Rove End-Runs House Democrats

Former White House political adviser Karl Rove, who has refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, ran an end-around against Democratic leaders by having his denial of sponsoring a political prosecution inserted into the Congressional Record by a senior Republican.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee’s ranking Republican, submitted a written question-and-answer exchange with Rove in which the political strategist said he played no role in the controversial prosecution of Alabama’s former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.

The surprise move angered the panel’s Democratic leaders who have been discussing whether to hold Rove in contempt for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena that demanded that he testify under oath at a hearing two weeks ago.

The Judiciary Committee has been seeking Rove’s public testimony about the Siegelman case since April as part of its investigation into allegations that the Bush administration used the Justice Department to prosecute more Democratic public officials than Republicans.

Rep. John Conyers, the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, had rebuffed a compromise floated by Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, to have Rove testify in private or respond in writing to the committee’s inquiries about the Siegelman case, as well as the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys.

Luskin then turned to Smith, who posed some questions to Rove and inserted the Q-and-A into the Congressional Record.

In his written responses, Rove denied speaking to anyone “either directly or indirectly” at the Justice Department or to Alabama state officials about bringing corruption charges against Siegelman.

”I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf,” Rove wrote. “I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.”

Instead, Rove said the Judiciary Committee should press Siegelman to justify his allegations about Rove’s interference in the case.

"The committee should require Siegelman to substantiate his allegations about my 'involvement' in his prosecution – something he has failed to do in either media interviews or court filings," Rove wrote.

Siegelman was convicted of corruption in 2006, but was released from prison on bond in March after an appeals court ruled that “substantial questions” about the case could very well result in either a new trial or a dismissal.

Siegelman has long maintained that Rove was intimately involved in the prosecution and other attempts to blunt Democratic inroads that Siegelman’s governorship represented.

In an interview with The Anniston Star on May 18, Siegelman said Rove first targeted him in 1998.

“It started when Karl Rove's bag man, I call him, Jack Abramoff, started putting Indian casino money into Alabama to defeat me in 1998,” Siegelman told the newspaper. “Shortly after I endorsed Al Gore in 1999, Karl Rove's client, the attorney general of Alabama (Bill Pryor) started an investigation.

“In 2001, Karl Rove's business associate and political partner's wife, Leura Canary, became a U.S. Attorney and started a federal investigation. … It started with the attorney general and the state investigation, followed by the federal investigation, followed by indictments in 2004, and then another series of indictments leading up to the 2006 election … but, yeah, it's all part of the same case.”

When Rove failed to appear at a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on July 10, Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-California, the panel’s chairwoman, said the assertion of executive privilege did not justify Rove’s failure to appear.

“The proper course of action is for Mr. Rove to attend the hearing pursuant to subpoena, at which time any specific assertions of privilege can be considered on a question-by-question basis,” Sanchez said, speaking to an empty chair that was reserved for Rove.

Smith criticized Sanchez and defended Rove, saying his refusal to appear before the committee ''is not a sign of an administration refusing to cooperate with Congress.''

Aides to Conyers said Wednesday the committee intends to vote to hold Rove in contempt for refusing to respond to a subpoena seeking his testimony.

That will likely set the stage for another court battle revolving around executive privilege. Already, White House chief of staff Josh Bolton and former White House counsel Harriet Miers have ignored congressional subpoenas to testify about the U.S. Attorney firings.

Last month, during a hearing on the case in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Judge John Bates said Congress could have had Bolton and Miers arrested for refusing to comply with the subpoenas.

While historically Congress has ordered people detained for refusing to comply with subpoenas, the power has not been used in modern times.

Jason Leopold has launched a new Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org

Dan Froomkin on WH Contempt/US Congress

Dan Froomkin: Hi everyone and welcome! I know there's a presidential campaign going on, but pay attention. There's still a lot of important stuff going on in this White House.

Today's column (hopefully coming very soon) starts off with my thoughts about yesterday's congressional hearing into the missing White House e-mails. My conclusion: The Bush White House has made a mockery of the Presidential Records Act. I've also recently written about FISA, Bush the Space Cowboy, the Secret Rove and -- for those of you who just can't get enough campaign news -- about Bush's apparently cluelessness about what a drag he'll be on the Republican ticket.

*snip*

Berkeley, Calif.: What is the attorney general's justification for keeping secret any opinion written by the office of legal counsel? Do any credible legal scholars agree with him? The concept of a secret law seems very un-American to me.

Dan Froomkin: Bingo. Who really can defend secret law -- other than a few addled Cheneyites? It's just not American.

The House Strikes Back

Contempt

Paul Kane writes in The Washington Post: "The House yesterday escalated a constitutional showdown with President Bush, approving the first-ever contempt of Congress citations against West Wing aides and reigniting last year's battle over the scope of executive privilege.

"On a 223 to 32 vote, the House approved contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers over their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and allegations that administration officials sought to politicize the Justice Department.

"The vote came after a morning of tense partisan bickering over parliamentary rules, including a GOP call for a vote on a motion to close the chamber that briefly forced lawmakers to leave a memorial service for Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), who died this week. The conflict was capped later in the day when most House Republicans walked off the floor and refused to cast a final vote. They accused Democrats of forcing a partisan vote on the contempt citations instead of approving a surveillance bill supported by Bush.

"Democrats said they were left with no choice but to engage in a legal showdown with Bush because he has refused for nearly a year to allow any current or former West Wing staff member to testify in the inquiry. Citing executive privilege, the president has offered their testimony on the condition that it is taken without transcripts and not under oath."

Richard B. Schmitt writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt. They said the contempt question was hardly a partisan issue because it concerned the system of checks and balances under the Constitution. Choosing not to enforce the subpoenas would be giving 'tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial presidency, above the law,' said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) . . .

"Under the law, contempt of Congress charges are investigated by the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But the Justice Department has taken the position in previous cases that it will not allow a U.S. attorney to conduct such an investigation if the department has determined that executive privilege was well-founded."

But: "

Under the resolution, even if the Justice Department declines to investigate, the House can file its own civil lawsuit against Miers and Bolten. Such a suit would be filed in federal court in Washington by the general counsel of the House. It could come at any time and would not depend on the approval of the Justice Department."

Here's the angry response from Perino:

"Today, the United States House of Representatives did something that had never been done in the entire 150-year history of the contempt of Congress statute: it voted to hold in contempt two top White House officials who had been directed by the President not to comply with House Judiciary Committee subpoenas on the basis of the President's assertion of Executive Privilege. The officials in question are the Chief of Staff to the President and the former Counsel to the President, two of the very closest advisers upon whom a President must rely. This action is unprecedented, and it is outrageous. It is also an incredible waste of time -- time the House should spend doing the American people's legislative business. . . .

"This is as a blatant sop to the far left and shameful behavior by House Democrats."

See also:
#1 Mukasey Refuses Probe of Bush Aides: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq-4ZBiiUcq8IsbGQ0SHW04WS4kgD8V49BB03