Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify

[Nbadan]

If Rove was to testy under oath he would perjure himself because everything he says is a lie...he can't help not lying..

[Nbadan]

Jonathan Turley was speaking on MSNBC about the logic of the claim that Rove and the White House have put forward. His arguement was that this claim of executive privledge was ridiculous because it would include everything, and make the job of oversight of the executive impossible.

However, turned on its head, it is an admission of wrongdoing as it specifically applies to areas in which the party claiming it (in this case pigface) advised the White House in his "official" capacity.. Accepting this logic, we have to assume that Rove advised the white house on matters which are the subject of the subpoena. In this case it was at the least ethically wrong for the white house to be involved in the matters which are the subject of the subpoena - more likely criminally wrongdoing was involved - Certainly they are not claiming that Rove was advising the White House on matters which it was improper for it to be involved in.....

So, is the Bush White House tacitly admitting that they were officially involved in the Seigleman affair? Should not this be added to Kucinich's articles of impeachment?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Executive Privilege is inherent to the office, acknowledged as such for the known history and time of the cons ution. Many common law items of the time are not spelled out.

so a right to privacy is not part of the cons ution but the doctrine of executive privileged is?

you republicans are funny, you dont even hide the internal wish for dictatorship

[Extra Stout]

Jonathan Turley was speaking on MSNBC about the logic of the claim that Rove and the White House have put forward. His arguement was that this claim of executive privledge was ridiculous because it would include everything, and make the job of oversight of the executive impossible.

I think the bolded part is the objective.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think the bolded part is the objective.

that's subjective

[xrayzebra]

so a right to privacy is not part of the cons ution but the doctrine of executive privileged is?

you republicans are funny, you dont even hide the internal wish for dictatorship

How do you twist things like you do. Good God.

By the way Rove, according to an article I read this morning, with coffee, has offered to appear before the committee and talk to them. He set some provisions that they don't like. He would not be under oath and no transcription of his remarks could be made.

Why don't they accept those terms? Then if they really think they have a case then they can proceed with their hearings.

Anyhow, a little off subject, but did any of you listen to the news last night. Old what-is-face has brought another impeachment article, only one, this time, and it looks like it might get some backing. Read the article below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379681,00.html

[George Gervin's Afro]

How do you twist things like you do. Good God.

By the way Rove, according to an article I read this morning, with coffee, has offered to appear before the committee and talk to them. He set some provisions that they don't like. He would not be under oath and no transcription of his remarks could be made.

Why don't they accept those terms? Then if they really think they have a case then they can proceed with their hearings.

Anyhow, a little off subject, but did any of you listen to the news last night. Old what-is-face has brought another impeachment article, only one, this time, and it looks like it might get some backing. Read the article below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379681,00.html

Why no transcript?.... hmmm interesting... I wonder why Rove wouldn't want to record his statements?

Ray why do you think Rove would talk to the committe without a transcript? Serious question.

[xrayzebra]

Why no transcript?.... hmmm interesting... I wonder why Rove wouldn't want to record his statements?

Ray why do you think Rove would talk to the committe without a transcript? Serious question.

Second question first. He said he would.

First question. I suspect that he (and the administration) have a real problem with the truthfulness of some Congressmen and the twisting of words. Without transcripts one word against another's word. Not the best of worlds but.............

Here is an excerpt of what Rove said he would do.

The panel is trying to determine whether Rove influenced the Justice Department's decision to bring a corruption case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Rove has rejected the claim and said he would speak with the committee only in private, not under oath and without a transcript. He also proposed answering questions in writing.

Sanchez noted that Rove's offer was limited to discussing the Siegelman case. The panel also wants to question him about other topics, including the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys, she said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p..._duhY&refer=us

Like I said in earlier post the Administration knows that the committee will not limit itself to one topic, but go on a fishing expedition.

[clambake]

ray, a fishing expedition could only happen because rove's answers were driving the boat.

wouldn't you enjoy the prospect of watching rove mow them down?

[xrayzebra]

ray, a fishing expedition could only happen because rove's answers were driving the boat.

wouldn't you enjoy the prospect of watching rove mow them down?

rove's answers were driving the boat.

If you actually believe that then I have a bridges in Brooklyn and Laredo, Tx. that I would love to sell you.

And

Do you actually think that the hearings would be televised? No transcripts but TV would be allowed. What part of private do you not understand?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Second question first. He said he would.

First question. I suspect that he (and the administration) have a real problem with the truthfulness of some Congressmen and the twisting of words. Without transcripts one word against another's word. Not the best of worlds but.............

Here is an excerpt of what Rove said he would do.

The panel is trying to determine whether Rove influenced the Justice Department's decision to bring a corruption case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Rove has rejected the claim and said he would speak with the committee only in private, not under oath and without a transcript. He also proposed answering questions in writing.

Sanchez noted that Rove's offer was limited to discussing the Siegelman case. The panel also wants to question him about other topics, including the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys, she said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p..._duhY&refer=us

Like I said in earlier post the Administration knows that the committee will not limit itself to one topic, but go on a fishing expedition.

Ray a transcript would prove that some Congressmen were twisting his words if that were the case. Without a transcript they then could accuse Rove of saying things that he didn't say.

