AN IDEA IN NEED OF REACTION

[newscaster]

It has been suggested that Karl Rove, who may indeed be the one who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame might get away scott free.
That would be an outrage if it happened. But, I wonder what the reaction might be if, in order for someone to be an un-elected White House Adviser in what might be considered an upper level position, like Rove or Condi Rice, or even a Cabinet member or Cabinet staffer, they would have to submit to being covered a by a law that says they are not immune to official investigations and must testify under oath in public if singled out. The appointee could not claim to be covered by any type of immunity, such as covers foreign diplomats.
Also, unlike Condi Rice, the official in question would not have the freedom to claim "there is a principle involved...." The only principle would be to tell the truth, not stonewall of refuse to take an oath in order to lie you head off.
I know this would cause a lot of folks to protest to the skies but when it comes to this type of situation, the Bushies have crossed the line. This new law could simply say, "If you know and we need to know, then you have to tell."
It might be too drastic, but this, right now, is just an idea off the top of my head.

[LittleApple81]

1. I know that going free will probably happen. But what legalistic bs

will the Bushistas use to justify him sliming his way out of this one?

[Steven_S]

2. In this case..

He should not be protected by any "executive priveledge" in that a crime was probably committed at the least by the acknowledgement of his naming Plame after the Novak article. That, as I read it, is a violation of the law.

I agree that they may just allow him to resign without indictment.

I also think that a president should be able to have confidential advise, within the guidelines that are now established.