White House Not Challenging Rove's Privilege

[spanone]

someone help me understand their thinking?????




The Obama White House is not challenging whether a valid claim of “executive privilege” can keep former presidential advisor Karl Rove from testifying in the matter of the U.S. Attorney firings during the Bush Administration.

In a statement provided to CBS News, White House Counsel Gregory Craig says Pres. Obama is “very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened.”

But at the same time, Craig makes it clear that Mr. Obama is not disputing the claim of privilege.

“He is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency,” Craig says in the statement.

A White House spokesman says the Counsel’s Office is still studying the question of executive privilege.

Rove is under subpoena to testify to the House Judiciary Committee on February 23 about political motivations in the firings of U.S. Attorneys.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4803349.shtml

[Night_Nurse]

1. Link doesn't work?

[spanone]

2. hmmmm...works for me...try again?

[Sydnie]

3. NOT having him answer questions is undermining and weakening the

institution of the Presidency. Unless he anticipates having to do things that are bordering on illegal himself, why would he uphold this lame claim? :shrug:

[Vincardog]

4. The page cannot be found: I hope this is BS

[spanone]

6. see if this works?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4803349.shtml

[Night_Nurse]

13. yep, that worked... thank you! nt

[madokie]

5. Looks to me like it would be best for the President to not comment on this

He has plenty to keep him busy and it'll probably be something the courts have to settle anyway. I keep hearing President Obama saying that no one is above the law and thats good enough for me in the time being. Here in a few months and nothing happening on that front and I'll be changing my mind, mind you.
I want to see Traitor Rove behind bars really bad too.

[spanone]

7. he can challenge without commenting

[JDPriestly]

8. You mean, I did all that work to get Obama elected for nothing?

You gotta' be joking.


1) No date announced for our exit from Iraq.
2) No denunciation of the Bush theory of executive privilege.
3) No announcement with regard to bringing charges against members of the Bush administration for their crimes.
4) Thus far, very little release of information about the violation of our privacy rights by the illegal surveillance of our electronic communications.

I feel betrayed.

By the way, as I read the Constitution, assuming there is a presidential privilege, at this time, that privilege belongs solely to the current president, Obama. The Constitution specifically grants all executive powers to the currently sitting president.

Former presidents have no authority -- nada -- none whatsoever.

In fact, in the early days of our nation, presidents went home to their farms, families, wherever they came from once they were out of office and became active in executive matters only upon the request of the sitting president or government. That is the way it should be.

A president is not elected for life. He is elected for four years at a time. He has no power, no authority beyond each of his four-year terms. So, even if there is an executive privilege (and to the extent it might exist, it would not cover Rove, a political operative if there ever was one), then it belongs to Obama. and he and only he can instruct Rove to appear and answer questions.

The Founding Fathers expressly limited the president and his executive authority to one term and invested the entire executive authority in the sitting president. The Federalist Papers and other documents make it very clear that this was done to prevent the establishment of a monarchy. The Founding Fathers were schooled on Roman history and feared that our fragile democracy could develop into a monarchy should a dynasty like the Bush family arise. They hated the British monarchy and wanted to prevent future generations from gradually moving toward any similar form of government.

The holder of a privilege, here, President Obama, may release the individual bound or silenced by the privilege from the obligation to remain silent. President Obama should release Rove from the privilege and instruct Rove to appear before Congress and testify.

This is Constitutional Law and Evidence 101. Surely this is a no-brainer for our esteemed President, a former professor of Constitutional Law.

[mzteris]

10. unless the economy is fixed

NONE of that is going to matter much at all.

[JDPriestly]

37. The economy won't be fixed until Americans once again believe

they can trust their government including the justice system -- at least to an acceptable point. If the Obama administration cannot enforce laws about torture against former Bush administration officials, how in the world are we supposed to believe that it will enforce regulations against our mighty corporations, against Wall Street multi-billionaires?

Unless the Obama administration shows it has the courage to enforce the law against the leadership of the Bush administration, the crooks in the business world will not respect it enough to follow the laws that must be followed if we are to have an economic recovery.

