Rove Is a No-Show
| Thu Jul. 10, 2008 6:52 AM PDT
Members of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law didn't even wait until the 10 a.m. mark to declare former presidential adviser Karl Rove a no-show this morning. The committee had subpoenaed Rove to appear to discuss the politicization of the Justice Department and allegations of selective prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. But Rove, through his lawyer, asserted that "as a close advisor to the President," he is "immune from compelled Congressional testimony."
Committee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) was having none of that, saying, "I hereby rule that Mr. Rove's claims of immunity are not legally valid, and his refusal to comply with the subpoena and appear at this hearing to answer questions cannot be properly justified." In her official statement, she pointed out that if Rove wants to assert executive privilege, he still has to show up and do it before the committee, not in some lame letter from his lawyer. Sanchez observed that the Judiciary Committee has already seen a parade of witnesses from the White House who have not made this argument, most notably, David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who, while clearly hostile, did actually make the trip up the Hill to testify recently on the administration's torture and interrogation policies. Scott McClellan, the former press secretary, even testified without a subpoena!
Rove's arrogance has clearly irked Sanchez, who disparaged him for failing to cite a single court precedent that would back up his claim to absolute immunity from testifying. Quoting the Supreme Court, Sanchez said, "[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law," and "[a]ll the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Sanchez based her ruling on the quintessential Supreme Court decision on executive privilege, United States v. Nixon, which found that executive privilege is a limited one. The Nixon reference is apt: Sanchez notes that the Bush White House's assertion of secrecy goes well beyond Nixon's. While Nixon attempted to prevent his White House Counsel John Dean and other White House from testifying before Congress, he eventually relented, she notes.
Sanchez is particularly galled that the Justice Department and Rove are claiming he has immunity even though he is now a private citizen, which makes his claims all the more extraordinary. Not a single argument made by the Justice Department, Sanchez writes, applies to Newsweek columnists or Fox News commentators; there is absolutely no precedent to extending immunity to former government officials.
Still, Rove has been down this road before, with the Senate, asserting that he is immune from testimony because he says so. As he did last fall, White House Counsel Fred Fielding also sent a letter to Rove's lawyer yesterday explaining that the White House has advised Rove not to testify based on the Justice Department's determination that he doesn't have to go.
Of course, the Justice Department is a dubious source of advice these days, given that the attorney general is facing his own subpoena from the Judiciary Committee. Michael Mukasey has repeatedly ignored requests from Sanchez and Rep. John Conyers to turn over documents related to the Siegelman prosecution and other oversight matters, so it clearly has a bias when it comes to deciding whether Rove ought to testify. But the department's opinion on the subpoena were apparently enough to fend off Senator Patrick Leahey, who caved last fall on any attempts to force Rove to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Members of the House may not be so sanguine. Conyers and Sanchez have already asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena from the committee ignored by former White House counsel Harriet Miers, a move they took after the Justice Department refused to enforce the subpoena. There's no reason to think that they won't do the same for Rove. If he persists in ignoring them, one day he may have to pen his columns from a jail cell.
Comments
MAKE him appear. Drag the bastard into court in shackles. Arrest the bloviated manatee. Do whatever is possible to get him in there. Do SOMETHING Congress, don't let him get away with this any longer. Show the American people that no one is above the law.
Plus, it's much harder to run a smear campaign from a jail cell.
If he persists in ignoring them, one day he may have to pen his columns from a jail cell.
Well isn't that sweet?
If YOU or I refused to show up at the order of a Congress (you know..., those guys who get their powers from US) we'd be cuffed, booked, tried, convicted and coolin' it in the slam in about 34 seconds.
Even if Henry Waxman succeeds in dragging Karl Rove in to testify..and, even if Rove sings like a canary..just what is Congress prepared to do..hold Rove accountable?..bring forth impeachment hearings (Ha, Ha, not as long as Pelosi is the speaker) even if every last person in this country was screaming for justice..Congress would ignore us and do what they think is politically expedient...Congress does not feel as though they are answerable to the (us) peasants, any more..don't you get it..?
Another win for Rove! Separation of Powers keeps this from going any further, especially when the Justice Department backs his stance. We need to make sure Congress doesn't overstep their authority and Rove is the ideal candidate to make that point clear. Congress does not have subpoena powers any more than you or I do. Let's keep it that way.
Why on earth would Karl Rove show up when spineless cowards run the legislature? Its a waste of his time, and tax payer money. Oh, don't get me wrong, he should be compelled to give testimony, but the Republicans only care about laws when Democrats break them and the Democrats are weak and stupid people without the ability to assert themselves.
Submitted by Kevin P. (not verified) on Thu Jul. 10, 2008 9:51 AM PDT.
Conyers and Sanchez are so miffed that they may even write a strongly worded letter to Karl and his Lawyer. I'm sure that Karl is quivering under his bed at the prospect of receiving THAT missive, probably by cerified mail, return receipt requested!
How about subpeanas for the 9th district federal court justices who continually adjutucate their own laws as dictated, not by the us constitution, but by the likes of Boxer, Pelosi, and Reid the current three stoogees orf congress.
Patric is right, congree does not have the power to drag Rove in. Clearly the seperation of power act, depicts that. Congress, can scream all they want about politics this and politics that. But the justice department is the presidents. And he can hire & fire anybody for any reson he wants. They serve at the presidents whim, not congress. Thats why the Senate back down so quickly.Because, if the press did a better job of explaining seperation of powers, most people would see this for what it is. A BIG JOKE
"Sanchez is particularly galled that the Justice Department and Rove are claiming he has immunity even though he is now a private citizen, which makes his claims all the more extraordinary. Not a single argument made by the Justice Department, Sanchez writes, applies to Newsweek columnists or Fox News commentators; there is absolutely no precedent to extending immunity to former government officials."
