Legal experts raise questions about Rove testimony deal

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story


Legal experts raise questions about Rove testimony deal
By Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane

Published: July 27, 2009

A deal brokered by the Obama White House to obtain Karl Rove’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee contains a number of unusual provisions, prominent legal scholars say.

Rove testified before the Judiciary Committee on July 7 concerning his alleged involvement in the December 2006 firings of seven US Attorneys and the prosecution of Don Siegelman. The Committee is being extremely tight-mouthed about the result, and Rove himself has also declined to comment.

The secrecy is in line with the agreement (pdf) worked out last March to secure testimony from Rove and from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, which guaranteed that no information would be released until the completion of all interviews. However, under the terms of that agreement it appears likely that certain crucial facts, especially about the US Attorney firings, may never come out.

Legal experts consulted for this article are also concerned about the role played by current White House Council Greg Craig, who negotiated the arrangement made by Miers and Rove with the House Judiciary Committee.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/27/legal-experts-raise-questions-about-rove-testimony-deal/

[Robb]

1. Wow. Quite the legal tightrope.

If they discussed it with *, it falls under exec privilege.

If they didn't, it doesn't, so it all has to come out.

But the idea is to tie it to *. So by definition they can't get the info they want.

I'm quite dizzy.

[Old Codger]

2. same old same old

Politics as usual they take care of their own no matter the party

[bertman]

3. Imperial prerogative trumps all.

[zeemike]

4. amazing is it not that they have to negotiate with them

To get them to testify.
Normal people are compelled to testify under penalty of jail.
Is there any doubt that we have a two teared justice system?

[RandomThoughts]

5. Actually if it is true that it is two teared.

It does not exist as a justice system.

[defendandprotect]

6. Don't like it . . . !!!

[Hissyspit]

7. kick

Why do they have to make bargains with these criminals?

[PainPerdu]

8. Pre-emptive CYA

Well, they can't set a precedent by prosecuting another for what they are,or possibly will,engage in themselves before leaving office.

[Hissyspit]

9. Yeah.

I guess I was just asking rhetorically.

I swear it didn't used to work that way, though? Maybe just my rose-colored glasses?

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. There's something I don't really get -

why should we cut a deal for testimony?

Haul him before congress and demand answers. If he doesn't answer, or he lies, THROW THE FUCKER IN PRISON. Spending six month in general population, even in a minimum security facility, would loosen his tongue.