[tomp]

41. fixing the economy won't matter if there is no rule of law.

in fact, the skirting of the rule of law may prove to have been one of the major factors in the downturn of the economy. don't be penny wise and pound foolish. everything depends upon the rule of law.

[dysfunctional press]

18. you HONESTLY expected ANY of that to happen...?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

just how long have you been paying attention to the american political process..? about a week-and-a-half?

[MrPerson]

9. Job 1 - Fix the economy

[spanone]

11. i hope the president can do more than one thing at a time..we do have a justice department

[biopowertoday]

15. It's more like keeping the power he has assumed from the

the previous president.

[Kip Humphrey]

17. No, job #1 is to protect & preserve the Constitution... otherwise, fascism or dictatorship becomes

viable to "fix" the economy. SEE: Germany, circa 1932-45.

[MrPerson]

25. How many ordinary Americans know who Karl Rove is?

[mmonk]

44. The economic miracle

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazis_and_the_german_economy.htm

[williesgirl]

12. So is Obama now saying there are different laws for the connected and rich? Fuck this. I've had it

if this stands. My faith in Obama and the future of my country is really shaken as of now. All my support from early on, all the $25 donations from money I don't and didn't have, for this bullshit? I think NOT. I'm sickened.

[movonne]

20. Yeah!!! I wish mc cain would have won...he and paling would have

been great...don't you think???

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

31. It's possible to disagree without calling someone "asshole."

Try it!

[Deja Q]

49. You bet'cha.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[biopowertoday]

14. History has proven that Once Presidents have a certain power they will not

give it up.

[spanone]

16. that's true, but this is about an aide to the president..this should be shot down quickly

[biopowertoday]

19. I think the point is that the Pres can say who he wants to

have exec. privilege granted to in his administration.

Obama will have the same privilege. I doubt Obama will give it up.

[bigtree]

21. so the White House is going to make Congress do the heavy-lifting

This is beginning to look like a sell-out. Why would Obama need, for himself, the executive privilege Rove is claiming?

[WilliamPitt]

23. Not the worst idea

The White House has an inherent conflict of interest in this matter, and when it comes to constitutional issues like this, it should be congress and the courts doing the heavy lifting.

The great big fat flaming caveat, of course, is whether or not congress and the courts will actually address the issue, and if they do, whether or not they get it right.

[H2O Man]

24. Right.

Obama should not be playing a role in this. There is no reason for him to. It is between Congress, Rove, and if it moves forward, the federal courts. No one from the executive branch should take a position on what may become a court case that they are not a perticipant in. That is separation of powers.

[WilliamPitt]

26. Spot on

:toast:

[bigtree]

34. Doesn't the White House have a role in allowing the subpoena to be enforced?

Bush 'renewed' his claim of executive privilege for Rove, which the court rejected, before he left. That may not stand, but Pres. Obama will have to make a decision on that. It looks here like that will be to stand with the Bush decision. It doesn't look like the Obama WH is following your prescription of no role in this.


from Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/28/obama_to_face_test_on_executive

(Scott Horton, New York attorney specializing in international law and human rights. He is also a legal affairs contributor to Harper’s Magazine, where he writes the blog No Comment.)

SCOTT HORTON: Now, there’s sort of a wrinkle here that’s interesting, and that is that Greg Craig, who is Barack Obama’s White House counsel, is also a friend of Karl Rove, something he’s talked about openly, and his law firm, Williams & Connolly—his former law firm, I should say—represented Karl Rove with respect to some publication deals. So that presents a bit of a complication. But I think what—

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think he should recuse himself?

SCOTT HORTON: I think it’s quite problematic for him to involve himself in this, given that relationship, so probably other lawyers in the President’s staff should be addressing this.

But I think the threshold issue is very clear, and that is whether or not the White House is going to say, “No, you don’t even have to answer this subpoena.” We have a district court judge saying that was an absurd position. Indeed, I’d say that’s pretty much the uniform position in the legal community. It was an absurd position. So he will have to respond to the subpoena. He will have to sit in the hearings, and he’ll have to respond to questions.

