Obama White House Looking Into Rove's Claim Of Executive Privilege

Subpoenaed by Rep. John Conyers to testify before Congress, Karl Rove has left the debate over whether or not he is protected from testifying to Barack Obama.

The former Bush strategist had previously refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee by claiming that executive privileges allowed him to keep his conversations with the president private. With Bush out of office, Rove instructed his lawyer, Robert Luskin, to ask the Obama White House whether the same privileges currently exist.

Asked for an answer at the White House briefing session, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama's legal counsel was still looking into it.

"The office of White House counsel is studying those issues and will advise us when we have a recommendation," Gibbs said.

It is a fairly clever maneuver on Rove's behalf -- forcing Obama to make a judgment on executive privileges that could have ramifications later in his presidency. But it is also, probably, the only move he could have made, beyond acquiescing to Conyers' demand and traveling up to Capitol Hill.

Comments

[clearlythinking]

I don't think Executive Privilege extends to advisors does it? Technically, he was a strategist, not a member of the cabinet. DIdn't all his types get dragged in during Watergate? Let him eat cake!

[lovable]

THIS IS BS . rove will not listen to whta the abama adminstration says. this is a delay tactic . he will next go on fox and complain that obama administration is out to get him. if he does show he will plead the fifth!!!!!!!!THEN WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

[naschkatze]

He will go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[chocolatecity]

Executive privilege just means that he doesn't have to tell what he discussed with Bush. Does that mean he can't answer questions about conversations with Gonzalez or anyone else at DOJ?

[drklassen]

You forget, under the theory of the "unitary executive" that they worked under, every office under the administration is merely an extension of the Presidency itself. This the foundation of executive privilege for anyone who did anything in the Bush White House.

Of course, this puts an interesting twist on torture-gate. If Rummy's defense is that he got the OK from White House lawyers who, absent any ruling, claim to be following the law to the best of their ability then what we have in Bush-think is Bush getting the OK from Bush based on Bush's interpretation of law. Which means, no matter what, Bush is accountable for torture.

[oldedinthailand]

The rule of law in America is of concern to only two groups, those that make it & those that break it. Both hope to profit. Remember, in America ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you are a lawyer.

[frantaylor]

Show me a lawyer who's ignorant of the law and I will show you a McDonalds employee. They ALL know what they are doing, they are faking when they pretend they don't.

Remember the lawyer's slogan: "Don't EVER ask a question unless you already know the answer".

[naschkatze]

It's a club, though. A couple of days ago the Supreme Court voted 9-0 in favor of "absolute immunity" for prosecutors charged in civil cases against wrongful convictions.

[AlphaDoc]

>It is a fairly clever maneuver on Rove's behalf -- forcing Obama to make a judgment on executive privileges that could have ramifications later in his presidency­.<

"Later in his presidency?" Like after his second term is completed? This is and should be all about an ex-president's ability to continue to confound criminal investigations once he has left office by claiming executive privilege.

[AbstractImp]

Does executive privilege apply to treason, or to criminal investigations into the executive?

Torture is an international war crime.

We should sign the international treaty of criminal courts, and then watch as these guys start coming under due process.

[naschkatze]

And in Rove's case re Don Siegelman, what has that to do with executive privilege?

[frantaylor]

I should mail all my bills to Barack Obama. When the bill collectors ask for their money, I can tell them, "I sent them to Obama, the ball is in his court".

[likeicare]

Save the taxpayers a lot of money and just get a rope.

[JohnCharles123]

With all the Whitehouse has on its plate, going after Rove is a waste of time. Next will be Republicans going after Obama when he leaves office and it never ends. Get over it, we won the election so "move on" (.org).

[Thabit]

All the money that Bernie Maddoff stole is gone (or well hidden) should we just move on ? The people Charlie Manson Killed are dead , we cant bring them back , Move on again? Where does it end , All this moving on ? The last 8 years has been a horror storey in america and in other countrys , all brought on by the last administration. Do we surrender our goverment every 4 years in a crap shoot , with no accountability for the next set of crooks? It has to end somewhere or we devolve in to anarchy.

