Pelosi Denies Trying To Block Rove Contempt Charge

[BlueJessamine]

Source: The Huffington Post

Tomorrow will see the latest battle in the the Bush administration's war with the House of Representatives over congressional testimony from top White House aides.

Karl Rove, facing a subpoena to appear before a House Judiciary subcommittee, declared through his attorney last week that he refused to appear "on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process in response to a subpoena directed to this subject."

Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) responded by warning that the committee could move to hold Rove in contempt of Congress if he fails to show.

But now, liberal blogs are buzzing with an unsourced report that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is blocking Conyers from following through with the contempt charge. The rumor has spread far and wide on left-leaning blogs and message boards, from Democratic Underground to TPM Cafe.

And apparently it's false. Pelosi's communications director Brendan Daly sent us the following statement:

Those reports are completely untrue -- the Speaker has not urged the Judiciary Committee not to seek contempt charges against Karl Rove.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/pelosi-not-trying-to-bloc_n_111673.html

[wtmusic]

1. Another parse-fest?

"The Speaker has not urged the Judiciary Committee not to seek contempt charges against Karl Rove. On the subject of whether he Speaker has urged Congressman Conyers not to seek contempt charges, I have no comment."

[BeHereNow]

2. EXACTLY. "I have no comment."

Which is as good as saying, "Yes I know a crime has been committed-
I have not blocked charges being pursued, and I have not encouraged
them either.
I remain flaccid in all such matters pertaining to the law."

So what GOOD are you Ms. Pelosi?

Why not just replace you with a bag of over cooked noodles?
The end result of your "leadership" would be the same.

BHN

[Ian David]

8. Does California or San Francisco have a "Good Samaritan" law or whatever they call it...

... that requires a witness to a crime to intervene?

[bean fidhleir]

3. Funny, that. I was thinking the same thing. Amazing how an exact truth can be a bigger lie, no? (n

[kristopher]

14. You are making a false attribution.

This is the statement from Pelosi's spokesman as reported in Huffpost:

"Those reports are completely untrue -- the Speaker has not urged the Judiciary Committee not to seek contempt charges against Karl Rove.
The committee can seek a contempt citation if it decides to do so. (Fyi, Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee is looking at a contempt citation against the attorney general over documents. The Speaker has no objections to that -- it's the committee's decision.)"

While I realize it is meant to be sardonic wit, your failure to identify the false quote as such is too misleading.

[bean fidhleir]

15. I suspect that everyone who read it understood that it was not entirely a quote

For someone to actually *say* the second part would be too big an error for such a consummate evader and parser as Pelosi.

[kristopher]

20. You must not have read post #2. nt

[onenote]

21. what are you quoting? I don't see that language in the linked story.

[defendandprotect]

4. Nor does it say that she is supporting further action .... !!!

[BeHereNow]

6. And THAT dear friend, is the point.

Doing nothing proactive is just as bad, publicly,
as discouraging the charges.

The end result is the same.
She appears to have no interest in seeing a
lawbreaker brought to justice.
Whether by discouraging action or simply
making no comment on the fact that it must proceed.

BHN

[onenote]

22. No, dear friend. The point is that a know nothing named Pam Miles

posted a false claim that Pelosi was blocking Conyers somewhere and a bunch of sheeple at DU and others accepted it unthinkingly as the gospel truth. You can try to spin it as something else, but its not.

[Ian David]

5. She's just saying that because I called her "The C-Word" n/t

[cascadiance]

16. That would make an interesting poll. Does Pelosi or McCain's wife more deserve that word?

Would probably get shortly locked, but...

[Ian David]

7. If Dumbfuck Pelosi would tell her staffers TO SPEAK TO PEOPLE WHO CALL HER...

... INSTEAD OF JUST DUMPING THEM INTO THE "COMMENT LINE" TO LEAVE A MESSAGE...

Then not only would we already KNOW this, but we would probably use "less colorful" language than we would, had we been speaking to an actual human being.

[xyouth]

9. I left her a message Yesterday and called my Reps as well as Conyers.

I called Robert Brady and John Murtha Told them that Pelosi was blocking Conyers from holding Rove in contempt, stated my case for why that was a bad idea, and asked them to put pressure on Pelosi. I guess me and the thousands of others who called, may have gotten our point across. Now we sit and wait, and wait and wait and wait and wait.............................

[BeHereNow]

10. Welcome to DU and GOOD on you for calling.

It isn't enough for her to deny blocking the charges.
We need to hear what she is doing to back the judiciary
in proceeding with them.

BHN

[xyouth]

11. Thanks!

And right on. I want to hear how she is backing the Judiciary. Maybe Larissa can get a statement.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

12. It's false because her communications director said it's false?

That seems to be the entire meat of the article. Speaker Pelosi's employee said it is false. Case closed?

[BeHereNow]

13. Great if it is false, now what is she doing to the contrary?

That is the real question that she needs to address.
I'm not holding my breath.

BHN

[onenote]

23. its true because "pam miles" said its true?

[YankmeCrankme]

27. Let's see...Rove isn't being held in contempt and Pelosi isn't supporting that, so...

maybe Miles is more correct than Pelosi's spokeperson. When I see the leadership of the House actually do something against these people who flaunt their disregard for the law or institutions of government or the constitution I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[onenote]

28. since the deadline for rove to act is today, how do you know what the committee will do?

So maybe Miles is full of shit.

[mzmolly]

17. I felt that the rumors were unfounded, personally.

Though, much to my chagrin, I'm not always right. ;) Imagine that?

[bemildred]

18. OMFG, now she is lying about it! nt

[Jefferson23]

19. After Bush and Cheney, she makes me intensely angry.

She needs to be removed as Speaker.

[onehandle]

24. And the Internets get it wrong yet again.

And DU laps it up as fact.

[Kelvin Mace]

25. Can't the "Speaker"

speak for herself?

[onenote]

29. can't "Pam Miles" provide some substantiation for her claim?

[LVjinx]

26. And yet the headline isn't "Pelosi supports Rove contempt charge." Interesting, that

She's full of it.

[kdpeters]

30. Now how in the world could anyone believe that Pelosi would ever take comtempt "off the table"?

Hmmmm. It makes you wonder why the story has legs and took off so fast. For some reason, people must have found it very easy to believe it true and likely even if uncorroborated. She's never done anything like that in the past, has she?

[trashcanistanista]

31. Then they should already have the

arrest warrent drawnup,approved and ready to go since Rove gave ample notice he will not appear. We'll know who is telling the truth tomorrow. If nothing happens, Pelosi lied.