That still leaves open the issue of whether or not he can invoke the privilege with respect to specific questions. And, you know, the implication of the privilege suggests—it implies very strongly, because the privilege covers his communications with the President—it suggests that Karl Rove had discussions about these matters, the US attorney firing and also the prosecution of Governor Siegelman, with President Bush directly. And if so, there’s no doubt but that these things, all these things, would have been improper, potentially even criminal.

. . . we should also stop and say, don’t expect that the Obama White House is going to completely waive executive privilege. They won’t do that. I’m sure they’ll say Karl Rove is entitled to cite it with respect to his communications directly with President Bush. But all these peripheral matters, he’s going to be forced to give answers. And the executive privilege—he’s also going to have to answer to the special prosecutor . . .


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/28/obama_to_face_test_on_executive

[tomp]

42. don't tell me the law says rove and bush can discuss criminal activity....

...with impunity, are answerable to no one. if the law says that, fuck the law, and fuck obama for allowing it to stand unchallenged.

[spanone]

27. that IS the biggest, fattest flamingest caveat.....

will they do it without encouragement or nudging from the white house?

one would hope so

yet one might doubt it

[Festivito]

56. Then think also that Chaney has just to keep Irv happy.

Scooties CAN plea the 5th, but, he doesn't have to. He could squeal.

It's not a question of executive privilege, that's made up as a talking point in order to blow smoke. Same as the smoke story that Chaney is angry at ** about this. They're lies. Chaney's doing a happy dance about there being no pardon, because with a pardon, Irv would be COMPELLED to testify.

This way, he's not compelled and cannot be compelled to testify against himself -- bringing Chaney along with his self.

As long as Scooter is happy and healthy, he and his safety deposit box/friend-holding-an-envelope are quiet. No need of the phrase: EP.

[bigtree]

28. I think I remember

. . . there was an obstacle in the Justice Dept. (an appointee) to challenges of that executive authority which prevented the subpoena from Congress from proceeding. That's the point at which I think we should expect the White House to lead.

Hasn't Congress already asserted themselves in these committees? I think the ball is in the White House court, at least in the case of the Rove subpoena.

[WilliamPitt]

29. The problem is that this issue is galactically huge.

I'm gonna be a dickhead and quote myself on this:

===

One matter that remains to be resolved has to do with the survival of the rule of law in America, and the continued applicability of our constitutional form of government. The issue stems from the Bush administration's declared parameters regarding the scope of executive privilege and power. When the scandal surrounding the firing of those United States attorneys erupted some years back, several committees of the House of Representatives decided to investigate the matter. They sent out a number of lawfully-drafted and legally-produced subpoenas to the White House demanding that Bush administration witnesses, along with any and all relevant documentation, be produced for Congressional hearings looking into how and why the decision to fire these attorneys was reached.

The Bush administration responded to these subpoenas by telling Congress to get bent. They declared everyone and everything requested by the subpoenas to be off limits due to their definition of executive privilege. In short, and according to Bush's definition of executive powers, not one agency, institution or individual anywhere in America had the power to question or investigate anything done by the White House, ever, period, end of file and thanks very much.

This gets sticky for a couple of reasons. First, of course, is the matter of oversight and separation of powers within the federal government. When one branch of government declares itself above the law and free from meddlesome oversight by other governmental branches, as required by the Constitution, what remains is the absolute annihilation of the rule of law and the end of America's form of government as it has been practiced for the last quarter of a millennium.

This specific issue is all but certain to wind up in the hands of the Supreme Court one of these days. The Congressional committees, whose subpoenas were spurned, decided to hold the White House in contempt, which initiated a legal process whereby the matter of Bush's definition of executive privilege will eventually be decided in the courts ... which brings us to Scary Problem #2.

There is no settled, definitive, black-letter law on the books in America that specifically sets the parameters for the execution of and limitations on executive powers. The United States Constitution contains exactly 15 words in a single sentence explaining the matter, right at the beginning of Article II: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The Federalist Papers go in to far greater detail, but those are documents with no legally binding power, so this one sentence is really all there is.

