Shocking Development: Bush STILL retains Presidential Authority!

In a brazen move to extend his presidential authority AFTER he left office, it was revealed today that George Bush has extended "absolute immunity" to Karl Rove, Harriet Meirs and potentially many more members of his intimate crime family for any future investigation involving them. In his evidently continuing role as President, Bush has ordered them NOT to testify before congress.

This issue arose in response to the new John Conyers subpoena of Karl Rove in a letter sent by evidently STILL President of the United States George Bush's Consigliere Fred Fielding.

The basic assertion is, Bush can assert his authority over anyone ever his administration basically forever!

And, it looks as if Fielding is asserting now, those Presidential orders still stand.

He is, in effect, saying a Presidents authority over his entire administration AND his ability to extent blanket immunity extends AFTER he leaves office.

Of course, we all wondered why Bush didn't throw any pardons down in his last week.

I also wondered HOW he could cover them all for any crimes they MIGHT have committed without listing them. A pardon would have to be some what specific, but not this kind of attempt.

So, surely, there are documents ordering anyone involved in Torture and Wire Tapping to NOT TESTIFY or NOT to give Testimony, in effect, giving them the same kind of immunity. I am sure there is some pleasant verbiage about National Security, but, it's really the same artifice.

This clears up the matter. Bush PARDONED EVERYONE in his crime family in effect, because you know damn well Fielding is sitting on documents for everyone one of them.

So, ordinary citizen Karl Rove is being compelled NOT to testify by..evidently STILL President George W. Bush.

In effect, Absolute Immunity Forever.

So, there is only ONE answer for this brazen criminal act.

Retroactive Impeachment!  We must remove STILL President, or is he EX-STILL PRESIDENT Bush from Office...after he left it.

Now, all we need is 60+ Senators, and get rid of the rest of those damn Blue Dogs.....

Tags: immunity, President for ever GWB! Snark!, Rove (all tags)



Is this for real?

I so hate that fucker!

by kevin22262 2009-01-29 07:57PM | 0 recs
it's essentially for real

though I am being fairly snarky.

Rove won't answer the subponea, his lawyer is already stating

"Gosh, Karl would just LOVE to testify the THE PRESIDENT is ordering him not to.."

Their position is, because Bush gave the order WHILE he was still POTUS, it stands.

Next week or so, the Obama admin will give it's ruling on this, but that won't stop the argument.

This throws it OUT of the justice department, and into the courts.

And, remember who is sitting on the USSC?

John Woo and David Addinton were cooking this up almost a couple years ago, they were floating trial ballons, and, you can beat they will have amicus briefs from Heritage, maybe even the Federalist society to back them up.

Point is, it's an incredible stall, and that is also part of the strategy.

If they can drag this out a year, two, maybe three, the public will think they are just acting for revenge against Bush, and the weak willed politicians may indeed move on.

I guess I am cynical, but I doubt we will ever see any justice from this.

Yes, I hate those fuckers too.

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-29 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: it's essentially for real

They are very funny. Now let's guess how Barack will respond?

He may say, "it's interesting that Mr. Rove still thinks his old boss is president, but like I said when I kept my mouth shut on foreign policy for the last few months, there is only one president at a time?  

I'm amused by Mr. Rove's notions and look forward to hearing more about them when he testifies before congress."

Blueboy, this is a challenge - you're next!!!

by anna shane 2009-01-30 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Shocking Development: Bush STILL retains Presi

Somebody tell me this isn't so.

by Politicalslave 2009-01-29 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Shocking Development: Bush STILL retains Presi

Look, Rove was never going to tell the truth under oath anyway. I'd much rather have the documents and information "leak" and thoroughly discredit the man. That's much more likely to happen. If Bush had been impeached, he'd have been a martyr. But now he's just pathetic, a pariah anywhere but within 50 miles of his own house.

