House Judiciary Cmte cites Rove for contempt: What will Nancy do?
The House Judiciary Committee voted 20-14 along party lines this morning to hold former White House adviser Karl Rove in contempt for refusing to submit to a subpoena to testify at a congressional hearing related to the prosecution of the former governor of Alabama.
Via Bloomberg:
The House Judiciary Committee’s 20-14 vote along party lines escalated the dispute between the Bush administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress over lawmakers’ demand for testimony by presidential aides.
President George W. Bush has invoked executive privilege to bar his aides from testifying under oath in Congress about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. The president also barred Rove’s testimony on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The panel has asked a federal judge to order Bush’s chief of staff, Joshua Bolten to turn over documents about the firings and to direct former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify about the dismissals.
A contempt citation against Rove would require approval by the full House. Rove failed to appear at a July 10 hearing.
Rove has denied influencing the decision to prosecute Siegelman. He offered to answer the committee’s questions in writing or to testify in private without a transcript. Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, told the committee in a July 9 letter that Bush had directed his client not to testify.
Rove elaborated on his defense here and here.
The Hill looks ahead:
Ranking member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the vote “disregarded” the facts of Rove’s involvement with the Department of Justice.
“There is no credible evidence to support a contempt resolution against Karl Rove. Every individual involved in the claimed incident — including Don Siegelman himself — has denied allegations by Jill Simpson,” Smith said.
It is not clear whether the contempt charge will be brought to the full House, which is scheduled to adjourn for its August recess this week.
Will Nancy Pelosi feed the nutroots and allow a full vote–or is she too busy saving the planet and hawking books to mollify her far Left, Rove-obsessed flank?
What’s a 14 percenter to do?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Karl Rove, Nancy Pelosi
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftDoug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» OGreen Room
» Times Slimes Obamic Climes
Navigate.
The contempt should be for the House and its leader Pelosi. Playing politics instead of doing something substantial to help our country.
Another worthless action by the do-nothing congress
She’ll call for a vote on this but not let them vote on an energy bill.
I’ll be getting a comtempt citation shortly. Garonteed.
Rasmussen puts it at 9% now.
Let me just get this off my chest. MM I apologize for the over the top remark I’m about to make, and you can pull it if you want.
Pelosi is a heartless, cold-blooded, calculating, diabolical, greedy, manipulative, Marxist (rhymes with witch)
Could Pelosi waffle that much to allow action on this before the August recess, when she refuses to allow debate on domestic drilling before said recess?
Isn’t there a long, unresolved list of Clinton “illegal money raisers” who are still in contempt of Congress, by running off to China and refusing to submit to their subpoenas in the late 1990s?
How did Karl Rove get bumped to the head of the line?
She” probably confer with her pal McCain as she can rely on him to support her…. He thinks she’s
Source
Does this mean they will be voting for an energy package?
sarc/
Oh now I understand their plan. Have their approval rating spiral so low that they strike oil.
Its too bad Mr. Rove didn’t show up and give em what they deserve, a one eyed salute. But I’m sure he is much too dignified to do that, still, it would have been great to watch. Nanc is making the president look absolutely brilliant in comparison. Ask most democrats who the enemy is and they will say, Bush! No its not the jihadists its the President of the United States. Anyone who votes to give these people power, well they deserve everything they get down the road.
Anything, ANYTHING to distract from the “ALL OF THE ABOVE” energy bill vote that would allow us to drill for our own oil.
NAN, you’re making a 700 BILLION dollar a year mistake.
Do we hear 4% approval for Pelosers congress?
concretebob… very solid description of the lost navigator.
I call her something else more potent.
Rove has offered to “answer questions” off the record with no transcript and not under oath. Yet he refuses to testify under oath. The most likely explanation is that he plans to lie.
At the rate they are going, they will bore on through to the other side of the globe, John.
I am shocked I am still allowed to stay out of jail because I’ve been in contempt of Congress and politicians in general for more than 20 years.
