# 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:** 2
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/21 "2009-01-29T20:28:50Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 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? Read my words carefully. I’m sure Bush would have welcomed a decision that **that validated an expanded vision of the privilege.** ---
**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, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/22 "2009-01-29T20:59:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Read my words carefully. I’m sure Bush would have welcomed a decision that **that validated an expanded vision of the privilege.** But would he have **expected** it? ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/23 "2009-01-29T21:10:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Read my words carefully. I’m sure Bush would have welcomed a decision that **that validated an expanded vision of the privilege.** Nice editing job there, Bricker. Funny, I thought you beyond that kind of … troubling … debate technique. Ignoring, yes. Snipping out of context, no. Here is what you posted, THE FULL SENTENCE. I’ll even highlight the part for you. “It’s also possible that Bush **wanted to force** a court decision that validated an expanded vision of the privilege.” Do you not notice the difference between what you posted, and what you are now pretending you posted? Of course Bush would have welcomed a decision for him. No shit. But that’s not what you said. So, I guess I have to ask again. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Bush wanted to force a decision? Any? ---
**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, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/24 "2009-01-29T23:04:24Z")
> [@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. IANAL, but I know that this is how precedent is made, but the thing that Bush and Rove were shooting for is what makes me question their motives. If Rove ever gets to court, the issue will be whether executive privilege is absolute (as a defense to contempt charges for not showing up)—the court won’t even be squarely presented with the scope of privilege beyond that. (though that won’t stop some judges ruling on it). Even before the recent ruling against the privilege being absolute, asserting that it is seems to me to be an incredibly long shot (given my understanding that absolute privileges are unusual and those that exist are fairly well-established) If Rove showed, asserted privilege broadly, and then congress sued to compel, the matter would be in court–and the case would be focused on the scope of the privilege. Then I’d agree with you completely-they’d be trying to argue a non-crazy expanded scope of executive privilege. As it is, If it reaches court, I can’t imagine how the endgame will be anything other than a ruling that Rove was in contempt for failing to show up. That’s a short-term win (they don’t have to make Rove show, and risk answering questions, but in my eyes, a long-term loss) So either Bush is getting what in hindsight seems to be extraordinarily optimistic legal advice and simply refuses to pay attention to the trend of rulings rejecting a very broad concept of the executive power(which may be true, given all the other long shots they’ve pushed), or, as I might suspect, the motive is more like obstructionism and contempt for the process. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/25 "2009-01-30T15:42:45Z")
The chair of the committee subpoenaing Rove was on _Countdown_ last night. He said the proper way to exercise executive privilege was to invoke it in response to a specific question during questioning. (Where they go from there, he didn’t say.) He also said that if Rove is a no-show on Monday, the committee _will_ pursue a charge of Contempt of Congress. Fire up the popcorn maker - this show’s gonna be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/26 "2009-01-30T16:51:32Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Nice editing job there, Bricker. Funny, I thought you beyond that kind of … troubling … debate technique. Ignoring, yes. Snipping out of context, no. > > Here is what you posted, THE FULL SENTENCE. I’ll even highlight the part for you. > > “It’s also possible that Bush **wanted to force** a court decision that validated an expanded vision of the privilege.” > > Do you not notice the difference between what you posted, and what you are now pretending you posted? Of course Bush would have welcomed a decision for him. No shit. But that’s not what you said. > > So, I guess I have to ask again. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Bush wanted to force a decision? Any? I said it was possible he wanted to force a decision. You ask if I had any evidence that was true, given his apparent dislike of controlling authority that cut against his position. I rebutted that inference by pointing out that the motive you ascribe to him wouldn’t apply to a decision that was favorable to him. To directly answer your question: no. Other than the inference that he would have wanted to force a decision favorable to him because.. that’s what people do… I have no evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/27 "2009-01-30T16:53:26Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > IANAL, but I know that this is how precedent is made, but the thing that Bush and Rove were shooting for is what makes me question their motives. > > If Rove ever gets to court, the issue will be whether executive privilege is absolute (as a defense to contempt charges for not showing up)—the court won’t even be squarely presented with the scope of privilege beyond that. (though that won’t stop some judges ruling on it). Even before the recent ruling against the privilege being absolute, asserting that it is seems to me to be an incredibly long shot (given my understanding that absolute privileges are unusual and those that exist are fairly well-established) > > If Rove showed, asserted privilege broadly, and then congress sued to compel, the matter would be in court–and the case would be focused on the scope of the privilege. Then I’d agree with you completely-they’d be trying to argue a non-crazy expanded scope of executive privilege. > > As it is, If it reaches court, I can’t imagine how the endgame will be anything other than a ruling that Rove was in contempt for failing to show up. That’s a short-term win (they don’t have to make Rove show, and risk answering questions, but in my eyes, a long-term loss) > > So either Bush is getting what in hindsight seems to be extraordinarily optimistic legal advice and simply refuses to pay attention to the trend of rulings rejecting a very broad concept of the executive power(which may be true, given all the other long shots they’ve pushed), or, as I might suspect, the motive is more like obstructionism and contempt for the process. To me, the key issue now is whether or not Rove appears on Monday. If he does not, and if we can assume that the Obama administration is not claiming privilege, then it seems safe to say he’s simply obstructing. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/28 "2009-01-30T17:10:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To me, the key issue now is whether or not Rove appears on Monday. If he does not, and if we can assume that the Obama administration is not claiming privilege, then it seems safe to say he’s simply obstructing. Even if the Obama admin claims privilege, I don’t get the impression that they hold to the theory that it’s absolute. So I wouldn’t qualify your statement-Subpoenas aren’t invitations, and if Rove doesn’t show up, he’s obstructing. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/29 "2009-01-30T17:23:04Z")
