House panel subpoenas Rove - CNN.com

This goes back to the Justice Department's firing of attorneys.

It looks like he will be forced to testify. I don't see a way out of this... is there?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

He'll probably claim executive privilege, since the testimony being sought is from his days in the White House.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Ah, yes.

I wonder if that argument will hold up. I'm no lawyer, but isn't the president and perhaps the executives in the executive branch the only ones allowed to claim executive privilege?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

bush should make him immune

it is treasonous to question our leaders.

__________________
Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.
Ariel Sharon
CONGRESSMAN LARRY McDONALD EXPOSES THE NEW WORLD ORDER 1983

Bush, of course, has no such authority.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Man I hope they kick his ass. I don't think he'll show just like Bolten and Miers and due to the Justice Dept being a Bush Cheney lapdog nothing will happen and they will have to file a civil suit like Pelosi had to. Can't wait for Obama's people to get in there.

And who's going to stop him?

__________________
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson

"There is Still No Such Thing As a Fair Tax"

Please, if you wish to delve into the realm of fantasy with groupthink, don't try to involve me.

Here in reality, there is a court system and a legislature.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

and OJ didnt do it?...lol

__________________
Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.
Ariel Sharon
CONGRESSMAN LARRY McDONALD EXPOSES THE NEW WORLD ORDER 1983

The President should send a highlighted copy of the Constitution, Article II, Section I to the commitee. He had every constitutional right to fire the U.S. Attornies, there was NOTHING either unprecedent nor unseemly about it, let alone illegal or unconstitutional.

If they want to investigate abusive politicization of the Justice Department, I suggest that they start by subpeonaing some Clinton administration officials, investigate the tactics used to delay the indictment of Dan Rostenkowski.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Rove's actions and involvement may have been completely above board. And if that is the case, he should have no problem with testifying.

You seem to have a grasp of legal matters based on previous posts. Can he legitimately invoke executive privilege on this one?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

He cannot, but the White House can, and in all likelyhood will.

I will say, this is an example of just how hardball and streetfighting the democrats are in their politics. The GOP when they were in control generally would pull back on subpeonas whenever there was an assertion of Executive Privilege, or even if they were informed that the witness planned to plead the 5th Amendment. Republicans never got up the balls to haul them before the cameras for hours of questioning and hours of "A ascerte my fifth amendment right...". Of course IF they had (like the democrats would not hesitate to do) the media who lap it up when it is democrats would have denounced it as meaningless political theatre (which it is, which is the point)

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Even though they can i would like to see this go through the courts and have federally appointed judges re-affirm this can be revoked on EP grounds.

I'm glad the Dems issued the subpoena, this is a great battle and it'll be good to have the courts rubber stam the EP that the WH will invoke.

1) You're wrong. Firing employees for refusing to be political hatchetmen is illegal.

2) Why would Congress investigate "crimes" that occurred nearly 8 years ago (beyond the statute of limitations) when there are crimes occuring much more recently?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

That's what makes this whole deal small, as far as I'm concerned. Of ALL the things that Bush and company have done, the Democrats want to go after THIS? It sounds like the "non-binding resolution" the Democrats hemmed and hawed about when they first took the majority. It sounds like it is destined to fail and they know it.

But it DOES give the sheep a reason to think they are doing something to earn their pay.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.