Or, maybe, to avoid the ensuing media circus when the MSM tries to make something out of it for their friends on the Dem side, like they would, when Rove tells them he cannot answer specific questions, because the POTUS has told him is it protected by executive privilege, Professor Goodman.
Nothing, it’s a trivial matter. It’s undoubtedly far less important than dealing with the Republicans and their failed policies that got us into this mess. She’s trying to save the planet, people. She can’t do everything.
lgm said:
At least he didn’t run off to China to avoid subpoena like many of Bill Clinton’s illegal money raisers did after the ‘96 election.
If you want ol’ Karl, you can tune into Fox News on any given night and hear him answer a host of different questions, even from Alan Colmes.
You know Fox News, lgm, the network that regularly doubles the viewership of CNN and MSNBC combined, yet liberals, like Barack Obama, are afraid to appear on?
I don’t see the big deal here. All he has to do is keep repeating “Hmmm, I don’t recall….”
Old joke
Judge – “Are you showing contempt for this court?”
Plaintiff – “I’m sorry your Honor, I’m doing my best to hide it.”
ledge, fall, 14 stories, splat.
.
In playing the equivalence card, i would go down the path that “Well, at least he’s not going to ask what the definition of IS…is.”
Its good to see that you’re supportive of liars in your own party, but not someone elses.
Weak.
If he has a privilege claim to make, fine. He might even be right. But the answer is to make that claim after you have submitted to the subpoena. Not to ignore it. That is deserving of contempt.
That is a stupid thing to say. A contempt charge has zilch to do with the underlying issue being questioned and everything to do with the fact that he is refusing to answer the subpoena.
They give me so many reasons to use this Clown Congress pic.
Nancy has never heard the expression let dead dog’s. They just keep rehashing the same old thing over and over kind of like Hollywood.
let dead dogs lye. jeeez
I just don’t understand how this helps to save the planet.
Haven’t they learned anything from Richard Nixon ?
Don’t they know that when the President (or any of his staff or his friends) do it, it’s not illegal ?
Why didn’t he show up?
My, can we read minds now, Math man? You been shakin’ that magic 8 ball much?
Perhaps, Rove saw the futility of testifying in front of Nancy’s “Kangaroo Court.” When the deck is already stacked against you and the outcome is already predetermined, why bother?
Nancy can go suck it. And, Mathman? When a hearing becomes a political circus (think Dennis Kookookucinich) then there is no useful outcome.
Fishing expeditions, witch-hunts and contempt citations against administration officials were easily predictable once the donkeys took control of Congress. Only the willfully blind wouldn’t have seen this coming the day after the 2006 election.
Another prediction: In keeping with the donkeys’ long-term goal of destroying the Republic and replacing it with a one-party totalitarian system, their next step will be to expand efforts to criminalize political opposition by “investigating” and seeking charges against Bush Administration officials even after the 2008 election is decided.
Any wagers?
I wish somebody would please explain to me why the Democrats are making such a big deal over Bush firing nine U.S. Attorneys, when Bill Clinton fired them all when he was elected, for the purpose of giving him control over the Justice Department that was investigating the various crimes he and Hillary were involved in. Botox Pelosi thinks that only Democrats have the right to put one over on the people.
Nope. I don’t make losing bets.
Sigh Rove offered to answer questions IN WRITING!! For the record. What he does not want to do is go into a very contentious place, mispeak or misremember, and end up in Jail like Scooter Libby.
He was the direct Advisor to the President, executive Priv. is the correct card to play when Congress is on nothing more than a fishing expedition.
The Judge should laugh this right out of court, as there IS NO EVIDENCE!
Actually, I suspect that he just doesn’t want to subject himself to the brainless, boring grandstanding that takes place at these hearings. Democrats don’t want actual answers… they just want to hear themselves talk, pass blame and lecture others.
[grumbles something about narcissistic (bleep)]
She is all natural, down to the Muir Woods teeth.
She’s gonna save the planet from us horrible conservatives dontcha know…
.
I dare her! I double dare her!!!
And how many Code Pinkos would have been allowed into the hearing room if Rove came? Also, how many will be in the gallery if they do vote?
ROTFLMAO! Thanks AJ!
