Rove Above the Law
Opinion
Pull Up a Chair, Mr. Rove
Friday 11 July 2008
»
by: Dana Milbank, The Washington Post
Karl Rove had never been so agreeable.
The former chief strategist to President Bush was the only witness listed on the agenda for yesterday's meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, and he proved to be uncharacteristically contained.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee holding the hearing, declared herself "extremely disappointed and deeply concerned" about Rove's behavior.
Rove was silent.
Sanchez spoke of his "role in the alleged politicization of the Justice Department" and his hand in "the unprecedented firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006."
Rove offered no defense.
"If such allegations were true," said Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah), the ranking Republican on the panel, "they would be very serious."
Rove did not dispute this.
There was good reason for The Architect's quiet: He was out of the country. He had no intention of appearing before Congress, and he had sent the panel the equivalent of a doctor's note - from no less a medical authority than White House counsel Fred Fielding - saying he did not have to respond to the congressional subpoena.
So lawmakers decided to pull out one of the most feared weapons in their arsenal: the empty-chair stunt. They printed up a name card for "Mr. Karl Rove" and displayed it on the witness table. They put out a glass of cold water with ice, and pointed the microphone toward an empty wooden armchair.
"This meeting today is a travesty of a mockery of a sham," protested Cannon, paraphrasing the great authority on separation-of-power disputes, Woody Allen.
It was a mockery, to be sure, and it had elements of a sham. But where was the travesty?
Congress knows the White House can run out the clock on the various investigations into the Bush administration. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers have already been held in contempt of Congress - but even if Bush's Justice Department decides to prosecute those cases, his administration will be out of office before they are resolved. A contempt citation for Rove, which could come as soon as next week, would face the same sort of delay.
That makes the immediate gratification of the empty chair more appealing.
The antiwar activists from the liberal Code Pink group certainly thought so. Before the hearing began, they entertained the arriving crowd with a chant of "They do the crime and we do the time." Then one of them placed an "Arrest Rove" sign on the empty chair. "Ma'am, we can't do things like that," a Capitol cop told her gently. "Let's not go overboard."
No, going overboard was the responsibility of lawmakers. Not only did they have the empty chair at the witness table, but they also put up 18 more empty chairs in the first row, each labeled "Reserved for Witness." Building suspense, the committee members waited until 15 minutes after the hearing's start time to appear on the dais, giving Rove's ice time to melt in his glass.
"Former presidential adviser Karl Rove has refused to appear today to answer questions in accordance with his obligations under the subpoena served on him," Sanchez announced with indignation.
And we thought he was just stuck in traffic.
"We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal even to appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez continued.
Cannon, doing the White House's bidding, attempted to pretend that Rove really wanted to be at the hearing. He asked Sanchez if she was "aware that Mr. Rove is out of the country on a trip that was planned long before this hearing was set."
Sanchez evidently was not. "We were not made aware by his attorney or by Mr. Rove himself," she said.
Of course, the letter from Fielding, supplied by Rove's lawyer, made clear that his absence had nothing to do with his foreign travel. "Mr. Rove is not required to appear in response to the committee's subpoena. Accordingly, the president has directed him not to do so," the White House counsel wrote.
But Cannon, undeterred by this hole in his logic, went on to scold Democrats for opting "to hold a hearing today in front of an empty chair," which he labeled a "partisan stunt" and "partisan antics."
Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), the top Republican on the full Judiciary Committee, also had some thoughts about the unoccupied chair. "Madame Chair, although we find ourselves in front of an empty chair, it is not a sign of an administration refusing to cooperate with Congress," he maintained.
Republicans, eager to be done with the empty-chair event, offered to consent to a ruling by Sanchez that Rove's legal excuses weren't valid. But that wasn't good enough for Sanchez, who favored the spectacle of a roll-call vote.
The committee voted, 7 to 1, to order Rove - again - to appear before the committee.
The witness displayed no emotion
Pull Up a Chair, Mr. Rove
Friday 11 July 2008
»
by: Dana Milbank, The Washington Post
Karl Rove had never been so agreeable.
The former chief strategist to President Bush was the only witness listed on the agenda for yesterday's meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, and he proved to be uncharacteristically contained.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), chairman of the subcommittee holding the hearing, declared herself "extremely disappointed and deeply concerned" about Rove's behavior.
Rove was silent.
Sanchez spoke of his "role in the alleged politicization of the Justice Department" and his hand in "the unprecedented firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006."
Rove offered no defense.
"If such allegations were true," said Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah), the ranking Republican on the panel, "they would be very serious."
Rove did not dispute this.
There was good reason for The Architect's quiet: He was out of the country. He had no intention of appearing before Congress, and he had sent the panel the equivalent of a doctor's note - from no less a medical authority than White House counsel Fred Fielding - saying he did not have to respond to the congressional subpoena.
So lawmakers decided to pull out one of the most feared weapons in their arsenal: the empty-chair stunt. They printed up a name card for "Mr. Karl Rove" and displayed it on the witness table. They put out a glass of cold water with ice, and pointed the microphone toward an empty wooden armchair.
"This meeting today is a travesty of a mockery of a sham," protested Cannon, paraphrasing the great authority on separation-of-power disputes, Woody Allen.
