NYT: Mr. Rove Talks, but Doesn’t Answer

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02mon1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Mr. Rove Talks, but Doesn’t Answer

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: June 2, 2008

snip//

The House Judiciary Committee has prepared a report on the Siegelman case, and several other questionable prosecutions. Ms. Simpson told the committee staff under oath that Rob Riley — the son of Alabama’s Republican governor, Bob Riley — told her that his father and Mr. Canary discussed the Siegelman case with Mr. Rove. She said the younger Mr. Riley also told her that Mr. Rove had spoken to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section about getting Mr. Siegelman indicted.

If these charges are true, they suggest that the justice system was turned into a partisan tool, and that Mr. Siegelman’s freedom may have been taken away because of his political allegiances.

Mr. Rove has already defied a Senate subpoena on the issue of politicized prosecutions, claiming executive privilege, and he seems intent on defying the House’s subpoena. His claim of executive privilege is not only weak; it is shamefully cynical.

If he was drumming up political prosecutions in the Justice Department, and talking about it with operatives in Alabama, those conversations are not privileged. And if there is any privilege to be protected — such as a conversation with the president that did not involve illegality — he would still need to show up in Congress and plead the privilege to specific questions.

It is time for Michael Mukasey, the attorney general, to stand up for justice by enforcing Congress’s subpoenas. If he will not do that, Congress must ensure that its investigative authority is not thwarted.

Mr. Rove seems willing to talk about this case everywhere except where he is required to: in Congress, in public, under oath. The American people, and Mr. Siegelman, are counting on Congress to find out the truth.

[zeemike]

1. If Rove gets away with this we are in trouble n/t

[magellan]

7. It will be Congress who lets him get away with it

From May 15:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/conyers-on-rove-someones_n_101998.html

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

It's been more than a week. What's being done?

[zeemike]

9. If Conyers doest do it then he is blowing smoke up our ass

Or he is being threatened.
It may well be that this government is controlled by people we do not know and never elected. That would explain why noting is done and why Nancy took impeachment off the table

[magellan]

10. I don't buy the "they're being threatened" excuse

If they're being threatened they wouldn't bother with subpoenas and hearings-to-nowhere and formal letters up the ying yang in the first place. They have the power to bring down these criminals. In every case they go so far and then stop and move on to something else.

This is transparent to me by now: they want us to believe they're doing something while having no intention of following through. They think this will mollify those of us who are calling for action while protecting their chances in November. IOW they think we're mugs.

I think they've got it exactly backwards. I also think they're poor examples of the principles and sacrifice this nation was founded on.

[zeemike]

11. If that is true then they are the problem

And we are still screwed.
And the sad truth is that we just may not get our country back...at least in my lifetime.

[magellan]

12. I would like to be pleasantly surprised

But I too think we won't get our country back in my lifetime. This will be a fight for the generation not born yet.

I don't claim to know the truth. I just don't believe in simple answers anymore.

Peace.

[zeemike]

13. No it won't be simple

But I am 65 and so my pessimism is probably justified.
But I think the generation that is 18-30 now has a chance of seeing it in their lifetime
but I thought that in the 60s when we thought we could "change the world". Well the world did change but not like we wanted.
But the good news is that they did not destroy the peace movement. There are plenty of young people that are just as sincere as they were in the 60s, and so there is still reason to hope.

Peace

[midnight]

2. The specifics seem to be narrowing in on the crime.

Bob Riley — told her that his father and Mr. Canary discussed the Siegelman case with Mr. Rove. She said the younger Mr. Riley also told her that Mr. Rove had spoken to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section about getting Mr. Siegelman indicted.

Now come on Congress let's get this done.

[windoe]

3. How to enforce the law with sociopaths

who are in positions of power is the challenge we have here. It is like playing chess, or having a discussion with a mentally unbalanced person. We are approaching the situation with the assumption that both parties see reality the same way, and I do not think these people have demonstrated that they live in the same universe we do, whether by choice or by brain function.
We have to draw the line HERE, because this dance has gone on long enough. These people have apparently gone to law school, and taken an oath to protect the Constitution.
The Congress needs law enforcement members behind them in order that justice be served here. Time to stop f*cking around.
Thanks for your post, babylonsister, as usual yours have food for thought!

[Ilsa]

4. Great reply. We need warriors to prosecute these criminals. And

if we can't have warriors, then we need overwhelming public outcry for our leadership to do the right thing.

[jtrockville]

5. If Congressional subpoenas aren't enforced...

hasn't congress effectively forfeited their subpoena power?

I remember "way back when" before the 2006 election, when "subpoena power" was touted as a huge benefit of having a majority. Why would congress willingly relinquish this power?

[robinlynne]

6. That is a good question. Why has congress given up its power?

[Supersedeas]

8. Muck Muck Mukasey has been aweful quiet -- quiet yet partisan justice?

[burythehatchet]

14. Any sentient human being knew he was a tool. Thanks again Chuck Shumer

Can New York get a couple of decent Senators?

[StickyIckes]

15. thanks for this