Actually my dear, the phrase is “Let sleeping dogs lie.” ‘Cause you’re not going to get a dead dog to wake up
Too bad we can’t put Pelosi’s reign as a…
…to death!
Rove’s offer to testify off record is an attempt to provide Congress with the information they seek without violating the president’s orders. Obviously, Congress doesn’t care about the getting the information as much as it cares about “getting” Rove. They want to finish the job that special prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald started with Scooter Libby. They don’t care what the facts are; they just want to entrap Rove and embarrass the President.
Congress does not allow the Justice Department to search a congressional office. They cite the separation of powers argument as the reason. That’s why the FBI had to return items taken from William Jefferson’s office even though they had a valid search warrant from a judge. If Jefferson had kept his freezer in his office, his cash would have been safe.
Yet, Congress wants to force the President and those who serve with him to hand over any and all documents or testimony without a search warrant from a judge. I guess “separation of powers” is only a one-way street.
If Rove is willing to answer the questions in writing on the record, and he is, according to the story, it’s fairly obvious he didn’t avoid the hearing because he’d have to lie.
He avoided it because as others have said, it will be a circus.
And chapoutier, you say that it’s stupid to say there’s no reason for a contempt citation. But there was no reason to subpoena Rove in the first place, if every credible individual involved (including Siegelman) has indicated he had nothing to do with this. So why subpoena the man?
The Dems have already shown their eagerness to bring these guys in for these hearings, then trample all over their attempts to respond, snidely ridiculing them and turning the whole thing into a circus.
Gee lgm, if all he is going to do is lie, what would be the point?
When do you plan on miving on to third grade?
Brilliant plan! The country can go to hell while the congress focuses its attention on an individual, namely Carl Rove. Lets see how much lower this congress can possibly go. BTW, Nancy cannot even remmember recent history of how effective this tactic was against Rush Limbaugh. Go Nancy! I love seeing San Francisco values at work.
Is Rove willing to swear to his answers? Otherwise lying in writing is as easy and guilt free as lying in secret testimony.
Starlight woman said:
Another
worthlessstellar action by thedo-nothingdo something destructive congressThere, fixed that fer ya’
Nan Fran is caught between a studded jock strap, the SCOTUS and the deep
bluepink..uhhh, whatever.After all the boo hoo and screaming, wetting pinkos get done helping he show her ass for the umpteeth time, I don’t don’t think Madame Speaker has squat.
clicked the wrong button first
…as you are an expert.
Was it not YOU defending Clinton who lied to a grand jury, “he was just lying about sex”. Now YOU want Rove’s head to roll? For what? What about Pillosee’s promise? Oh, she is a liar too but a Democrat so, it is okay – right? You are the worst kind of human.
About as easy, I suppose, as it is to lie under oath in person. I see people do it regularly in court. But, in person, Rove has to deal with the clowns (i.e. Democrats) wanting to grandstand and make a cicus out of things.
-lgm
I imagine that’s what ‘on the record’ means, as those answers would be available for perusal and verification.
lgm,
Soap has you dead to rights on that. To modify something Rusty said on another thread yesterday…you cant break the rules for someone just because you like them.
Likewise, its grossly unjust to scream for the rules to apply to someone else, after you’ve championed the same rules to not apply to someone you’ve stated directly that lied about something.
I’m not sure if you just hate conservatives enough to be blatently dishonest on even your own (and most basic) of positions, dont realize the garish level of hypocracy you display when you post here, or just really are that obtuse.
I wonder which (or which combination) applies?
Pelosi has left the planet and is not coming back. So the answer to the question
is a): she will feed the nutroots.
If Rove testifies under oath, it would have to be recorded, which would violate the President’s orders. Testifying under oath without a transcript would be foolish. How would you defend yourself from the claim by some 80-year-old Senator that you lied under oath if there’s no record. Any way, the article is pretty clear to anyone who does not have a nefarious motive:
Calls to:
Nancy P’s offices;
House members from your state :
The calls work!
