creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
14 Jun 2013
On Civil Liberties, Comparing Obama With Bush Is Easy -- and Mostly Wrong

Nearly a dozen years after the passage of the Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in an atmosphere of fear … Read More.

31 May 2013
Watergate Amnesia, the 'Nixonian Slur and Other Big Lies

Let's state this very simply, so everybody will understand. The notion that Barack Obama is … Read More.

23 May 2013
Benghazi Interview: Pickering Dissects Congressional Follies, Media Coverage and 'Cover-Up' Charges

No doubt the degraded quality of congressional oversight astonishes Thomas Pickering, the distinguished … Read More.

Fox's Brazen Star: Karl Rove Rebukes Obama on Executive Privilege Claim

Comment

Forever incapable of embarrassment, let alone sober reflection, Karl Rove is very well suited to his current roles as Fox News commentator and Crossroads Super PAC smear sponsor. But he achieved a moment of near-perfection last Thursday when, appearing on a Fox morning news broadcast, he spoke up about President Obama's invocation of executive privilege against a House committee subpoena of Justice Department documents.

"It's one thing to exert executive privilege over the actions of the president, and his aides, and the White House," he said. "It's another thing to exercise executive privilege with regard to a Cabinet official, seemingly in a matter that — according to the president up until now — had no connections with, no contact with, no communications with the White House ... ."

Rove went on to complain that the president's privilege claim over the "Operation Fast and Furious" documents demanded by Rep. Darrell Issa's oversight committee "is a very long reach. I mean basically, if the president is allowed to take the privilege that goes to the Executive Office of the President and extend it to a Cabinet department, then he can extend it to any branch of the government for any matter, even if there was no presidential or White House involvement. And I'm not certain that that's what the Founders thought about when they talked about executive privilege."

For someone whose qualifications as a constitutional authority are nil, Rove's comments displayed an impressive degree of contempt for his listeners that is not seen every day, not even on Fox. Whatever he may know about executive privilege, he could only have learned when George W.

Bush used it to protect him from various investigations, notably concerning his role as White House political boss in the partisan and lawless dismissal of seven United States attorneys for partisan revenge.

Rove must have been reminded of that experience last week, when former Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked: "I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day. I'm not kidding."

She was commenting on the Issa committee's resolution holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to turn over certain "Fast and Furious" material on internal Justice Department deliberations — if only to note her own forbearance for letting Rove escape confinement in a Capitol Hill jail cell.

Rove's complaint was especially audacious because he knows that Bush made privilege claims over thousands of documents not directly connected with the president and his deliberations — including those concerning the manipulation of the Justice Department and U.S. attorneys by Rove and his subordinates, which became one of the most blatant cases of partisan abuse in the department's history.

Indeed, Bush asserted precisely the same level of privilege as Obama when he told Republican House members in 2001 that they could not obtain Justice Department internal documents concerning President Clinton's fundraising activities. That claim extended the cloak of privilege to officers of a Cabinet department under a previous president. Bush likewise claimed privilege to frustrate investigations of the military cover-up of the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan and the FBI's coddling of Boston mobster, informant and killer Whitey Bulger.

But Rove can ignore such details on Fox News, where he need never fear anyone will notice that he is brazenly pulling his facts and theories from his butt.

Joe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com. To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Joe, how intellectually dishonest can you be? Surely you understand the difference between protecting the entire Justice department using executive privellege, and using it to protect the President's Deputy Chief of Staff. I assume you to be a reasonably intelligent political writer, which means you are deceiving your readers' on purpose. If executive privellege can be used in this manner, when can anyone be compelled to produce documents or testify? Why would we have a Government Oversight committee that could not oversee government? In your analysis is absent any mention of Obama's previous contempt for executive privellege. He even decried the very case you use to bolster your defense of the hypocrite in chief. You work is always hackish Joe, but this is ridiculous. I can only summon two words to describe this.

Intellectually dishonest
Comment: #1
Posted by: Ethan Roninson
Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:54 PM
Very well put Ethan. I too was going to bring up that fact that Obama had previously opposed hiding behind executive privilege, but now has no problem doing it now that things are "a little shakey"
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:27 AM
I'm not sure which Democrat response I find more amusing, "We did nothing improper, so you don't need to see the documents," or "Bush did it too!" Obviously, if the latter were true, they would be backing a dump truck up to the Capitol to deliver documents incriminating the evil Bush.

That leaves the former.

Sorry, but given the well-documented history of hostility toward the Second Amendment shown by so many members of this administration, nobody's inclined to take their word for it.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Jeff Gunn
Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:20 AM
Joe, if Bush was wrong years ago to exert executive privilege, as you state, then surely Obama is wrong to do so today. I will look forward to your future piece where you condemn him for doing so.
But, hell will freeze over before you do.
Comment: #4
Posted by: D. Dean
Wed Jul 4, 2012 11:20 AM
You ALL are a bunch of REPULOCRATS. Executive privilege is the tool both your sorry totalitarian parties use to hide truth from the American public. Both your parties are filled with hypocrites that dont mind fraud, war, and bailouts when your man is in power. Both your lying party members like to talk about the constitution while implimenting socialist laws like the PATRIOT Act and National Defense Authorization Act. I used to just vote for who ever had an "R" by their name until I started researching and found that Both Bush's were more pogressive than Clinton. How are you able to tell each other apart?
Comment: #5
Posted by: SCOTT
Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:52 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
Jun. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 19 Jun 2013
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 19 Jun 2013
Susan EstrichUpdated 19 Jun 2013

19 Feb 2009 There Was No GOP "Victory"

2 Oct 2008 Making the Bailout Less Toxic

17 Jul 2008 They Must Be Joking