Rove asserts executive privilege on the overall question whether politicization of the Justice Dept. took place; therefore, the assertion of privilege clearly indicates that Rove & Bu$h discussed the subject; otherwise no privilege could apply.

Switch the subject matter to meddling in the prosecution of Gov. Seigelman; same result.

... Here, the "speech" for which the District Court punished Governor Siegelman was not part of, and sheds no light on, the offenses for which he was convicted. It is, instead, pure speech critical of Government action, which is at the core of the First Amendment. If the constitutional right to freedom of speech means anything, it is that the United States cannot punish people for questioning or criticizing the actions of federal government officials. And there is no "criticism of federal prosecutors" exception to the First Amendment.  

     "It is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions ... and this opportunity is to be afforded for `vigorous advocacy' no less than `abstract discussion.'" New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720 (1964) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). So, the Supreme Court recognized in Sullivan, we have "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." Id., 376 U.S. at 270, 84 S.Ct. at 721. Our system of freedom has no room for a judicial order imposing a lengthier prison term on a person because he has spoken out about possible governmental misconduct. And again, there is no constitutional reason to place federal prosecutors on a different plane from all other government officials, as though their actions alone are somehow beyond public questioning or criticism.

The District Court's rationale for the sentence increase, by its terms, was premised on the possibility that some members of the public might believe and agree with Governor Siegelman's (again, unquoted and unspecified) criticisms of the prosecution. This is the only conceivable meaning of the District Court's conclusion [R34-654 p. 127] that "the conduct in which Governor Siegelman engaged in has damaged the function of the Executive Branch of Government in this case, and the public's confidence in the Executive Branch of Government." In this, the District Court forgot what the Supreme Court has said: "Criticism of [government representatives'] official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations." Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 273, 84 S.Ct. at 722. Certainly, a lengthened sentence cannot be justified on the grounds that criticism of the prosecutors is plausible and believable; to the extent that an allegation of governmental misconduct is plausible and believable (as it is, here) that is all the more reason to protect, rather than to punish, discussion about it. [25] So, the increase in punishment for Governor Siegelman's statements, on these vital matters of public concern, was contrary to the First Amendment.

I don't know the law on this: what about contempt of congress? Who determines whether such has occurred? What is the protocol thereafter? Can't Rove just be arrested if he's found in contempt of congress?