Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify

Just for clarification, "Contempt of Congress" is, in fact, a criminal offense. Title 2 U.S. Code, Section 192 Moreover, the Committee has the authority to ask for Mr. Rove's cooperation.

So, fishing expeditions are, in fact, a lawful prerogative of Congressional committees.

Finally, the assertions of "executive privilege" by this administration have gone farther than any other administration in history, and are truly unprecedented. Of particular interest, and an obvious abuse, was the refusal to discuss any of the "Energy policy" discussions VP Cheney had with oil executives. I am not aware of any instance where executive privilege was invoked to cover conversations with those not within the executive branch. For a more complete discussion, see A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY - findlaw.

I think there will be a great deal of interest in the next Congress to investigate abuses of power by the Executive Branch, with potential for legislation that will curtail some of the expanded "rights" claimed by the Bush 43 administration. In that context, all of the beneficiaries of executive pardons, commutations, broad claims of executive privilege, etc. could be subpeoned to testify. Without a President willing to give them a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, they will have to reveal all those secrets or face arrest on charges of contempt or perjury.

I think we are past the point where people will accept the claim that we should let it go, "for the good of the country". You can deny justice up to a point, and beyond that some hotheads will start throwing tea in the harbor, raiding armories, and so forth.

Indeed he does, esp. when one of the fish is named Don Siegelman.

Actually, Rove has no right to decline testimony based upon his own privileges. The President could claim executive privilege but Rove has no similar right. He is not, despite appearances, the Executive.

"when will he be indicted in the Plame outing case"

I think since the SP did not bring charges, he the SP determined KR did not break the letter of the law.

I think he should at the least be held in contempt (but I think most non-Republican partisan already do so) for flagrantly and deliberately exposing a covert CIA operative. At least Armitage said he was sorry.

I don't think this a a fishing expedition. That would imply no one knows who is involved but in this case KR has been intimately connected to many possible violations of law. In this respect the only way of knowing for sure if a law was broken is to gather evidence and part of that evidentiary process is to depose people involved.

As supporters of hacking away at No. 4 are always proud to say, if you are not a criminal it doesn't affect you. Here is a case for one of those supporters to stand and be proud to provide Congress with some truth and honesty as a fine upstanding citizen.

Just havin' a bit of fun here. The folks over at "Truthout" were certain an indictment would be handed down and the failure to do so spoiled "Fitzmas '06".

But, no charges were ever brought for such breeches.
"In this respect the only way of knowing for sure if a law was broken is to gather evidence and part of that evidentiary process is to depose people involved." IOW, a "fishin' expedition".

In the so-called Plame Affair, White House personnel waived their 5th Amendment rights under instruction from their boss and testified under oath. In the instant case, POTUS has invoked executive privilege concerning the matters under investigation and White House staff are covered. Having seen I Lewis Libby ground up in a perjury trap, why would any sane person do otherwise?

Be still my heart: