Reply #34: Doesn't the White House have a role in allowing the subpoena to be enforced? [View All]

[bigtree]

Bush 'renewed' his claim of executive privilege for Rove, which the court rejected, before he left. That may not stand, but Pres. Obama will have to make a decision on that. It looks here like that will be to stand with the Bush decision. It doesn't look like the Obama WH is following your prescription of no role in this.


from Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/28/obama_to_face_test_on_executive

(Scott Horton, New York attorney specializing in international law and human rights. He is also a legal affairs contributor to Harper’s Magazine, where he writes the blog No Comment.)

SCOTT HORTON: Now, there’s sort of a wrinkle here that’s interesting, and that is that Greg Craig, who is Barack Obama’s White House counsel, is also a friend of Karl Rove, something he’s talked about openly, and his law firm, Williams & Connolly—his former law firm, I should say—represented Karl Rove with respect to some publication deals. So that presents a bit of a complication. But I think what—

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think he should recuse himself?

SCOTT HORTON: I think it’s quite problematic for him to involve himself in this, given that relationship, so probably other lawyers in the President’s staff should be addressing this.

But I think the threshold issue is very clear, and that is whether or not the White House is going to say, “No, you don’t even have to answer this subpoena.” We have a district court judge saying that was an absurd position. Indeed, I’d say that’s pretty much the uniform position in the legal community. It was an absurd position. So he will have to respond to the subpoena. He will have to sit in the hearings, and he’ll have to respond to questions.

That still leaves open the issue of whether or not he can invoke the privilege with respect to specific questions. And, you know, the implication of the privilege suggests—it implies very strongly, because the privilege covers his communications with the President—it suggests that Karl Rove had discussions about these matters, the US attorney firing and also the prosecution of Governor Siegelman, with President Bush directly. And if so, there’s no doubt but that these things, all these things, would have been improper, potentially even criminal.

. . . we should also stop and say, don’t expect that the Obama White House is going to completely waive executive privilege. They won’t do that. I’m sure they’ll say Karl Rove is entitled to cite it with respect to his communications directly with President Bush. But all these peripheral matters, he’s going to be forced to give answers. And the executive privilege—he’s also going to have to answer to the special prosecutor . . .


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/28/obama_to_face_test_on_executive