Yash,
I get that you, and I am sure Rove, think that it will be a circus and/or a political stunt and/or a fishing expedition. Heck, you may be right.
However, I still do not believe that excuses refusing to answer the subpoena. You simply cannot pick and choose when you will honor the rule of law. And it is not for Rove or really anyone else to make their independent determination as to the validity of the underlying claim, or rather, that is not a valid reason not to answer. Nor can there be any sort of privilege claim until one is actually questioned.
I say he answers the subpoena, goes in front of the Committee and then he has every right to invoke every privilege under the sun, pull off every legal tactic of evasion, make the dems look foolish, whatever. But this is simply obstruction and, yes, contempt.
This is simply ridiculous. The judicial committee apparently wants to change US code on a whim.
Reference
US Code, Title 28, Part II, Chapter 35, § 541(c)
which states:
Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
Note the absence of anything that says the President must confirm this with anyone. To the best of my knowledge, Congress only has the check on confirming new appointees. To me, this suggests that the President, as chief executive, can fire prosecutors at whim.
Bottom line, the Oval Office is not answerable to Congress on this matter which means that the subpoena to have Rove testify could be considered unlawful.
My guess? They’re going to push this until either Congress gives up (and spins this as propaganda) or they try to push it on court.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems the committee is outside of its scope of authority.
I disagree, and it may be a matter of semantics, but everyone chooses all the time whether or not to honor the rule of law. The issue here is whether or not you are willing to deal with the consequences of disobeying.
Karl Rove (and his advisors) are well aware of what congress can and cannot do to enforce their subpoena and I’m sure there is more going on here than just a stubborn refusal.
If, as I mentioned in my previous example, they believe that the committee is acting outside their authority, they may be looking for other intervention. It’s rather clear from the vote that this is politically driven.
And really, that is what the White House is counting on, IMHO. They are waiting this one out because the wheels of justice in such matters turn verrrry slowly.
But I am not sure that is what they are saying. It is my understanding that the White House is claiming executive privilege, which is very different from saying that Congress is acting outside its authority.
Of course it is, but that really doesn’t reveal much one way or the other with respect to the validity of the underlying accusations.
In this case, I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive. The White House had the right and authority to fire the prosecutors and Congress has no authority to question it (so far as I know).
I don’t disagree with this and admittedly am uncertain myself as to all the intricacies of congressional subpoenas; however, I do not consider them to be the same as judiciary subpoenas. I plan on digging more, but what is the worst that Congress can do? Publicly censure him? (Rather meaningless if he’s no longer part of the administration.)
I am curious what the consequences might be.
Ted Stevens gets indicted, people throw a party.
But go after a Democrat, no matter how corrupt or incompetent, and the response is to crucify a Republican for possibly being involved (in the response, not even in the crime!).
I’d say it was unbelievable but, unfortunately, it’s not.
-chapoutier
Except for executive privelege, which I believe is applicable in this case.
I believe they can have the sergeant-at-arms detain and hold him. I am pretty sure there is a jail cell in the building.
Nope, the turn it over to the Justice Department.
Then the validity is looked at by a Judge. The Congress has no authority to hold anyone.
They also have no authority to question the private counselor’s of the President, or his staff, about a clearly defined Presidential Power.
This is not even about Rove, its about setting a precedent of forcing staff to testify in front of Congress, so they can go fishing for information to IMPEACH the President.
WWND?
Is this the beginning of a political bumper sticker: “What Would Nancy Do?‘
But then again the above could get obscene…maybe we don’t want to know…
The U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He could fire them for dressing funny.
Now here is a question for you. If B. Hussein Obama becomes President will he fire all of Bush’s U.S. attorneys? Probably. And especially what about Patrick Fitzgerald, US Attorney for the Chicago area, who prosecuted his good buddy, Tony Rezko?
On July 30th, 2008 at 5:12 pm, chapoutier said:
Given the dicey economic situations some of the “folks,” a.k.a., blue collar/Reagan Democrats, are undergoing right now (compounded with back-to-school shopping just around the corner) do you really think it behooves Democrats, more precisely, BHO, for these independent voters to see the Democrat leadership focused more on carrying a personal vendetta against a former WH official than “kitchen table” issues?
