Rove willing to testify — except when he’s not

April 18, 2008

It finally looked like we were getting somewhere. A couple of weeks ago, in a startling “60 Minutes” report, the nation saw the ways in which former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman had been railroaded and sent to prison under the most dubious of circumstances. Based on a variety of elements, Siegelman has argued that Karl Rove was directly involved in this travesty.

Indeed, after a federal appeals court ordered his release on bond, Siegelman didn’t hesitate to cite Rove’s apparent involvement in his case. “His fingerprints are smeared all over the case,” Siegelman said.

As recently as a couple of weeks ago, Rove not only dismissed Siegelman’s accusations out of hand, he also gave word that he’d be willing to talk about this issue under oath. MSNBC asked Rove if he’d agree to testify if subpoenaed as part of a congressional investigation into Siegelman’s case. Rove’s attorney told the network, “Sure.”

Lawmakers, delighted by Rove’s unexpected openness, decided yesterday to take advantage of the opportunity.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other panel members are calling on Karl Rove to testify before Congress on the alleged White House-led investigation of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D). […]

“There continue to be numerous complaints of selective or politically motivated prosecution since our investigation began last year,” Conyers said in a statement corresponding to a report released Thursday on alleged selective prosecutions.

“The actions we are taking today, including calling Karl Rove to testify, are an effort to get to the bottom of this matter,” he added.

For quite some time, Rove has gone to considerable lengths to avoid cooperating with congressional inquiries. Based on his lawyer’s surprising comments, it appeared that we might finally see Rove answering questions under oath.

That is, until late yesterday, when Rove and his team started backpedaling.

Roll Call reported last night:

Conyers cited comments made by Rove attorney Robert Luskin to MSNBC. Luskin told the network that Rove would be willing to testify about federal prosecutions because he has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong.

MSNBC provided Roll Call with an e-mail exchange with Luskin that the network broadcast in which a producer asked, “Will Karl Rove agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case?”

“Sure,” wrote Luskin, according to the e-mail. “Although it seems to me that the question is somewhat offensive. It assumes he has something to hide.”

But in an interview with Roll Call, Luskin said that his MSNBC comments were taken out of context.

“Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide,” but is part of an ongoing negotiation between the White House and Congress over executive privilege issues, Luskin said.

In other words, we’ve gone from “sure” to “not gonna happen.” Rove didn’t cooperate with congressional inquiries before, and he’s not about to start now.

Contempt of Congress. Rove has shown it and now we should charge him with it.

  • Yeah sure. He was misinterpreted, misquoted, blah blah blah, woof woof, quack quack. I believe in the integrity of Karl Rove like I believe in Santa Claus.

    I guess we’ll see some Repub will put forward a “Fox Commentator Immunity Bill for past actions in the White House and whose intials are K and R.”

  • I’m sure the weak sisters* in the Democratic party will continue to do the same thing they’ve done for a long time: Make a lot of noise, and then do nothing of actual consequence, thus enabling the criminals on the right.

    * The words of Lincoln Chafee, who had a very interesting interview on “Fresh Air” (NPR) yesterday.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89689567

    …The contentious and destructive agenda that Mr. Cheney dropped on us was troubling enough, but what really unnerved me was his attitude. He welcomed conflict. We Republicans had promised America exactly the opposite. In the presidential debates, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Governor Bush to describe the foreign policy he would adopt, if elected. Candidate Bush said he would be humble in foreign affairs; that if we were arrogant, other countries would resent us. Now his running mate was telling us the new administration would make a point of being arrogant and divisive. Mr. Cheney was brazen in his pronouncements. A humble foreign policy? His attitude was anything but humble. He said that the campaign was over and that our actions in office would not be dictated by what had to be said in the campaign. And he pronounced this deception with no emotion or window dressing of any kind. He was fearless, matter of fact, and smug…

    He has some very good things to say which the Dems should be forced to listen to. He also said something I was unaware of, that Laura Bush is pro-choice. Seems to me that should have been talked about a little bit more whenever BushCo rolled out all their anti-choice crapola.

    Another must-listen interview:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89642189

    Steve Inskeep talks to author Kevin Phillips about his new book, Bad Money. Phillips argues in the book that the U.S. economy is in danger because of its reliance on the financial industry. He also believes that Wall Street has steered the nation toward greater debt.

  • ml johnston said:
    Does executive privelege continue when the executive is out of office?

    I’m pretty sure it does.

    The more relevant question is, how can Bush claim executive privilege — which is supposed to give the president privacy about advice he receives — on the issue of the U.S. Attorney firings when he has stated publicly that he had had nothing to do with the firings?

  • For an extremely interesting story,including the e-mail in question,go to an article by Sam Stein published in the Huffington Post,dated Feb.25,2008. It is entitled “McCain Witheld Controversial E-Mail “. It is excellent, referencing the BIA hearings (Chaired by Mc Cain), the Indian Casino investigation,and the e-mail that McCain left out of the 373 page report on lobbying by Abramoff. The deleted e-mail is published ,with references to Rove,Bob Riley,and the $$ needed for political influence .{BIA=Bureau of Indian Affairs.}

  • “Does executive privelege continue when the executive is out of office?” – ml johnston

    It does, but Bush’s definition of Executive Privilege will go back to Crawford with him. With a new Attorney General, contempt of Congress citations will be executed. But all this is dependent on them actually ‘recalling’ anything if Congress has their way.

    Torture will be ‘redefined’ by White House council and that will lead to some very nervous folks. Next summer is going to non-stop Congressional hearings and a few very key perp walks.

    I have a feeling Bush is going to be thrown under many buses and I also suspect he will have some crazy presidential immunity and will never testify or do time. He will live a life of obscurity, no baseball gaems or charity events. He can’t leave American soil, and I bet there are a whole lot of axes waiting to be ground.

    Obama can say that he won’t pursue this or that, but the attorney scandal, torture memos, eavesdropping, and other investigations are still going to be open. It’s going be his Attorney General pursuing indictments.

    The AG nomination is going to be one hell of a battle regardless of who is in the White House. The world will literally be watching. I say Spitzer just to show those clowns we are in change, and I am joking. Fitzgerald is my early choice.

  • I’d love to hear the argument for executive privelege in this case. There is no accusation that or reason for the president to have been involved in the Siegelman case. I cannot imagine a scenario where the president would have even be involved in a conversation about it.

  • I doubt anything will happen once Bush leaves office (assuming, of course, he actually does).

    And that is the beginning of the end of The United States of America. This is a watershed moment in our history for we will no longer be what we were when we were founded.

    And the dems are equally responsible for that.

  • The terrible news here is that most Americans no longer hold their leaders accountable for anything when, in fact, people should be taking to the streets demanding Bush’s head (and Rove’s). If Bush and Rove get off scott-free, it will set a very bad precendent for our future leaders. The precedent is: do anything you want, spread lies in order to start a disasterous war, turn justice and governing into games and jokes, and on and on, and nothing you do is a punishable offence. The question is not “Have they no shame?” (They don’t.) The question should be Have we, American citizens, no shame?

    • Comments are closed.