Rove is running scared re Siegelman - must see video

[malaise]

The House Judiciary Committee is calling for former Bush advisor Karl Rove to testify about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Rove’s lawyer says he will only testify if no transcript is made and if he’s not under oath, disputing what he earlier told a “Verdict” producer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24419030#24419030

[woodsprite]

1. Congress has got to stop this "not under oath" crap. n/t

[Echo In Light]

2. In part, I suspect Bush/Cheney re 9/11, paved the way for this preferred evasion

[malaise]

3. The end is near for Rove n/t

[Blarch]

4. nothing will happen.

the dems are in on the coverup.

Rove will never be held responsible.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

15. STOP THAT!

It will happen if we keep screaming and screaming for justice.

[jimshoes]

5. Well isn't that special.

Hope ya have a BIG cellmate karl.

[wryter2000]

7. He'll never go to prison

Even if the impossible happens and he's found guilty of a crime, * will commute his sentence or pardon him.

[L. Coyote]

6. Some Reflections on "Rove in State of Panic." Are things what they seem?

Some Reflections on "Rove in State of Panic." Are things what they seem?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3183926

Well, well, this seems to fit the pattern outlined in the post above.

The story is election fraud and illegal campaign contributions in 2002.
The story is political imprisonment, Judge Fuller's conduct, USA conduct, Noel Hillman's conduct, Bob Riley's conduct,
Jack Abramnoff's conduct, Michael Scanan's conduct, Ralph Reed's conduct, William Pryor's conduct, ...
Especially Jack Abramoff, so you can see why they want to change the focus of the story :rofl:

The story is NOT, I repeat NOT, Dan and KKKarl!!

It is hilarious to see these two in a struggle to change the issue.

Let's not allow these Rs to spin this out of focus!!!

[malaise]

16. Good point indeed n/t

[spanone]

8. what an arrogant little shit karl boy is.....i hope he doesn't show and they send the marshalls

[lovuian]

9. I think that says it all Rove is guilty and Fitz should have

made this BOZO testify as well as Cheney

History is going to show these criminals ran amok and the Justice system let them

[bleever]

10. K&R for some real news.

Thanks.

[Pastiche423]

11. rove is no longer protected under "Executive Priviledge"

since he no longer works for the maladministration. Under what law can he ignore the subpeona? And under what law can he refuse to swear under oath?

Issue a subpeona w/a date by which he must comply. If he doesn't, then it's time for inherent contempt. After which, send marshalls to haul his fat, corrupt ass into to court.

[Uncle Joe]

12. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, malaise.

[Rob H.]

13. "...only testify if no transcript is made and if he’s not under oath..."

IOW, only if he's free to lie his ass off without fear of reprisal or legal consequences.

[jtrockville]

14. TRANSCRIBED:

Breaking tonight, congress may finally be prepared to subpoena Karl Rove in connection with the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. At issue: whether Siegelman was prosecuted on corruption charges because he's a Democrat. And was Karl Rove behind that prosecution. The House Judiciary Committee, giving Rove's attorney until May 12th to agree to testify, or they'll issue a subpoena to try to force him. The committee cited this program . After all, his lawyer told us Rove would testify, if subpoenaed. But now they're saying Rove will only talk about it with the committee, and only if no transcript is made, and if it's not done under oath. Stunningly, his lawyer Robert Luskin is blaming us. Responding to Congress. Luskin wrote:

"Your invitation is premised on reports that I had expressed Mr. Rove's 'willingness to testify before the committee.' The report in question was based on an email exchange with a producer for a cable news network and was taken grossly out of context."
-Letter from attorney Robert D. Luskin to House Judiciary Committee, April 29

Out of context. Mr. Luskin, if you or Mr. Rove want to change your mind about testifying, your more than entitled to do so, that's your decision. But please do not falsely accuse us of taking anything out of context, as you now have multiple times. There was no ambiguity in our email exchange. On April 7th, at 4:00pm we asked you:

{image of email From: Verdict with Dan Abrams, To: Robert Luskin, Sent: April 07, 2008 4:00 PM is showing}

"will your client, Karl Rove, consider testifying under oath about the Siegelman case?"

You responded at 4:24

{image of email From: Robert Luskin, To: Verdict with Dan Abrams, Sent: April 07, 2008 4:24 PM is showing}

"i'm not sure i understand the question: whether or not there is an investigation and whether or not he is asked to testify are not matters that are within his control."

We responded at 4:59

{image of email From: Verdict with Dan Abrams, To: Robert Luskin, Sent: April 07, 2008 4:59 PM is showing}

"Sorry. Let me be more clear: Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?"

You responded 2 hours later, at 6:59

{image of email From: Robert Luskin, To: Verdict with Dan Abrams, Sent: April 07, 2008 6:59 PM is showing}

"Sure. Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide, even though -- gov siegelman's uncorroborated assertions aside -- there's literally no credible evidense whatsoever to substantiate his charges. I would hope that you'd get around to mentioning that fact."

Mr. Luskin, I dare you to claim that was not the verbatim email exchange between my producer and you. The Judiciary Committee responded to Luskin today, saying

"We simply to not understand why anyone who is prepared to tell the truth would object to an oath and a record of what is said. This is particularly true in this case, where Mr. Rove has already spoken on the record on this subject before the news media."
-Letter from House Judiciary Committee to Robert D. Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney

We will follow up to see what congress, Rove, and Luskin do next.

[malaise]

17. Excellent

:hi: