Rove's Executive Privilege Claims Don't Pass the Laugh Test

A small coup for the Huffington Post: On these pages, way back in November, the very high likelihood was raised that Karl Rove's Executive Privilege claims would vanish when Bush left office. ("Karl Rove's Executive Privilege Claims May Vanish on January 20, 2009", November 10, 2008), and trigger exactly the events that have occurred.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, has submitted to WH Counsel, Greg Craig, the subpoena issued to Rove by the Chairman John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee. Supremely wise, Craig will not address the issue of a past-President's Executive Privilege, leaving that to the Courts. As indicated in the above article, the most delicious irony is that George W Bush provided the only precedent on Executive Privilege from the grave, suggesting it does not exist when he, not Bill Clinton, invoked it to prevent some Clinton officials from testifying in front of a (Republican) Congress.

As also explained in the above article, it is impossible for Mr. Craig to evaluate Rove's specific claim for Executive Privilege without getting all the facts from Rove, from Bush and from Gonzales. What, if anything, did Rove discuss with Bush? With Cheney? What is the White House political advisor doing becoming involved in matters of justice? Who was the liaison between the White House and Justice Department that conveyed the White House views? What did Karl Rove have to do with the prosecution of Donald Seligman, the Governor of Alabama?

Thus, Rove must tell Craig the details Congress seeks in order to have a prayer of Obama invoking Executive Privilege because, for starters, there have to have been some discussions Rove had about the subjects to protect. But, Obama will probably not sully his hands in Rove's case regardless of what he tells Craig. Thus, Rove will not tell Craig anything, and Craig will have no basis for advising Obama to assert the Privilege. Hence, Rove will have to testify or face contempt-of-Congress that an Obama Justice Department cannot shrink from prosecuting as the obsequious Mukasey did.

Luskin has ludicrously suggested that Obama "negotiate" with Bush on Rove's testimony. Again, the supremely wise Craig will spend most of his energy suppressing his laugh.

One tantalizing question Chairman Conyers should ask Rove when he comes to testify: "Did George Bush issue you a pardon?" [It is very possible that Bush issued a host of pardons secretly. Because no action--such as release from prison or halting prosecution--is necessary for a pardon of those not (yet) indicted, it is possible that Bush issued pardons to members of his staff like Rove and never announced it].

Comments

[wordvarc]

Rove's 'executive privilege' claim had nothing to do with legalities of "executive privilege" but instead about how he and Fielding could delay justice until they were out of the White House and the people had 'moved on' to other concerns.
But the depth and extent of betrayal to Americans and the world is beyond their comprehension.
We want investigation and prosecution of these ghoulish criminals!

[breakfast]

If some civil Officer of the government were about to be impeached for some criminal act, the President could pardon him. However, the pardon would not preclude the impeachment, but only protect him from ordinary criminal prosecution in the courts.

[rosiebond007]

Why issue a "pardon" if you are innocent ??

Isn't this an admission of some kind of guilt?

These people are crooks and have stolen hugely from the taxpayer in so many ways.
So ...... bracelets and a small room to think about it !!!

[CaptainObvious]

"As indicated in the above article, the most delicious irony is that George W Bush provided the only precedent on Executive Privilege from the grave, suggesting it does not exist when he, not Bill Clinton, invoked it to prevent some Clinton officials from testifying in front of a (Republican) Congress."

I sort of forgot about that. Looking back now though, doesn't that move seem a bit choreographed?

[ROWSSC]

There is much high minded bloviation on this thread. Can anyone in here, in plain english, explain to me exactly what crime Karl Rove is supposed to be charged with? Thanks.

[lungfish]

Contempt of Congress, for starters..­. you might try reading the article .....

[ROWSSC]

Ok, I understand now. Because the delusional nutbag John Conyers has decided that Rove must "answer questions" without one iota of evidence of wrongdoing. He is using a clause inserted by George Bush intended to save the country the embarrassment of having ex Clinton officials testify about the most scandal plagued and corrupt administration in the history of America. Thanks...I think I got it now.

