Now, Rove
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
A big question of late is whether Karl Rove will be compelled to testify before Congress on his role in the politicization of the Department of Justice, specifically in the investigation of Don Siegelman. Rove has claimed an expanded version of executive privilege: "absolute immunity" from congressional subpoena.
Today a big decision undercuts Rove's entire argument. U.S. District Court judge John Bates (a Republican appointee, notably) ruled against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in their claim of executive privilege. It determines that Bolten and Miers must comply with the subpoenas and appear before Congress.
But the bigger impact may be on Rove. Bates eviscerates Rove's entire justification for ignoring the congressional subpoena, citing that "absolute immunity" has no basis in case law and was rejected in the case of--you guessed it--U.S. v. [Richard] Nixon. emptywheel explains further: But with respect to Rove, this decision makes it very clear that Rove must show up to testify--and (unless the White House invokes executive privilege with respect to the HJC subpoena of Rove, which they haven't done) he must answer all questions. That's because the sole basis the White House gave to justify Rove blowing off HJC's subpoena was "absolute immunity"--the White House did not invoke executive privilege with regards to this subpoena. And here's the key line and quote from Bates' decision: The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context. That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity. The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides. In other words, the oversight role and strength of Congress has been vindicated, and now they must apply it. Karl Rove must appear before Congress to testify immediately. He has offered no justification for his absence that stands up to the rule of law. And Miers and Bolten must appear immediately, too.*
Congress goes on recess for the whole month of August. They leave this weekend. I say: let's do the hearings tomorrow. The rush home to raise reelection money can wait a day so that we can restore the rule of law here in our democracy, or so one would hope.
We'll have a statement out soon.
* UPDATE (or NOTE): I should note that, frankly, this White House has shown itself masterful at stalling tactics to drag out oversight proceedings. I'd expect nothing less this time. But it's all the more important that Congress show some real urgency in holding these hearings, and fast-track any judicial proceedings and hurdles that the White House throws up. Time is short but the institutional impact of an executive branch that abuses its power and defies the Constitution will be long.
Karl Rove Ignores Subpoena
As is tradition for the Bush Administration, Karl Rove's lawyer informed the House Judiciary Committee in a letter that he will not appear on Thursday for his testimony.
Rove was subpoenaed in May to answer questions about whether he played a role in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, former Alabama governor. Siegelman has claimed that he was brought down for political reasons. The committee also wants to question Rove about the recent allegations of politicizing the Justice Department.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, wrote: Mr. Rove will respectfully decline to appear before the subcommittee on July 10th on the grounds that executive privilege confers upon him immunity from process in response to a subpoena. Luskin said Rove is willing to talk to the committee but not under oath and without a transcript. This serves as further evidence of the Bush Administration's unwillingness to cooperate and their abuse of power through inappropriately claiming executive privilege.
NY Times: Congress must compel Rove's testimony
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
As I noted last week, Karl Rove received his second subpoena from the U.S. Congress, but has yet to testify under oath. I'm deeply skeptical that he will appear before Congress, based on the past history of Rove and others using supposed "executive privilege" to defy Congress and of Congress failing to function as an effective check on executive power.
So color me cynical. But the Grey Lady's staff has some hope left -- here's a few snippets from today's lead editorial, "Mr. Rove Talks, but Doesn't Answer": In a recent appearance on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Karl Rove was asked if he had a role in the Justice Department's decision to prosecute Don Siegelman....
Mr. Rove, who has traded in his White House job for that of talking head, talked a lot but didn't answer the question. He also did not directly deny being involved. The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed him to testify. It should do everything in its power to see that he does and that he answers all of its questions. [The charges] suggest that the justice system was turned into a partisan tool, and that Mr. Siegelman's freedom may have been taken away because of his political allegiances.
Mr. Rove has already defied a Senate subpoena on the issue of politicized prosecutions, claiming executive privilege, and he seems intent on defying the House's subpoena. His claim of executive privilege is not only weak; it is shamefully cynical. It is time for Michael Mukasey, the attorney general, to stand up for justice by enforcing Congress's subpoenas. If he will not do that, Congress must ensure that its investigative authority is not thwarted.
Mr. Rove seems willing to talk about this case everywhere except where he is required to: in Congress, in public, under oath. The American people, and Mr. Siegelman, are counting on Congress to find out the truth. And a quick note for Congress:
"Ensuring that [your] executive authority is not thwarted" and "finding out the truth" mean more than strongly-worded letters and subpoenas that end up in Karl Rove's recycle bin.
Karl Rove subpoenaed
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
House Judiciary Committee subpoenas Rove over the still-unresolved issue of the U.S. attorneys scandal.
We know that the White House believes that this falls under "executive privilege" and will compel Rove not to comply -- the same way they kept Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers from testifying before Congress.
Here's hoping this time turns out differently, and we get some accountability for once.
Karl Rove announces resignation
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 10:08:05 AM EST
This is not a joke. Karl Rove has announced that he will resign at the end of August.
What does this mean for the ongoing battle over executive privilege and congressional subpoena power? Remember, Rove has defied a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee, setting up a legal showdown that has yet to really get underway. Likely, it won't make much of a difference. The White House has claimed executive privilege for Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, both of whom had already left the administration when they were served with the congressional order.
UPDATE: Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT), the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has issued the following statement:
“Earlier this month, Karl Rove failed to comply with the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to testify about the mass firings of United States Attorneys. Despite evidence that he played a central role in these firings, just as he did in the Libby case involving the outing of an undercover CIA agent and improper political briefings at over 20 government agencies, Mr. Rove acted as if he was above the law. That is wrong. Now that he is leaving the White House while under subpoena, I continue to ask what Mr. Rove and others at the White House are so desperate to hide. Mr. Rove’s apparent attempts to manipulate elections and push out prosecutors citing bogus claims of voter fraud shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into this serious issue.
“The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelops Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House.”
Gonzales changes story on DoJ-White House briefings
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:36:43 AM EST
Somewhat lost in all the last-minute pre-recess wrangling in the House and Senate this weekend was a letter Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sent to Congress "clarifying" his July 24 testimony.
In his testimony on that date, Gonzales told Senators that he was not aware of any instances in which senior Justice Department officials had participated in White House political briefings of the sort that have already been deemed illegal.
It appears, unsurprisingly, that Mr. Gonzales was mistaken.
BREAKING: Karl Rove subpoenaed
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:02:55 PM EST
Far from backing down in the face of White House opposition, Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) just announced on the floor of the Senate that he has issued subpoenas for Karl Rove and another White House aide, J. Scott Jennings.
"For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail," the Vermont lawmaker said. "They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents."
UPDATE: Read the subpoenas and Leahy's statement here.
"It's Subpoena Time"
By Kirstin Ellison
Posted on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 01:46:21 PM EST
Given the "parade" of DoJ officials who have come before Congress and delivered weak testimony claiming to know nothing about how the US Attorney, the next step for congressional investigators is obvious, the New York Times says:
It is time for Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to deliver subpoenas that have been approved for Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and their top aides, and to make them testify in public and under oath.
Especially after this week's laughable testimony from former Missouri US attorney Bradley Schlozman, it's become clear that answers are not going to be had from Department of Justice officials who appear to be suffering from a worrisome memory loss epidemic.
| 
Common Blog
