Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Obama Seeks Delay in Deciding on Rove Subpoena

That's right. Via TruthOut comes a report that that venal, vicious, chubby, little villain Karl Rove has apparently called in a chit of some kind to get the Obamistas to intervene in his difficulties with John Conyers and his Congressional Committee subpoena to appear to answer questions about the illegal politicization of the Bushevik DoJ.

Marisa Taylor And Margaret Talev, McClatchy Newspapers:
"The Obama administration is asking for two more weeks to weigh in on whether former Bush White House officials must testify before Congress about the firings of nine US attorneys. The request comes after an attorney for former Bush political adviser Karl Rove asked the White House to referee his clash with the House of Representatives over Bush's claim of executive privilege in the matter."
I must admit that I am not optimistic that, in this first test of the efficacy of executive privilege, Prez.O will side with Congress. (Okay, I am seldom optimistic; for ample and obvious reasons.) No President since Washington has returned to the Lege powers arrogated by the executive for the "present emergency." Rove's troubles, and hence the scope of his pleading, do not end with the USAtty firing scandal.
...House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D- Mich., has issued a subpoena requiring Rove to appear next Monday to testify about the firings and other allegations that the Bush White House let politics interfere with the operations of the Justice Department .

Michael Hertz , the acting assistant attorney general, said in a court brief released Monday that negotiations were ongoing.

"The inauguration of a new president has altered the dynamics of this case and created new opportunities for compromise rather than litigation," Hertz wrote in the brief dated Friday. "At the same time, there is now an additional interested party — the former president — whose views should be considered."

Members of the committee have been seeking the testimony of Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers since the spring of 2007.

Last July, a federal judge in Washington agreed with the House that Miers didn't have the right to ignore a subpoena from Congress . District Judge John D. Bates' 93-page ruling was considered a significant setback for the administration, which had asserted a broad executive-privilege claim that would have protected Miers from appearing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later delayed the effect of the ruling until after the November elections.

Since then, Rove's attorney has indicated that his client would be willing to testify about his role in the prosecution and conviction of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman on bribery charges. Democrats want Rove to testify about the matter because they suspect that he instigated the prosecution.

However, Democrats also insist that Rove should be made to testify about the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys.

Meanwhile, a special prosecutor is investigating what role White House officials had in the firings and whether their involvement constituted a crime.
This is a serious test for Prez.O. The question is not whether he will compromise, but what he'll concede and how long til he concedes it.


Ruth said...

Now that we have the DOJ on the road to recovery, I believe you will see action. There are a lot of honest attorneys who have been waiting until the rule of law returned.

One Fly said...

Good post Woody and like you I'm a skeptical bastard. I'll believe it when it happens and hope Obama doesn't fold.