Karl Rove subpoenaed before Congress, again

roveGetting subpeonaed and actually testifying are worlds apart, as we’ve seen in the past. However, things are different this time since a federal judge rejected Rove’s excuse for not testifying the last time. This is one slimy guy I’d like to see squirm under questioning. He seems to have a reason for not wanting to talk. Let’s hear it.

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove to testify about the Bush administration’s firing of U.S. attorneys.

The subpoena Monday by Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers continues a long-running legal battle. Rove previously refused to appear before the panel, contending that former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.

Rove was asked to appear for a deposition on Feb. 2. Conyers also wants him to testify on whether politics played a role in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

Rove’s former boss, ex-President George W. Bush, upheld Rove’s legal position but it has been rejected by a federal judge.

, ,

  1. #1 by Shane Smith on January 26, 2009 - 4:55 pm

    It would be nice to see a man who thinks that leaving innocent people to be tortured is “protecting America” put on trail and actually see the legal system work.

    I assume Rove at least deserves due process.

    Shame they aren’t asking him in to talk about the big crimes.

  2. #2 by Becky on January 26, 2009 - 5:30 pm

    Well, who knows what questions they will ask once they get him in the hot seat. I reluctantly agree he deserves due process (joking).

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on January 26, 2009 - 9:10 pm

    Karl Rove could have complied with his previous subpoenas, showed up at the hearings and claimed memory loss. He still has that option.

    Congress has the power of “inherent contempt,” i.e. they could arrest Rove. But they don’t have the nerve.

  4. #4 by Tyler on January 26, 2009 - 9:43 pm

    Even if what you accuse him of is true, Rove did nothing illegal. It may have been immoral and unethical, but it wasn’t illegal.

    So why go down this partisan road? 10 years ago, you were all complaining that someone actually investigated President Clinton breaking the law. You said that executive privilege should apply. Why is this any different?

    • #5 by Becky on January 26, 2009 - 10:20 pm

      Rove is being asked to testify. Are you saying he shouldn’t have to tell what he knows about the firing of federal judges? (Correction, make that U.S. attorneys).

  5. #6 by Larry Bergan on January 26, 2009 - 9:54 pm

    Shane said:

    Shame they aren’t asking him in to talk about the big crimes

    That is definitely not the case this time. This isn’t about a paid golf trip, or having an illegal nanny. This case is about abusing the foundations of civil society in a moral AND legal framework. This is about Rove’s involvement in crimes against every voting liberal in this country and even the imprisonment of a popular governor. There is not one hint of frivolity in this story.

    The way things are looking lately, I am very optimistic!

  6. #7 by John M on January 27, 2009 - 8:45 pm

    Tyler asks what is the difference between Bill Clinton and Karl Rove’s claim of executive privilege, well, I can point out two significant ones. First, Bill Clinton was at the time, the sitting President and Chief Executive and therefore should have been immune to the whole process until he was out of office. Secondly, Karl Rove is no longer working for the President of this country and the President that he worked for is no longer in office, therefore his claims of privilege no longer apply as he longer has knowledge that impacts the action of the current President.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: