News via Twitter:
Karl Rove, who was subpoenaed Monday to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, doesn't intend to appear, let alone testify.
That's a bold move: while witnesses frequently claim that some sort of privilege (executive privilege in this case) exempts them from having to answer particular questions, there's no precedent for Rove's claim -- that his status as a former advisor to the President excuses him from having to even appear before Congress.
The usual course, even for those who intend to stonewall, is to respectfully show up, then decline to talk.
Rove got away with the brazen tactic during Bush's presidency, because the Congress usually relies on the U.S. Attorney General -- an Executive Branch official -- to enforce its subpoenas, and Attorney General Gonzales refused to do so. But there's a new administration, and an Attorney General who has no fondness for Rove and every reason to want to enforce the law as usually understood.
With the change in administration, Rove would have been well advised to demonstrate a suitable degree of respect for Congress by dutifully appearing before the Committee Monday, expressing a general desire to cooperate, then "regretfully" exercising his alleged privilege not to testify about matters involving the Bush presidency. That would still be a weak position legally, but stronger and less inflammatory than an outright refusal to appear in the first place.
In other words, Rove might have felt safe telling off Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers while Bush was still President, and may talk a tough game on Fox News, but the passage of time might have, and should have, caused him to rethink and engage Conyers more strategically.
But that's not what Rove says is going to happen. In a Twitter exchange Sunday evening, I asked Rove his intentions: "Sorry, but curious, + we'll all know in a few hours anyway: will you appear ... but claim privilege, or decline to appear?" He answered with a link to an earlier interview with Bill O'Reilly, in which he stands by his "don't have to appear" position.
So in response to Monday's subpoena, an unabashed Rove will call Conyers' bluff (GOP interpretation) or metaphorically slap Conyers in the face (Democratic interpretation). Why? A couple of possible theories:
(1) Simply to stay consistent with his position regarding Conyers' last (Bush-era) subpoena, which currently is on appeal. Deviating from that tack could make his position in the earlier case look less sincere.
(2) Always the political strategist, Rove might also be stoking conflict to make Congressional Democrats, and by implication Obama, look partisan, taking some of the luster off Obama's strenuous efforts to at least appear bipartisan. If so, we can at least credit Rove with being self-sacrificing: throwing himself into the flames to help his party. (Which, of course, would be appropriate, since he's the famous Architect of their current disastrous state.)
Regardless of whether his motivation is relatively noble (albeit partisan) or simply legalistic, though, Rove's last act is not likely to play out well for him.
M.S. Bellows, Jr. wrote the Warranted Wiretaps column for Huffington Post's "Off The Bus" election-season project, and continues the column here.
Rove is utterly lacking in scruples, and is a snoop extraordinaire. What would be just punishment for him? Living the rest of his days on public display would be just punishment.
He probably has stopped noticing the "little people" who are around him - waitpeople, housekeepers, mechanics, barbers, store clerks, nurses, gardeners, pharmacy assistants - the countless people Rove no longer believes matter to his quality of life. Given his position in the Bush Administration, most of these people are bound to be looking at him and hearing him, and most of them carry cell phones with them. These and any other Americans who remain angry that Rove will not have to testify to what he did in the Bush Administration could photograph Rove and put the photos at a Rove On Public Display web site. Rove actually "using" the toilet would be off limits, but other photos taken of him in men's rooms could be added to the Rove On Public Display web site. This man scrutinized the private lives of others, so it would only be just for all of America to scrutinize his private life - for as long as he refuses to testify before Congress.
Let this pass and we -- the liberals -- are indeed the lapdogs of the Limbaugh Party.
To paraphrase their "Dear Leader" (Rush), we have the choice either to bend over, grab our ankles and take it, or turn around and deliver a swift kick where it's guaranteed to get their attention.
I thought we won this election. If I'm wrong, then to hell with them all.
It's time to physically haul his ass in - according to the law....
"Sargent of Arms...do your duty..."
"The Sergeant at Arms serves as the executive officer of the Senate for enforcement of all rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration regulating the Senate Wing of the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings and has responsibility for and immediate supervision of the Senate floor, chamber and galleries. The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States."
http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-835.pdf