UPDATED 08.02.07 —
FROM YEARLY KOS!!!
[whoops! — wrong room! — seriously,
though, the shriners are here, at mccormick
place, today, as well — it will make for
some surreal photo-opportunities!]
the palatial facilities, immediately above. . .
and the panel on libby-blogging, below:
thanks to CHS at FDL
for the hat tip! — now,
here is much more newly-
released background on
karl rove’s contempt for
the rule of law, and the
oversight of congress. . .
because i am “wi-fi-ing it”
from the convention hall,
i’ll just encourage one
and all to follow the above
link — senator leahy lays
karl rove to waste — contempt
seems next — inherent, or otherwise.
[pictures from the live libby
blogging workshop up
in mere — from yours truly. . .]
my bet is that rove will
not appear, at all, and jennings
will say almost nothing, this morning,
given this response from the
white house to sen. leahy, and
August 1, 2007
Why is the White House working so hard to hide Karl Rove’s involvement? Karl Rove, who is now refusing to comply with Senate subpoenas, spoke publicly in speeches about these firings when the scandal first broke, but is suddenly unable to talk it about when he is under oath? Mr. Rove has given reasons for the firings that have now been shown to be inaccurate after-the-fact fabrications. Yet, he now refuses to tell this Committee the truth about his role in targeting well-respected U.S. Attorneys for firing and in seeking to cover up his role and that of his staff in the scandal.
It is a shame that this White House continues to act as if it is above the law. That is wrong. The subpoenas authorized by this Committee in connection with its investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and the corrosion of federal law enforcement by White House political influence deserve respect and compliance. I look forward to hearing from Mr. Jennings tomorrow.
steven j. bradbury, on behalf
of the DoJ claims that a rehnquist
memo — not any case! — allows rove
to fail to appear:
. . .Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Rove is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters (such as the U. S. Attorney resignations) that arose during his tenure as an immediate presidential adviser and that relate to his official duties in that capacity. Therefore, he is not required to appear in response to the Judiciary Committee subpoena to testify about such matters. . .