To be sure, this is not the only gray area left by the founders to be sussed out by future American generations: the right to privacy, the right to bear arms and the right of all citizens to vote were, along with several other issues, not originally settled in the final drafts of our founding documents. Unlike these other issues, however, executive power has never been directly addressed, neither by either legislation or judicial decision, and remains undefined as a matter of law.

The closest we've come was in the 1974 Supreme Court decision in US v. Nixon (418 U.S. 683), which ordered President Richard Nixon to cough up those Watergate tapes after he had refused to do so. While the high court did agree with Nixon's argument that broad executive powers are an absolute necessity for the secure performance of presidential duties, that privilege can not be deemed absolute.

"To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and non-diplomatic discussions," wordily claimed the court in the 1974 decision, "would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III."

In other words, the Supreme Court decided executive privilege exists, but not completely, and executive powers are broad, but not absolute. Put another way, the court said "Yeah, but also no," and left the issue quite completely unsettled as a matter of law. Therefore, if the case pertaining to those fired US attorneys and Bush's dismissal of those legally-issued subpoenas ever comes up for adjudication by the Supreme Court, their ultimate decision will be binding.

If they rule in favor of Bush's definition of executive privilege, the constitutionally-mandated oversight powers, to be executed by separate but equal governmental branches, will be null and void on the spot. That will create an imperial executive branch, permanent secrecy, and the end of the rule of law in this country.

http://www.truthout.org/111308J

===

It's a separation of powers issue, as H20 man correctly observed above. The executive privilege claimed by the Bush administration still exists for the Obama administration, because it hasn't been legally challenged yet, and the actual constitutional parameters are deeply vague.

In other words, the other branches have to settle the issue of the scope of the Executive branch's powers. The Executive can't do it; it has to be congress and the courts. The subpoena issue is the core of it, congress issued those subpoenas, and congress has to pursue the execution of those subpoenas in the courts...all the way up to SCOTUS if need be.

Obama needs to do what he's doing, and congress needs to execute their oversight prerogatives to the fullest extent of the law. That's how this will get settled.

Cheers.

[bigtree]

36. I'm thinking there will be a muddle

. . . with Congress predictably indecisive in the face of the predictable obstruction from republicans; and the White House pressured to not cede privileges and authority . . .

What happens in court if Congress refuses or fails to be decisive in establishing the extent of executive privilege? That's the point at which I think the WH may need to assert themselves, if it means that justice will be served by ceding some of the privileges they say they intend to protect. I'm just not sure Congress is ready to take them on, and I'm not sure the administration is ready to completely open the door. And, as you say, the courts will follow whatever they decide.

[tomp]

45. it's all a fucking sham....

...to excuse criminal activity within the government.

the law may not allow anyone or any branch of government to be above the law. it is a contradiction in terms and subverts essential legality. if such a state exists it must be abolished by any means necessary. anyone who opposes the extension of the principle of equality under the law to governmental agencies is an accessory after the fact.

and that includes our landslide messiah. obama should not be defending powers claimed by bush or other past presidents that are clearly outside the law. it is not the executive's mandate to accumulate or expand the power of the office, or to let stand what has been accumulated on the grounds of mere tradition. it is plain to see that many presidents have acted illegally and have not been challenged. there is nothing in the law that prohibits any president from denouncing the actions of former presidents and claiming only reasonable (lawful) power of office.

again, the law may not allow lawlessness. as difficult a concept as it may be to grasp, even the supreme court can act illegally.

[bigtree]

51. I really hate the messiah crap

It's definitely rooted in the freeper lexicon.

The rest is certainly something I would ascribe to. Pres. Obama should assert whatever authority he has to make certain that Bush isn't hiding his crimes behind some opportunistic claim of privilege that Obama wants to preserve for himself.

[treestar]

35. Thank you

These headlines trying to make it look like Obama is continuing with Maladministration policy try my patience.

