Larisa Alexandrovna: Rove Says Needs White House Permission To Testify (Lie) In Siegelman Inquiry

[Hissyspit]

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/04/rove-says-needs.html

Rove says needs WH permission to testify (lie) in Siegelman inquiry...

So remember when in response to Dan Abrams' interview of Don Siegelman, Karl Rove's attorney - Robert Luskin - said the that Rove would absolutely testify if subpoenaed? Well now that the House Judiciary Committee has decided to take Rove up on his offer, Rove and his attorney both wet their pants and cry like little girls with a skinned knee. First up is Luskin's latest public wee-wee session, in which he says:

"Whether, when, and about what a former White House official will testify ... is not for me or my client to decide."

Yes, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood and so forth. Aside from the overuse of words starting with the letter W, Luskin's assertion that Rove is somehow protected by the Executive on this won't stand up in any court . Rove's conversations with people in Alabama and at the DOJ are not covered by executive privilege. Plus, Luskin has already said on the record that his client would testify. So which is it? If Luskin's woodchucking is not enough, Rove then goes on to send Abrams an angry five page letter. Although Abrams did not get into the specifics of what Rove said, I assume it went something like this:

Dan, I am outraged at your assertion that I did anything wrong, ever. You can ask George and Dick and they will both tell you I was a very good boy, not a naughty, nasty boy. Everyone is lying but me because they are all green with envy at my abilities as a super hero in my own mind. I won't stand for this defamation. We are in a war on terror and you are emboldening the terrorists. We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here. All of you are flip-floppers. I did not help out Valerie Plame, err, frame Don Siegelman. I am not a monster!

I did tell you did I not that Rove would never testify under oath? Odd though, someone so aggressively claiming to have been wronged and wanting to clear their name, takes every opportunity to hide instead of actually making an effort to defend themselves with facts. Now why do you suppose it is that Rove is so unwilling to testify about what happened in Alabama? Surely if he had no knowledge of it, then his testimony under oath would only bolster his assertions, right? Now why would someone with "nothing to hide" as Luskin has said of Rove, be so angry while at the same time being so unwilling to speak in his own defense? I leave these questions for your consideration. In any case, here is the video footage from the Abrams Report:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=120494&mesg_id=120494

[Kurovski]

1. K&R. (nt)

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Everyone saw this coming from day one

Inherit contempt... anyone?

[madrchsod]

3. that would mean that the whitehouse was involved

if they were not kkkarl could`t raise this as an issue...

[Pawel K]

4. As Cheney said, so?

you think congress will do anything about this? They are too worried about looking like uniters than holding up the constitution.

[L. Coyote]

5. Me thinks they hideth too, too much! We are way past protesteth!

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Is anyone buying it?

What does Bush have to do with Alabama and Siegelmen, unless this is an admission that Bush had something to do with it?

[annabanana]

7. exACTly! His refusal to testify because of EP would be admitting

that he was guilty of illegal partisanship!

[Richard Steele]

8. You nailed it. nm

[Nickster]

9. Because, they are trying to expand the depth and scope of what exactly EP is because it's such a

gray area. It's so Machiavellian. If there's no clear boundaries, just keep pushing the limits, then you've set new boundaries. Voila! EP covers everyone that Dubya ever met at anytime, anywhere, and for any reason. It'll take someone to call them on their BS to get this settled, but sadly, I don't see anyone standing up to accomplish that task. So in the meantime, they cite EP, because no one will hold them accountable.

[malaise]

14. Bingo n/t

[bluesmail]

10. WHAT??? just kidding K&R for exposure

[Disturbed]

11. Prediction: Rove will never testify before Congress.

This will vanish down the memory hole as every other situation has.

[JDPriestly]

12. So, according to the Bush administration, there is no way

to obtain information from the staff of the president. The Constitution does grant a very limited degree of immunity to members of Congress. Article I, Section 6 states:

The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

But, no similar provision provides for any form of immunity for the president.

According to Nowak & Rotunda, Constitutional Law (4th ed. 1991 so it is old), 228. "some commentators interpreted to mean that the President is immune from legal process when performing what he deems to be his constitutional duties. "

Nowak continues at 228: "However, beginning with IMOtia.com/us/273/135/case.html
McGrain concerned enforcement of a subpoena issued to a sitting attorney general who resigned prior to the issuance of the Supreme Court ruling.
Daugherty does not concern executive immunity. See also http://www.answers.com/topic/mcgrain-v-daugherty?cat=biz-fin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome_Scandal

We will probably have to wait until we have a Democratic president and a Democratic attorney general willing to pursue or allow the claims concerning Siegelman to be reviewed and prosecuted either in a criminal or civil trial. In the past, when push comes to shove, presidents produce their papers one way or the other. If Siegelman can produce evidence of wrongdoing, I think he might be able to sue the perpetrators for violation of his civil rights.

IMO The extremely Republican control on the courts may be the larges factor in deciding what happens in this matter. The failure of Gore to challenge Bush's theft of the presidency in the then Democratically held legislature was probably the greatest injury to our democracy that has ever occurred. It enabled the Republicans to believe that the law is no impediment to their excessive hunger for power and control.

[Senator]

13. 5 Pages Is Either Drunken Diatribe Or Mental Illness

Guilt-ridden of course, whatever the cause.

Hey Karl! Innocent people don't get so upset. Get professional help.

==