Exclusive: Rove not covered by executive privilege in political prosecution case, lawyer says

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Exclusive: Rove not covered by executive privilege in political prosecution case, lawyer says
John Byrne
Published: Monday February 16, 2009

Lawyer: Rove won't take the Fifth if he testifies
Representatives of the Bush White House are no longer advising former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove that he is protected by executive privilege as regards testimony about the alleged political prosecution of an Alabama governor.

In an exchange with Raw Story, Rove’s Washington, D.C. attorney, Robert Luskin, also said Rove won’t invoke his Fifth Amendment right to protect himself from self-incrimination, if and when he testifies about the firing of nine US Attorneys and the prosecution of the former governor.

There's “been speculation that he would decline to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds,” Luskin said. “That's a personal privilege; he will not assert it.”

Asked if he had a comment on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) proposed “truth commission,” in which Bush officials would be offered immunity in exchange for testimony, Luskin said, “No.”

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Lawyer_Rove_wont_take_Fifth_if_0216.html

[grannie4peace]

1. yippee!!!!!

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Piewhacket]

13. well... call me paranoid...

but forgive me if i smell a big rat.... and we can now be sure Rove
knows exactly what he will and won't say.

1) for starters, evading questions in congressional hearings has become somewhat of an
art form, one highly developed and prized by repukes.

2) for seconds, the delay has given them time to get their story straight, get the fix in
with members of congress, kill or bribe any inconvenient witnesses, and so on.

3) anyway nobody really cares what he has to say, it will all be bullshit anyway, instead
the better scenario would have been contempt of congress and a year or two in the pen,
with concurrent criminal prosecutions for 200 crimes (running a crime syndicate).

[grannie4peace]

15. i don't trust him - it is just nice to see he has to deal with it at all!

[JDPriestly]

42. In my opinion, congressional hearings are mostly just opportunities

for the Congressfolk to grandstand and feel important. It's not like a deposition. If they got real litigators to ask the questions, they might get some facts. And if they give Rove immunity, Rove probably cannot then be prosecuted. So, I hope this time, the Congressfolk shut up and try to depose this guy in a serious way. They should make him answer the question asked with complete answers but should interrupt him and object when he gets off track. They should organize their questions in advance so that they get information. They should refrain from pontificating. Otherwise, they get their legal aides and staff to question Rove in private and send the results to the Justice Department and let the Justice Department prosecute.

[bertman]

50. What Piewhacket said!!

He's still avoiding the subpoena, apparently with the tacit approval of the current White House. Shame. Shame.

The bastard is a traitor and should be swinging from a gallows.

[msongs]

2. Rove is ecstatic that John Conyers is such a toothless blowhard full of toothless subpoenas nt

[bjobotts]

58. Exactly right,Rove will talk circles around these goobers.They are not qualified to question him

[bjobotts]

59. Conyers can barely remember his name.All he wants to do is bark and say "there".

[KansDem]

3. Doesn't this put the ball in Congress's court?

He never had "executive privilege" to begin with. Now it's up to Congress to follow through.

[The Stranger]

7. "Now it's up to Congress to follow through."

Congress follow through? Good one!

:rofl:

[santamargarita]

9. It's up to Congress to finally start doing their job!

:popcorn:

[salguine]

78. Don't hold your breath.

[Ellipsis]

4. Greatest.n/t

[louis-t]

5. Watch for an "I can't recall" avalanche.

Just sayin'.

[pattmarty]

6. I just got a "woodie" reading that!!!!!!

[spanone]

8. knr

[shadowknows69]

10. We can go citizens arrest him now right?

If congress won't use the Marshalls then we could gather him for them and make sure he shows up for court.

[bertman]

52. They'll call you kidnappers and have the SWAT team murder all who participate.

He's still being protected WAY WAY HIGH UP IN OUR GOVERMENT.

[Sanity Claws]

11. Why the change?

Something is going on behind the scenes. Didn't Rove's attorney meet with DOJ last week?

