Why Karl Rove Should Go To Jail
Again last week, we saw the arrogance of former White House advisor Karl Rove when an empty chair sat for him in front of the House Judiciary subcommittee where he was required by subpoena to testify. Not only did he refuse to appear before the committee -- let alone testify -- but he defiantly left the country thereby blatantly ignoring his obligations under the congressional subpoena served on him. When he did return to the country, Rove found the time to gab with TV reporters on a summer press tour in Beverly Hills, but failed to stop by the Judiciary Committee in Washington.
After my ruling that Mr. Rove's claims of immunity are not legally valid, Congressman Conyers and I gave him one last chance to comply with the law. He ignored us. As he let yet another deadline slip by this week, Mr. Rove's disregard for Congress has become intolerable. Mr. Rove needs to understand that he is not above the law and should obey a subpoena just like any other American is required to do.
Mr. Rove should not be able to hide behind the president to avoid the American public. Americans are fed up with this administration flouting the law. They expect Congress to hold people accountable and that is exactly what we intend to do. Letting Mr. Rove get away with this would set a dangerous precedent. I have recommended that we hold Mr. Rove in contempt of Congress. If we need to revive the inherent contempt procedure which gives Congress the authority to arrest those who defy Congressional subpoenas, then so be it.
The courts have made clear that no one, not even the president, is immune from compulsory process. Any person who scoffs at the law and who has committed an offense that is punishable by jail time should be put in jail. This includes Karl Rove.
Congresswoman Linda T. Sánchez is the Chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. She represents the 39th Congressional District of California.
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
I'm wondering why the Senate is messing around with Rove via print/online at all. Righteous indignation does not a successful prosecution make. Perhaps it's because we can't do anything to limit this group of INSANE CRIMINALS? Oh, sorry: I mean insane in the traditional sense (thank you WikiPedia):
"...insani
By criminals, I mean...(ba
"...devian
Enriching patrician friends in oil and construction businesses; ignoring the unfortunate (Katrina victims, children); prosecuting war unilaterally, killing and maiming our children; pressing for oil exploration to the sole benefit of oil companies and ruining our environmental legacy are good ways to illustrate insane, criminal behavior. Little less.
Anyone who sees a way to remedy the problem of white house craziness by legal method and does not take action, at whatever personal peril, is complicit in the destruction of this country and our freedoms at the hands of these criminals.
If anyone needs me, I'll be outside waiting for The Man.
It's been a great idea for at least five or six years. Why can't you get more than 20 congressmen to even consider it?
It would be nice to see you guys to do SOMETHING to re-establish the rule of law, since you haven't got the guts to go after Bush or Gonzales or any of the crooks at Halliburton.
And while you're at it, don't roll over on offshore drilling.
Can I just add that Bush is worse than Nixon at this point? At least Nixon got us out of an unwinnable war.
throw karl rove in prison.
see congressional approval AT LEAST triple.
Seriously -- you and I will get in much more serious trouble by urinating on the lawn of the White House through that fence that runs around the place -- than anyone that ever had an office in that place the last 7 years for the things they have done that are a thousand times worse.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE WAY TO PROTEST WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE -- show up singly or in groups and just urinate through that fence on to the White House lawn ! Just keep it up until the lawn dies or they stop breaking the law ! If they try to arrest you then tell them that you refuse to go (pun intended) until they arrest Bush's guys first for doing something far worse. Good old non-violent protest that gets attention and goes straight to the point !
Did you see the video of all the people mooning the Amtrak train as it went by ??. It made the news. Only one small point to a noble protest, if you are a female, how will you manage to urinate through the fence?
And those in a wheelchair? Will there be a designated handicapped urination spot up front?
http://sen
SEND KARL ROVE TO JAIL, like we the people would do if we had the chance.
BRAVE NEW FILMS, petition and video. send to everyone, especially congresspeople who are too busy to read the internet, like we have the time to do.....
Uh, yeah. Since when is providing congressional testimony optional?
Throw Mr. Rove in jail til he feels like TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS. Testifying before congress is not like testifying before a court of law. Let's clarify a bit: This is the closest thing to providing testimony to the actual, voting population of the United States. When you allow him to thumb his nose at Congress, you allow him to thumb his nose at all of us; at the rule of law itself!
This is not a partisan issue, either. Republican and Democratic congress people who do not insist that all citizens respect and obey the Congress of the United States in the pursuit of it's mandate do not understand the office they have been elected to and clearly don't deserve to be there. Filibustering a bill is a perfectly acceptable maneuver for either party to pursue. Allowing any citizen to shirk Congressional testimony is not.
