So is Rove now immune from being held accountable?

[proud2BlibKansan]

Would he still be protected by executive privilege? How does his 'resignation' fit in with the investigations we hope the Democrats will pursue?

[freesqueeze]

1. Seems that way...

if you follow the Bushlogic. Anyone who gives him advice must be impurvious to the laws of the land or else they would have to be honest and honorable when giving this advice.



I don't get it either

[Totally Committed]

2. Executive Privilege still applied to Harriet Miers after she left the administration...

or so said the Bushies, and we let them get away with that. Basically, I believe that set a precident.

I believe Rove would not have left the protection of the administration (if that's what he REALLY has done) without assurances that he is now and will be in the future covered by Executive Privilege.

Just a guess.

TC

[quiet.american]

3. Exactly. I would have preferred to see the headline "Rove Indicted."

Since Harriet Miers blew off a subpoena after she'd resigned due to being "ordered" by Bush to do so, there's no doubt Rove will do the same.

So, he gets to mosey on his way to making millions on the lecture circuit and enjoying complete freedom to further undermine the country as a private citizen.

[bdamomma]

4. yea, I could of gone for that headline too.

nothing like cutting and running huh? rummy now rove. What justice!

[NewJeffCT]

9. I thought Miers is still in the White House?

It was somebody else that claimed privilege after leaving?

I could be wrong, though.

[quiet.american]

12. Yes, Bolten also blew off a subpoena; Miers had already resigned in January of this year.

[Captain Hilts]

5. How does this affect his security clearance? nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Lots of questions

I am not jumping up and down with joy. Too many potential scenarios here.

[bryant69]

7. Effectively he would be immune

I would imagine. Unless they can bring up charges outside of congress.

He's leaving government in disgrace, having seen his dreams crumble. That might be all we get.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[lazer47]

8. I don't like to disagree, however, somebody is running for cover

and it is now CYA time,, Maybe the truth lies in Gonzo Gate

[malaise]

10. What if they take time to build the case

against Rove and don't drag him into court until January 2009.

[KharmaTrain]

11. We'll Find Out Soon

There's something else happening here we're not yet hearing or seeing. Look at other recent resignations...like Miers...who we soon hear are up to their armpits in legal messes...and yes, those messes are there and the charges are coming.

IMHO, what's done Rove in was the testimony of his violating the Hatch act...if you've been following the hearings, he's all but been placed in several of these illegal meetings and this case is headed to the courts. Unless the fix is in, it's gonna be tough for Rove not to be charged in this and the regime may be clearing the decks.

[sofa king]

13. He'll be in Dubai before mid-September.

No extradition treaty between us and the U.A.E. That's why Halliburton went there, and that's where the rest of them are going to go, with about three trillion dollars worth of hush-money.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Interesting

No extradition? WOW

[sofa king]

19. Yeah. Here's the source I'm basing that on.

Agreements and Treaties. No extradition or mutual legal assistance treaties (MLAT) exist between the United States and the UAE, although the two countries are exploring whether to negotiate an MLAT. The UAE is party to the 1988 UN Drug Convention, the 1961 UN Single Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and the 1988 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The UAE has signed, but has not yet ratified, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

U.S. State Department Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, 2004

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Thanks for the source

I am passing this one along!

[Terri S]

15. I don't get it.

Why now?

[Igel]

17. The only candidate explanation I've heard is

that there is an edict that if you're with * after Labor Day weekend you'll be expected to be there until the end of the term.

I think he has something planned for his future between 9/1/07 and 1/09. Dunno what, though.

I don't think any of the other explanation or excuse I've heard hold water, although I doubt I've heard all the hypotheses.

[Igel]

16. Communication, not the person, is covered

by executive privilege. So his status as emploee or ex-employee isn't relevant; if the communication was privileged, it's still privileged.

Rather the same kind of idea as privileged communication with your doctor or lawyer. If you fire your lawyer during a trial, he can't be called to testify as to any materials you turned over to him. If you change your doctor you do not automatically waive the confidentially of the communications with the doctor.

Whether the communications are protected is the issue.

[radfringe]

18. he's always been immune

covered by executive priviledge, and any other legal problems will be quickly disposed of by presidential pardon...

rove knows where he's buried the bodies are and the bushies will make sure they stay buried