt reward us with a job in the Presidents cabinet? Probably not.

[TailgateNut]

What would happen to us if we didn't pay 128 grand in tax? Would the govt reward us with a job in the Presidents cabinet? Probably not.


Is this thread abour Rove? Deflecting on the issue of HONESTY again. That was one reason I cannot and will not show any respect for the last administration. They were LIARS, the whole damn gaggle.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'd tell congress to **** off as well.

[cutthemdown]

Is this thread abour Rove? Deflecting on the issue of HONESTY again. That was one reason I cannot and will not show any respect for the last administration. They were LIARS, the whole damn gaggle.


I just see the new leaders issues being more important then the old ones. Besides it's over attorney firings? Big deal the president can fire whoever he wants IMO. This is not an important issue as far as the country moving forward.

My personal feeling are that Bush got petty and controlling, went to far, but it's not something that needs a huge govt inquiry. We have more important problems.

I will be honest I have a huge problem with politicians who skip on taxes and I find it very fishy he decided to pay them at same time Obama won nomination. It was like hey I can get a big job in the govt better get ready to be vetted by cleaning up my taxes.

You are right though I did deflect from the point of the thread.

[TailgateNut]

I just see the new leaders issues being more important then the old ones. Besides it's over attorney firings? Big deal the president can fire whoever he wants IMO. This is not an important issue as far as the country moving forward.

My personal feeling are that Bush got petty and controlling, went to far, but it's not something that needs a huge govt inquiry. We have more important problems.

I will be honest I have a huge problem with politicians who skip on taxes and I find it very fishy he decided to pay them at same time Obama won nomination. It was like hey I can get a big job in the govt better get ready to be vetted by cleaning up my taxes.

You are right though I did deflect from the point of the thread.

Just attorneys being fired? You are kidding, aren't you?

The Rove testimonies would reveal the inner workings of the Bush Cabal. You cen't be that stupid, to think that this is ONLY about a few attornies being fired. Can You?

[Garcia Bronco]

I just see the new leaders issues being more important then the old ones. Besides it's over attorney firings? Big deal the president can fire whoever he wants IMO. This is not an important issue as far as the country moving forward.

My personal feeling are that Bush got petty and controlling, went to far, but it's not something that needs a huge govt inquiry. We have more important problems.

I will be honest I have a huge problem with politicians who skip on taxes and I find it very fishy he decided to pay them at same time Obama won nomination. It was like hey I can get a big job in the govt better get ready to be vetted by cleaning up my taxes.

You are right though I did deflect from the point of the thread.


Technically they can't even ask him to testify unless they are investing the President. George Bush is no longer the President. So unless they are trying to impeach Obama, there is nothing for them to say.

[cutthemdown]

Just attorneys being fired? You are kidding, aren't you?

The Rove testimonies would reveal the inner workings of the Bush Cabal. You cen't be that stupid, to think that this is ONLY about a few attornies being fired. Can You?

From what I understand the panel calling him wants him to testify about what they term the politicization of the Justice Dept under Bush, and specifically what he knows about the Atty firings.

Exactly what is it you understand these hearing from this particular panel to encompass if not what I understand it to be.

[Bronco Bob]

What would happen to us if we didn't pay 128 grand in tax? Would the govt reward us with a job in the Presidents cabinet? Probably not.

What would happen if I was subpoenaed and refused to show up?

[Garcia Bronco]

What would happen if I was subpoenaed and refused to show up?


I say nothing.

[TailgateNut]

What would happen if I was subpoenaed and refused to show up?

Can you say: "a visit from the Sheriff"!

[cutthemdown]

What would happen if I was subpoenaed and refused to show up?

Probably contempt, then a short stay in jail, then bail, then a hearing about it in court. At that point who knows I do know a person that refused to testify and was threatened with contempt, but never charged.

[cutthemdown]

By the way I could care less about these atty firings and the politicizing of the justice dept. It's not paramount to the country IMO. If Rove gets in trouble I could care less he seems like an asshole.

