# Rove subpeonaed by Conyers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173 "2009-01-27T02:23:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/1 "2009-01-27T02:23:28Z")
Story [here:](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17992.html) > [@](#): > > House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has subpoenaed Karl Rove, the former top political advisor to President George W. Bush, to question what Rove knows about “politicization” of the Justice Department. > > The Senate Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed Rove during the last Congress, but relying on an executive privilege claim by Bush, Rove refused to appear. > > Conyers had previously subpoenaed former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, Bush former White House chief of staff, seeking any information they had. Conyers is also seeking White House documents related to the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. > > After the White House refused to comply with the subpoenas, and Miers refused to even appear before the committee to answer the subpoena, the House Judiciary Committee sued. A federal judge backed the committee in a major win for Conyers and House Democrats, but resolution of the case has been delayed by the changeover in administrations. President Obama has vowed to comply with congressional subpoenas. > > “I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” Conyers said. > > Rove has until Feb. 2 to respond to the subpoena. 1. Will he show up **this** time? 2. What happens if he doesn’t? 3. What happens if he does? 4. Does it make any difference to the “executive privilege” argument that the Administration Rove served is no longer in office? ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/2 "2009-01-27T02:44:01Z")
I say he shows up. He “forgot” a few things, “doesn’t recall remembering” a few others, and generally makes a mockery of the thing. Gonzo proved this works. All it got him was fired (and barely), and they can’t even do that to Rove. Does somebody have some hard evidence somewhere? It’s nice to dream though… ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/3 "2009-01-27T02:48:05Z")
As unpalatable as it would seem at first, if Obama pardoned him and removed the possibility of self-incrimination; could he, not then, be compelled to testify? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/4 "2009-01-27T02:52:17Z")
> [@chacoguy420](#): > > As unpalatable as it would seem at first, if Obama pardoned him and removed the possibility of self-incrimination; could he, not then, be compelled to testify? No. You can’t be pardoned involuntarily, and Rove would certainly be aware of the consequences of accepting a pardon. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/5 "2009-01-27T04:12:29Z")
Frog march! Frog march! Frog march! ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/6 "2009-01-27T04:29:17Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > No. You can’t be pardoned involuntarily, and Rove would certainly be aware of the consequences of accepting a pardon. He could be granted immunity by Congress for whatever he testifies to, though. So the Fifth Amendment couldn’t be used as an excuse. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/7 "2009-01-27T04:40:44Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > Frog march! Frog march! Frog march! Come to think of it, Turdblossom always has had rather a batrachian quality to him . . . ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/8 "2009-01-27T04:40:45Z")
The Fifth mentions nothing about immunity or punishment, it merely states that nobody can be compelled to serve as a witness against his or herself in a criminal case. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2009, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/9 "2009-01-27T05:05:22Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The Fifth mentions nothing about immunity or punishment, it merely states that nobody can be compelled to serve as a witness against his or herself in a criminal case. [But it has generally been interpreted to support a privilege against any self-incrimination under oath in any kind of proceeding](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination) (a privilege much older in Anglo-American law than the Fifth Amendment itself). Immunity simply takes the possibility of self-incrimination off the table. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/10 "2009-01-29T02:55:50Z")
[Here’s the real kicker:](http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18062) > [@](#): > > Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had a subpoena served on Rove on Tuesday. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, immediately forwarded the subpoena to White House counsel Greg Craig for guidance on how the Obama administration wants Rove to respond. What the hell does he hope to accomplish by that?? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/11 "2009-01-29T03:14:28Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > [Here’s the real kicker:](http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18062) > > What the hell does he hope to accomplish by that?? What else? Political cover. Turdie’s hoping that the counsel will respond, with strong suggestion from the president, that his appearance would be unnecessary and unhelpful based on the fact that there are more pressing issues on which Congress needs to focus. If the Obama administration is willing to sacrifice the law in favor of scoring points with the intractable Right, then up in flames the law will go. That’s the chance Rove and counsel are taking. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/12 "2009-01-29T03:19:59Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > [Here’s the real kicker:](http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18062) > > What the hell does he hope to accomplish by that?? The “Executive Privilege” applies only to, oddly enough, the Executive. Bush is no longer the Executive. Obama is. As discussed in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, there is some residual privilege, but much of it depends on the opinion of the current President. If Obama takes the view that he agrees with Conyers and doesn’t give a fig about Rove or his claims, Rove’s claim of executive privilege will be greatly reduced, if not shredded. If, however, Obama says that he agrees with Rove and that he wants to support the claim of executive privilege, the privilege is much stronger. So much of how Rove is going to play this depends on the stance the current Executive takes. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/13 "2009-01-29T03:48:20Z")