Wait…do you hear that? It sounds like…YES!! I can actually hear Karl Rove laughing hysterically from here.
Thanks, Romeo13. This is what I suspected but could not say with certainty.
Thanks, Mr. Rove, for expressing the contempt that most Americans have for Congress. The rest of us just don’t get the opportunity to make our contempt so public. Atta guy
Oh, fun, citations for Congressional contempt are turned over to… the US Attorney for DC.
Ironic.
chap said:
If I were Rove, I would just claim racism, punch the sergeant-at-arms in the chest, say I’m a Kennedy, have the Capitol Police personally chauffeur me home and call it a day.
We could just settle this with a Thunderdome-style Rove V. Pelosi cage match.
I’d pay to watch that.
See. We could take care of the deficit too.
If you dig up 2Pac and invite Dr. Dre and Jimmy ‘Superfly’ Snuka, I’ll be there.
Just because his name is almost like a dog’s name, doesn’t mean that Rove(er) has to play little tricks for this congress.
All the Democraps are trying to do is to distract the loons on the left from the Democraps’ failures to impeach Bush and end the war.
Sorry Chap, tell that to the illegal invaders.
Invoke the 5th, flip a bird, walk out, have a nice day.
The answer is not: become the next editor of National Geographic
You really want him to invoke the 5th? Are you sure?
Hmm, maybe Congress should be dealing with increased gas prices or something. Instead of this pissant crap.
Leave Nancy alone. She’s trying to save the planet.
Nancy Pelosi should go to prison for violating her oath to uphold the Constitution and serve our Nation. Selling out every citizen, attempting to wreck educaion for minority children and on and on. She is scum. She deserves execution by firing squad but we are merciful and because the woman is insane, prison will do, c’mon, take a good look at her. She is as loupy as Charles Manson.
– chapoutier
You overestimate my salary greatly.
Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993?????
Anyone?? Bueller? Bueller?
I suspect a couple of factors present in Rove’s response:
1. Congress is exceeding its lawful power. Worse than no evidence, there is contrary evidence concerning Rove’s involvement. Therefore, to capitulate would be to violate The Rule of Law.
2. By offering to provide Congress a written & sworn state, he offers an olive branch, while avoiding a Libby: question a man until he commits an honest error of memory, then hang him with it.
Personally, I think this is GWB’s “new tone” savaging his behind. He thought his “Compassionate Conservatism” was close enough to the Liberal’s agenda that they’d make common cause. He mistook National Liberals for Texan Liberals (c1998). How foolish!
I was stationed at Randolf AFB while GWB was governor. While there had always been a tendency for R&D cooperation, and both parties tended to be reasonable, GWB “crossed the isle” more than was necessary and (in my opinion) good for Texas. Still, since the parties were very close, it wasn’t too significant a trait — from a strictly practical POV. Both parties were pretty conservative.
Please remember, this was c.1998, prior to the cultural rot extending down to Texas. Texas Liberals seem to be as black-moldy as the national Liberals now. The vision of the National Liberals has pushed-out the Texas brand, leaving 1998-style Texas Liberals, (who most closely resemble the Classical variety) wondering how to effectively push-back.
(Boy, will I get flamed for this…) In my opinion, while GWB was the LOTE in 2000 & 2004, he isn’t a conservative! All our mistakes seem to stem from confusing “Compassionate Conservatism” with the REALLY compassionate original flavor. We needed to be on his butt 24/7 to keep things like Kennedy NCLB & McCain-Feingold from happening/being signed. Although I will point out that he promised to veto McCain-Feingold! I have always considered that a violation of his Oath of Office. Atleast we wised-up & sunk Myers…
Would that be fair? It is my understanding that Pelosi can shoot concentrated Botox poison from her eyes.
And, lest we forget, the firings and framing of Billy Dale in the White House travel office. (Mr. Dale was cleared about as fast as you can snap your fingers, by the way).
Hey, you mess with the bull, you get the horns.
and mess with cow you get the……..