Is it a little predictable Bush executive privilege will cover Karl Rove subpoena too?

Question

Haven't we seen this before from Bush and from congress?

Answer 1

Depends on what the subponea is for.

Congress does not have the constitutional authorty to subponea White House employees.

That separation of powers thing , gets in the way.

But Congress can subponea White House Employees in a criminal investigation.

Most of the subponeas so far, have been about the 9 attorneys replaced, no one is saying anything criminal was done, since they all served at the Presidents pleasure.

Those subponeas are pure politics and should righfully be ignored by the White House.

But in the case, where it seems Gonzales might have committed purgery testifying before Congress.

Then subponeas issued looking into that, would be legal and right.

Clinton tried to use executive provlidge to prevent White House employees from testifying in criminal matters,

The courts ruled against him, just like they ruled against Nixon.

So, in criminal matters, Bush would have no choice, but to let the White House employees testify.

So it all depends on why Congress subponeaed Karl Rove.

Answer 2

Yes.... very predictable.

But conversations that Rove had with Bush would actually be covered by privilege -- unlike almost all of the other claims of executive privilege dealing purely with conversations between aides.

Answer 3

Just like a 300 lb TOP Daddy! Get Jiggy with it Karl!

Answer 4

"Haven't we seen this before from Bush and from congress?"

since this all the Dems got...subpeonas ..and nonsense like the Plame thing..you are the ones making the choice in 2008 easy for America...
keep the heretics irrelevant...continued
lack of power...for the libs

Answer 5

isn't it a little predictable that every president has executive privilege that covers their staff...haven't we seen this before with every president??? paleeeese...lmfao!