[FromWayDowntown]

If Rove is worried about the twisting of words, he should specifically want a transcript -- a transcript is objective and can be read in full context. There is no he said/she said with a transcript. Suggesting that someone would avoid a transcript out of a fear of misrepresentation has to be among the most asinine things I've read in this forum.

Politics aside, my guess is that Rove doesn't want a transcript and to testify under oath because what he would have to say might be discovered to have been untruthful, which, of course, would mean that he broke the law and could be prosecuted.

[clambake]

If Rove is worried about the twisting of words, he should specifically want a transcript -- a transcript is objective and can be read in full context. There is no he said/she said with a transcript. Suggesting that someone would avoid a transcript out of a fear of misrepresentation has to be among the most asinine things I've read in this forum.

Politics aside, my guess is that Rove doesn't want a transcript and to testify under oath because what he would have to say might be discovered to have been untruthful, which, of course, would mean that he broke the law and could be prosecuted.

there are very few things in adult life more exciting than depositions.

[FromWayDowntown]

there are very few things in adult life more exciting than depositions.

Reading a deposition transcript might actually be worse than sitting through one.

But my point is that the transcript (of a deposition or any other form of testimony) tends to protect an honest witness. If one is specifically concerned with maintaining the integrity of his words and the import of his testimony, a choice to proceed without a transcript is incomprehensible.

[clambake]

Reading a deposition transcript might actually be worse than sitting through one.

participating in one is the rush. reading one that you just completed can be quite fun when you hold the dagger of truth.

But my point is that the transcript (of a deposition or any other form of testimony) tends to protect an honest witness. If one is specifically concerned with maintaining the integrity of his words and the import of his testimony, a choice to proceed without a transcript is incomprehensible.

hense rove's concern.

[Spurminator]

He set some provisions that they don't like. He would not be under oath and no transcription of his remarks could be made.

Why don't they accept those terms?

ROFLMAO

[xrayzebra]

ROFLMAO

enjoy your laugh. We will see who laughs last.

[xrayzebra]

For those of you who wonder why no transcript. Not all transcripts are put out for public consumption. And some are "censored" for lack of a better word. And some are published way, way after the fact. After proper study, don't you see and some
tweaking.

[clambake]

For those of you who wonder why no transcript. Not all transcripts are put out for public consumption. And some are "censored" for lack of a better word. And some are published way, way after the fact. After proper study, don't you see and some
tweaking.

so, whats the problem? i think you're afraid he'll say something, not that it would matter to you.

why do you care? you'd defend him anyway.

[FromWayDowntown]

For those of you who wonder why no transcript. Not all transcripts are put out for public consumption. And some are "censored" for lack of a better word. And some are published way, way after the fact. After proper study, don't you see and some
tweaking.

Aside from the fact that such limitations wouldn't seem to apply to Rove's testimony -- it's not as if he'll be able to testify to Top Secret matters (he certainly shouldn't have ever had that kind of clearance) or to matters of national security at all -- the point stands. If Rove is worried about his words being distorted, his surest protection is a transcript. If he's fearful of a transcript, it suggests that he's concerned about having a record of his statements at all. You're being seriously misled by whatever bots are suggesting to you that the willingness to testify without a transcript is based on fear of having his words misrepresented -- again, a transcript would absolutely protect Rove, if he testifies truthfully.

[xrayzebra]

Aside from the fact that such limitations wouldn't seem to apply to Rove's testimony -- it's not as if he'll be able to testify to Top Secret matters (he certainly shouldn't have ever had that kind of clearance) or to matters of national security at all --

Oh, I would imagine he has way higher than Top Secret. Top Secret isn't even close to being the top classification of classified matters. He was privy to most all the stuff that went on in the WH. Might not have been consulted, but he knew what was going on. He was after all the top political guy to go to on all matters and everything is political in Washington.

[FromWayDowntown]

Even if Rove had the most significant security clearance in the history of the nation, the point is that his testimony isn't likely to involve questions involving those matters. As such, there would be no reason to keep the transcript of his testimony confidential or to make it publicly-available with significant redaction.

There is simply no rational reason for Rove to think that testimony in the absence of a transcript affords better protection for him, in a political sense, than testimony that is recorded. It's beyond asinine to believe that.

[Spurminator]

enjoy your laugh. We will see who laughs last.

What does that even mean? It's not like I'm making predictions on anything, I'm laughing at the lengths you will go to for the sake of your "team."

[FromWayDowntown]

What does that even mean? It's not like I'm making predictions on anything, I'm laughing at the lengths you will go to for the sake of your "team."

It means that xray and others will think it's really funny if this President succeeds in this Imperial Presidency idea and exalting the executive branch above all others. They'll really be laughing about that when President Obama refuses to kowtow to a Republican Congress. ROFLMAO kind of laughing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Bush's administration has set a new precedent for the Executive Branch. ZERO OVERSIGHT. With a new Democrat President and Congress ray and his bretheren have to keep their pie holes shut because of what Bush and Cheney have created. Nice job guys.... Come February of 2009 ray is going to be crying that President Obama has something to hide and that he, Obama, acts like he's above the law... Now that would make roll on the floor and laugh my ass off..