I’m kinda guessing that Conyers checked in with the new administration before issuing that subpeona ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/14 "2009-01-29T15:01:52Z")
> [@BJMoose](#): > > [Here’s the real kicker:](http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18062) > > What the hell does he hope to accomplish by that?? Hmm . . . It doesn’t say whether, or how, Greg Craig replied to Luskin. How **will** he reply? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/15 "2009-01-29T15:03:37Z")
> [@outlierrn](#): > > I’m kinda guessing that Conyers checked in with the new administration before issuing that subpeona Utterly irrelevant. The whole point of executive privilege is that it belongs to the executive. Bush’s guidance was to assert the privilege. Now that Obama is The Man, he has the right to continue or change that policy. Rove did the right thing before in following Bish’s guidance, and he’s doing the right thing now in asking for Obama’s guidance. He will be doing the wrong thing if Obama says, “Yes, tell 'em everything,” and he still refuses for the reason of executive privilege. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/16 "2009-01-29T15:34:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Utterly irrelevant. > Rove did the right thing before in following Bish’s guidance, and he’s doing the right thing now in asking for Obama’s guidance. Rove may have done the right thing in complying with Bush’s claim of privilege, but he went about it in what seems to me to be totally the wrong way—he simply chose not to comply with a legally issued subpoena rather than either responding to the subpoena and then asserting privilege as to specific questions, or by Bush moving to quash. To me, that’s a big deal-It suggests that he just didn’t want to play by the rules, rather than wanting to assert a legal privilege. IANAL, but as I understand it, the standard view is that few privileges are absolute (i.e. protects from any kind of testimony, rather than just protecting privileged materials) and the argument that executive privilege is absolute as to advisors is weak at best, and was rejected in district court last year. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/17 "2009-01-29T16:35:15Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Rove may have done the right thing in complying with Bush’s claim of privilege, but he went about it in what seems to me to be totally the wrong way—he simply chose not to comply with a legally issued subpoena rather than either responding to the subpoena and then asserting privilege as to specific questions, or by Bush moving to quash. Agreed. > [@](#): > > To me, that’s a big deal-It suggests that he just didn’t want to play by the rules, rather than wanting to assert a legal privilege. Not necessarily. It’s also possible that Bush wanted to force a court decision that validated an expanded vision of the privilege. By such actions is new case law made. The case-or-controversy requirement essentially forces this mode upon those seeking to expand, via case law, the state of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/18 "2009-01-29T18:53:00Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > No. You can’t be pardoned involuntarily, and Rove would certainly be aware of the consequences of accepting a pardon. I never thought about the pardon process… at what stage does a person accept/reject the pardon? If Prisoner 24601 declined a pardon, could the jail kick him out anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/19 "2009-01-29T18:57:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not necessarily. It’s also possible that Bush wanted to force a court decision that validated an expanded vision of the privilege. By such actions is new case law made. The case-or-controversy requirement essentially forces this mode upon those seeking to expand, via case law, the state of the law. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Bush wanted that? Any? On pretty much every other issue, from FISA to Guantanamo to his “unitary executive” theories, signing statements, torture, and others, Bush went out of his way to avoid any judicial decision on his … inventive… legal opinions. Why in heavens name would you even think that he might have wanted a court decision when he avoided them like the plague for 8 years? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/20 "2009-01-29T19:00:40Z")
Too late to edit; answering my own question. Excerpted from an article considering whether or not Libbey should have accepted a pardon (had one been offered). It touches on \*Burdick v. United States \*(1915), and \*United States v. Wilson \*(1833). > [@](#): > > The Wilson case of 1833, a unanimous decision in which Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, held that a presidential pardon may be rejected by its intended recipient. Marshall described it as a species of property in the recipient’s possession, which must be pleaded by him to have its proper effect in court. As such, he can throw it away if he wishes. Noting that pardons are sometimes conditional (e.g., imposing exile or some other consequence of acceptance), Marshall said that some might prefer the punishment in prospect without a pardon to the conditions the pardon carries. And for conditional and unconditional pardons alike, the rule must be the same. “There is nothing in the Constitution that gives a person the prerogative to turn down a pardon,” says Lardner. But there is nothing there either that entitles a president to impose a pardon’s effects on an unwilling recipient, and Marshall had a host of English authorities on his side regarding this legacy from the mother country’s common law, a background properly assumed behind the pardon power the framers put in the Constitution. (Lardner’s attempt to bolster his ipse dixit with a quotation from Federalist No. 74 is unpersuasive, as he tears from context a remark about the power being “as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.” Hamilton was talking there about the breadth of the offenses to which the power might be applied; he was not rejecting the traditional acceptance principle.) Rest of the article [here](http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjQwNGZhYjQ5ZWZlZjZjOGFlNjhmODNkNGZmNzY1ZDM=). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173.md?page=2)