"Those with nothing to hide hide nothing."

Until clarity on the limits of executive privilege exist, most likely from the Supreme Court, a corrupt regime such as Bush's will stonewall successfully. It will take years, and by then some of the principals will be dead, the public no longer interested, and new outrages will preoccupy the media. Rove will get away with it.

This is just flat out disgusting.

Crooks and liars.

Obama will let everyone walk. Whatever legal gymnastics need performed will happen. Quasi-pardons or commutations, assertion of executive privilege or secrecy, documents disappearing into black holes, etc. Doesn't matter, Bushco is safe. It will be done.

"Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, believes that former presidents..."

Well, no. He *asserts* on behalf of his slimy client that it is so. Not the same thing as actually believeing it himself. Just sayin'.

That letter reasserted ... that Miers has "absolute immunity" from testifying ...about anything she did while she worked at the White House

Anything? That's certainly a broad interpretation of executive privelege.

If he refuses to honor the subpoena, go arrest him. If he refuses to answer questions, hold him in contempt of court. This isn't rocket science.

Even if he's going to assert executive privilege, he still has to appear. Make him refuse to answer everything. No court will uphold that.

Don't legal matters like this rest on precedent? Anyone know whether past POTUS have extended exec privilege to cover non-cabinet figures?
I think they will all walk,too. I just want them to be publicly grilled first, and soon, while people are still suffering from the Bush-created crisis.

Conyers is a clown, exceeded in foolishness only by his wife. If this is the face of the Democratic Party you wish to appear on TV, be my guest.

Anything? That's certainly a broad interpretation of executive privelege.

It's good to be the King.

Rove to Conyers, Please address all of your concerns in a tear stained letter.

A stonewall is as good as a pardon to a corrupt apparatchik.

Hopefully, Obama will respect the law, as he has done so far, and order the US Attorney to arrest witnesses found in contempt of congress. It's pretty simple, really.

Maybe Rove et al do have executive privilege. But they still have to appear before congress to exercise said privilege. There is no precedent for a POTUS to grant "immunity" from congressional subpoenas - that would be anti-Constitutional, vis-a-vis the Seperation of Powers.

It pains me to say this, but if there is such a thing as executive privilege, designed to ensure that people can give the President frank advice in confidence, it would defeat the purpose to have it expire as soon as the current President leaves office. I think we'd be better off leaning on the argument that EP doesn't/shouldn't result in this "absolute immunity".

So isn't the fact that Rove is claiming he can't talk about (for example) the outing of Valerie Plame an implicit admission that the President was deeply involved in the decision? After all, if it was something that Rove or someone else in the White House did without Bush's knowledge or approval, there would be no need to extend executive privilege to them, because the privilege wouldn't exist.

Unless they're now trying to claim that ALL employees of the executive branch automatically have executive privilege for everything they do, even if the President doesn't know about it.

Separate from the question of wehther his executive privilege claims are valid, though, is the matter of Rove refusing to appear when subpoenaed. Doing so is only one of the more overt -- and actionable -- manifestations of Rove's contempt of Congress.

The difference, though, is that while Bush's politicized Justice Department could be counted on to ignore any Congressional citations for contempt, Obama's may well be more likely to follow the law.

If Rove refuses to appear even to assert his executive privilege claims, he may risk being frog-marched after all.

Listen is there anyone out there that doesn't believe that Bush and his cronies have been committing crimes continuously during his tenure? Is there anyone that thinks that these scum shouldn't be prosecuted?
The let's get on with it crowd really need to get on these guys. C'mon Bush is saying he can invoke executive privelge after he's out of office.
If we let this go there's no telling what any future president will try to get away with.
We're a nation of laws and no one is above the law. when that changes we're going straight to fall of the Roman empire scenario.

If he refuses to honor the subpoena, go arrest him.

And if he waves around an order by Bush to justify it, arrest Bush, too, as "whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal." 18 USC § 2(a)

It pains me to say this, but if there is such a thing as executive privilege, designed to ensure that people can give the President frank advice in confidence, it would defeat the purpose to have it expire as soon as the current President leaves office.

It doesn't expire. It is a privilege that belongs to the Office of the President and can be invoked with regard to such conversations by the current President, where it applies, even with regard to counsel occurring in previous administrations. It is a privilege of the Presidency not of particular people who happen to have been President.

DonBoy - past precedent has held that there are limits to executive privilege even for a sitting President.

Somehow I doubt even the current Supreme Court will give an ex-President the right to grandiose claims of executive privilege.

"And if he waves around an order by Bush to justify it, arrest Bush, too..." - cmdicely

Ooooh, good one!

Irony alert: Mike K calls someone else a clown.

Throw his fat ass in jail for contempt.

So if Ford hadnt pardoned Nixon, and trials had gone forward, Nixon would have been able to use Executive Privilege to keep all testimony from the jury?

If the Dems frame the issue like this, I think they'll be able to win this one (at least in the court of public opinion). We'll see...

