Former Bush Aide Rove Defies Congressional Subpoena
Karl Rove, the former close political aide to President Bush, failed to appear at a congressional hearing Thursday to testify about allegations he was involved in politicizing the Department of Justice. VOA's Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill.
The empty chair in front of the House judiciary subcommittee was a reminder of the difficulty Democrats have had in obtaining testimony from Rove, and two other former and current White House officials.
Last year, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and President Bush's current chief of staff Joshua Bolten, defied subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee, triggering a House vote to hold both in contempt of Congress.
Former White House Advisor Karl Rove gestures towards the press at the White House in Washington, D.C. (file photo) Rove was subpoenaed earlier this year in connection with Democratic attempts to determine if he exerted improper political influence in the firing of nine U.S. federal prosecutors, and to answer questions about a government corruption case against a former Democratic governor of Alabama.
He offered to speak with lawmakers only about the second of these, and only behind closed doors without a transcript and not under oath, all conditions Democrats rejected. He has denied ever trying to influence Justice Department decisions.
Democratic Congresswoman Linda Sanchez described Rove's justification for not showing up on the basis of a White House claim of executive privilege as lacking legal validity. "We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal even to appear today as required by the subpoena. The courts have made clear that no one, not even the president, is immune from compulsory process," he said.
Sanchez said the White House failed to demonstrate that information lawmakers seek is covered by executive privilege, and says neither the White House nor Rove's attorney cited any court decision in support of a former official's refusal to testify.
She also pointed to recent testimony by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, and voluntary testimony by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, as well as appearances under subpoena by two former Justice Department officials.
Republicans have long accused Democrats of trying to use the controversy over U.S. attorney firings and allegations of politicization of the Justice Department as a political weapon against President Bush.
Republican Congressman Chris Cannon accuses Democrats of wasting lawmakers time. "If the majority was serious about getting to the bottom of this issue, it would have taken Mr. Rove and the White House up on these offers. The fact that it hasn't, is proof that their efforts amount to a partisan stunt," he said.
As with former White House counsel Miers and chief of staff Bolten, the full House Judiciary Committee will have to decide whether to pursue contempt charges against Rove, after which Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have to determine whether to proceed with a vote in the House.
Rove was subpoenaed earlier this year in connection with Democratic attempts to determine if he exerted improper political influence in the firing of nine U.S. federal prosecutors, and to answer questions about a government corruption case against a former Democratic governor of Alabama.He offered to speak with lawmakers only about the second of these, and only behind closed doors without a transcript and not under oath, all conditions Democrats rejected. He has denied ever trying to influence Justice Department decisions.Democratic Congresswoman Linda Sanchez described Rove's justification for not showing up on the basis of a White House claim of executive privilege as lacking legal validity. "We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal even to appear today as required by the subpoena. The courts have made clear that no one, not even the president, is immune from compulsory process," he said.Sanchez said the White House failed to demonstrate that information lawmakers seek is covered by executive privilege, and says neither the White House nor Rove's attorney cited any court decision in support of a former official's refusal to testify.She also pointed to recent testimony by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, and voluntary testimony by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, as well as appearances under subpoena by two former Justice Department officials.Republicans have long accused Democrats of trying to use the controversy over U.S. attorney firings and allegations of politicization of the Justice Department as a political weapon against President Bush.Republican Congressman Chris Cannon accuses Democrats of wasting lawmakers time. "If the majority was serious about getting to the bottom of this issue, it would have taken Mr. Rove and the White House up on these offers. The fact that it hasn't, is proof that their efforts amount to a partisan stunt," he said.As with former White House counsel Miers and chief of staff Bolten, the full House Judiciary Committee will have to decide whether to pursue contempt charges against Rove, after which Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have to determine whether to proceed with a vote in the House.
Karl Rove
Karl Rove, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff to United States President George W. Bush before resigning last year, failed to appear in front of the House Judiciary Committee today, refusing to testify about allegations of misusing his political power.

The congressional panel is trying to determine if Rove had a connection with the prosecution of Don Siegelman, former Democratic governor of Alabama. The committee is also investigating allegations that the former White House adviser dismissed nine federal prosecutors seen as political opponents. Rove has denied ever influencing the decisions of the Department of Justice.

In May, the panel subpoenaed Rove in an attempt to force him to offer testimony. He was scheduled to appear at a committee hearing today, but his lawyer Robert D. Luskin made it clear that he would not attend. Luskin argued that his client was "immune" to the subpoena because of executive privilege, which gives executive officials the right to resist a search from the other two branches of government.

In a letter written to the committee on Wednesday, Luskin said that Rove is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony", adding that "threatening Mr. Rove with sanctions will not in any way expedite the resolution of the issue." He said Rove would be willing to talk about the Siegelman case as part of an "informal interview", without a transcript and without taking an oath.

Members of the Judiciary Committee argued that executive privilege is not a valid reason to ignore a subpoena. California Rep. Linda Sanchez, who chairs the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, said at the hearing, "We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal to even appear today as required by the subpoena." She cited United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones as legal precedents. 

Sanchez, along with the Judiciary Committee chairman, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, said that Rove's refusal to testify could result in prosecution for being in contempt of Congress. "A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote.

If the Judiciary Committee votes to pursue these contempt charges against Rove, they would go to the floor of the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi would decide whether to proceed with a final vote. The House has already held two of Bush's advisers in contempt for defying a subpoena: White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. Their case is currently in federal court.

Republicans have accused Democrats of using these cases as political weapons against George W. Bush. Rep. Chris Cannon, a Republican from Utah, said that "if the majority was serious about getting to the bottom of this issue", they would have accepted Rove's offers to discuss the issue on his terms, informally and without a transcript. "The fact that it hasn't is proof that their efforts amount to a partisan stunt," said Cannon.