It was a mockery, to be sure, and it had elements of a sham. But where was the travesty?
Congress knows the White House can run out the clock on the various investigations into the Bush administration. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers have already been held in contempt of Congress - but even if Bush's Justice Department decides to prosecute those cases, his administration will be out of office before they are resolved. A contempt citation for Rove, which could come as soon as next week, would face the same sort of delay.
That makes the immediate gratification of the empty chair more appealing.
The antiwar activists from the liberal Code Pink group certainly thought so. Before the hearing began, they entertained the arriving crowd with a chant of "They do the crime and we do the time." Then one of them placed an "Arrest Rove" sign on the empty chair. "Ma'am, we can't do things like that," a Capitol cop told her gently. "Let's not go overboard."
No, going overboard was the responsibility of lawmakers. Not only did they have the empty chair at the witness table, but they also put up 18 more empty chairs in the first row, each labeled "Reserved for Witness." Building suspense, the committee members waited until 15 minutes after the hearing's start time to appear on the dais, giving Rove's ice time to melt in his glass.
"Former presidential adviser Karl Rove has refused to appear today to answer questions in accordance with his obligations under the subpoena served on him," Sanchez announced with indignation.
And we thought he was just stuck in traffic.
"We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal even to appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez continued.
Cannon, doing the White House's bidding, attempted to pretend that Rove really wanted to be at the hearing. He asked Sanchez if she was "aware that Mr. Rove is out of the country on a trip that was planned long before this hearing was set."
Sanchez evidently was not. "We were not made aware by his attorney or by Mr. Rove himself," she said.
Of course, the letter from Fielding, supplied by Rove's lawyer, made clear that his absence had nothing to do with his foreign travel. "Mr. Rove is not required to appear in response to the committee's subpoena. Accordingly, the president has directed him not to do so," the White House counsel wrote.
But Cannon, undeterred by this hole in his logic, went on to scold Democrats for opting "to hold a hearing today in front of an empty chair," which he labeled a "partisan stunt" and "partisan antics."
Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), the top Republican on the full Judiciary Committee, also had some thoughts about the unoccupied chair. "Madame Chair, although we find ourselves in front of an empty chair, it is not a sign of an administration refusing to cooperate with Congress," he maintained.
Republicans, eager to be done with the empty-chair event, offered to consent to a ruling by Sanchez that Rove's legal excuses weren't valid. But that wasn't good enough for Sanchez, who favored the spectacle of a roll-call vote.
The committee voted, 7 to 1, to order Rove - again - to appear before the committee.
The witness displayed no emotion
Comments
How did you feel about Scooter's comutation? Feel like Nixon's pardon? Ollie North and Admiral Poindexter?
When a Republican justice department investigates a Democratic Congressman with a freezer full of cash, isn't this a legimate inquiry, even if those initiating the investigation may want to embarass the Democrats generally?
Are you making the argument that illegal or inappropriate behaviour on the part of the party in power is excusable because they are in power? I think not.
OK, so let's refine the argument. Are you saying because Plame's husband attacked the factual under pinnings of one of the key the arguments the administration's rationale for war, disclosure of Plame's CIA posting was legitmate?
First, whether a crime was or was not commited isn't the end of the inquiry. Congressional investigations do have political motivations, in part; however, exposuring governmental conduct to the light of day serves another purpose. We live in an open society and we citizens have a right to have our representatives ask questions about matters of public policy and public behaviour.
What public purpose was served by the Plame disclosure? Even if it was not a crime, why was this done? Was this not intended to discredit the information provided by her husband? At the time of the disclosure, did the administration have solid information that rebbutted the Wilson report?
If the sole purpose of the disclosure was to provide those commentators sympathetic to the adminstration fodder to attack Wilson without the use of any new facts to support the use of the "16 Words", is this not a legitimate are of public inquiry? If the forged and discredtited Niger documents we the sole basis upon which the 16 words ended up in the state of the union address, then the motive for discrediting Wilson is a legitimate area of political inquiry.
Since we both are of an age that we can remember Watergate, I want to say that I believe there are still many Nixon supporters that think the entire matter was a Democratic lynching. However, I for one, think the Watergate hearings were very important. While there was not clear proof the inner circle at the White House had advance knowledge of break-in, many other matters came to light: large unreported campaign funds in cash stored in the safe of CREP, the use of these funds to "help" the burglars, the deliberate thwarting of the investigation by the administration, the use of "dirty tricks", etc. Do agree that air such embarassing behaviour, serves to warn future administrations that if they behave badly, they may be publicly exposed, embarassed, and potentially convicted of a crime?
Why does Karl Rove get a free pass? Even if the Plame disclosure was not a crime (it is not necessary for me to agree with that position), aren't the facts surrounding the decision to leak this information a legitmate area for inquiry?
But there are current issues; withdrawal from Iraq; a nuclear Iran; afghanistan, a presidential election, oil shortages, a banking system about to melt down that seem far more important, in my humble opinion. Valerie Plume was not an important spy. She suffered no serious harm.
After you put Bush and Rove behind bars, then what would you propose that Obama do about these big issues?