Rove did ... wha?????

[Phoenix McHeit]

How does one do this?

HOW does one Ignore a Flipping Congressional Subpoena and NOT immediately get thrown in jail, do not pass go, do not collect millions for your book deal?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25622771

Now, I know it says Congress is 'considering' filing contempt charges... but what the heck? WHY the delay? I always was under the impression that ignore a subpoena = go to jail for contempt. Is that incorrect?

Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance, although he has offered to answer questions specifically on the Siegelman case — but only with no transcript taken and not under oath.

Democrats have rejected the offer because the testimony would not be sworn and, they say, could create a confusing record.


Rove has insisted publicly that he never tried to influence Justice Department decisions and was not even aware of the Siegelman prosecution until it landed in the news.



So, he offered to talk about a case... of which he claims to have had no prior knowledge... but only if he's NOT placed under oath, and no transcript.



Yyyyyeah. :unamused: Lemme get my hipboots out. It's gettin' deep over there. And they wonder why there's probable cause for the inquiry....

[Selena]

Gee....
Ya think for one second we stupidamericanpiss-on's would even having the audacity to even threaten to do such a thing... we'd be thrown in jail straight from the bench for... oh, I dunnooooo.... lemme think of sometin'.... CONTEMPT of court??? Yeahhhh. whatever.

Really, Rove???? What a special snowflake he must be. :unamused::unamused::unamused:



WASHINGTON — Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama.
Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate _ perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/rove-ignores-subpoena-ref_n_111879.html

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

That guy needs to go hunting with Dick Cheney.

[Gellis Indigo]

I have a question.

Does a congressional subpeona hold the same weight as one issued by the court system?

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

I have a question.

Does a congressional subpeona hold the same weight as one issued by the court system?

More.

At least with the court system they sorta have to be able to show cause and you can quash it if they don't.

With Congress, one is essentially subject to their whims.

[Selena]

I have a question.

Does a congressional subpeona hold the same weight as one issued by the court system?

As I'm sure you all know, a subpoena is a summon by the court of whatever jurisdiction to compel a witness to be present. Period. Said witness must comply or be subject to being held in contempt of court, no matter what "side" they represent.

As Bob said, "more". Failure to comply is completely within the hands of said court.

You don't fuck with the threat of contempt of congressional court summons.

Rove is a fucking idiot... and ya think he is hiding something???? :unamused:

[daBaroness]

Sad thing is - I'm sure he's following the orders of whomever at the White House issues those sorts of things. And I'm sure he's consulted with his personal counsel. If Congress doesn't find him in contempt - then I'll have to find them in contempt - the whole lot of 'em!

Now whar's mah gun?!

[Phoenix McHeit]

Actually he's just the current snowflake-du-jour. Apparently there are two other 'staffers' who also ignored their subpoenas and are 'being considered' for contempt charges.

Because - and this is where my own knowledge of law & such is embarrassingly lacking - their claiming some kind of Executive Privilege. That their inner-office conversations are subject to privacy laws or something.

Like Doctor/patient privilege, I'm guessing. Now, I know a Doctor can't be compelled in court to disclose information about his patient... but I didn't think he could summarily ignore a subpoena... right? He still had to be present and testify, even if the only testimony was "I claim privilege" over and over in response to questions.

So, all you law buffs, please help? 1) Is there such a thing as Executive privilege, and if so, just how broad a scope IS it... and 2) how can contempt charges not be immediately served when one 'blows off' a subpoena?

[Selena]

1) Is there such a thing as Executive privilege, and if so, just how broad a scope IS it... and 2) how can contempt charges not be immediately served when one 'blows off' a subpoena?

Yes, there is. This is not "made up." ::tinfoil: However, you cannot claim exec priv when you are doing something illegal. Which is exactly what is trying to be proven.

[Phoenix McHeit]

you cannot claim exec priv when you are doing something illegal.

THERE"S the distinction. Thanks! I knew there had to be a limit. And I can see where it would cover emails and such... but what about 'water cooler chat'? That, too?

[Katie O'Connell]

Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate _ perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.[/I]


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/rove-ignores-subpoena-ref_n_111879.html

When I read this, the first thing that popped into my head was that scene in 'Spaceballs' where Dark Helmet was complaining:

"You're allways PREPARING! Just GO!" :x

Quit 'taking steps'.....JUST HIT HIM WITH CHARGES! Shit, hit him with the gavel if you have to!

Or...like Bob suggested... a week in dear camp with Chaney.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Actually he's just the current snowflake-du-jour. Apparently there are two other 'staffers' who also ignored their subpoenas and are 'being considered' for contempt charges.

Because - and this is where my own knowledge of law & such is embarrassingly lacking - their claiming some kind of Executive Privilege. That their inner-office conversations are subject to privacy laws or something.

Like Doctor/patient privilege, I'm guessing. Now, I know a Doctor can't be compelled in court to disclose information about his patient... but I didn't think he could summarily ignore a subpoena... right? He still had to be present and testify, even if the only testimony was "I claim privilege" over and over in response to questions.

So, all you law buffs, please help? 1) Is there such a thing as Executive privilege, and if so, just how broad a scope IS it... and 2) how can contempt charges not be immediately served when one 'blows off' a subpoena?

Executive privilege is an actual thing. It stems from the concept of the seperation of powers between the 3 branches of government. While it's scope has traditionally been somewhat broad, the current administration (and this should come as a shock to no one) has taken it to a whole new level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#George_W._Bush_administration) .


The blowing off of the subpoena, while generally just not done, is done here because they are of the opinion that because of the separation of powers doctrine, Congress doesn't have the right to subpoena them, as they are/were members of the Executive Branch. According to CNN, the letter from Rove's attorney to Congress states that he feels that Rove is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."


So the question really is: does Congress have the resolve to take the matter up before the Supreme Court, as they would be the arbiters of this standoff. And if it goes to that, I can guarantee you that it will be a 5-4 decision, but I can't say in which direction; it all depends on what kind of mood Justice Kennedy is in that day.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Or...like Bob suggested... a week in dear camp with Chaney.

(with apologies to Allan Sherman....)

Hello muddah,
Hello faddah,
Holy shit! I just got shot in the face!


:-D

[Kathryn Blakeley]

(with apologies to Allan Sherman....)

Hello muddah,
Hello faddah,
Holy shit! I just got shot in the face!


:-D

:snarf:

[Gellis Indigo]

The blowing off of the subpoena, while generally just not done, is done here because they are of the opinion that because of the separation of powers doctrine, Congress doesn't have the right to subpoena them, as they are/were members of the Executive Branch.

And this is what I was wondering when I asked my original question. Thank you Bob! I appreciate it.