[TailgateNut]

By the way I could care less about these atty firings and the politicizing of the justice dept. It's not paramount to the country .

WOW!

Politicizing of the Justice department doesn't bother you? Regardless of which side of the aisle you inhabit, it is not what we should allow.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First, Jail All Bush's Lawyers

(http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20126)
Link (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20126)

Excerpt:


If new Attorney General Eric Holder really means what he said in his oath – that he will “support and defend
the Constitution of the United States” – then he must give serious consideration to prosecuting crimes committed by the Bush administration, including its torturing of detainees.


And Holder might be advised to begin the process at his own agency, the Department of Justice.


To paraphrase Shakespeare, Holder might start by first jailing all of George W. Bush’s lawyers.


The logic of targeting former Justice Department lawyers – the likes of John Yoo and Jay Bybee – is that they
were the linchpin for justifying acts that were clearly illegal; they provided the paper cover for both the interrogators in the field and the senior officials back in Washington.

Bush hired his friends so they'd give him the legal cover to kidnap, rape, torture and murder.

That way, when asked why he's breaking the law and ignoring the Constitution, Bush could say,



"All of this has been approved by the Justice Department."

Yes, for those crimes they should go to jail then rot in Hell.

But since there is no Hell, we'll have to settle for life in prison.

If Holder doesn't do his job, future GOP presidential criminals will follow Bush's lead.

[cutthemdown]

WOW!

Politicizing of the Justice department doesn't bother you? Regardless of which side of the aisle you inhabit, it is not what we should allow.

You don't think each justice dept reflects the party in power? I do. It has always been politicized it's just that Bush may have went too far. But no it really doesn't bother me much if a president doesn't like them and decides to fire them, and replace them.

If Obama decided to fire some attys would you really care?

[cutthemdown]

First, Jail All Bush's Lawyers

(http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20126)
Link (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20126)

Excerpt:


If new Attorney General Eric Holder really means what he said in his oath – that he will “support and defend
the Constitution of the United States” – then he must give serious consideration to prosecuting crimes committed by the Bush administration, including its torturing of detainees.


And Holder might be advised to begin the process at his own agency, the Department of Justice.


To paraphrase Shakespeare, Holder might start by first jailing all of George W. Bush’s lawyers.


The logic of targeting former Justice Department lawyers – the likes of John Yoo and Jay Bybee – is that they
were the linchpin for justifying acts that were clearly illegal; they provided the paper cover for both the interrogators in the field and the senior officials back in Washington.

Bush hired his friends so they'd give him the legal cover to kidnap, rape, torture and murder.

That way, when asked why he's breaking the law and ignoring the Constitution, Bush could say,



"All of this has been approved by the Justice Department."

Yes, for those crimes they should go to jail then rot in Hell.

But since there is no Hell, we'll have to settle for life in prison.

If Holder doesn't do his job, future GOP presidential criminals will follow Bush's lead.



So then really if Obama doesn't go after them he is also complicit? Failure to prosecute people you know are guilty of those crimes is in itself a crime right?

In any event they have already said they won't be going on a witchhunt to satisfy people like you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So then really if Obama doesn't go after them he is also complicit? Failure to prosecute people you know are guilty of those crimes is in itself a crime right?

So you're suggesting Obama or his AG know they're guilty?

I thought you knew more about how the legal system works than that.

The question is whether there is enough evidence to prosecute them or not.

In this case, the answer is "yes."

In any event they have already said they won't be going on a witchhunt to satisfy people like you.

Whereas people like you expose your bias by suggesting that the only reason the incoming AG wouldn't attempt to prosecute the Bush crooks is because the latter haven't committed crimes (as opposed to the latter doing a superb job of covering their tracks.)

Same spin we can get from Rehab Rush any day of the week.

[cutthemdown]

So you're suggesting Obama or his AG know they're guilty?

I thought you knew more about how the legal system works than that.

The question is whether there is enough evidence to prosecute them or not.

In this case, the answer is "yes."



Whereas people like you expose your bias by suggesting that the only reason the incoming AG wouldn't attempt to prosecute the Bush crooks is because the latter haven't committed crimes (as opposed to the latter doing a superb job of covering their tracks.)