I just added a poll on this topic. Perhaps a show of hands we can send to Congress?
http://www
Unfortunatly, Congress has not been up to doing it's job with regard to standing up for itself or the American people. Hopefully they will show the proper indignation and lock Rove up for Contempt and keep him in jail until he cooperates
Offer Rove immunity in exchange for testifying against Bush and Cheney in impeachment testimony.
Dear Representative Sanchez:
Thank you for your post here, and for your continuing courage and leadership on this critically important issue.
What is at stake here is nothing less than whether the Rule of Law will continue in the U.S.
Congress absolutely must prevail in this matter, even if that means telling the White House that the deal is off because the Bush Administration has not kept it's part of the bargain, and now Congress is reinstating its inherent contempt procedures.
In doing so, you will NOT be creating a constitutional crisis. We already have a constitutional crisis thanks to Mr. Rove's thumbing his contemptious nose at the authority of our Congress and the very Rule of Law in our Nation.
There is a constitutional crisis, and now Congress needs to resolve it in favor of the Rule of Law.
If you need to reinstate inherent comtempt procedures, do it, and do it now.
A democracy cannot continue without the Rule of Law.
Mr. Rove is threatening our very democracy and he must be stopped.
I don't know where you've been for the last eight years, but the rule of law went out the window long ago, and the government has enshrined its ability to operate above it in such bipartisan gestures as the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act.
The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act are indeed law. They are the rule of law, and as you point out, bipartisan.
Moshe, as another poster here suggested, Why not make a citizen's arrest if you feel that strong about it. ??? Show Ms. Sanchez and Jesse Jackson who has a pair. As I promised I will cover it as a blogger and help with paperwork.
The other poster even provided a link, and he was asking for help.
The basis of our government is the *equal* power sharing of the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch and Congress. In a nutshell this means that the Bush Administration cannot arrest (or hold in contempt) Congress or the Supreme Court or the Attorney General. Of course, this works the other way around, too. Rove, as an integral part of Bush's administration doesn't have to respond to a congressional summons if he has been granted executive privilege. This general "hands off" each other is why the system works and frustrates so many people who can't understand why there will be no impeachment proceedings or arrest of Bush's sidekicks.
To tamper with the system invites chaos because each branch could arrest members of the other two branches on partisan, trumped up charges. It would be terrible.
You don't have an adequate understanding of what is actually in place in the US government. The point of the three branches is something we learn in an introductory political science course - checks and balances. Each branch has different responsibilities preventing the other from gaining too much power (I won't touch how much more power has been granted to the Executive Branch post-911, though).
To "check" one another they must be able to hold one another accountable. Which means enforcing the law on any individual of any branch... enforcing something which all had a hand in creating, hence its overarching importance and jurisdiction in each branch of the government.
If what you are saying was true, then each would be completely outside and above the law - a statement which is ludicrous and horrifying.
Congress has the power under the Constitution to not only hold Herr Rove in contempt but dispatch the sargeant-at-arms to haul him in and imprison him in a cell in the capitol basement. It has been done in the past (back when spines were part of the makeup of a Congressman) and should be done now. It was meant to apply in exactly a case as this- an executive with dreams of fuehrership and a wimp for Att. Gen. Executive Privilege is not part of the Constitution and is based on a ruling after the government blatantly lied to the court. It has never applied to any President's Grey Eminence such as Rover, the names Haldeman and Erlichman come to mind.
If i undestand the situation correcty, the claim of executive privilege exercised by the current regime is covered by the gargantuan umbrella called 'national security" . Is there anyting that a president does that could not be put under this umbrella?
The point is that secrecy is implied which means that decisions of legality will be made by commitiee and not the American People. A very nice protection for a president to have, to be sure.
How quaint. Congress hasn't enforced the law since Clinton left office.
Just wait until we have a democrat as President, especially Barrack Obama. Then you can watch republicans keep him in line. Just wait.
So Linda, what's stopping you and other liberals and leftist democrats? I don't think your party has the belly for this fight. Rounding up a political figure you dislike because you and him disagree on the executive branch's right to confer with aids would be great theater. Rove continues to out smart you guys and make you look like fools. You know what they say, either fish or cut bait. Throw Rove in jail if you must but some how, I don't think that's going to help Saint Obama get elected.
I say, go for it Linda, what are you waiting for? Then, after you are done jailing this political figure, you and your crowd can march forward with a new "fairnesss" doctrine to shut down the upror that will take place. Hugo would be proud
Karl Rove is not a political figure... he is a political coward.
If he is a "political figure' he is not subject to "Executive Privilege". Or "deliberative process privilege" either.
You have a very twisted view of what a political figure is.
But, not surprising.