[JDPriestly]

43. Bush can no longer exert executive privilege. He no longer has

any executive power. It is all invested in the Obama administration.

[Sanity Claws]

45. But why did Rove drop it

after asserting it last week or so?

[Igel]

64. It doesn't matter.

You don't stop being protected by lawyer/client or doctor/patient privilege just because you're not their client or patient. It's the communications that are privileged or not, not the person.

Same for legislative papers: Just because you're no longer in Congress doesn't mean that the papers relevant to legislation you were involved in as a Congressperson aren't covered.

That said, Obama has a vested interest in making sure this doesn't go to court. Why? Because it's *never* been litigated. The courts said that executive privilege is limited in *criminal* cases, but last I checked Congress wasn't the DOJ. Courts have typically stayed out of this kind of battle, and one reason that they've never had to rule is because they typically keep dumping it back in the laps of the other two branches.

However, if it is litigated Obama will have to defend Rove because in so doing he'll be defending when he can and cannot exert privilege, he'll at the very least be able to shape how the argument goes.

[JDPriestly]

75. My theory: People keep their personal privileges forever unless

they decide to waive them. That goes for the doctor/patient, lawyer/client privilege. That is because you as the patient or client hold the privilege, and it automatically attaches to your communications with your doctor or lawyer from the moment you start your professional relationship.

The executive privilege, assuming it exists, can only belong to a sitting president. It is not a privilege that attaches to his person. It attaches to the office. Unlike the lawyer/client or physician/patient privileges, the president acquires this special privilege (assuming it exists) only because he has become president, not because he is a person.

The Constitution makes it clear that the entire authority of the executive is invested in the president. The inauguration is so important because it marks the transfer of that authority. The Constitution does not say that the president's authority is invested in the president and past presidents.

Therefore, as soon as a president leaves office, he loses this privilege just as he loses every other special power or privilege of the president not specifically granted to him by Congress. For example, he loses the privilege of living in the White House. He also loses the privilege of using Air Force 1. The president just becomes a private citizen after leaving office. Remember, Washington just went back to his farm, and other early presidents just returned to their homes. Nothing in the Constitution grants any special powers, rights or privileges to past presidents.

[Still Sensible]

12. Somehow I sense that it might be Cheney's balls in a vice

If Karl Rove starts talking. And it won't be anything about torture policy that nails his ass, it will be this whole U.S. attorney scandal. It's one thing if you issue orders through many layers of subordinates to give tacit (more likely) or explicit (less likely) approval for interrogation techniques that are clearly outside the Geneva Conventions. It's another if you, as a non-lawyer, decide in your hubris to try and fuck with a whole bunch of lawyers. Paybacks are a bitch.

[HereSince1628]

14. So, what are ROve's alternative defenses? Some ideas...maybe your have another?

Why are you piddly-ass liberals bothering me? I am not a crook--The Nixonesque Defense

Why wake me up? I don't recall anything--The Reaganesque defence.

I'm proud to have served! The Ollie Northesque Defense

I did not have political relations about those 9 attorneys!--The Clintonesque defense

You've mis-overestimated me! The W-esque defense, ver. 1.1 Beta release.

If any of this is wrong then I've been on the wrong planet!--The Blagoesque defense

But...This is what free people do! The Rummsfeldesque defense version 2.

I know what I know, I know some of what I don't know, and I don't know a lot about what I don't know! About this? I don't know. Rummyesque defense ver 3.

[Piewhacket]

19. lol. esp the W-defense... wait.. the Blago defense... ok, all fun.

[JDPriestly]

44. Great post, Heresince 1628

[Politicalboi]

47. "You have the memory you have

Not the memory they want".

[HereSince1628]

62. Oh, that's a great Rummyesque defense!!!!!!!!!

[Gregorian]

16. I hope this helps the Valerie Plame trial.

It's time to stop the cheating criminal bastards.

In other news, the Tour de California just crossed the Golden Gate bridge!! Yeehaw!

[kestrel91316]

17. Translation: Expect KKKarl Rove to tell nothing but lies when he testifies.

[tekisui]

38. Lots of memory loss, to be sure. But, possible perjuries coming.

[AndyTiedye]

18. Sing, Karl, Sing!

[Piewhacket]

20. Dance Karl, DANCE!!

[Jack Rabbit]

37. March, Karl, march!!

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

21. Karl also reserves the personal choice to change his mind when he gets there

He won;t talk

[roberto]

22. Nothing will happen.

This is just a circus to let know the whole country around that, he can be in a trail, sit there, speak about the weather, look everyone around with his little smile... but nothing will happen. They do not care about us, or whoever. The whole system belong to them, so it's just a circus.

[liberation]

23. There is not such thing as "Executive Privilege"

Therefore Rove was never covered by it.

I am getting tired of administration making sh*t up that is not in the constitution. And that also applies to the Dems. After all, I believe it was Truman who literally pulled the whole "Executive Privilege" meme, literally from his ass. Nobody ever called his bluff, and we're still paying for it.

It paved the way from aberrations like Nixon, who literally was of the opinion that he as the president was above the law. I am of the opinion that the American Republic experiment was rendered useless when Nixon was allowed to walk free in the interest of "national unity."

So there you have, we are held hostage to two concepts that have never been defined in the constitution, and which politicians use as a lifeline to subvert said constitution: "Executive Privilege" and "National Unity" (or National Security, which ever has more "buzzword" potential for the politician using it).

[Indydem]

27. You are wrong...

Executive priviledge started with Washington and Jefferson, and has repeatedly been upheld by the courts. It is precident, and whether or not you like it, it is the way it is.

I don't want some repuke congress subpoenaing Obama's staff and cabinet members to drill them on stupid questions just because they are in power. I trust Obama to use it more judiciously than W, but the power goes with the office.

[liberation]

55. Actually Jefferson's attempt at claiming "executive privilege"

was trashed by the supreme court, as it was ruled that the president was not above the law.

Washington's use of "executive privilege" has very little to do with what we are talking about here. He was basically saying that in matters where the senate had jurisprudence, only the senate should exert such jurisdiction... not congress. He did not refuse to answer the question based on executive privilege, he refused to address the question because the congressman asking them was out of his jurisdiction. A senator later stepped in, to whom Washington did disclose the requested documents.

Whether your like it or not, the government works for us, not the other way around. And thus they can't be above the law. If Obama staffers don't want to answer questions, they should find another line of work.

[rurallib]

35. I believe the concept of 'executive privilege' goes back to Truman

and courts in the Nixon era shaped boundaries for executive privilege. I remember reading that his lawyer never forgave himself for coming up with this concept.

[JDPriestly]

46. There is some question about this.

The legislative privilege was specifically written into the Constitution because that was viewed as the branch of government in which ideas would be debated.

The Constitution is, however, silent with regard to any executive privilege. The idea of an executive privilege is incompatible with the aversion of the Founding Fathers to the monarchy and similar forms of government in which great power is imbued in one office or individual.

So, if there is an executive privilege, it certainly would not apply to investigations of possibly criminal behavior or to investigations of abuses of power. Those were precisely the forms of conduct that the separation of powers was intended to address.

[Politicalboi]

49. Yes I'm sure the Founding Fathers

Never meant it to be used to obstruct justice.

[liberation]

56. Indeed...

part of the problem is the context of "privilege" which in the way the constitution was written was meant to be interpreted as "role."

I.e. the legislative branch has a specific role, which is different from the executive and judicial branches. And as such, each has the different privilege: The legislative branch creates laws, the executive enforces or suggests them, and the judicial makes sure these laws are constitutional. That being defined as "privilege" because each branch can't overlap on the roles of the other two. Moreover, each branch can challenge the other (remember that performing "checks" in the form of challenges to the other two branches, is one of the main if not *the* main duty of our government components).