Same spin we can get from Rehab Rush any day of the week.


I'm going most by what the new CIA director said and what Obama has said. They tell me they won't be prosecuting people. That's enough for me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Senate Judiciary Chairman says Bush officials could be prosecuted

David Edwards and John Byrne
Published: Wednesday February 11, 2009

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said in an interview Tuesday evening that Bush Administration officials could be criminally prosecuted if they lied under oath as part of a proposed investigation into Bush-era abuses.

Leahy chose his words carefully, to be sure. But his words went slightly farther than that of other Congressional Democrats, who maintain that probing abuses of the Bush era is critical to preserving the integrity of law.

"You're going to have people, some people will say, let's go ahead and prosecute everybody," Leahy told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow Tuesday. "That can take 10 or 15 years. Others want to ignore everything. I don't agree with that."

But, he said, the Senate could set up a "truth commission" like that established by Sen. Frank Church in the 1970s, which was aimed at bringing out abuses of the President Richard Nixon era. Church's commission resulted in an array of reforms that tightened civil liberties protections after Nixon's infamous wiretapping and Watergate scandals.

"What if a truth commission did a thorough investigation of the type you're describing and they found that in fact horrible crimes were committed?" Maddow asked. "If there wouldn't be prosecution, how would say -- how would we say now we know and they all legally got away with it, how would that stop these things from happening again?"

Leahy seemed to signal a slight shift -- previously his focus seemed more on uncovering misdeeds than in prosecuting officials. While not saying that he was planning for prosecutions, he indicated that they could certainly result.

"I think because of the fact it's very, very public and the way they find out about it, it makes it very clear to the next person, you try the same thing, you are going to be found out, you are going to be prosecuted," Leahy said. "You are also going to have some people that will refuse to -- perhaps refuse to testify, even though offered immunity. With the evidence from the others, they can be prosecuted. And, of course, anybody can be prosecuted for perjury."

David Carle, a spokesman for Sen. Leahy, noted that Leahy's commission concept was a proposal and no bill had yet been introduced.

"He wanted to begin a discussion," Carle said.

Asked about potential prosecutions, he reiterated that immunity would still "of course" require truthful replies.

Leahy subpoenaed Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove to testify on the firing of nine US Attorneys in 2007. Rove never appeared. He was subsequently called to testify twice by the House Judiciary Committee, and said recently that he would refuse to honor congressional subpoenas related to the case.

Leahy's commission concept received a cool response from President Barack Obama in his Tuesday night press conference, though Obama admitted he hadn't read it.

"It's not a perfect way of doing it, but it may be the only way to get the truth out," Leahy said. "And I think that the only way you're going to stop a future administration from being tempted to do some of the same things is if the truth comes out."

Immunity seems to be the keystone of Leahy's plan to extract the truth.

You "either grant enough immunity to get the truth out or you don't get it at all, because otherwise you are just going to have constant stonewalling."

Why would those who testified get immunity?

"The only way they would have immunity would be if they testified and testified thoroughly," he added. "Because they would be asked under oath, have you given us all of the information? You withhold, that's perjury and you would be prosecuted for that."

This video is from MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast Feb. 10, 2009.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Leahy_Truth_commission_may_be_only_0211.html

[The Lone Bolt]

Say, when is Bugliosi going to have bush arrested and tried for murder?:kiddingme

[Rohirrim]

Obama took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Hopefully, he understands that oath, and that responsibility. So far, he seems to believe it is open to his interpretations of the political needs of the moment. What makes America a just country is when it abides by its laws. When it does not, it might as well be just another banana republic.

[TailgateNut]

Senate Judiciary Chairman says Bush officials could be prosecuted

David Edwards and John Byrne
Published: Wednesday February 11, 2009

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said in an interview Tuesday evening that Bush Administration officials could be criminally prosecuted if they lied under oath as part of a proposed investigation into Bush-era abuses.

Leahy chose his words carefully, to be sure. But his words went slightly farther than that of other Congressional Democrats, who maintain that probing abuses of the Bush era is critical to preserving the integrity of law.

"You're going to have people, some people will say, let's go ahead and prosecute everybody," Leahy told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow Tuesday. "That can take 10 or 15 years. Others want to ignore everything. I don't agree with that."

But, he said, the Senate could set up a "truth commission" like that established by Sen. Frank Church in the 1970s, which was aimed at bringing out abuses of the President Richard Nixon era. Church's commission resulted in an array of reforms that tightened civil liberties protections after Nixon's infamous wiretapping and Watergate scandals.

"What if a truth commission did a thorough investigation of the type you're describing and they found that in fact horrible crimes were committed?" Maddow asked. "If there wouldn't be prosecution, how would say -- how would we say now we know and they all legally got away with it, how would that stop these things from happening again?"

Leahy seemed to signal a slight shift -- previously his focus seemed more on uncovering misdeeds than in prosecuting officials. While not saying that he was planning for prosecutions, he indicated that they could certainly result.

"I think because of the fact it's very, very public and the way they find out about it, it makes it very clear to the next person, you try the same thing, you are going to be found out, you are going to be prosecuted," Leahy said. "You are also going to have some people that will refuse to -- perhaps refuse to testify, even though offered immunity. With the evidence from the others, they can be prosecuted. And, of course, anybody can be prosecuted for perjury."

David Carle, a spokesman for Sen. Leahy, noted that Leahy's commission concept was a proposal and no bill had yet been introduced.

"He wanted to begin a discussion," Carle said.

Asked about potential prosecutions, he reiterated that immunity would still "of course" require truthful replies.

Leahy subpoenaed Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove to testify on the firing of nine US Attorneys in 2007. Rove never appeared. He was subsequently called to testify twice by the House Judiciary Committee, and said recently that he would refuse to honor congressional subpoenas related to the case.

Leahy's commission concept received a cool response from President Barack Obama in his Tuesday night press conference, though Obama admitted he hadn't read it.

"It's not a perfect way of doing it, but it may be the only way to get the truth out," Leahy said. "And I think that the only way you're going to stop a future administration from being tempted to do some of the same things is if the truth comes out."

Immunity seems to be the keystone of Leahy's plan to extract the truth.

You "either grant enough immunity to get the truth out or you don't get it at all, because otherwise you are just going to have constant stonewalling."

Why would those who testified get immunity?

"The only way they would have immunity would be if they testified and testified thoroughly," he added. "Because they would be asked under oath, have you given us all of the information? You withhold, that's perjury and you would be prosecuted for that."

This video is from MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast Feb. 10, 2009.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Leahy_Truth_commission_may_be_only_0211.html

I can't count the letters I've written to request the pusuit of impeachment and prosecution of Bush and espcially Cheney. GO FOR IT!:)

[baja]

Obama took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Hopefully, he understands that oath, and that responsibility.<b> So far, he seems to believe it is open to his interpretations of the political needs of the moment.</b> What makes America a just country is when it abides by its laws. When it does not, it might as well be just another banana republic.

How so?

[TailgateNut]

There was a poll yesterday which has 62% support to investigate Bush and Dillwad for Torture crimes, 63% to investigate warrantless wiretapping and 71% to investigate their politicizing on absue of power in regards to the Judicial dept..

I try to find a link (saw it on ABC news this AM).

[Garcia Bronco]

Rove doesn't have to testify. He's under no legal obligation to and Congress can't actually demand that he does.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Say, when is Bugliosi going to have bush arrested and tried for murder?:kiddingme

Translation:

"I love it when criminals get away with their crimes....well, at least those criminals with Rs after their names, anyway."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obama took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Hopefully, he understands that oath, and that responsibility. So far, he seems to believe it is open to his interpretations of the political needs of the moment. What makes America a just country is when it abides by its laws. When it does not, it might as well be just another banana republic.

If he lets one of the most criminal administrations in US history off the hook then he didn't learn a thing from Bill Clinton's mistakes.