[FrogPrince]

I totally agree with this. We can't sweep the last 8 years under the rug and "move on". That would just be too easy and anything of worth usually isn't easy. It's imperative to the healing of America that we address the wrongs that occurred. If we don't our nation will certainly continue it's current decline.

[naschkatze]

Absolutely disagree. You are advocating ending the rule of law.

[StillAmused]

The swollen, soulless criminal invokes executive privilege when he lets one go in a crowded elevator. We've been led to the gates of Hades by a crew of sociopaths who've never had to answer for a thing in their vapid, toxic lives.

Won't that approaching blowtorch be a huge surprise..­.

[Ramirez]

"It is a fairly clever maneuver on Rove's behalf -- forcing Obama to make a judgment on executive privileges that could have ramifications later in his presidency­."


Clever indeed. It is unlikely that Obama will take a position to restrict the power of his own administration in exchange for nothing more than a BDS fix for the hyper-partisan wing of his political base. Obama will attempt to evade the question but Rove can simply sit until he gets an answer. And even if Rove does testify he can plead the fifth on any question designed to incriminate him.

The only losers in this saga will be Obama (if he takes the bait) and Conyers (for raising everyone's hopes again over nothing). And Rove? No one can lay a glove on him. As usual.

[GhostwriterDoF]

People underestimate Karl Rove. The man is a very good strategist and one of the few capable Republicans. I agree with you, he would just take the fifth. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[publicmenace]

There are a few legal entanglements here but the 5th Amendment is not one of them. Rove is being asked to testify about Bush, not himself, therefore he can't refuse to testify for self-incrimination reasons.

[FogBelter]

I remember when "Neon" Deion Sanders was working his magic on both sides of the ball in the NFL in the 90's. He was good, he was fast, and he would embarrass his opponents. He could make the opposition look like fools ... but there was one game ...

Deion was playing offense, I think it was with Dallas, and he was waiting on the sideline for the ball and Kevin Greene, with the Panthers then I think, drew a bead on him and just when Deion caught the ball Greene went airborne and unloaded on Deion. As I recall, Deion fumbled, his helmet was cockeyed, he was rolling on the ground grabbing at his knee, his head, and looking completely out if it. I don't remember if he returned to the game after that hit, but I don't recall him being as cocky.

Despite the taunting and the dancing and the high stepping into the end zone ... every
"Neon" Deion has an appointment with his airborne Kevin Greene. So Mr Rove better keep his head on a swivel.

[jesuslovesObama]

Sweet story!

[naschkatze]

Now that's a sports analogy.

[Telemachus]

I'd rather see his head on a pike.

[FogBelter]

It really comes down to what Conyers has on him. If this is just a fishing expedition then Rove might be able to squirm out of the net, but if there is some hard evidence available to indict him I seem to recall that Executive Privilege can not be allowed to cover up crimes:

In U.S v Nixon the Supreme Court determined "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" in support of Executive Privilege, but the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the President has an "absolute privilege.­" The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

I'm sure the President has already spoken to Conyers and asked "What have you got?" That will determine whether the worm escapes the hook.

[KarlaElisa]

Rove's lawyer claims he has a recent letter from Bush ...a sort of 'get out of testifying card', if you will.

They are asserting that ex presidents have the right to excersize executive privilege with regard to what went on during their administrations and that Obama will have to file a motion to see if the court will overturn it by Feb 18th, which is some sort of deadline to challenge or something. Rather unclear on that last point.

[whatawebb]

Secrecy overrides legality Everytime!

[jashu51]

"By claiming that executive privileges allowed him to keep his conversations with the president private". Even if some of their conversations are criminal in nature?

[vgirl1]

Obama should reject Rove's claim of executive privilege. Every conversation with the President cannot be assumed to involve Executive Privilege. Moreover why is "privilege" needed if nothing illicit is going on?