By Libby
Whoa baby. This is the best rumor I've heard for a long time.
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: �We�re closing in on Rove. Someone�s got to kick his ass.�
Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn�t, said Conyers, �We�ll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We�d hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested.�
Conyers said the committee wants Rove to testify about his role in the imprisonment of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, among other things.
�We want him for so many things, it�s hard to keep track,� Conyers said.
And dreams of a frog march dance in my head.
Annoying John Conyers is not equivalent to lawbreaking, however much partisan liberals might wish it were so. What this post really does well is show the depths of vindictiveness of Conyers who is mad because Rove clobbered the House Democrats repeatedly over many issues for the past 7 years.
ReplyDeleteKarl Rove is many things but stupid isn't one of them. I'm sure in many instances he walks up to the legal edge in pursuit of advantage, but so far, he hasn't crossed it. Remember how blowhard Joseph Wilson was predicting that Rove would be "frogmarched out of the White House"? Well, it didn't happen despite the best efforts of a 4 star federal prosecutor because reality didn't line up with wishful thinking of Democratic activists.
Dreams indeed.
Sorry Zen. In this case, Rove is claiming a legal advantage he doesn't really have. This speaks to the overreach on executive privilege that Bush evoked and badly needs to be tested.
ReplyDeleteWrite it off to vindictiveness if you like, but I call it accountability. Rove may work at the pleasure of the president, but the president is supposed to work at the pleasure of the people. Rove is accountable to us and there's no good reason for him not to testify. It's high time we push the issue and restore some checks and balances.
They can test away, that's what the judicial system is for.
ReplyDeleteummm I wonder if there was any obstruction of justice by a major administration official that might have made it harder for a prosecutor to nail rove....hmmm i'm thinking of a name
ReplyDeletepooter....booter....footer....bibby...hmmm
"if there was any obstruction of justice by a major administration official that might have made it harder for a prosecutor to nail rove"
ReplyDeleteNo, that would make it easier because you could tack on a conspiracy charge if there was any evidence of collusion. But there wasn't.
The prosecutor, Fitzgerald, was no friend of Rove BTW ( and still is not).
wait wait. your shitting me. obstruction of justice by scotter libby would make it easier to nail rove..???? huh...wuh
ReplyDeleteIf "Scooter" obstructed justice at the behest of another, that would be a conspiracy which would open up different avenues of approach for prosecution. Moreover, a crime need not have taken place, merely an intent to commit one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you still need some kind of evidence that will pass the laugh test in front of a grand jury in order to proceed with an indictment for conspiracy. That there was not one, nor even the claim of " unindicted co-conspirator" ( another option for Fitzgerald) against Rove is telling.
Zen, just because Scooter was an exceptionally good liar and willing to fall on his sword, doesn't mean a crime wasn't commited. People get away with lesser crimes. Not to mention, Fitz was prosecuting the case under a narrow criteria.
ReplyDelete