So I suppose I understand the other side.  The problem is that sometimes presidents have to do things that might be viewed by others as non-necessary (Truman dropping the bomb being the biggest example, but each president has them).  So I see that this can be a thorny issue, and that presidents are understandably worried that they won’t be able to make controversial-but-necessary decisions if they’ll be punished for them afterwards.  But this is a slippery slope, right?  Because if we grant this, then we allow presidents to do anything, provided we trust their good judgement.  But, how can we know they have good judgement?   Should we really trust four years (let alone eight) to a team who can be allowed to do whatever they want?  I don’t think it’s a precedent we want, and I’d rather risk making presidents too moderate than making them too powerful.  So, all in all, Rove should talk:

“To my knowledge, these [letters] are unprecedented,” said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in executive-privilege issues. “I’m aware of no sitting president that has tried to give an insurance policy to a former employee in regard to post-administration testimony.” Shane likened the letter to Rove as an attempt to give his former aide a ‘get-out-of-contempt-free card’.”