Give it a day or so and he'll be claiming that he's just protecting his sources - he's a journalist now, right?
Patric is right, congress does not have the power to drag Rove in.
Given that the Constitution gives Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court" (Article I, Section 8), I think it's safe to assume that this includes subpeona powers, as even the lowest level district court has such legal power.
The QUESTION here is: Do they have the stones to enforce it?
And if Bush attempts to block them from enforcing their order, Do they have the stones to impeach the P.O.S.?
(I think Pelosi has answered that one already...)
FORCE the lying treasonous bastard in to the court in shackles. This HAS to happen.
Democrats are weak spinless creatures so I doubt they will make any attempt to defend the constitution.
Good bye America it was nice while it lasted. RIP
Time to tell the Sergeant At Arms to get his gun and sword and go get Rove. Congress has the power to arrest Rove, charge him with crimes, convict him, and put him in jail without presidential interference.
If there ever was a time when Congress needed to use its powers, its now.
again, the reason the congress wont do anything is they have nothing. Except Rove blowing them off. And why not their morons led by fools in Peloci & Reed. Maybe if someone said to Reed their was a land deal in it for him, he would. But unit then Rove will give them the one finger solute of tribute.
Let Rove fight his contempt of Congress charges from a jail cell. If he doesn't want to testify before the commitee, he can do it from behind the bars of a cell. It's fine with me if he's the first Bushie to appear before the public in shackles and chains. I'd even prefer it.
Am I reading this right??
Is Nancy Pelosi REALLY talking about taking up the impeachment issue Dennis Kucinich keeps trying to get heard in Congress?!?!
(The Politico) Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this morning that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on an impeachment resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).
Pelosi has said previously that impeachment "was off the table," so her comments this morning were surprising, and clearly signaled a new willingness to entertain the idea of ousting Bush, ...
THAT Sounds Too Good To Be True!
..and so it is...
It was followed by these weasel-words:
"This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee," Pelosi told reporters. "Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject."
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/10/politics/politico/thecrypt/main424816...
Just more election-season window dressing, to distract us from the fact that the Dem majority hasn't delivered on ANY of it's major promises from 2006.
What a Sorry-Sack-of-an-Excuse for an Opposition Party!
This pig face is laughing at Congress and congress will do nothing. Congress needs to have some spine to arrest this arrogant theocrat neocon and have him arrested and then wait until Bush is gone so he will not be pardoned. The key is to wait.
Lucero1946: The key is to wait.
Oh..., that Congress will do.
But bear in mind that Ford pardoned Nixon for crimes he "may have committed", even though Nixon hadn't been charged with, or indicted for any crimes at all.
There's a fairly long list of Clinton "last day" pardons, some of which were quite controversial to those paying attention.
It's not a new story.
Bush'll pardon whoever he wants to pardon, and "waiting" provides no means to prevent it. Matter of fact, I'm sure he'd rather "wait" until his last day in office to pardon the Reichsfuhrer (he does kind of resemble a chubby Himmler..), or at the very least, until after the election.
"Rove's arrogance has clearly irked Sanchez, who disparaged him for failing to cite a single court precedent that would back up his claim to absolute immunity from testifying."
Aaaah, but members of Congress don't know about the super-secret executive order that Bush signed that gives Karl Rove absolute immunity from testifying before Congress or any court.
Oh, and just in case someone in Congress has the audacity to send the Sargent-At-Arms to arrest Rove (once he returns, if ever, from his trip overseas), he's hired Blackwater mercenaries to be his personal bodyguard with orders to shoot to kill. (Hey, I wouldn't put anything past Rove. He's this crooked and this crazy).
Yeah, drummer, but I've never read a history book about America that told the truth or held the traitors accountable for anything. Look. folks. This country has been a country for
two hundred thirty something years and were right back where we started from, i.e., a King named George, a legislative branch that is empowered to screw us but not themselves and a massive amount of 'dead air' between us and them. One thing everybody seems to have forgotten from the sixties is that they don't pay attention to anyone that doesn't show up in D.C. by the millions pounding on their door. Until that happens we're 'out of sight, out of mind.' But ya gotta love America where we have the best Justice money can buy!
I am old enough to remember that in the early 1950s when the House Unamerican
Activities Committee would issue a subpoena a person who would disobey it would be held in contempt of law and be subject to arrest. My question is what prevents our present congressional committee from doing just that against private citizen Karl Rove?
what prevents our present congressional committee from doing just that against private citizen Karl Rove?
The Department of Justice refuses - by bu$h's order - to cooperate with the Congressional committees by enforcing the contempt citations. Such was not the case with the McCarthy era witch hunts.
Submitted by breezi (not verified) on Sun Jul. 13, 2008 8:25 AM PDT.
Just arrest Rove, already. Clearly he's not planning to testify willingly. I'm sure he knows enough to make impeachment a reality. Put him in a cell, please, with no special privileges & no communication of any kind. Then, we'll see how long it takes him to implode!
In this country, with the highest incarceration rate in the entire history of humankind, with 1% of the entire citizenry in jail, and 1/37 in the "justice" system, do any of you really think there will be a day that a powerful and important dirtbag like Rove will ever see even a holding cell? C'mon idiots- game over.