So isn't the fact that Rove is claiming he can't talk about (for example) the outing of Valerie Plame an implicit admission that the President was deeply involved in the decision? After all, if it was something that Rove or someone else in the White House did without Bush's knowledge or approval, there would be no need to extend executive privilege to them, because the privilege wouldn't exist.

As I noted a few day ago, the Bush White House claimed repeatedly -- both in public statements and in statements by DOJ attorneys within court -- that Bush was not involved in the attorney firings, so it is completely nonsensical for them to now claim privilege. Since executive privilege only applies to conversations with the executive -- i.e. President Bush himself -- if Rove and Miers hadn't spoken to the president then there would be no privilege to assert. So we are left with two options:

1. They lied and Bush was involved up to his eyeballs.

2. Bush wasn't involved and there is no executive privilege claim.

The Bush logic is so utterly ridiculous that to call it Nixonian would scarcely do it justice. Nixon's guys broke the law, and some went to jail.

Evidently Rove, et al would not only grant themselves immunity (out of thin air) for all actions taken on behalf of the President; they will not even submit themselves to the due process that would judge said actions.

I think Rove needs to get a steaming-hot bolt of transparency shoved up whatever orifice his legal strategy came from.

I continue to be amazed at the bipolar nature of the bushies. You can't know anything about us but we HAVE to know everything about you. We don't answer your questions but we'll drown your ass if you don't answer ours.

Karl Rove would make the perfect Southwest Airlines spokesperson today - What to get away, Karl? -Kevo

It doesn't expire. It is a privilege that belongs to the Office of the President and can be invoked with regard to such conversations by the current President, where it applies, even with regard to counsel occurring in previous administrations. It is a privilege of the Presidency not of particular people who happen to have been President.

Fine. So presumably Obama can just tell Rove, etc, that Obama's the president now and he's waiving executive privilege over Rove's testimony. Surely a former president doesn't outrank a current one?

Whether Rove can claim executive privilege or not isn't the point. The point is: He has to show up in order to claim it.

In actuality, I don't think Bushco is too worried about Rove, even if he does show up. He's smart enough to be able to evade any questions he doesn't want to answer.

But Harriet Miers is another story. She would fall apart under any questioning and the whole house of cards will come down. So they have Rove out front to do the dirty work. Which is his specialty.

Obama could say to the Republican members of congress 'go along with the Democratic programs or we go after Rove and Co.' What a dilemma that would create for the Rs. Or maybe not.

Congressman Jerry Nadler pointed out last night that executive privelege never applied int his case because the parties deny that Bush knew anything about what was going on at the Justice Department. If that's so, the executive was not involved and there's no executive privelege to invoke.

Obama is going to have to allow some redress regarding the rule of law or he will lose a significant amount of support - and to maintain mine, he needs to have his Justice Department pursue every avenue on every one of the Bush regime's transgressions. I quit contributing to his campaign when he supported warrantless wiretapping. he can't just let this stuff go!

"Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration."

I'm not President either, and I now instruct Rove to cooperate. LOL

With a new US Atty in DC, we should see some enforcement of congressional subpoenas. I don't care how Rove makes it to jail, I just want to see him there.

Cuffs behind the back on arrest would just be icing on the cake.

The letter is another example of the dim bulbs in the Bush legal lamps.

Immunity? They've got to be kidding. Privilege is arguable (and lamely so) but immunity ain't even in the same ballpark. Investigators grant immunity in return for testimony.

Sheesh.

"The Bush logic is so utterly ridiculous that to call it Nixonian would scarcely do it justice."

And it's an insult to Nixon, who may have been an evil genius but was at least a genius.

The letter is another example of the dim bulbs in the Bush legal lamps.Immunity? They've got to be kidding. Privilege is arguable (and lamely so) but immunity ain't even in the same ballpark. Investigators grant immunity in return for testimony.

No, the lawyer wasn't using the word "immunity" in its better known sense, immunity from prosecution, CG. The context, "Mr. Rove has absolute immunity from compelled Congressional testimony," makes that clear.

Since Rove was an accessory to a high crime, no privilege can be asserted or granted. This was always simple on its face. "Privilege" has always meant something arbitrary. Driving to work is a privilege. Driving Rove to jail is a duty.

mike k: Conyers is a clown, exceeded in foolishness only by his wife. If this is the face of the Democratic Party you wish to appear on TV, be my guest.

speaking of wives...and foolishness...

on live tv no less...

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dick-armey-assaults-joan-walsh-verbally/477814696

Mr. Rove, to start I won't ask you what specific advice you gave to the president or what might have been said in your conversations with him, but merely, did you ever speak with President Bush about Valerie Plame Wilson or about extreme interrogation techniques as were used on those who have been called 'enemy combatants'?

Now, where's the Executive privilege on this?

'...should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not...turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House.'

This implies that Rove has in his possession documents that should have been turned over to the National Archives when Bush left office, no?