SCOTUS Would Have To Overturn US v Nixon For Rove To Avoid Testifying to "GROSS VIOLATIONS OF LAW"

SCOTUS would have to overturn US v Nixon to overrule Bates’ ruling

Nixon Sez: Karl Rove Must Testify
By: emptywheel Thursday July 31, 2008 9:37 am

The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law. The fallacy of that claim was presaged in United States v. Nixon itself (id. at 706):



In other words, Bates says, the Nixon decision rules out precisely this kind of expansive claim of immunity--rules it out for the President, much less a political advisor who got fired by the President a year earlier. Which means, pending any appeal of this ruling, Rove is basically stripped of any excuse not to testify--and testify fully. It's possible that the White House will try to protect Rove by invoking executive privilege (though that would be a transparently weak claim on its face, since they haven't invoked privilege yet). Except for two things: Rove has been blabbing about the subpoenaed topics for six months on teevee, meaning Bush can't claim that this stuff is secret. And, Bush doesn't want to get close to Rove's efforts to fire prosecutors who indict Republicans. Whereas what Harriet will testify to, if and when she does testify, will be arguably legal, the stuff Rove will be asked about includes gross violations of the law. And Bush doesn't want to touch that, not if he can help it.

So this ruling is actually more important as it relates to Rove's testimony than as it relates to Miers. Because right now, based on the precedent of US v. Nixon, Rove will have to answer any question HJC asks.

Update: Since some are asking, here's Bates' order. He says nothing about a stay pending appeal. Also note, he calls a status conference on August 27, at which point I guess he figures we'll all know whether Bush is going to appeal or whether we should move onto the fight over whether the White House privilege claim outweighs the House's claim to need the testimony.

more at:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/31/nixon-sez-karl-rove-must-testify/

Bush can and probably will pre-emptively blanket pardon Rove.

So why doesn’t Rove testify? He wants to keep this secret–they don’t want to let on what they did because it really will piss people off.

THat’s what I think is interesting–Rove will probably be called to testify in the next Congress, and if he receives a pardon, would have to testify in full with no fifth amendment.

also from emptywheel (comments)
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/31/nixon-sez-karl-rove-must-testify/

:kick:

Faulty memory is not criminal as we are all aware of with Gonzo.