Bush grants Karl Rove Congressional immunity in perpetuity.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 9:05 PM GMT
    K, not sure if anyone has posted any topics about this yet... Former President Bush, instead of pardoning Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, had instructed his legal counsel to draft a letter granting Rove immunity in perpetuity, absolute and irrevocable, from any sort of subpoena or testimony.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-latt/bush-punkd-us-again_b_162501.html


    http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240/


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 9:09 PM GMT
    i don't understand how the president can have that authority, especially after he is no longer president. it's also a very revealing gesture...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 9:20 PM GMT
    lol its the most wishful thinking I've ever seen. Apparently another letter was written for chief of staff Josh Bolten.

    Other than maybe Nixon's actions, I can't think of a more public or flagrant disregard for the rule of law or balance of power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 9:35 PM GMT
    OH good!...since the cdn parliamentary smack down has totally fizzled...surprise, surprise....we can watch this Battle of the Branches instead. .... icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2009 11:57 PM GMT
    If the President does it, it's not illegal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 12:07 AM GMT
    steltom saidIf the President does it, it's not illegal.
    This should be paraphrased with, "If the ex-President does it..."
  • Roch_Athlete

    Posts: 45

    Feb 03, 2009 2:52 AM GMT
    President Bush didn't grant anyone immunity from prosecution, as would be done in a pardon or commutation. What he did is what many other Presidents have done, and that is assert Executive Privilege against testifying over certain matters before Congress. Of course, Congress can challenge the privilege, and the courts can (and generally have) upheld it. But it doesn't give the parties involved immunity, it just asserts that it's what the President believes. The interesting thing will be to see what Pres Obama does. My guess is that he'll agree with the Bush administration...because regardless of party, Presidents don't like to give up power that has been established by their predecessors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 3:43 AM GMT
    I disagree, I think that Obama could say that as President, he could hear their testimony and determine if executive privilege was needed for the safety and security of the country or sanctity of the office of President.

    He gains much by letting Rove get thrown to the dogs. A) He makes the other repugs start sweating and B) he opens the door on investigations all over the place into election fraud.

    If he does anything that supports protecting Rove, it's going to look very Blago-Chicago rather than Obama-Chicago.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2009 8:48 AM GMT
    Roch_AthleteMy guess is that he'll agree with the Bush administration...because regardless of party, Presidents don't like to give up power that has been established by their predecessors.


    I think the problem here is not the idea of immunity, but immunity in perpetuity...as far as what I've heard, that's a new concept for FORMER aides and staff members.

    Personally, I feel this idea would obviously conflict with Obama's promises of a more open and transparent government. Binding the hands of Congress instead of agreeing to work with them (Rove himself has previously mentioned that he is willing to testify to Congress) hardly sets that tone.