[bvar22]

48. A Primary Function of the "Executive Branch".....

....is Law Enforcement.

[WilliamPitt]

52. Where in the constitution does it say that?

[bvar22]

53. Which of the 3 branched do YOU think handles Law Enforcement?

Who appoints the Attorney General? :shrug:

The President is (or used to be) subject to oversight from Congress, but all Federal Law Enforcement, Department of Justice, Corrections, as well as International Law Enforcement and Intelligence Services (Domestic & Foreign) are organized under the Executive Branch with the President as the Chief Executive.....

...or, at least it was when I took High School Civics.

[bvar22]

54. The above also applies to State and Local governments...

Law Enforcement/Corrections for the States is organized under the Governor,
and under the Mayor for the cities.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. And a Primary Function of the Legislative Branch is oversight

[L. Coyote]

30. Barack Obama was an intern at the law firm defending Bush criminals. ?? No surprise here.

They are getting much better at wagging the dog with the tail, that's for sure.

[sutz12]

32. This needs to be decided between the Congress and the USSC..

Obama needs to recuse himeself.

:shrug:

[ThomWV]

33. I certainly am not at all suprised - having predicted this.

This is not the last illegal perogative Bush took that you will see Obama defend.

[TWiley]

38. They think the republi-craps will play nice if they placate

Butt they will not. The modern republi-turd will take all you will give, call you names, tell lies, and then laugh when you die. There is no fixing or understanding what is wrong with them.

They only understand one thing .... force. Go after them like a freight train. THAT is the answer.

[zanne]

39. The quest for "bipartisanship" can go too far, but...

I doubt that President Obama wants another distraction at this point. He already has an impossible number of problems to solve and a fight with the Rove people would just distract everybody from all the work that has to be done.

[tomp]

46. that's just cowardly evasion of priorities.

there is NOTHING more important than exposure of and coming to terms with bush/cheney/rove crimes. no, not even the economy, or the war(s). to allow oneself to be "distracted" from such a priority is to become an accessory after the fact.

[jtrockville]

40. Obama “is urging” Rove and the House Judiciary Committee

From the article...

Obama “is urging” Rove and the House Judiciary Committee to settle the matter of privilege and testimony on their own.

I guess we can put a fork in it. Congressional subpoenas are done. They can be effectively ignored.

By the time this gets "settled", no one will even remember what it was about (except maybe Siegelman and Iglesias).

[blogslut]

43. The explaination is in the text your provided

"A White House spokesman says the Counsel’s Office is still studying the question of executive privilege."

One can't dispute something if that something is still being considered.

Personally, I think Obama is letting Mr. Conyers and Congress make this play. I think they should. I think it's their damned job.

[MadHound]

47. Not surprising,

Sadly Obama is making a mistake on this, much the same mistake that was made during the Watergate era. You need to root out this sort of corruption in its entirety, or it will come back and haunt you. We failed to do that with Nixon, and wound up having members of the Nixon gang come back in the Bush administration. If we fail to fully pursue justice against the Bush administration, then in thirty years we'll see members of Bushco come back and again take over this country.

[KharmaTrain]

50. This Will Be Up To The Judicial To Settle

It sounds like a non-denial, denial by Craig. The DOJ is supposed to chime in on this issue on the 18th and either this is a smoke signal of what to expect or isolating the office of the President from whatever Holder determines he wants to do. Thus tamping down how this is a political vendetta.

The real issue about this immunity will go to court. There are several investigations going that have both Rove and Gonzo in the targets. If they're subpoenaed and they try to use this card, off to court we go. I suggest the same thing would happen to try to stonewall on the congressional subpoenas as well. As we're seeing in the Franken case, the GOOP is getting very good at gumming up things in court and letting them languish. Methinks that's the endgame here. It could take years to settle this...and Rove will delay his day of meeting justice, but meet it he will. Our job is not to forget...and to support those who pursue these war criminals with civil suits.

Cheers...

[spanone]

55. i posted this but it is another MISLEADING headline....

it's not the white house's job

it's a lot like this headling.....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5067563