Karl Rove has told the judiciary committee that he will not show up this Thursday as he was subpoened to do.

My comments to the Judiciary Committee... Grow some friggin balls and issue an immediate arrest warrant, one minute after his scheduled time to be there, and arrest the bastard.

If not, you all should be looking for new jobs the next time you are up for election, which I believe is this November 4.

GROW SOME BACKBONE YOU SPINELESS BASTARDS AND ARREST THIS SON OF A BITCH, ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Congress has the ability to hold someone in contempt of congress, but has no power to arrest an individual.

Are you kidding? Congress will do nothing - useless, spineless bunch. Why do you think I keep saying the US will break up by 2010? If the Fed government can't handle this minor problem, how can they possibly handle the complete collapse of the credit and banking infrastructure?

Hey Adam, wasup...... Ya this whole thing sucks. Looks like the only way we can fix this is to make the Attorney General an appointee of the Supreme Court. We are on our "THIRD" attorney general... Promise to uphold our laws just to break them and make a bundle of money. Take over sovereign lands that we setup, what a damn mess! I don't know about you guys but, if we were watching Russia or China do what we are doing, this country would be demanding justice.

Effin' a Bubba! You said it!

sgt at arms can arrest and detain at the capital

I continually wonder why a Democratic Congress can't get the job done for the Democrats who elected them. At every turn of the screw, we get screwed.
Anyone see it that way?

Since Rove won't appear, that is immaterial. Congress can't issue an arrest warrant.

This is really a tug-of-war between the legislative and executive branches that has nothing to do with which political party is in the majority.

We could be on the verge of a constitutional crises. The Federalist Society types have wanted this confrontation to establish the supremacy of the executive branch.

I don't see it that way at all. If this comes to a head, the judicial branch will hold sway and sort it out. I personally think their will be yet another compromise.

snip


Alas, it has been quite some time since a house of Congress sent its sergeant-at-arms trolling the streets of Washington for wrongdoers. Under current federal law, it's a criminal offense to refuse to appear before Congress when summoned or to commit perjury before a congressional committee. Such offenders are supposed to be prosecuted by U.S. attorneys. But that's exactly the problem with regard to the DoJ-related subpoenas—the people getting the subpoenas and the people enforcing them all work for the same boss.

Federal law can allow the executive to punish disobedience to Congress, but it cannot take away Congress' own punishment powers. Back in 1833, Justice Joseph Story said those powers were utterly necessary "for either house to perform its constitutional functions," a conclusion also reached by the Supreme Court as a whole in 1821. Once a house of Congress finds someone in contempt, it can order its sergeant to go after him. It's really that simple.

All it takes is balls...

http://www.slate.com/id/2165127/

Love to know what you think of this article, peak...

I believe that they do have the power to issue a congressional arrest warrat.

I believe you happen to be right NEM. There is a jail in Congress and the Seargant of Arms can imprison someone in that jail. Seems to me through discussions I have heard, only maybe one or a handful of persons has ever been held in that jail. Other than that, I am speechless, I guess the cat got my tongue.

Here is an excerpt from that article.

In the real world, this is all politics, and political compromise will probably save Rice and the rest from, say, whiling away the month of May in the slammer. In the sort of world that lawyers like to dream of, however, refusal to obey a congressional subpoena can indeed lead to charges of contempt of Congress. From there, we can treat ourselves to a tour of a seldom-used congressional power: the power of each house to use its own sergeant-at-arms to enforce its own rules and privileges. It sounds quaint, but just think: Congress doesn't need a U.S. marshal to knock on Condi's door—it can arrest her all by itself.


It's time for action. If he is not there by the prescribed time, then congress MUST act and have the sergeant of arms bring him before congress, IMMEDIATELY. NO COMPROMISE. If he refuses to testify, then place him under congressional arrest and confine him in a cell. NO FRIGGIN COMPROMISE, NOT TIME TO DEAL.. ITS TIME TO STAND UP AND DO WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO.

