Truth Be Told, We must determine who controls the country. It is without doubt that Bush and Cheney alone do not control this country. Who or what group really controls this country?

If Rove and this Administration have the liberty to do anything they choose to do without any accountability, someone or some group unseen is pushing all of the buttons. How can an entire nation and the World yeild to such idiots?

Who are the accomplists in this massive display of deceit? Could it be Congress? Is it all elected officials on all levels? Who will honor the spirit of the law that govern our elected officials?

The accountability of every official is that you are a citizen of sound mind, therefore, you and you alone must honor the oath that you took to represent the Integrity of the Spirit of The United States.

Good ! Rove is now held in contempt and will ignore it as have two other Bush lackies.

What's next ? NOTHING.

From the AP story:

"Instead of conducting witch hunts, we should consider bipartisan legislation to reduce the price of gas, reduce crime and secure the borders," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top panel Republican.

Huh. Coming from the same man, who, in 1998, led off the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Gotta love those Republicans---they never miss a chance to show off their dishonesty and hypocrisy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/smithtext121098.htm

An important fact is whether or not Bush has claimed executive privilege in this case. I think the direction of this story hinges on this point. I mean, did Rove discuss his involvement in this matter with the president? If not, then there wouldn't be a justification for an executive privilege claim, and as mentioned by an earlier poster, Bush hasn't invoked the privilege in this matter. Do you need to correct your post?

I bet a sternly worded letter followed up by a semi-harsh Op_Ed in a major newspaper are in order now. Look out.

What I do know is I will now be barraged by emails from Rahm Emmanuel asking for money.

The NY Times article on this says: "But the panel’s top Republican, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, accused Democrats of conducting “witch hunts” and neglecting the people’s real business, like energy needs and border security." Heh heh, isn't that type of neglecting exactly what Republicans were doing while impeaching Clinton for a measly blow job?

Voted there was no contempt in Rove ignoring their subpoena?

Seriously, how are they able to justify that position in any logical manner?

Support Sheehan's challenge of Pelosi and send congress a message.

I'm not so sure she won't at least bring this up for a vote. As noted, Mukasey has been ordered by his "client" Pres. Bush not to investigate further.

I've got to assume Pelosi is aware of the backlash among some of her constituents for her blanket refusal to pursue impeachment proceedings, and for the FISA deal. The Bush Administration probably still owes her a little something for all her loyal service, so they'll cover for her here, knowing there's really no chance anything will happen to Karl Rove.

I'm sure she could care less whether Rove is held accountable or not. But she can score some cheap political cash by holding the vote, and passing the buck to the DOJ, well aware they're not going to do anything about it.

At that point it will die... she can preserve the notion that she's still doing something while in office, and 99% of the American population won't know any different.

Rove should be held in contempt. Now if Congress could vote to hold itself in contempt, we might get somewhere.

And haul their asses in to appear before the House or throw them in jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

What other choice is there if the executive will prohibit the DoJ from cooperating with the co-equal legislative branch to carry out a legal subpoena?

I don't know all the ins and outs of legal maneuvering, but I sure would wait until after the election to do any of this.

I know, the White House et al will be destroying all kinds of documents come January 09 (if they haven't already). However, I DON'T want any of these crooks to get a presidential pardon.

Let's wait till January, folks.

Rove has not claimed he is protected by executive, as Emptywheel has said and documented.

You mean to tell me that the President can tell the DoJ not to investigate an entire class of cases, regardless of legal merit, and that' OK?

I thought the Attorney General was supposed to look at things based exclusively on their LEGAL MERIT.

With that in mind, even the most radical interpetation of "Executive Privilege" would still require Rove and Co. to comply with the Subpoena and appear before Congress. Once there, he could (according to radical interpretation) invoke Executive Privilege on every single goddamned question, but he would need to appear.

If Mulkasey does not, at least, investigate this; the Congress must attempt to impeach Mulkasey for dereliction of duty. Contempt of Congress against Karl Rove is a charge with legal merit. If the AG refuses to invesitigate a meritorious charge because of political directive from the President, he must be gotten rid of. His crimes need to be openly stated on the Congressional record so that future generations can understand how all this went so horribly wrong.

Nancy "Impeachment is off the Table" Pelosi will not bring this up for a full vote in the House.

And even if she did, which she won't, Mukasey's U.S. attorney won't pursue the matter anyway.

If after a legal fight Rove is actually compelled to testify then he'll still refuse to answer any questions under oath. After that there would need to be yet another legal battle to get Rove to actually answer questions. That's why Rove won't just show up as he was subpoenaed to do. He intends to drag things out as long as possible and never give up anything he isn't forced to.

There's absolutely no reason to expect the truth from anyone in the Bush administration who is not under oath. Democrats on the Committee should just say so when written statements are proffered or when someone will only testify with no record and no oath.