Skip to main content

Breaking!  Karl Rove WILL testify before Congress (Maybe?).

   In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited.

   In addition, if the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.

   The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.

So, here we go again, Rove is reportedly going to 'finally' appear before Congress and answer questions.  Whenever he doesn't invoke those so-called 'limited official privileges', that is.

Give me a break.  This is just giving Congress a chance to lecture Karl Rove in public.  They get to call him everything but a white guy and he can't do anything about it but.....write a book about the whole things later.

Whoa wait a minute....

"The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers."

Do you mean to tell me that Karl Rove will be testifying behind closed doors?  Just like Bush and Cheney did with the 911 Commission?  

Oh geez!!!!

Originally posted to cscmm on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 05:47 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I bet he pleads the 5th (7+ / 0-)

    over and over and over again. Everyplace he would have cited executive privilege.

    "I didn't vote for it, but I support it." -Heath Shuler on the stimulus bill

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 05:52:31 PM PST

    •  Movement Conservative Overminds (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluedoc, linkage

      don't play along with you unless they are planning on fucking with you another way and have settled on a strategy to do it, or they are the useful idiots like Scooter Libby who go down expecting a pardon.

      Harriet Miers I could see being dumb enough to Scooter Libby herself, but not the Republican's hairless human cat.

      Karl Rove is too smart to play the patsy, he's the type of guy who would be throwing people out of the last lifeboad to leave the Titanic after pretending to be an old woman just to get close to it, so he's just going to not cooperate by citing something else after he raises his hand.

      "I didn't vote for it, but I support it." -Heath Shuler on the stimulus bill

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 05:59:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Diaried to death here. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 05:53:55 PM PST

  •  Yes, he will be behind closed doors...but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We will see the transcripts after its over.  Personally, I think we'll know before then.  Just look at Conyers after it's finished.  If he's exuberant, then we'll know it's good.  

  •  Rove and Miers will testify (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    House Judiciary Committee.  Rachel Maddow just had it as breaking news.

    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

    by joanneleon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:05:54 PM PST

    •  Were they given any immunity for the (0+ / 0-)

      testimony? I hope not.

      Republican economic policies have brought us to this point. Their opinions have no value going forward.

      by Blogvirgin on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:14:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why need immunity when they can say - executive (0+ / 0-)


        Coonsey's World

        by cscmm on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:15:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't think so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        They are under the penalty of perjury, but they will testify behind closed doors -- resulting in a deposition.  House Judiciary says it reserves the right for a public testimony at some later point.

        Apparently, first they will turn over some documents relating to the US Atty firings case.  I think I heard them say on Rachel Maddow's show that they will produce boxes of documents, but will withhold the docs that involve conversations with Pres. Bush.  Congress plans to review the docs and then have the testimony, and the testimony may not happen for some weeks or a couple of months.  Note that they were speculating about how it would play out, so that timing may not turn out to be accurate.

        "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

        by joanneleon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:42:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He will NOT be UNDER OATH as article claims (0+ / 0-)

      This is nothing but a COVER for everybody concerned.

      Even Obama's admin didn't want involved and they would have been after tonight.  So everybody gets a piece of the pie.

      Makes me sick --- Nobody will pay for ANY crime.

      Coonsey's World

      by cscmm on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:15:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. They are giving depositions to Congress (0+ / 0-)

        which if you lie during the proceeding the penalty is a criminal perjury charge.  So this is OK.  Now it will not be in public but the deposition transcript will probably be available which is a plus.  The only question is the extent of the privilege that can be relied upon by Rove and Miers.  If it is limited to their communications with the President, then that is good because it appears they never discussed these things with him anyway (I doubt they would because they understand the concept of "plausible deniability").  If the privilege is broader than that, then this may not be a very good agreement.  I don't think we have the info to answer that question.

  •  Those documents that Conyers will get from White (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    House.....You can bet your sweet bippy that Karl Roves been ALL over them, memorizing them so that he can testify more ACCURATELY.....NOT.

    That's why he's been delaying in testifying.

    Why isn't is being made PUBLIC?  What GOOD reason is there not to explain to AMERICANS why he/she did what they did or not?  Name one good reason.

    Coonsey's World

    by cscmm on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:18:04 PM PST

  •  This is some progress at least. Long overdue. (0+ / 0-)

    Congress should have put him in the jail cell in their basement long ago to compell testimony.

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:51:48 PM PST

  •  Gee... (0+ / 0-)

    I can't wait to negotiate and make an agreement to testify before congress when I get a subpoena!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site