Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rove ignores committee's subpoena, refuses to testify
Published: 7/10/08, 5:00 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) - Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political guru, refused to obey an order to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday.
Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove was "immune" from the subpoena the committee had issued, arguing that the committee could not compel him to testify due to "executive privilege."
The panel is investigating allegations that Rove and his White House allies dismissed U.S. attorneys and prosecuted officials who they saw as political opponents.
The panel subpoenaed Rove in May after his lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, made clear the former White House deputy chief of staff would not appear voluntarily.
Luskin responded immediately that Rove still would not appear, prompting a threat of prosecution from the Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.
"A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote. "We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal to even appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez said Thursday morning when Rove failed to show up. "The courts have made clear that no one -- not even the president -- is immune from compulsory process. That is what the Supreme Court rules in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones." """
Must have a lot to hide..... but repubs will have excuses for lawlessness and their pet criminals........
That sounds fair to you? What is the point of testifying if there is no oath involved and it's not recorded?
I believe the term you might be referring to is checks and balances, meaning that no branch is entitled to do what they please without reprecussions and without facing up to their wrongdoings.
Congress is actually doing their job correctly this time.
And again, this is not a right/left issue, take off your team jersey.
That sounds fair to you? What is the point of testifying if there is no oath involved and it's not recorded?
I believe the term you might be referring to is checks and balances, meaning that no branch is entitled to do what they please without reprecussions and without facing up to their wrongdoings.
Congress is actually doing their job correctly this time.
And again, this is not a right/left issue, take off your team jersey.
This particular Congress/these current Dems seem to be the weakest in history as far as making a stand and following things through . They are tailor made for the GOP .
That sounds fair to you? What is the point of testifying if there is no oath involved and it's not recorded?
I believe the term you might be referring to is checks and balances, meaning that no branch is entitled to do what they please without reprecussions and without facing up to their wrongdoings.
Congress is actually doing their job correctly this time.
And again, this is not a right/left issue, take off your team jersey.
It's fair because the WH is under no obligation or authority to submit their advisors to congressional questioning, especially on a matter that pertains to presidential perogative - Attorney hiring and firing. Executive privilege and all. Separation of Powers and all that stuff.
It's fair because the WH is under no obligation or authority to submit their advisors to congressional questioning, especially on a matter that pertains to presidential perogative - Attorney hiring and firing. Executive privilege and all. Separation of Powers and all that stuff.
What exactly did Rove do wrong?
You ignore the point or did you simply not see it because you're blinded by your support for W? If Rove et al aren't going to submit to being under oath or being recorded, we might as well hang up the cleats, game over. We lost. Regardless of intent, is there not anything sinister about the implications here, sanrene?
With all the talk on the right about personal responsibility, they seem so overzealous in their dismissal of ACCOUNTABILITY, especially where this current administration is involved. This is not a partisan issue, and kudos to LLLL98 for setting the record straight. No sane individual would feel the government doesn't need to held accountable because of a technicality concocted precisely for the purpose of avoiding said accountability. All this with a president who signs laws then effectively nullifies them with his signing statements. No, nothing sinister here, just keep movin'...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
