Does Karl Rove Have "Eternal Immunity"?

@anniepa (27280)
United States
January 30, 2009 3:27pm CST
Let me put it another way - can former President Bush continue to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove—even now after he leaving office? http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240?from=rss You're probably aware that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers subpoenaed Rove to be deposed under oath next Monday to answer questions about his alleged role in the firing of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman. Here's an excerpt from the above article by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff: On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fieldingsent a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove—even after he leaves office. A nearly identical letter was also sent by Fielding the day before to a lawyer for former White House counsel Harriet Miers, instructing her not to appear for a scheduled deposition with the House Judiciary Committee. That letter reasserted the White House position that Miers has "absolute immunity" from testifying before Congress about anything she did while she worked at the White House—a far-reaching claim that is being vigorously disputed by lawyers for the House of Representatives in court. (End of excerpt) You can read the two letters here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/182224 http://www.newsweek.com/id/182225 Does this actually mean that anyone who ever works in any Presidential Administration is given immunity for the rest of their lives, even after they leave their positions AND the President they served has left office? All I can say is WTF??? Annie
1 person likes this
7 responses
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
31 Jan 09
Unfortunately annie, that is the case. Unless a higher court over rules the decision by the lower court. Great isn't it? I don't believe there is any substatiation or basis in the charges, Presidents fire atornies all the time, doesn't matter at what point in the term it is, it is their right and that is that. Now unless it can be shown thatr there was something else involved, it's moot. there is plenty I have to take issue with with the previous administration, I think there are a number of constitutional violations to take issue with, but this isn't one of them and besides, the executive privilge ruling stands.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
1 Feb 09
I understand it's being looked into and I sure HOPE you're wrong. There is plenty of evidence that those prosecutors were fired for political reasons. Annie
@Aingealicia (1906)
• United States
31 Jan 09
Annie, I am right there with you. I have been researching all day and digging up that paper trail. It is a very tangled web woven into the Constituion I am telling you. Ainge
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
31 Jan 09
Tell me they can't get away with that! That's a very dangerous precedent. Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
31 Jan 09
I am hoping I can tell you that after I continue digging. Have to go to Brooklyn next week to find some papers on Ashcroft and things of that nature. I will let you know. Ainge
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
31 Jan 09
The question is when does executive prividlage end. If you discuss something with your attorney, Clergy, or Doctor are they bound by privilage only while you are their paitent or client? What Rep Conyers is doing is attacking a very principle of client prividlage. He wants privilege to be in force only while you are working together
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
31 Jan 09
So you don't think Rove should have to testify? Please give me an honest answer here...if it were Bill Clinton asserting executive privilege after leaving office would you be defending him? This isn't the same as an attorney/client or a doctor/ patient relationship. From what you and the Bush gang are saying anyone working for the President as well as the President himself can break the law all they want and can never be held accountable for it. Annie
@jerzgirl (8170)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
31 Jan 09
All I can say is that in response to WTF....Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are TF. That's WTF. They all deserve nothing less than heavy duty time in lock up. Oh, and buddy, Rove. As for dear Harriet. I think she was just blindly loyal, not devious. Can't say that about the rest, though.
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
31 Jan 09
You just reminded me of something somebody said during the 2004 campaign, I think it was - he said something about how we had to go "no-CARB" - Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Bush and no more Rice. Does anyone remember who said that? Annie
@ZephyrSun (7382)
• United States
31 Jan 09
I'm not surprised by anything anymore. It use to amaze me that this stuff went on in the Bush administration but not anymore. Yet they never did anything wrong.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
31 Jan 09
They're so arrogant about it, in a way they're even worse than Nixon with his "It's not illegal if the President did it"! This really takes it, though, who ever heard of a former President still thinking he could use executive power! Annie
@AnythngArt (3304)
• United States
30 Jan 09
This is totally outrageous! I don't know who Karl Rove or any other Bush Administration folks think they are, but they are not above the law. And I don't see how the law can extend beyond their years in the White House either. That's akin to Richard Nixon having so famously said that anything he did was legal because he was the president. It just doesn't work that way. Just look at my former governor, who was impeached yesterday in Illinois because he broke the law. Those who serve in government are bound by the laws they serve.
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
31 Jan 09
Your former governor sure is a piece of work...lol! I must admit, when he talks about all the things he claims to have done he makes himself look like a real "man of the people". Did he really do so much for children and seniors? I mean, that does NOT justify the laws he's broken but I just wondered if he's honest about that or if that's just another blatant lie. Annie
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
31 Jan 09
Hello Annie, Have you forgotten that Clinton exerted Executive Privilege on four separate occasions? Geesh, he even tried to exert Executive Privilege in the Monica Lewinsky case. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/12/wh121301.html [i]"Executive privilege cited to guard `Travelgate' papers: House panel ready to hold White House in contempt.(Nation) From: The Washington Times (Washington, DC) | Date: May 9, 1996| The White House yesterday invoked the Watergate-era claim of executive privilege to shield thousands of documents in the "Travelgate" affair, and the House likely will charge the administration with contempt of Congress. Despite promises from President Clinton to comply with the probe by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, White House Counsel Jack Quinn told the panel's chairman, Rep. William F. Clinger Jr., the White House will ignore a new subpoena for papers...[/i]" http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-56826914.html "Court blocks Clinton's executive privilege bid in Lewinsky case White House aides must answer grand jury questions..." www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-56826914.html Is this a matter of 'selective memory' or 'selective outrage'?
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
1 Feb 09
Did Clinton do this AFTER leaving office? That's what this is about. Annie
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
1 Feb 09
Annie, The same executive priviledge authorizations still stand. Did Clinton's executive privilege authorizations still stand after he left office? You be they did, and still do! Ya' might want to consider that Obama's staff is littered with ex-Clintonista's, some of whom are still benefitting from 'ol Bill's executive privilege orders. Not the least of which is our new Secretary of State. Remember TravelGate??? So yes, Annie! After the fact is just as relevant as during the term in office. Executive Priviledge is a necessary evil. If Presidents' staff are suddenly subject to witch hunting after the administration leaves office, there won't be anyone willing to serve. Though, let's put this into perspective shall we? You want to lambaste Bush for invoking Executive Priviledge, then I say let the first undoing be the privilege that Bush granted to allow Obama's illegal alien auntie to stay in the country. Yup, let's start there and follow it up with the DNC minions crucifying Rove and Cheney, and the GOP minions crucifying all of those Clintonista's, including Hillary. Yeah -- that'll really put this nation on a healthy footing!