Did Bush Claim Executive Privilege for Rove Last Year?
Did Rove rely on this “absolute exclusivity” bullshit last year, too?
If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
Did Rove rely on this “absolute exclusivity” bullshit last year, too?
Robert Luskin claims that Rove doesn’t have to testify on Thursday because Bush–in entirely different circumstances and for an entirely different reason–once gave Harriet Miers “absolute immunity” from responding to a Congressional subpoena. But it’s not at all clear that Bush (or DOJ) is willing to do so in this case.
Patrick Fitzgerald sure seems to be sending Congress a message that he can now talk about the evidence revealed in the Rezko trial that Karl Rove tried to get him fired.
Rove’s excuses for why he doesn’t have to testify to the House Judiciary Committee are getting increasingly ridiculous.
Patrick Fitzgerald answers about five questions about being fired as a USA–one of which is somewhat revealing wrt the Libby and Rezko investigations.
After reading the longer document on OSC’s investigations, it appears there is SOME logic to Scott Bloch’s investigations. But that doesn’t mean he’s a good manager.
Many of you have been asking many different questions about the OSC kerfluffle. I am fairly deep into this now and hope to have a serious piece ready by tonight. This is just a short post to run by all of you my current thoughts and ask you to post in comments any links to new and probative information you have run across (for other topics too if they are really noteworthy).
The Administration–with the help of John Kyl–continues to fight efforts to give DOJ’s IG the authority to investigate DOJ’s lawyers.
The news that Bob Kjellander was trying to get Rove to fire Patrick Fitzgerald is not new. But introducing it in the Rezko trial certainly fits with Fitz’ MO of introducing helping evidence via indirect channels.
Karl Rove says he’ll testify in the Governor Siegelman case.