EVERY PERSON IN THIS FORUM MUST BE SENDING THIS TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE NOW.

CONTACT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTE NOW..TELL THEM NO COMPROMISE, IF HE DOESNT SHOW UP, SEND THE SGT. OF ARMS OUT, IMMEDIATELY TO BRING HIM IN.

http://judiciary.house.gov/

Here's the "contact them" link.

http://judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

New York Times
Congress Has a Way of Making Witnesses Speak: Its Own Jail
By ADAM COHEN
Published: December 4, 2007

"Congress and the White House appear to be headed for a constitutional showdown. The House of Representatives is poised to hold Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, a former White House counsel, in contempt for failing to comply with subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal. If the Justice Department refuses to enforce the subpoenas, as seems likely, Congress will have to decide whether to do so. Washington lawyers are dusting off an old but apparently sturdy doctrine called “inherent contempt” that gives Congress the power to bring the recalcitrant witnesses in — by force, if necessary..."




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

Rove's refusal to appear is by no means a casual decision. I have no doubt it was arrived at after careful calculation by the White House criminal coterie and the appropriate piece on the chessboard has been thoughtfully positioned. The next move is Conyers' and I needn't elaborate on what my thoughts are about that.

How many times must a boxer be knocked out within 15 seconds of the first round before it becomes clear that either he simply can't fight or he is taking dives? Either way the DNC should toss in the towel and tell Conyers to stay out of the ring and spare the Party the embarrassment.

If Conyers, Pelosi and Hoyer retain their seats in November it will then be abundantly clear that it is We the People who are to blame for all of this.

I am really afraid, for the first time in my Adult life.........that the SOB's in power will declare Marshal law before the end of this year.............for real.

Or stage a terrorist attack in the US.

I don't have the same fear. I remember a few years back when there was civil unrest at the Kremlin. One man stood in front of a tank, and that tank stopped. I see whereby Fox News just hired an analyst from the Clinton Camp, it's all about balance.

In regards to the ability of Congress to enforce it's own subpoenas one might want to look to the Congressional Research Service Report for Congress dated April 15, 2008 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf . It takes an in-depth look at Congress' powers including criminal and civil contempt - both pursuable through the Dept. of Justice - and inherent contempt. This last is the ability of Congress to send out the Sergeant at Arms to enforce it's own powers. Unlike criminal and civil contempt, which are punitive, inherent contempt is considered coercive in it's role of bringing those obstructing the legislative process into compliance with the actions of the Congress. Regarding the ability of the Sergeant at Arms to make an arrest and bring the offender to trial before the bar of the Congress:
See also McGrain v. Daugherty 1927

Kilbourne, mentioned in the above clip from pg.15 of the report, is a case which went before the Supreme Court which appears to set limits on the contempt powers of Congress and is pointed to to suggest those limitations. But subsequent rulings appear to have affirmed the ability of Congress to exercise its contempt powers, as in McGrain.

Only just dug it up and started perusing it myself, but the in-depth nature of the powers of Congress included in this report do appear to lay out the case law which suggests, among other things, that the powers of the Sergeant at Arms of either the House or Senate are not restricted by the physical boundaries of the Capitol as might be suggested by their roles in the Capitol Police and the Board of Officers. Rather, it appears their jurisdiction may be as extensive as is the jurisdiction of Congress itself, and wherever a person obstructing the legislative role of Congress may be they may in fact be well within the jurisdictional territory of the Sergeants at Arms.

Very informative, thanks Fellixe.

Very welcome.

Regarding the process by which this might take place, here is a description which might be helpful:
From the same CRS report, pg.16

This could be - my opinion only here - the reason why some commentators have characterized the inherent contempt process as too unwieldy to be practically applied in modern times. It does seem that it might be almost as involved as an impeachment. But nevertheless it does appear the potential exists.

They can send the seargent at arms to apprehend them.