[Principaldad]

Here is the serious answer (assuming your question is serious):

Rove is not charged with anything right now. The Congress wants to investigate possible illegal activity regarding certain actions. Congress has the right and duty to do this. They have done it throughout history, whenever it is in the public interest. It is part of an investigation and because of this it doesn't require extensive evidence. The subpoena is legally binding. In this way, Congress acts like a grand jury.

Although proof is not required, there is plenty of indication that crimes may have occurred. For example, both documents and testimony indicate that several US attorneys were fired for political reasons, which would be a crime.

[Paul Abrams - Huffpost Blogger]

I tried listing some of those areas: the politicizing of the justice department (except for senior positions, the justice department is supposed to hire without knowing a person's political philosophy or party), the firing of the United States prosecutors. Rove has been accused of involving himself in the prosecution of Alabama Governor Donald Seligmann. Rove went to the grand jury 5 times to "correct" earlier testimony regarding the outing of Valerie Plame--an act that provided aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States since Plame was involved in counterterrorism analysis.
Rove was not in the Justice Department and had no business having anything to do with Justice Department hiring or policies or decisions. He was the WH political advisor.
Rove also (illegally) used non government computers to conduct government business, likely to avoid the record keeping rules.
Rove may have had close connections to Abramoff.
All this deserves investigation. It is likely that if an investigation is done, that lots of other rocks will be turned over with other transgressions--why do I say this? Because he and Bush are fighting so hard to protect it---you really believe it is to "preserve Presidential privacy"?

[LeftRight]

I would ask what crime Scooter Libby had been charged with when he went before the Grand Jury and they charged him. It's a fact finding mission, that Congress has every right to perform, and anyone who fails to show up when they are subpoenaed should be thrown in jail, just like they would if they were a witness in a criminal case and had been subpoenaed and refused to show!

[Principaldad]

I have a question regarding impeachments and pardons. The relevant Constitutional text is as follows:

"...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachmen­t." (Article II, Sect 2)

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeano­rs.” (Article II, Sect 4)

“Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” (Article I, Sect 3)

It would seem to me that the Constitution specifically states that all federal civil officers are subject to impeachment AND that impeachment makes them liable for criminal prosecution. Since the president’s pardon power specifically states “except in Cases of Impeachment”, this would imply that a Presidential pardon is useless if the “pardoned” person is impeached. It would also seem that a person can be impeached at any time since the impeachment can be used to prevent them from holding office again.

This would certainly seem to apply to people like Cheney, Bush, and Gonzales. There would be a question whether people like Rove or Miers would be considered “civil officers”.

That’s my interpretation. Thoughts anyone?

[Strywever]

I'm not sure you're interpreting this correctly: "Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I, Sect 3),

This does not mean that impeachment MUST lead to criminal charges. It simply means that impeachment doesn't include imposition of penalties for criminal behavior beyond removal from office, and that the criminal justice system is the appropriate venue for further action.

[Principaldad]

I am not arguing that impeachment MUST lead to criminal charges.

The passage is stating outright that the convicted party CAN (not must) be charged and convicted under applicable criminal law. The other sections of the Constitution that I cited seem to indicate that the president cannot block that criminal prosecution using his pardon power (since the individual was convicted in an impeachment proceeding).

[Sundialsvc4]

Fundamentally, a criminal cannot pardon another criminal. And if the issue being discussed is "high crime," past or present, then the Constitution itself makes it quite clear that "any civil officer" is subject to prosecution for the same.

If any suitably-placed government official COULD, by his own authority or position, protect himself or his cronies from prosecution, then of course he would ... and crime would flourish. Hey, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that this is precisely what HAS occurred, especially during the last eight years, and they're all busy tallying up however many trillion (won't it soon be quadrillion?) dollars are supposedly going to be needed to "fix" it.