Executive privilege as it is being used by these vermin, does not appear anywhere in the constitution. And the few documents that were used to justify it, were blatantly taken out of context. In fact, I am appalled that no one took the whole interpretation of what "executive privilege" to the supreme court. There are no branches of the US government over the law, period. It was never written or even remotely implied in the constitution. Executive privilege breaks one of the main pillars of our democratic system: that is the set of checks and balances built into the 3-branched government of our republic.

When the executive is challenged, they can't pull stuff like this out of their ass and leave it at that. They have to answer the challenge by the other two branches, period.

Citing "executive privilege" by the president, is the equivalent of simply saying "just because." That would not fly on the lowest court, and sure as hell that should not be even remotely acceptable when interacting with the supreme court.

[Igel]

67. There is legislative privilege.

Papers and debate are inviolate. Neither the courts nor the executive branch can touch them.

No checks or balances.

The privilege was never intended to cover up a crime. However, in the recent Jefferson brouhaha it may be that it was: The route that the court crafted was designed to avoid precisely the constitutional issue, having one team of people examine papers and hand them to a second team before having the second team hand them to the prosecutorial team so that the defense and prosecution could examine them. Pretty distant from what your usual FBI search is like. Still, a higher court ruled that it wasn't sufficient, that there is no check on the privilege.

[liberation]

74. Legislative privlege protects the process, not the outcome.

The executive and judicial branches can not interfere with the operation of the houses.

What they can do is decide whether or not a proposed law is or isn't constitutional and nullify it, if it does not pass the constitutional test.

Same goes for the executive branch, where the legislative and judicial branches can review the actions of the presidency and decide whether or not such actions are unconstitutional... and thus criminal.

[JDPriestly]

76. The Constitution grants legislators immunity. What privilege they

have is presumably derived from that immunity.

[Igel]

65. The founding fathers didn't expect a lot of things.

For example, the use that many of the Constitutional provisions would be put to, or the power that would be given to the presidency.

The DOJ could certainly investigate and a prosecutor could do a criminal investigation. Congress can't do criminal investigations, and there's all the "co-equal" nonsense. There's also a minor problem with abuse of power: To what extent can and should a Congress investigate and pull apart what happened in a prior presidency, and do we really want 3rd world traditions like that--make sure that they're safe in power, but make them fear what'll happen when they're out of power?

Because that's what the "abuse of power" argument is. Sure, maybe impeach Bush and Cheney. But since it's all symbolic--it's not like they're going to occupy federal office again--it's politics for the sake of sitting senators, to augment they're power. It starts smelling very banana-like.

Personally, I've always assumed that the oversight Congress exerts has to do with legislation and budget: The idea that they can just haul people in front of them to ask them questions, intimidate them as a kind of political theatre, and such has always struck me as not what the founding fathers intended in saying Congress can hold hearings as it sees fit for legislation. Whenever I hear of Congressional hearings, I always want to know one of two things: What budget are they overseeing, or what legislation are they crafting? It's old fashioned, I know, but so's the idea of no executive privilege at this late date.

[JDPriestly]

73. In this case, Congress needs to know what to do to prevent future abuses

of the Justice Department. That is why they are interested in investigating this. They do not conduct a criminal investigation, but they have some authority regarding laws concerning the Justice Department and the courts. They determine federal criminal law. They could impose serious penalties for certain hiring discriminatory policies in the Justice Department. They could impose more serious penalties for abusing prosecutorial discretion.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

24. What about the other 2 musketeers? Any chance of getting Cheney and Bush too....

Just kidding, though it would be nice.

[happygoluckytoyou]

25. YOU THINK ITS A GREAT COUNTRY THAT NEEDS A PRESIDENTIAL TRUTH COMMISSION?

is it okay for the president to LIE when he is NOT UNDER OATH ?

if this is the case---- COULD WE PLEASE HAVE SOMEONE ADMINISTER AN OATH AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH State Of The Union, and Press Conference ?

----- is it okay that we are fed bullshit EXCEPT when the speaker is under threat of PRISON

[paparush]

26. I think we need some leadership from the TOP.

I think its time for Obama to do what is right and make some kind of defining statement that, if nothing else, Congressional subpoenas cannot be ignored.

C'mon, its time for a change.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Luskin has not been a very good source on what Rove will next

Why should this be any different?

By tomorrow afternoon (if not later today on FoxNews), Rove will categorically state that he is not cooperating with congressional investigations.

[Nickster]

29. Exactly what I was thinking. It does seem to be carefully worded as well. I don't get the

sense that anyone is saying he won't use Executive Priv as his defense. The article just states that Bush lawyers aren't advising him to use that defense and Luskin is saying that he won't use the fifth amendment, “That's a personal privilege; he will not assert it.” Why add personal privilege to that statement? Seems like a weasel word way of saying that he won't be testifying for himself because he would be covered by exec priv. I don't see anything definitively stating that Rove isn't covered under executive priv. Could Dubya's lawyers be preparing to do a blanket defense of everyone with exec priv as the curtain around them all? Maybe that's why Rove won't need to invoke the 5th?

[JDPriestly]

48. The authors of the Constitution specifically granted immunity

to the legislature. Thus, the members of Congress have a certain privilege because it is hard to challenge them since they are immune.

But those same authors specifically omitted granting any immunity or privilege to the president. Usually, courts assume that if the author of a law left something out of the law, that was intentional.

While courts have recognized an executive privilege, it has not, as far as I am aware, been extended to any testimony that might concern illegal acts or abuses of power by the executive. Thus, Nixon had to give up his tapes, for example. So, we shall see what the Bush Court decides on this.

Expanding the executive privilege to cover situations in which there is an accusation of an abuse of power would virtually expand the executive's authority to that of a dictator. We really can't have that.

[Nickster]

69. Right, but in Machiavellian fashion, if no one challenges your taking of that power, you establish

that power as your own. We all know that the Bush Admin took the Executive Branch to be a dictatorship, and I could see them trying to continue to dictate what the boundaries of the Executive Branch is for their next shot at the White House. I think they are going to try and see who will challenge their claims. If no one challenges the threat of claiming exec priv, doesn't that establish exec priv by default?

[JDPriestly]

72. You are so right, Nickster.

[wundermaus]

30. Squeal, little piggy, squeal!

No immunity for all the death and destruction you caused!
Traitors in time of war must be judged swiftly and harshly!

[Chicago1]

31. This is the best news i've heard all day

This is absolute MUSIC. I hope that SOB goes to jail He's AWFUL.


PROSECUTE BUSH AND CHENEY!!!!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

32. Now that made my day! nt

[bluesmail]

33. KKKRove is going to do what the people behind the curtain tell him.

It's scripted. Should he think I will save myself...well that's another matter. How loyal is KKKRove? (that's a rhetorical question)

[GreenTea]

34. I'll only believe it when I see fascist pigface Rove on the stand NOT taking the 5th - but lying!

If and when I see Rove on the stand I'll know that whatever comes out of the pigface's mouth is a lie....and the best we could ever hope for is a contempt charge against Rove....But I still think Rove will take the 5th....his lawyers are just setting us up.

[Javaman]

36. The question now is...

who is fat boy going to throw under the bus to save his own skin?

in rovers mind, he's to important to go to jail. I expect him to do a bit a squeeling. Not a lot but enough to try and take the spot light off his shiny fat ass.

[L. Coyote]

39. Huge D'OH. So, will he contradict Gonzolies, or try to win the contest?

Deja DU: "Gonzolies Adventures in Ronderland" or "Up is Down and Down is Up"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1681812

What is "Gonzo"? From Gonzolies (verb. nov.) English, May 17, 2007

"Gonzo journalism" refers to when an author cannot remove himself from the subject he investigates, often referring to a style of writing a story as perceived in the moment in the mind of the writer.

