To ask him about (1) the attorney firings and (2) the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Siegelman. Story here.
So – will he show? And what will happen if he doesn’t? And what will he say if he does?
I’m not optimistic. The Senate JC subpoenaed him last year, and what ever came of that?
Except in this case I believe he can not claim Executive Privilege. If he does, he will then be indicting Bush/Cheney, wouldn’t he?
Regarding executive privilege, I don’t see what the difference is between the House and Senate subpoenas. Except that WRT to the Siegelman matter he has denied ever communicating with the WH, so EP would not apply. (But if that’s true, he would not indict Bush/Cheney by answering the questions.)
Suppose Rove doesn’t claim executive privilege, and simply doesn’t show?
The House can declare him in contempt, but so what? Bush’s DoJ isn’t going to enforce it.
And I think the Dems are still too gutless to try inherent contempt.
My bet is that he will concoct some abstract variant of “executive privilege” and insist that it is an established principle of longstanding tradition…whatever. Anything that will get it headed towards a court, where it can be stalled to death, run out the clock and pray for McCain.
What clock? If Bush can’t stop this course of investigation, neither can President McCain. His only hope is a big Congressional Pub win in November, which ain’t gonna happen. And the W Admin has carefully and systematically avoided letting any of its novel unitary-executive theories be placed before a court.
This is what I meant. IOANAL, far from it, but he has no real way to get out of this one does he? Not without throwing his masters under the bus.
I suppose he could try and call congress’s bluff on contempt charges, but I would imagine he would not want to draw things out to a more Democratic Congress, and pass Bush’s pardon window.
Though I do think Dems are slowly becoming vertebrate again, except Reid, he still reminds me of Kiff to Lieberman’s Branigan.
So there was this thief in Baghdad, condemned to die by the Caliph, and at the last moment he cried out “Have mercy, great Caliph! Let me live for six months, and I will teach your horses to sing!”
The Caliph was amused and intrigued, and granted the request.
Later, the thief was speaking with a friend.
“Achmed, why did you say such a foolish thing! You have no such hope!”
“Well, perhaps the Caliph will forget all about me in the press of business”
“And if not?”
“Perhaps he will die, and his successor will declare an amnesty.”
“And if not?”
“Perhaps I can teach a horse to sing.”
Point being, the one thing that Rove cannot do is sit down under threat of perjury and tell the truth. All other options, including committing *seppuku *in the Rose Garden, are open.
As much as I would love to see people from this administration carted off in cuff; I can’t really find a reason to not like this idea either.
But he could appear and lie.
He won’t have to.
As you all know by now, Bush is claiming Exec. Priv. re Rove’s appearance.
But if you want to hear Rove bob and weave and duck, and then be at a sputtering loss for words watch the video at:
He’ll show up, to observe the letter of the subpoena (and keep the stench of the administration he largely created from being transferred to the GOP candidates with a real chance of winning this fall).
But his every answer will be some lawyered-up version of “Fuck you”.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s gonna play any better, electorally, than not showing up at all.
Bush is. But is Rove (who no longer works for the WH)?
And nobody can claim EP WRT to the Siegelman prosecution without admitting that Rove did communicate with the WH about it, something heretofore denied.
Is Executive Privilege a forever thing?
Holding these guys accountable is like trying to play tag with a bunch of spoiled first graders; everytime you almost get them they run to the slide and yell “Base!”. Once they are no longer in the Executive Office can they still claim the privilege or can we finally tag them?
Y’know, I don’t think any court has ever ruled on that. There’s nothing on it here.
Well, there’s the logic behind privilege:
It’s unclear to me how those concerns would be met if executive privilege vanished the moment the President left office.
Is it also unclear that Congress’ oversight role is neutralized entirely with blanket claims of executive privilege?
I don’t recall you taking that attitude during the previous administration, friend.
At this stage of the development of constitutional law, just about everything related to executive privilege is unclear. Not because the doctrine is new – it goes back to the Washington Administration – but because there have been so few test cases yielding such narrow rulings.
I’d expect the privilege to run with the office, though, so a new president would be able to waive the privilege. Certainly an ex-president could not assert executive privilege against a sitting president; and it’s equally certain (to me) that a sitting president can waive the privilege–it’d doesn’t belong to the witness. Not that this necessarily contradicts what you say; I’m just expanding on your comment that the privilege doesn’t vanish when adminstrations change.