Rove is a No-Show

Remove all ads!

As expected, Rove ignored the subpoena and failed to show up to Congress. Talk about an egomaniac. Clearly this is illegal, and he is in contempt. Even if you believe that what Congress was going to ask him is covered by executive privelege (despite the fact that Rove has said on other occassions he never talked to the president about the Alabama governor), you have to show up to Congress and claim executive privelege while you're on the stand. You can't just say, "Executive Privelege!" and disregard a subpoena. It's Contempt of Congress - lock him up.

 

Rove appears to be in Sweden for some reason. Saw an interview with him last night, was wondering why the hell he would be here. Now I know. I also wonder what fiendish plots he has shared with our right-wing politicians.

 

This is a case where I'm johnny on the spot to condemn immoral behaviour regardless of the political leanings of the source. If there is a legal responsibility to attend Congress when they subpoena you, then it is incumbent on everyone so subpoenaed to follow the law. He should be compelled to attend or be jailed for contempt. Simple as that.

 

This is pure political silliness. It is just like the Libby conviction, a total waste of time, as everyone will be pardoned before anything can happen. Considering how abysmal of a job Congress has been doing, you would think they would stop focusing on bull**** and actually try to do their jobs.

 

Much like Whitewater and Travelgate and Monicagate and Vince Fostergate and....

 

Iirc congress has the power to order the arrest of people ignoring their subpoenas.

 

Snook, investigating improprieties in the executive branch is their job. Due to the fact that Congress has around 500 people, it is perfectly capable of multi-tasking, so the poor performance you are alleging can't rightly attributed to this, or any investigation.

 

The three previous posts are 100% correct. However, as I stated, in this case it is a complete waste of time and energy. Congress has a 0% chance of getting a conviction before Bush leaves office and he will clearly pardon everyone as he leaves office. That is what makes this entire thing stupid. It is a clear case of Congress playing politics instead of trying to do their job.

I'm not saying Rove is innocent and doesn't deserve conviction, but why waste the taxpayer's time and money on something when the "fix" is in. As a rule of thumb I don't like to do things that are pointless, and I especially don't like to see people who I'm paying doing useless things.

 

Snook,

There is a simple solution to your problem. Don't convict him until AFTER Bush leaves office. You suggest as much in your post when you say there is a 0% chance of them getting a conviction prior to Bush's term ending. In fact, they should WANT to wait until Bush's term ends to avoid the exact sequence that you describe. Holding someone in contempt is just the first step of the process. Bush can do a lot of things, and we know how much he loves the pre-emption strategy, but one thing he CANNOT do is pre-emptively pardon someone. In fact, Rove is actually the third Bush advisor who likely will be held in contempt. The other two have not been sentenced yet, and likely will not be until after Bush's term ends in January. From the article:

So it's not nearly as pointless as you would suggest.

 

Something tells me that you are incorrect about this and pardons can be given.

 

I think that Snook is right...

Taken from wikipedia

 

Atmer, Bush can't pardon Rove for non-specific charges, and congress hasn't found anything...yet. Issuing a pardon for something that hasn't yet been proven or discovered by a congressional investigation, a criminal investigation, or the press would constitute an admission on his part that he knew about it, which would then put him in legal jeopardy, and Bush can't pardon himself. Since I'm fairly certain that GW values his own ass and legacy far more than he values the ass of Karl Rove, I wouldn't worry too much about presidential pardons getting in the way of the investigation.

 

Drew made my point better than I did. The President can pardon someone prior to a conviction, but the President cannot issue a blanket get out of jail free card to Rove for anything that an investigation may turn up. You cannot, as Drew accurate describes it, pardon someone for non-specific charges.

I am not aware of how contempt of Congress functions in practice, but if it is anything like the grand jury system (where you are held in contempt of court if you defy a subpoena), you can be held in contempt multiple times for the same questions. As an example of this, look at the repeated times that Barry Bonds' trainer was sent to prison for refusing to testify against Barry. Every few months a new grand jury would be seated. They called him in to testify, he refused, and got shipped off to prison for a month. This happened more than once. Like I said, I don't know if the same thing applies in Congress (perhaps it can only happen once every two years?).