When Boston Globe reporter Bill Cardoso read Hunter Thompson's "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved" he proclaimed "That is pure Gonzo!" Thompson believed objectivity in journalism was pure myth.

Cardoso used the South Boston Irish slang describing the last man standing after a drinking marathon.

"Gonzolies" is the English neologism describing the last man standing after a lying match.

---------------------------

"Gonzolies Adventures in Ronderland" is a tale with twisted logic epitomizing the genre of nonsense literature. Gonzolies is just one of the characters in the fairy tale of current American politics. The Republican Party has fallen down a rabbit-hole into an hallucinatory realm populated by grotesque misstatements from wild, anthropomorphic creatures like Talking Point Cards, a rabbit-hole where beliefs transcend reality. ....

.............

[JDPriestly]

77. It's possible that they already agreed that Gonzales would take the fall

because he is less important to the future of the Republican swindle than is Rove. Rove has jobs. Gonzales doesn't. Kind'a suggests who is being favored and protected. If Gonzales has half a brain, he won't play along. But then, if, if, if.

[madrchsod]

40. ok ....now the committee can ask the attorney general to hand over

fitzgerald`s grand jury papers to them.


fitzgerald told them he would if they asked and now there should be no problem with a DEMOCRATIC attorney general.


there`s no executive privilege.

[bertman]

53. i'm thinking that would be worse than having a Special Prosecutor hang onto them.

Once they get into the hands of the House Judiciary Committee it's all politics all the time. After all, he's twice failed to appear for a subpoena and figuratively stabbed Conyers in the eye with his index finger, and just look what the Committee has done about it. Not one fucking thing.

Definition: House Judiciary Committee- n. a hole in the ground where important national lawbreaking issues are sent to be whitewashed, 'splained away, and buried. syn: toilet.

[Wapsie B]

41. I'd love to see something come of this, I really would.

But I've got a suspicion we'll just see a long drawn out process get nowhere. It'll be Lawrence Walsh & Iran-Contra v 2.0.

[faulknercindy]

51. hahahahahah

i love karma

[MasonJar]

54. He'll just lie; he will figure that no one will be able to confirm perjury.

They are scum and will all equivocate for each other anyway. After all prevarication is the one thing all the Bushista have mastered.

[pjt7]

57. He's a professional

liar.

We know that 100%

[trthnd4jstc]

60. Rove is out in the open. A deer in the headlights. Poor evil Rove. He will have to eat his words.

[sakabatou]

61. Huzzuh!

Now let's get the bastard!

[Hotler]

63. No F*&KING Immunity for any of them.

Asked if he had a comment on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) proposed “truth commission,” in which Bush officials would be offered immunity in exchange for testimony, Luskin said, “No.”
Thank you to the person that gave me a heart.

[rocktivity]

66. Mods, please lock or move this thread

it isn't late-breaking news!!!

:rofl:
rocknation

[BluePatriot21]

68. Rove's defenses might be...

The infamous Chewbacca Defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
because we all know Rove will have "Stinky britches"

or the Jedi mind warp "I am not the droid you have been looking for." as he waves his hands at the questioners

Stop Wars.

I can't wait to see waht will happen, I hope the media doesnt have something else more important to show that day. Since I've been laid off I have lots of time to watch this.

[wroberts189]

70. Paging Harriet Myers..... nt

[goforit]

71. Well maybe so, but he is covered by the physical obliteration Cheney enforces on others.

Plane crashes/poisonings/ AlQaeda attacks/ shots across the face/ etc.

[barbtries]

79. he'll just lie

he's very, very good at it.

[LiberalFighter]

80. Who are these representatives of the the Bush White House?

Who is paying them?

How can there be representatives of the Bush White House when Bush is no longer in the White House?