I don't think Rove could stand the physical pressure of getting arrested. During the Plame investigation he lost alot of weight. He was called before that grand jury, what 6 times ? I think that where he is percieved to be an asset like on Foxnews, he loves the limelight exercising his right to free speech. When he may be a liability he clams up. Alot of people just show up with a mouthpiece and take the Fifth. His actions suggest contempt as indicating he will not show up at all. Another board member mentioned his Inquisitors. Discovery has a specific goal for legislators when it comes to Oversight or Legislative duties. The goal is a fact finding such as things like the OSC's role when it comes to the rules of keeping politics out of the Justice Department or using Public assets for political purposes. You know, I think Orin Hatch himself said that Justice obtains its power through Independence. Last go around with Addington and Yoo were very dissapointing to me. I learned little or no facts nor did I hear confirmation of facts readily available in public domain. Of course I was completely dissapointed by Fitzpatrick too, I think he is overated. Justice department and FBI have more important duties then busting pimps but hey, it is an election year, right ?

Your fear is valid and shared by many -- including me.

The sergeant-at-arms has the power of arrest!

Very interesting reading. However, I would like to direct you to CRS report, beginning on page 27. From what I can see, everything you have presented thus far, would not pertain to Rove - as he would be protected under the following guidelines.


"The Position of the Department of Justice on the Use of
Inherent and/or Criminal Contempt of Congress Against the
Executive Branch

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken the position that Congress cannot,
as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt
authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures159 against an executive
branch official acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege
in response to a congressional subpoena. This view is most fully articulated in two
opinions by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from the mid-1980s,160 and
has been the basis of several recent claims with respect to pending congressional
investigations."

I will bet you one thing for sure...if Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee were the chairpersons of the Judiciary committee and the subcommittee, this would not even be an issue. His fat, grimy butt would have already been carted off and we would be getting some answers. Say what you want about these women...they are fed up with Pelosi, Hoyer, and you bet your sweet ass, after Katrina, and all of the other criminality from this corrupt administration...I would love to just sit back and watch the fireworks!!





Hell hath no fury like the butt whippin' you can expect when you cross a powerful woman with legal powers!!!

Bush feels he has them by the balls and unless the DOJ give congress the means to incinerate them Rove will not show up.. the special counsel law must be brought up again and passed.

Mr. A-Boo,

With respect. You are quite mistaken.

Congress does in fact have the power to arrest.

They just haven't had to use it in thirty years.

Best to check your facts before you post them.

QUOTE

Inherent contempt Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Repigs are obstructionists in the Senate. The process in the Senate allows 40% of the Senators present to keep debate open by voting no on cloture. But if a bill does get passed, then Bush can veto the bill. Only one or two vetoed bills have been over-ridden.

How can Dems in majority be held accountable by the failure of voters to give the majority 60% to invoke cloture?

Good point, and I'll take a look at that. But it does seem to become a grey area in the sense that Rove is no longer an executive brach official. His testimony is necessary in order to effect legislative changes that would prohibit the kind of things that have taken place already, not actions currently taking place. So the DOJ's opinion may not bear on his situation as much as if he were a current official rather than a prior official.

In my opinion, Rove is not taking an executive confidentiality approach because he is not an Attorney. He has no legal basis to not appear because his education and experience has no legal basis. He cannot provide counsel to a President because he is not a Counselor by Law. Indeed, my opinion is Rove is running because he is a chickenshit. Arrogance is a sign of fear.

Oops!

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...amp;#entry67653

Just because they've taken that position doesn't mean they are correct in that position.

Rove disses Congress, refuses subpoena to testify
07/10/2008 @ 10:32 am
Filed by Nick Juliano

Source

Former White House adviser Karl Rove has ignored a subpoena from congressional Democrats to testify about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department and his alleged role in the prosecution of a former governor of Alabama.

A House subcommittee voted Thursday to reject Rove's claim that executive privilege freed him from an obligation to testify, leaving open the possibility the Republican political guru will be held in contempt.

Democrats subpoenaed Rove in May to force him to talk about whether he was involved in firing federal prosecutors or sought to influence prosecutors' decisions - including in the corruption case against former Democratic Alabama governor Don Siegelman, who was convicted on corruption charges in 2006. Democrats are investigating whether Rove encouraged the Justice Department to pursue the case.


Continued


Now let's see what Conyers and Waxman are really made of. *Fingers crossed*

Ex-White House Aide Rove Fails to Appear at Hearing (Update1)

By Robert Schmidt


July 10 (Bloomberg) -- Former White House political director Karl Rove, defying a subpoena, failed to appear before a U.S. House panel investigating whether the Justice Department prosecuted people for political reasons.

Rove's action today prompted the House Judiciary subcommittee to rule that his reasons for skipping the appearance weren't legally valid, setting up a possible contempt of Congress vote as soon as next week.

``I'm extremely disappointed and extremely concerned that Mr. Rove has decided to forgo this opportunity,'' said Representative Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat who heads the commercial and administrative law subcommittee.

Her finding that Rove's executive privilege claims weren't proper was approved by a party-line 7-1 vote with all Democrats agreeing.

The panel is trying to determine whether partisan politics influenced the Justice Department's decision to bring a corruption case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Rove has rejected the notion and said he would speak with the committee only in private, not under oath and without a transcript. He also proposed answering questions in writing.

Sanchez noted that Rove's offer was limited to discussing the Siegelman case. The panel wants to question him about other topics as well, including the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys, she said.

`Partisan Stunt'

Republican Representative Chris Cannon of Utah called today's hearing ``a partisan stunt'' and said Rove was out of town on a long-planned trip.

``There is no evidence supporting these allegations at all,'' Cannon said.

The Justice Department's ethics office also is probing whether Siegelman was the victim of selective prosecution.

The ex-governor is appealing his conviction and seven-year prison sentence for accepting a bribe from HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy. In March, a federal appeals court reviewing the case ordered Siegelman released from prison on bail.

House Democrats asked a federal judge in Washington to force White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena seeking information on the prosecutor dismissals. The judge heard arguments on that case June 23.

To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: July 10, 2008 11:30 EDT

I understand why Rove is too busy to respond

He is busy writing a book explaining what great liars Bush and Cheney are

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washin...s.aspx?id=35077

How does a congressional subpoena work?

[snip]

What if they don’t show up?

If a witness refuses to appear before Congress, he can be held in contempt of Congress. A scorned House or Senate committee could approve a contempt charge, send it along to the full chamber and eventually to the U.S. attorney for prosecution. If the recalcitrant witness is found guilty, he can be fined or sentenced to up to 12 months in jail.

Since 1975, about 12 people have been held in contempt of Congress. Only one of those went to trial; Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle was found not guilty on the contempt charge.

[snip]

Rove could be a first - if the Dems have some balls.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ic=4180&hl=


http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ic=4184&hl=

Looks like it might be merge time.

I really don't see Congress doing anything about it. Powerless; and the Admin is just as powerless, because it has lost the people's support.

This is an example of why I say the US will break up by 2010. No control.

I am going to call my court house right now and ask what happens if I were to ignore a supoena.........

County clerk's office and sheriff's office say you're not going to ignore a supoena here. State's Attorney's office says you can't ignore a supoena, and I'm waiting for the woman who deals with supoena's at the U.S. Attorney's office to get back from lunch.

I wonder when and where Rove was served the supoena.

GO ARREST HIM.

DON'T DEBATE IT.

DON'T MULL IT OVER.

JUST GO ARREST HIM.

NOW.

Yep, that fat fuck belongs in the capital jail, eating shitty food, and crapping in a bucket, which he has to clean himself once a week. And while he's in there, forget about him until January, and then unleash the dogs of hell on his traitorous ass!!!

Its not that simple.


http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...amp;#entry67653


But then again, with your political science credentials you already knew that.