Regardless, a presidential pardon being issued now would mean that Bush would be admitting his own guilt in this. Here's the thing I cannot understand: Rove has claimed he has never had any conversation with Bush concerning the investigation of the Alabama governor. However, he says he doesn't have to honor the subpoena because of executive privelege. Executive privelege allows any presidential advisor to not have to disclose any conversations, e-mail, discussions, etc he has had with the president, even in a court of law. However, if Rove has never had any conversation with Bush about the investigation, then he isn't covered by executive privelege. Set aside for the moment that even if he could claim executive privelege that wouldn't allow him to defy the subpoena - he'd still have to show up and claim executive privelege while under oath. In this case, the premise under which he feels that he can claim executvie privelege seems absurd. He's saying that he doesn't have to disclose any information about conversation he never had with the president.

 

I guess the question is "What is the crime?" Clearly Rove is in contempt of Congress and the president can pardon him for that without any problem.

If I understand the issue correctly the Democrats believe that Rove pressured a prosecutor to charge a Democrat governor with a crime. Even if Rove did do this, I'm not sure what his crime was. It was a jury that found the governor guilty not the prosecutor or Rove.

Getting back to the pardon, If I was the President I would issue a pardon for "contempt of Congress, and another one for whatever they are investigating him for.

In my opinion this was just a witch hunt to get the bogeyman that the Dem's fear the most.

 

OK, I've done some research on this, and if you can look at the link if you want more information regarding Contempt of Congress.

First of all, his crime is violating a Congressional subpoena. Bush can, in fact, pardon him from the punishment. However, as indicated in the link, each new Congress can issue a subpoena, and that a standing subpoena cannot extend beyond the current Congressional session. Therefore, when a new Congress is seated in January 2009, they could call Rove back on the floor, and Bush would no longer be president.

At the moment the only crime Rove is being accused of is defying the subpoena - what Congress is trying to find out is if the Executive Branch influenced the prosecution of this governor. There are three branches of government, and clearly a decision whether or not to prosecute someone should be in the hands of the Judiciary Branch, not the Executive Branch. To put in as succinctly as possible, if someone (either Bush, Rove, or whomever) ordered the case to be prosecuted, it would be a violation of the separation of powers in the Constitution - i.e., by violating the Constitution, they would have broken the law, and if Bush was involved in that he could be charged with a criminal offense. That is what is being investigated, although that is not the crime Rove is being charged with - at least not at the moment.

However, there is another stipulation that makes all of the above moot: The Senate Rules can also authorize the Senate to bring civil action against an individual in contempt. And Rove is SOL if he's hoping for a presidential pardon if there are civil charges brought forth. From the link (bold added by me):

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. The Judiciary Branch is the courts, but I believe the attorney general's office (the prosecution) is the executive branch as it is a part of the Department of Justice.

 

The executive branch cannot compel the courts to prosecute anyone. The link I provided towards the bottom actually uses this case as an example and says it violates the separation of powers clause in the constitution. It's not my assertion that I'm making up out of the blue, it's referenced in the link. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to agree, just don't expect a counterarguement from me, as I believe the referenced link to be accurate.

 

From what has been written it would appear that Rove is accused of using Executive influence to encourage the prosecution / legal persecution of a political enemy. I don't know what the legal term of that would be but it strikes me as wrong and a misuse of said Executive authority.

The idea that Bush can just blanket pardon people makes me ill. It was snaky when Ford did it with Nixon and it's snaky now. However, I doubt that it's a behaviour limited to those two cases -- I imagine most Presidents sign some "get out of jail free" cards at the end of their terms. I can see why the President would have that authority but at the same time there should be something to balance it - -after all the American system is all about checks and balances, right?

 

Please quote it for me as I read the wiki and didn't see anything similar to that. The courts do not prosecute anyone, they only handle the trial. Prosecution is a job of the executive branch.

 

I think LKD has explained what's going on pretty clearly. The only thing I think I would disagree with is the idea that Bush can blanket pardon - in the link I provided it specifically said it cannot.

Snook, no where in the link does it provide a sentence that says "I'm right and you're wrong." It is how I interpreted what I read. That for Bush to use the influence of his position to start an investigation of an Alabama governor would be wrong and outside of his sphere of authority to act. You disagree, and that's fine.