But c'mon. You don't know the score by now? Any of the documents that anyone could get their hands on through official channels have long been destroyed.

by vcalzone 2009-01-29 09:00PM | 0 recs
This isn't that shocking

Bush is asserting a legal privilege based on the rationale that the President's staff must be able to speak to him freely without fear that their statements will be used against them later.  It doesn't make sense to extinguish the privilege as soon as the President leaves office, because if that was the case advisers would still fear adverse use of their statements, just delayed.

A similar rationale is the basis for the spousal privilege (in some states) and the priest/penitent privilege.  A spouse can assert spousal privilege even after a divorce, and a parishioner can assert priest/pentitent even if he no longer attends the church.

The problem with Rove's assertion of privilege is not that it is being asserted after the fact, but rather that the Bush people say that Bush never knew about any of this, so the rationale for the privilege doesn't hold up.  If Rove was not advising Bush on the US attorneys, there is no reason to protect his statements from disclosure.

by JJE 2009-01-29 10:42PM | 0 recs
Ok, I was goofing on shocking...

But, what you mentioned IS what is the hubris of this extra legal play...

And, it's a BIT different then a wife against a husband...

This privilege is WAY more blanket, because it would be like saying a wife doesn't have to testify about anything she did wrong either to protect the husband!

Bush has basically put a gag order on his entire staff for perpetuity.

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-30 04:19AM | 0 recs

Bush is asserting it much too broadly.  I was just pointing out that it is not the perpetuity aspect that is the problem, but rather the scope of the privilege that Bush is asserting.

Not to mention that the proper way to assert a privilege is to show up and object to particular questions, not to just refuse to show up at all.  Rove should be cited for contempt and hopefully the Obama DOJ will actually prosecute the contempt charge.

by JJE 2009-01-31 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't that shocking

I was under the assumption this priviledge doesn't really exist... wasn't that why Secret Service agents were compelled to testify against Clinton?

by yitbos96bb 2009-01-30 09:20PM | 0 recs
It exists

I believe Harry Truman successfully asserted it.  It is very limited, however, which is why Clinton was unsuccessful in asserting it and why Bush should not get away with it here.

by JJE 2009-01-31 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: This isn't that shocking

This seems to be the kind of privilege that is limited.

The POTUS and his advisers don't have a right to break the law.

I think the courts should consider the privilege, but also consider the fact that the Bush administration deliberately destroyed records, circumvented the creation of records and refused to provide information they were legally required to provide.

It's a judgment call, but if there was illegal scheming to interfere with prosecutions, this matter is a more important problem for the United States that having a "chilling effect" on free advice to the POTUS.

by Carl Nyberg 2009-01-31 04:25AM | 0 recs

If only we had someone with presidential authority and expert status as a constitutional scholar who could poke holes in this blatant stunt.

by Dracomicron 2009-01-30 04:32AM | 0 recs
Oh, you smart boy....

Like I said, the Obama admin will weigh in on this in the next few weeks...

But, the Bushys will STILL drag it through the courts. just to stall as long as they can, hoping the country loses interest and so does the political willingness to pursue.

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-30 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: One President At A Time...

 OPAAT, baby.

by QTG 2009-01-30 05:26AM | 0 recs
Well I guess Eric Holder

has SOME work to do

by sepulvedaj3 2009-01-30 06:14AM | 0 recs
Shocking Development: Bush STILL

I wonder if all presidents retain their presidential authority forever.  That's a lot of presidents.

by ponderthis84 2009-01-30 09:03AM | 0 recs
The busies tried another varient on this theme

They also stated that not only can an ex president keep his records secret, that privilege passes to his hiers in perptuity as well?

Basically, it's all secret for ever, they were just overriding the Presidential document records law.

The Obama admin rescended that executive order immediately, though I'm not sure anyone has tested if Cheney is STILL not going to give up the records.

Basically, I suspect, he ignored the law, and shredded everything anyway.

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-30 09:55AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads