Common Cause Blog

NY Times: Congress must compel Rove's testimony

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

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.

Gonzales faces investigation by Justice Inspector General

Alberto Gonzales may be gone from the Justice Department in a couple of weeks, but that doesn't mean his troubles are over. According to a letter DoJ Inspector General Glenn Fine sent to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, Gonzales is under active investigation for a number of different things, including whether or not he lied to Congress in his testimony about the US Attorney firings.

The disclosure by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in a letter to Congress signals an expansion of the department's internal investigations into Gonzales's troubled tenure, probes that were not previously known to be focused so sharply on the attorney general and his testimony.

Fine's office has also separately expanded a probe into whether senior Gonzales aides improperly considered partisan affiliations when reviewing applicants for nonpolitical career positions. As part of that inquiry, Fine sent hundreds of questionnaires in the past week to former Justice Department job applicants.

The questionnaires are to find out if applicants for non-political positions were asked questions about party affiliation, voting histories, campaign contributions, issue opinions, etc. Take a look at the questionnaire and accompanying cover letter.

Sen. Leahy welcomed the investigation, saying "The current Attorney General is leaving, but these questions remain." Inspector General Fine is authorized to refer cases for criminal prosecution if he determines Gonzales or other officials have committed perjury or obstructed justice.

So, yeah...it ain't over.

Gonzo's greatest hits

TPM's Josh Marshall eulogizes Alberto Gonzales with a Top 10 hitlist:

What do the fired US Attorneys have to say about Gonzales' resignation?

It's been a long and tiring road for the eight US attorneys fired last year for political reasons. Alberto Gonzales announcing his resignation yesterday, news outlets across the country called up the former prosecutors at the center of the scandal to find out what they were thinking.

Inside you'll find a sampling of their comments. Needless to say, they don't go easy on the soon-to-be Former Attorney General.

BREAKING: Alberto Gonzales is resigning

I don't know what else to say, except...

HOORAY!!!

Now that's news to brighten up a Monday morning.

Who's Who in the US Attorney Scandal: David Iglesias

Meet David Iglesias:

David Iglesias was appointed by the President on August 2, 2001, to be the US Attorney for the District of New Mexico. Prior to his appointment, Iglesias had a successful legal career as General Counsel to the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (1998 - 2001), Chief Counsel to the New Mexico Risk Management Legal Office (1995 to 1998), and as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Albuquerque (1991 - 1994) and an Assistant Attorney General in the New Mexico Attorney General's Office.

Iglesias performed his US Attorney duties to great satisfaction, according to his performance reviews, until 2005, when the Chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, Allen Weh, began pressuring him to bring voter fraud indictments against Democrats; Iglesias did not feel the case was strong enough, and declined to do so. The pressure was ratcheted up in the fall of 2006, when Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) each called Iglesias to pressure him to bring indictments against Democrats before the November elections. He did not do so, and on December 7, 2006, he was dismissed.