And BTW, the president, nor any American, has the right to conspire to commit crimes and immunity from investigation and prosecution for them. Therein lies the end to this "Executive privilege" debate.
There is only one problem with this statement. Many do not feel as you and others do about Rove. In fact if you check many consider him to be a stand up person of integrity.
Personally I could care less about the man. All of this stuff about impeachment, jail, etc is just cheap political theatre.
Karl Rove is not an elected official. He's a citizen like the rest of us. NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW. charge him, arrest him, and then convict his sorry A@@
The reality is that a pffft is the only response your post deserves, however I will respond to your completely cynical and disgustingly "partisan-
First, do you have ANY idea what the founding principles of the country you live in, and I am sure purport to love, mean? We have THREE equal branches of government! Not one primary branch and two lesser branches but three equal branches. Those three branches were created to keep any one branch, or person occupying an office of that branch, from becoming too powerful. The framers of the country which I am sure you claim to love did not want ANYONE to be above the law and to this end they put "checks and balances" in the founding documents of The United States of America. Your obvious hatred for anyone that thinks differently from you has led you to put your party over the principles of your country. I'm sure when president Clinton made the same claim of executive privilege when trying to prevent his aides from testifying, he was subverting the law in your mind. You see thats what you short sighted right wingers don't seem to be able to fathom, once you set the bar so high, it'll be that high when a democrat is elected as well. Of course your current unquestioning support for ANY claim of executive privilege regardless of how absurd wont stop you from going apoplectic when a Democrat makes the same claim.
The bottom line is that this is all for political theatre. Rove has stated he will provide answers under oath to any questions they have, in writing. I like your thought, if linda is the decider of who has immunity or privilege, or whatever, why write this ? Just do it and take credit for it.
She should have already done what you suggested.
You're lying pal. Rove has stated that he will answer questions without being under oath and with no transcripts kept. If this were Bill Clinton instead of Rove you and UltraClass
The truth is Rove has broken the law by not showing up. Rove has never been willing to give any answers under oath. Just behind closed doors no oath no transcript.
The decider is Bush he decided to violate the constitution and the law when he gets out of office he will be open to prosecution.
Wrong, AzRealProgressive. Rove has only said he will give answers
behind closed doors, with no oath or transcripts. And its a one-time deal.
No other meetings will follow. Why should he get away with that?
The rest of us would be in jail by now.
It looks like the judiciary may be forced to impeach the AG Mukasey to make any progress.
As long as the AG is guarding the gates of evidence, effectively obstructing justice,
I'm not sure how you can get to Rove.
It's obvious that you need to get Rove in the hot seat in order to remove Cheney from office.
Cheney nor Bush can be tried on criminal offenses as long as they hold office.
I watched yesterday as Ashcroft flaunted executive privilege in your face and wished right there and then that the meeting would end with an arrest warrant for obstruction of justice.
Unfortunately, I don't know what the law says about impeaching the Vice President or what it would
take to effectively commence with those proceedings.
If Addington and Yoo are looking seriously at being disbarred, perhaps that might give you some ammunition.
I DO like the idea of arresting Karl Rove LIVE on FAUX SNOOZE :-)
When AG Mukasey would not be forthcoming on the issue of what he thought constituted torture (during his conformation hearing), Congress should have known trouble was ahead with this guy. His prevarication on that question told you he'd protect this administration (based upon the faulty legal reasoning of Mr. Yoo), just like Ashcroft did, yesterday.
It's clear the Cowboys from Crawford are circling their wagons.
If the AG refuses to act in a non-partisan manner, then Congress has no choice
but to remove him from office and install an independent counsel.
I don't know what charges Congress can bring against these political Mafia thugs.
Fraud, Dereliction of duty, Obstruction of justice, Accessory to treason, Conspiracy, Negligent Homicide, Contempt of Congress and of every law abiding citizen, something has to stick.
.
Their needs to be a new law drawn up to prevent organized political corruption, similar to the "RICO ACT", but include the specific crimes of the current administration abuses of power to skirt laws. Also it should include loss of benifits, assets, with mandatory sentences not pardonable by the president without 2/3 congressional approval. Rove's snub at the law is with the accomplice in the white house helping him blantantly disregard the rules of law. Just like others, they should all be forced to attend and under oath, which is what they don't want to do, testify to the congress on alledged criminal activities. They also should be surveilled, just like they are doing to the american people, to get evidence to get their convictions. Crimes against the american people by politicans should never be tolorated, or else it'll never end.
I'll bet Bush and his crew are already subject to RICO.
Just need the will to prosecute.
P.S. Probably can't limit power of Presidential pardons. Unfortunately.
Using your thoughts, we would not have politicians from any party. I have yet to hear of one in the last 50 years that has not fit your description.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
