Rove: It's Still the Absolute Immunity Issue

/in , /by

Sorry I’ve been a bit distracted (yes yes, I know I promised a post on those missing OLC opinions!!) But until I get undistracted, check out this video from Turdblossom.

Note how he describes the issue:

I’ve been directed again … not to respond to a subpoena, exerting privilege on behalf of a former President. 

[snip]

This issue of whether or not I should show up … 

He is still describing the issue as being whether or not he has to show up–and he’s avoiding the word "executive."

Fine. Good. That makes Roves’s position much more precarious than if he had a fresh new executive privilege claim. Dawn Johnsen, by herself, could cause Rove’s sorry Turdblossom to have to show up.

We shall see what the Obama Administration does.

image_print
  1. freepatriot says:

    Bob tried to appease the goddess in the last thread

    does that help ???

    how about if Illinois sacrifices a governor (I think I can arrange that)

    and shouldn’t that be “let’s see what Conyers does” instead ???

  2. freepatriot says:

    here’s a hypothetical question for our lawyer contingent

    if blagoff were given the death penalty for some future crime, would they get kill the weasel on his head too ???

  3. BillE says:

    EW have you heard anything related to timing for getting Holder/and or his people in? And, has anyone heard if BO has done anything to actually read or find the actual OLC memos in question.

  4. Leen says:

    when was the last time the Sergeant at Arms was sent out to pick some one up ignoring a congressional subpoena

      • bobschacht says:

        Hey, I bet I’m one of the few here who have actually been to Teapot Dome.

        …well, within a few hundred yards of it, anyway. But it serves as a reminder of how a label like that can become a byword for generations.

        What will be the byword to emerge from BushCo?

        Bob in HI

  5. plunger says:

    Rove’s public statements alone put him in contempt of Congress.

    He and Blagoff are running neck and neck for contemptible prick of the decade.

  6. MaryCh says:

    Nice catch/parsing. Like many I come here for sharp, swift analysis and debate. That said, it’s phrases like Rove’s sorry Turdblossom that I’ll remember. Google tells me you’re the first to commit this one to the electrodigital hivemind — congratulations, Marcy!

  7. plunger says:

    Rove was just getting a little jealous that Blaggo had pulled ahead of him in the contemptible prick department, so he put the call into billo to book himself for a little equal time.

  8. freepatriot says:

    I’m thinkin rover has to go the “absolute Immunity” route

    it’s the only protection he has for the Siegelman stuff

    executive privilege doesn’t apply to kkkarl’s actions in that case

    trying to exert EP there would mean bush admits to obstructing justice

    not gonna happen

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      And don’t you find it interesting that K-k-karl:

      1. Checked with the WH Counsel on almost the last possible day — Jan 16th. Was he perhaps checking in at that very late Bush administration date in order to determine whether or not there was a pardon with his name on it? Hmmmm?

      2. Claims ‘privilege’, as EW notes “under the former President“. (That part made me chortle.)

      3. Doesn’t seem to realize that the descriptions of Conyers in this interview — as ‘Ahab’, ‘an extremist’ who conducts ‘witch hunts’ — eerily summarize Rove’s behavior toward Siegelman and those fired DoJ attorneys. (That part gave me the creeps.)

      He’s certainly throwing down the gauntlet, but not until he covers it with as much sh*t as he can dream up.

      • BayStateLibrul says:

        Is it possible that old George gave Rove a pardon to be opened ONLY upon
        “being fucked by the Dems”?
        We had no idea of George’s January 16th letter, can pardons be granted
        with conditions?

    • Loo Hoo. says:

      Or in the same cell with these criminals (C&L):

      Both retired FBI officials asserted that the Bush administration was thoroughly briefed on the mortgage fraud crisis and its potential to cascade out of control with devastating financial consequences, but made the decision not to give back to the FBI the agents it needed to address the problem. After the terrorist attacks of 2001, about 2,400 agents were reassigned to counterterrorism duties.

  13. BoxTurtle says:

    Absolute immunity buys time. He need do nothing until the Supremes rule. Once the supremes rule against him (likely), he falls back on the 5th. He’s got a very strong 5th amendment claim, IMO.

    He might add another step in the middle: Refusing to appear anyway. That would force another trip through the courts…or worse, force congress to enforce their own subpoena.

    Boxturtle (He might also catch Forgetfulness from his close contact with Gonzo)

  14. pdaly says:

    Watched the clip.

    I noticed even O’Reilly swallowed the phrase “Executive p-” when talking with Rove in the clip.

    Seems O’Reilly didn’t want to goof up and put those words in Rove’s mouth.
    BTW, couldn’t tell what Rove was saying over O’Reilly at that instant–can anyone else?

  15. pdaly says:

    I think Rove says “close aide priv-”, but not sure.

    When I wrote O’Reilly “swallowed” the phrase executive privilege, I meant it in the sense he stopped himself from using it. His sentence ends nonsensically on the word ‘executive’ but his lips form for the letter ‘p.’

    O’Reilly then asks to move beyond the argument and the type of privilege Rove is asserting is neatly glossed over.

  16. maryo2 says:

    Reading Bradbury per EW’s link last week
    http://static1.firedoglake.com…..timony.pdf

    Page 3 of 3 says “the same considerations that were persuasive to former President Truman would apply to justify a refusal to appear [before a congressional committee] by … a former [senior presidnetial advisor], if the scope of his testimony is to be limited to his activities while serving in that capacity.”

    Because Rove will be asked questions about stuff that Bush supposedly doesn’t know about, then Rove must appear, or else Bush has to admit to knowing about the DOJ firings and the Siegelman prosecution.

    • maryo2 says:

      The title of the memorandum Bradley refences is even “Availability of Executive Privilege Where Congressional Committee Seeks Testimony of Former White House Official on Advice Given President on Official Matters.”

      Luskin and Rove of full of crap. They are just buying time. Who is paying Luskin?

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        I dunno who’s paying Gold Bars Luskin, but perhaps one of the attys here can illuminate:

        Freep@11 alludes to Rove not being covered by EP on Siegelman.
        But Rove is claiming he can avoid prosecution by invoking privilege under GWBush.
        Doesn’t this pull GWBush farther into the quicksand?

  20. Hmmm says:

    Uhm. So it’s a stall tactic, then. Uh, well, OK, so does Rover maybe have any SoL-related motivations to run the clock long here?