The Legal Intrigue Behind Rove
The House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of Karl Rove raises interesting questions as my colleague Zach Roth notes. I spoke with a Washington lawyer who has dealt with many presidential privilege issues and he (or is it she?) raised some interesting questions and offered a prediction.
The first interesting point the person raised is that Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, may have made a tactical mistake in writing to White House Counsel Greg Craig for an opinion. "Be careful what you ask for," the source said. After all, Craig could come up with a rationale for Rove testifying. And why rush to Craig at all when you might prevail in the courts? True, the courts have been loathe to offer hard and fast rules in these cases but it would seem worth pursuing such a legal avenue before going to the Democratic White House for solace. My source predicted that in the end there probably will be some kind of accomodation with Rove answering questions on some topics and not on others rather than a showdown that drags on endlessly. Interestingly, the source thought Obama's executive order on presidential records differed enough from the question of testimony that it probably would not be determinative in the end.
I note myself the hypocrisy of Republicans who demanded practically every Clinton official to march up to the hill and testify on everything under the sun who can be sure to defend executive privilege in Rove's case and that of Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers.
It's probably worth noting here, just for the record that I have some history with Karl Rove. If you haven't been in an Ecuadorean jungle for the last six years you know what it is. If you have been, you can get caught up here and here.
Josh
Matt
Eric
I wasn't in an Ecuadorean jungle, but I wasn't interested in politics up until some politician made an interesting race speech in Philly.
January 27, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you meet Rove in person? Can a person shower enough to feel clean again?
January 27, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD ONE!
January 28, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to see Fatboy up there pleading the Fifth to every question asked of him, which he will do. As long as he is there being glared at by every Democrat (but no GOPers) who represent millions of angry Americans, then that's fine with me. I don't expect ol' Turd Blossom to be forthcoming on anything so just to see him finally sitting there, straining his chair, being grilled and having to listen to factual accusation after accusation being launched at him, well, I'll take it. and if they can get that man/woman, Harriet Miers, too up there on CH then I'm down with that. they are both useless Americans. it'd be nice to get some satisfaction, even if it's small.
January 27, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Rove not despised by many senators - many Republican senators ? Was he not rude to them ? Did they not hate his guts ?
When Rove 'quit' there was an awesome silence from all branches of government. I believe NOT ONE member of Congress spoke to defend him, regret his leaving or even say good-bye.
As soon as Rove was gone, the White House stopped producing a Wisecrack Of The Day. Suddenly all the hot air was gone from the president.
Who will take up cudgels for Karl ? Anyone ?
January 28, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Congress is exercising its Constitutional role of oversight. The previous Executive intervened with that role.
Why would the current Executive interfere in a Congressional dispute between Congress and a previous administration?
Has President Obama not meant what he's said about restoring the balance of powers?
January 28, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what I don't understand, and I hope someone who does can explain it to me:
Why is Rove able to claim executive privilege just because he worked in the executive branch? By claiming the privilege in regard to the firing of the federal prosecutors, isn't Rove at least acknowledging that Bush was involved in the matter? As I understand it, at the absolute minimum, one can only claim executive privilege for communications with the president. So, for example, a policy adviser was called to testify regarding possible illegal activities in his office unrelated to the president could not invoke the privilege; but that same adviser, if he were called to testify about advice given to the president, he could claim the privilege.
January 28, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the Repugnants and their mindless zombie followers chant? Oh yeah. IF YOU'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE.
January 28, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink