Paging Karl Rove: U.S. District Judge Sides With Congress
Word has just come down the wire that a U.S. District Judge, John Bates, has sided with with Congress in its effort to get Bush administration aides to appear before congressional committees.
Just yesterday, Karl Rove, who has thus far avoided testifying by all manner of clever schemes, from citing the White House's desire to stand up for the executive branch to being conveniently out of the country, dismissed the Judiciary Committee's contempt recommendation as "ludicrous." Today, he continues his inexorable slide toward actually having to show up on Congress' doorstep.
Couple things to consider here. First, in the immediate moments after the news report went out on the web, initial reactions on the blogs, particularly among the more cynical liberals out there in the blogosphere, was to wonder when the judge who ruled on this would be smeared, tarnished, destroyed, sent to Gitmo, etc. But that will be very difficult for the Bush administration to do, as John Bates was appointed to his office by, yes, the Bush administration. In fact, Bates is the very same judge who tossed out Valerie Plame's lawsuit against Dick Cheney -- hardly a liberal partisan, then.
The second thing to remember in this time of Rovian woe: There's going to be a lot of talk about "Bush's Brain" in the coming days, a lot of talk about the man's brilliant political mind. I'd like everyone to remember the current position of the Republican Party (read: slightly more popular than cancer.), and recall that Rove's tactics of firing up the right-wing base while ignoring moderates has played a large part in the GOP's current sad state. Remember that, if you remember nothing else about the man: Karl Rove is, in the long-run, a colossal failure. His bad run in politics could only end this way.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Whatever the political outcome from the ruling, I don't believe that anyone on either side of the political isle likes to see an appointee chortle and sneer when asked to appear before the US Congress. What do you tell your kids about our democratic system? They will notice if you toe the party line and lie to them.
The brightest light shining is the ruling.
Boy o boy.
Bush and Rove ought to think very hard and very carefully before handing out any blanket pardons.
Rove is refusing to testify before Congress. His grounds for refusal are Executive privilege. That is in the process of being shot down. EP is a limited privilege. Does not cover criminal acts nor political acts.
So lets say Rove is given a blanket pardon. Congress calls him to testify about the Attorney firing scandal. Or whatever.
Rove refuses to testify. The courts will have determined that claims of Executive privilege do not apply. Where does that leave Rove?
Not testifying on the grounds of self incrimination. Taking the 5th.
But that cannot apply because he has already been immunized from self incrimination.
Leaving no grounds for refusal to testify.
"Where does that leave Rove?" (Or Bolten? Or Miers?)
The keener question might be: where does that leave Congress? I doubt that Rove will ever be more than a footnote in history, but the confrontation between the executive and legislative might be apocalyptic.
In 2007, Mr. Bush charged that the DOJ will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against WH officials once the president has invoked executive prvilege, thus making the DOJ the President's personal firewall. Earlier this year, in February, Mukasey rejected contempt citations against Miers and Bolten, holding they had committed no crime by refusing to testify to Congress (and, in July, Mukasey himself was threatened with contempt in Plamegate).
As you pointed out below, "the Attorney General..is a political hack and is refusing to enforce the laws of our nation" and "Congress does not have a police force". Hack or not, Mukasey is no Elliot Richardson. And Congress, even if it had the will to honor itself as an institution, has no means of physically enforcing subpoenas nor punishing contempt of same.
That leaves us on the long and winding road leading to the Supreme Court. And here, I think, we can glimpse not just an impasse, but the complete destruction of our system of checks and balances. After which, I doubt we will much care about Karl Rove.
Mukasy will only be Attorney General for another 5 months.
The next Attorney general will not be so forgiving.
Plus: Congress HAS the power to enforce it's subpoenas. They chose to give authority to the Attorney General. But that can change. By a simple Act of Congress.
Also: I am not so afraid of the Courts, even the Supremes.
The limits of Executive Privilege have been well defined. And what Bush is claiming is not even in the neighborhood.
I think even Scalia and Roberts would have a tough time giving Bush what he NEEDS. Total immunity from Congressional investigation.
Not going to happen.
And we will be caring about Karl Rove for a long time into the future. He will be shown to be at the heart of the MANY CRIMINAL ACTS perpetrated by this Administration.
See the Teapot Dome scandal for a precedent.
Rove has a future that involves lots of testimony under oath. And time in Federal prisons as well.
Congress should wait until Bush is out of office. That way when Karl Rove is tried and convicted Bush won't instantly pardon him a la Scooter Libby. I can't wait to see the frog march!
Calling Karl Rove a "failure" is nonsense. All anyone need do is turn to the vast pages of the leftist MSM and/or HuffPo and read the interminable negative articles featured about the man and then gauge how POTUS has constantly bested the Democrat Congress at every turn to see who exactly is the failure. Rove has been an invaluable advisor to the President and for that reason is under orders not to respond to the Democrat fishing (as in "phishing") summons. For now, the Democrats will posture about "contempt of Congress" (a very valid comtempt held by most Americans) but this vapidity fades when challenged to, "go ahead, issue an arrest warrant." Ain't gonna happen.
Karl Rove does what his conscience dictates and his wallet demands, similar to most other Americans, only better.
"Calling Karl Rove a "failure" is nonsense."
Some things take awhile and this is true of Rove's legacy. He and Bush are beginning to look like the men who destroyed the republican party for at least a generation. That's certainly what the polling data looks like.
I wish I could say that it's been worth it but the fact of the matter is that i won't live long enough to see the end of the damage GOP leadership has inflicted on our country. I only hope I don't end up trying to tell young people that there was a time when we had a living wage and that our government didn't torture people.
Look long-term. Karl Rove has given the country it's least popular president and politically engineered the present conditions that will most likely amount to a forfeiture of the White House and could increase the Democratic party's hold on the HoR and the Senate in the fall--AND he has played a CENTRAL role in polluting the political discourse with extreme partisan toxicity--all this comes at some degree of detriment to the Republican party's popularity. Oh, and he could get indicted too.
You might make the case that Rove et. al. have "bested" the democrats for the better part of 8 years, but if their methods came at the expense of the Republican BRAND (TM) and leads to marginalization of the party in the long term, I don't see how what Rove has done can be called anything BUT a failure.
So, even if Rove "gets away with it", I don't see how his legacy will. He will be a CENTRAL figure when history begins to render the tragic folly of the Bush years, and I think the fallout of his machinations will be a festering wound for the GOP and its credibility for many years to come.
Outstanding response. The unpopularity of the President and the Republican Party is undeniable. Still, the Republican Party itself is mostly the party's own fault by their ducking a valiant defense of the President in the face of very powerful, daily personal and professional attacks against the President and his Administration.
Karl Rove has acted as an advisor to the President; accordingly, cite one direct decision he has made to create any toxicity. I'd be interested to know exactly where Rove can be indicted.
History reveals, so any legacy is down the road away from Democrat influence.
Sir;
Your second paragraph suggests that Mr. Rove will have to appear before congress.
There are factors which militate against this. First, Mr. Rove has far from exhausted his legal means to avoid an appearance. Next, congress itself must somehow stop republican members from blocking an attempt to force his appearance. And finally, the present administration leaves office on the first of the new year. There's an unwritten gentlemen's agreement that once you're out of the political loop, you're off the hook for any upcoming or [often] pending legal action.
I believe, sir, that you have placed too much faith in the will of congress.
You are probably right about the present will of the congress. However, I would love to see the 93 page ruling by U.S. District Judge, John Bates. I would suspect that the apparent pretty solid bases, regarding congressional versus executive powers, contained in the 93 page ruling by a U.S. District Judge would trump any "unwritten gentlemen's agreement". I would hope a more somber and chastised congress that convenes after January 20th, having faced the wrath of the public in November , will summon all of Bush's sycophants , including Rove.
Ozarks:
Hey, I honestly didn't think anyone would be so political-junkie that they'd want to see the whole ruling, but if you'd love to see it, call me impressed. There's a link to a PDF of the ruling about halfway down the page here:
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1470
An important point to make: Note that the ruling applies specifically to the cases of Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers. (Something I did not mention in the blog because Rove would almost certainly fall under its purview.)
"There is an unwritten gentlemans agreement?"
In what universe?
Ever hear of the Teapot Dome scandal?
Rove should be on the hook for any and all questionable activities. Up to and including prosecution of any crimes he will have committed.
And I have no doubt, NO DOUBT, those crimes are legion.
He could be indicted before appearing.
This was the bes news yesterday. Made my day and I yet to see anything about in the MSM.
While everyone else is seeing this as a defeat for rove, I'm also seeing this as a defeat for pelosi.
Pulled the rug right from under her. How WILL she answer to the voters if she does nothing after this?
All out of excuses.
She already did it. She caved. Her statement is that she will not even begin to think about the issue until September... then maybe she'll see if there needs to be some kind of review of the evidence blah blah blah. She plans to let the clock run out.
You have to understand that while we the people are appalled by the Bushies, politicians are in awe of their success and power. They don't want to prosecute them, they want to be them.
If the President is the Executive, does this mean Rove is claiming to be on the same level as the President? Who's running the country?
Rove has successfully given Congress a big "Up Yours", and there ain't nuthin' more gonna come of it.
Karl Rover is claiming that because he "WORKED" in the Executive Branch that Executive privilege applies to him. I don't believe that and obviously the courts don't believe that either.
Rove believes, and I think correctly, that this subpoena is an invitation into a perjury trap. Unless he has completely photographic memory, he will likely say something wrong, which would then be used to proecute him. That is why is he refusing to testify. Were I in his shoes, I would do the same thing. So would any of us.
Didn't the Supreme Court rule unanimously that Executive privilege did not apply to Nixon and his tapes?
Privilege would not apply to illegal acts.
Nor to political acts.
Thank god for the judicial branch, since our legislative branch -- Democrat and Republican alike -- has almost completely failed in its initial purpose of serving as a check against an executive branch gone drunk with power.
"Ambition against ambition," my ass. Sorry Founding Fathers, it looks like what we've really got is a last, best hope against a Unitary Executive. A firewall.
At least we have that. Thank god for the judicial branch.
Rove will serve exactly what Scooter Libby served. the whole damn bunch of them ought to be in jail. Where was the anger from the Dem leaders when Libby was pardoned?
Libby wasn't pardoned. His sentence was commuted. Look for the Pardon the day before Bush leaves office.
If Rove can be subpoenaed, he may not open his mouth in a Congressional hearing, but they
can also subpoena his records :-)
Rove testify? About as likely as Dick Cheney showing up at my yoga class. The rules don't apply to him, never did and never will. He's a coward and will drag this out forever. If anyone lays a finger on him then he will be the world's biggest victim.
The rules say that the President does is not required to share his communications and his records with Congress. That extends to those he chooses to include in his exemption.
That same set of rules prevents the presidentr from having someone like Ted Kennedy picked up by the FBI and questioned about his private conversatins with left wing kooks.
If Teddy Kennedy was being investigated by Congress for illegal acts involving influence pedaling in the Justice Department, and there was plenty of credible evidence to suggest him as a nexus in a plot to undermine the US Constitution, then hell yes. Pick him up.
Obviously, it doesn't extend to those he chooses to include in his exemption. The court just said so.
See Supreme Court and Nixon tapes.
Executive privilege, like all privileges, is limited.
That is an absurd interpretation.
And your statement on Kennedy is even more ridiculous. A Senator has Executive Privilege?
Not in this universe.
PUT HIM IN JAIL !!!
Not only him but the whole bunch.
They are thumbing their noses at our REPRESENTATIVES of both the House and the Senate and , worse, tearing our Constitution.
Don't get your hopes up. The Bush regime will appeal this until they get a sympathetic, right wing ideologue judge.
It would be nice if the Democrats were not so obvious in trying to drag it out until the election. They don't want Rove's testimony, they just want the publicity for pretending they do.
I've got ten that sez you're right!
Actually, it's Rove that's been dragging things out. This would have been over months ago if he had just shown up when he was first asked to testify.
So why didn't they arrest him when he first ignored the subpoena?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