Perp walk! Perp walk! ---
**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 30, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/30 "2009-01-30T17:49:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I said it was possible he wanted to force a decision. > > You ask if I had any evidence that was true, given his apparent dislike of controlling authority that cut against his position. I rebutted that inference by pointing out that the motive you ascribe to him wouldn’t apply to a decision that was favorable to him. Nice rewriting of history too. You asserted that it was possible that Bush wanted to force a decision. I asked for evidence of that. You then tried to pretend that you only meant that he wanted a decision in his favor. I pointed out the problem with your … editing. And now you’re spinning again, trying to pretend that you only meant to rebut an inference that no one made. But, whatever gets you through the night. You finally got around to answering the question. > [@Bricker](#): > > To directly answer your question: no. Other than the inference that he would have wanted to force a decision favorable to him because.. that’s what people do… I have no evidence. Thanks. I think his history of nigh but constant refusal to have any of his “legal theories” or fact findings actually tested in court shows your original belief that the might have wanted to force a decision to be somewhat lacking. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/31 "2009-01-31T08:57:45Z")
Dangerous curves ahead according to Michael Isikoff at Newsweek: > **[Bush Lawyer Directs Rove Not to Talk to Congress](https://www.newsweek.com/bush-lawyer-directs-rove-not-talk-congress-78381)** > > Bush lawyer directs Rove not to talk to Congress—once again In the days just before he left office, Bush sent letters to Rove & Harriet Miers instructing them to not turn over any documents or appear to testify before congress, saying that he was extending his executive privilege to them for all future time including after he left office. The matter came to light after former White House Counsel Fred Fielding contacted the lawyers for Miers & Rove about President Bush’s stance on the matter. Somehow the letters were passed to Isikoff - from Conyers, I suspect. But it’s all going to come out in court eventually. The current White House counsel has not discussed it yet. The text of the letters from Fielding to Miers’ & Rove’s lawyers can be found here in pdf form: [Rove](http://www.newsweek.com/id/182224) – [Miers](http://www.newsweek.com/id/182225) An excerpt from the opening of Newsweek article by Isikoff: > [@](#): > > Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration. > > On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fielding sent a letter (.pdf) to Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove “should not appear before Congress” or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove—even after he leaves office. > > A nearly identical letter (.pdf) was also sent by Fielding the day before to a lawyer for former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition with the House Judiciary Committee. That letter reasserted the White House position that Miers has “absolute immunity” from testifying before Congress about anything she did while she worked at the White House—a far-reaching claim that is being vigorously disputed by lawyers for the House of Representatives in court. > > The letters set the stage for what is likely to be a highly contentious legal and political battle over an unresolved issue: whether a former president can assert “executive privilege”—and therefore prevent his aides from testifying before Congress—even after his term has expired. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/32 "2009-01-31T18:20:20Z")
I hope he goes down in flames and spends the rest of his life behind bars with a prison bubba that likes his ass for what he did to the country. Same for anyone that supported him, and the administration he served under. Rove is the very definition of a traitor. Some one willing to do great damage to their country for their own petty selfish agenda. I’ll always consider Republicans nothing but traitors by proxy for supporting his poisoned politics. He help do more damage then terrorists. Republican = Bin Ladin’s wet dream. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/33 "2009-03-05T22:26:58Z")
Update: [Rove (and Harriet Miers) have agreed to testify (under conditions).](http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52405U20090305) > [@](#): > > The Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary Committee said Rove, who was Bush’s top political adviser, and Miers, who was his White House counsel, would provide transcribed testimony behind closed doors, and that the panel would reserve the right to have them testify in public. > > In addition, the committee said in a statement that under the agreement it reached with the former president and his administration, it will receive Bush White House documents relevant to the 2006 dismissal of the U.S. attorneys and that any claims of executive privilege would be “significantly limited.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/34 "2009-03-05T22:38:26Z")
As if they really had a choice? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/35 "2009-03-05T23:03:35Z")
Is it still possible to prosecute Rove for not appearing the first time he was subpoenaed? I am almost certain that if any of us here did that we’d have a warrant out for our arrest. As a tactic I think it’d be interesting to grant him immunity on self incrimination but if he manages to “forget” everything they will have him up on contempt charges (for the first time he ignored the subpoena). Just thinking out loud… ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/36 "2009-03-05T23:56:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration. Having Obama in office made me temporarily forget how much having the Bush Administration in office was like having a Mafia family running the country. This reminded me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/37 "2009-03-06T01:45:56Z")
He deserves to be turned over to the ICC as a war criminal. His house, and all possessions burned, and the ashes pissed on by a small dog on national television. He’s scum, and the people who voted that administration are either morons or traitors. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/38 "2009-03-06T01:53:47Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > He deserves to be turned over to the ICC as a war criminal. His house, and all possessions burned, and the ashes pissed on by a small dog on national television. > > He’s scum, and the people who voted that administration are either morons or traitors. I think you’re starting to repeat yourself. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/39 "2009-03-06T17:28:50Z")
I read today that Rove will not be under oath and it wont be on TV .He is still weaseling out. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173/40 "2009-03-06T17:34:48Z")
At first, yes. Congress has not waived its right to do that, though. But if they do, look for Rove and Miers to just clam up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-subpeonaed-by-conyers/483173.md?page=1)