The only system that works is: I don't care who you are, or who you were, or what position you now hold or have held. "If you do the crime, you're gonna do the time, and there is nothing that you can do or say to stop this from happening.­" Otherwise, they have the power to impose their crimes upon the entire population, and they'll surely (and remorselessly) do it. There comes a time when all 305+ million citizens of this country can call themselves "plaintiffs," and that time is here.

[GreatNews27]

More likely will be Obama upholding Bush's claim so as to make the same claim himself seeing that Republicans will be signaling that they will come after him when he leaves office for everything from mars on the WH furniture to dentist bills incurred while in office. Bush has backed Obama into a corner. If effect, Obama has to declare the gun unloaded or else the Republicans will fire it into his head. Well played, Mr. Bush!

[FogBelter]

"One tantalizing question Chairman Conyers should ask Rove when he comes to testify: "Did George Bush issue you a pardon?""

Exactly my thought, Paul. After reading "Family of Secrets" by Russ Baker, in addition to other books on the Bush Cabal, secret Presidential Pardons strike me as a distinct possibility. The Bush family seems to like to operate in the shadows, and with Poppy Bush having already served a term as President it is likely the Bush "Family" has thought things like Secret Presidential Pardons through.

[MajorKong]

Nothing a little "Enhanced Interrogation" wouldn't clear up.

[LeftRight]

Illegally and unacceptably.

[ROWSSC]

With two illegal, immoral and racist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the deliberate attacks on civilian population centers need to be accounted for. 14 women and children targeted and murdered by a predator drone in Afghanistan. 6 school children killed by an F-16 strike in Iraq. The U.S. president responsible for the blood letting is an international war criminal and needs to be tried as such. The American people need to call for swift action and a speedy war crimes trial for the villainous Barack Obama. In the name of big oil Obama has ordered these attacks and should be impeached and imprisoned. Shame on you, Barack Obama, NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL!

[Yermammy]

LOL! You're ridiculous :) Try as you might to feebly deflect off topic, this little matter of the last eight years of criminality isn't going away. The very fact you're able to even comment here is a testimony to the freedom of a Liberal Progressive Democratic blog site (something WE'RE not allowed to do, conversely on a reich wing blog). So, you have every right to post here and WE have the right to laugh at your silly meat!

[ROWSSC]

The fact that you felt compelled to comment is heartening. My post, very effectively, reveals what a bunch of loony hypocrytes people, like yourself, are. Your hero, John Conyers is making a bigger fool out of himself than even I thought possible. Karl Rove will never be tried for any of the delusional, fabricated "crimes" that the crazy left has dreamed up. So, keep drinking the koolaid. It will make you feel better about yourself..­.........L­MAO!

[byla]

LOL...I guess you're forgetting who started those two illegal, immoral and racist wars, targeting not only innocent civilians, but also news outlets, all for oil and to funnel taxpayer money into the coffers of Haliburton and Blackwater.

Dubya and Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld are the real war criminals.

[LeftRight]

It appears that your memory is shorter than it was before. Just last week your memory extended all the way back to 9/11/2001, now it's just back to 1/20/2009.

[WorkingClass]

Rove never had executive privilege. He still doesn't. What he had was the protection of a crooked Attorney General. Now he doesn't have that either. He will show up and plead the 5th.

[wordvarc]

Yes.

[Yermammy]

All the more reason to get Karl in front of Congress and answer that question of secret pardons. It wouldn't surprise me in the least and once it's determined that they are, Barack should reveal ALL of those pardoned so the public can see what tricksters and criminals they really are. The newspapers and Televised media should then provide the list of all the scumbags pardoned. Let the people know what's up!

[NevadaDem]

Karl Rove thinks he is so above-the-law that he can't answer a subpoena. If Mr. or Mrs. Joe Citzen did that...the­y'd be hauled off to the Big House without questions.

Karl Rove is the Keeper of the Bush Secrets...­he will do anything to keep his butt from sitting in front of a Congressional Committee. Karl is about as TRANSPARENT as a set of black-out curtains in a casino hotel room.

[drock973]

Secret pardons? Just like how Bush was going to declare martial law?