House Judiciary Committee recommends Rove be held in contempt

[bascule]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-he8f7AdVl4IRQAEFnivpPn6HOAD9289GU00

 

Voting 20-14 along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee said that Rove had broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

 

Although it's still unclear if Pelosi will allow a final vote.

 

Rove broke the law... it's about time the House Sergeant at Arms was sent to arrest him. Unfortunately Congress has a reputation for being too spineless to stand up to Bush.

[ParanoiA]

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, had urged the panel in a Tuesday letter not to cite his client, calling it a "gratuitously punitive" action that would serve no purpose because the question of executive privilege is already[/i'] pending in two other cases in federal court.

 

Gee, maybe that last line has something to do with his refusal? Still, like the republicans said, it makes good theatre I guess.

[iNow]

It's not quite so easy, though, ParanoiA. Had he arrived before the committee, and then stated "executive privilege," it would have been a different matter entirely, and potentially a well founded and supportable one. However, he never even bothered to appear, showing complete disrespect under the umbrella of "executive privilege," and those actions are very much contemptuous.

 

 

If I am ordered to appear before a judge, I cannot fail to arrive saying that the law under which I'm being tried is under dispute. I have to show up, or I go to jail. It is while I am there that I argue my case about the disputed law. Not showing up at all is itself an additional breach of the laws which govern us, a fresh illegal act in itself.

 

 

Rove urinated on the process, and he's trying to use the executive privilege as some sort of "get out of jail free" card. Like I said, had he at least shown up to state this before the committee then I'd have been much less scornful. However, he showed his true colors by not even bothering to arrive, as if he's somehow above the process.

[ParanoiA]

Well, I can certainly see your point. But, I'm also not too privy to any obligatory maneuvering that might be at play between the institutions here either. I'm not sure we can fully grasp what's at stake with the balance of power going on here. I want to be sure I understand that before we start jailing folks.

 

Honestly, I'd rather see a stand up guy. I'd like to see him show up and answer questions because there's nothing to hide, because it's respectful to the people, because it's the right thing to do.

[iNow]

A decent overview I just watched:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWWosAT3h1Y&feature=related

[bascule]

Gee, maybe that last line has something to do with his refusal? Still, like the republicans said, it makes good theatre I guess.

 

The guy's openly giving the finger to Congress. That's not theater. His ass should be in jail.

[ParanoiA]

Quoted from the Abrams broadcast cited above:

 

Robert Luskin: Mr. Rove will respectfully decline to appear before the subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that executive privilege confers upon him immunity from process in response to a subpoena.

 

Question: Does responding to the subpoena by showing up before the subcommittee create a vulnerability by legally implying a respect to that process; a forefeiture of immunity?

 

Also, what is the intent of executive privilege in the first place? Best I can tell, it's a nature-of-the-beast side effect of the separation of powers. Nothing apparently morally justified by the doctrine. So what gives?

 

: "Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.

 

I'm not sure I see the ethical need for executive privilege, but it seems to me, if you agree with Berger then Rove clearly should not testify. I concede the point on giving congress the bird, but that's more about sportsmanship, the result is the same: no dung on Bush.

[ecoli]

maybe Rove's is just afraid he won't be able to make bail.

[Pangloss]

Voting 20-14 along party lines...

 

... end of my interest. The issue of executive privilege and congressional authority needs to be resolved, but it won't be resolved by any specific, partisan "investigation".

[ParanoiA]

... end of my interest. The issue of executive privilege and congressional authority needs to be resolved, but it won't be resolved by any specific, partisan "investigation".

 

Yeah, that actually disturbs me very much. How clear cut can something be when the parties are dead opposite and loyal?

[iNow]

We actually face that issue of partisan impasse far too frequently even on the more important stuff, if you ask me. Didn't a former governing body at some time get the moniker "the do nothing congress?" I wonder what caused that.

[Pangloss]

Ultimately that's why I favor Obama, even though I disagree with him on many issues. I see those things as relatively minor, and the overall need to break through the current political quagmire as much more important. I'm happy to compromise a bit on specific issues if it means we create a more egalitarian, transparent, forward-thinking, and open-minded society. I'll take a push to the left. Why not? Pushing to the right hasn't helped; it's made things worse.

 

As a conservative I believe that liberals will take underlying conservative concerns more seriously if conservatives are more open-minded and less dogmatic, and I suspect that conservatives will take liberal concerns more seriously if liberals make the same sort of effort. We have far more in common than we think we do these days. We've been avoiding common ground for decades now, and how's that working out for us? Not so good, from where I sit.