House panel votes to hold Karl Rove in contempt

Fireworks, originally uploaded by Lindsay Beyerstein.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 20-14 to hold Karl Rove in contempt for ignoring subpoenas and refusing to testify.

Comments

[Norman Costa]

Me too!

[Michael Webb]

I've been holding Karl Rove in contempt for years.

[DrDick]

Damn! Ted Stevens AND KKKarl Rove on consecutive days. It is good to be an American again.

[swampcracker]

Fireworks. How appropriate. Lets celebrate.

[cfrost]

A 20 to 14 vote along party lines. So the GOP members of the committee still think it's swell for Rove to piss on the capitol steps in broad daylight. BushCo's loyal lapdogs as always. Woof, woof.

[Daniel]

And again, tell me please, just where in our Constitution does it mandate that the Executive submit to the whim and dictates of the Legislative?

[Onymous]

Article 1
Section 8
Clause 9

Clause 9. The Congress shall have Power * * * To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; (see Article III).

Which is to say, they're a real court with real court powers, like subpoenaing people.

[Norman Costa]

Onymous,

Bless you, and your children, and your children's children, down to the seventh generation.

Taking your lead I would like to add the following from our Constitution where the "whim and dictates of the legislative" may be exercised.

Article II.

Section 2.

The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.

He shall have power, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but THE CONGRESS MAY BY LAW VEST the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office ON IMPEACHMENT FOR, AND CONVICTION OF, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

[The Phantom]

The House of Reprehensitives deserves to be held in contempt, and more power to Rove for blowing them off.

Lets see how far this thing goes. My prediction: not too far.

[Lesley]

Yes, but what does it mean? Anything? Jail, a fine, an ankle bracelet, a portrait in the hall of shame?

[Daniel]

Onymous

Executive privilege. As the Supreme Court as asserted, "the neeed for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process."

Sure the House can impeach Rove. Let them impeach away, that is within their right, and it is the Executive's right to order his advisors not to cooperate with House investigations, if he deems it necessary to the function of the Executive.

No big deal here. It's all political.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Executive privilege only covers advice to the president.

Karl Rove has been subpoenaed to testify about his alleged machinations in the Siegelman prosecution and other hijinks at the DOJ. So far, no one has alleged that Rove told the president what he was doing.

Either Rove has to admit that he participated with the knowledge and approval of the president, or he has no claim to privilege.

[cfrost]

if he deems it necessary to the function of the Executive

And therein's the problem: the Cheney/Bush administration considers anything and everything necessary to do whatever they want, and thus anything they and their minions do lies beyond the purview and oversight of congress or the courts. I don't know how you define fascists, but that pretty much fits for me.

Let me guess; the folks upthread who dismiss this contempt citation as mere politics took congress' Whitewater & Lewinsky investigations seriously and would support further investigations if H. Clinton had won the Dem. nomination and the presidency?

[Jack]

C'mon, Phantom, you're smarter than that. I don't usually agree with you, but you are usually a more reasoned person than most of the "He's one of us so he must be right" GOP crowd.

Karl Rove has ignored a congressional subpoena. That's very simple; it matters not whether you agree with the subpoena or not.

[parse]

Karl Rove has ignored a congressional subpoena. That's very simple; it matters not whether you agree with the subpoena or not.

Really? Do you condemn the "Hollywood Ten," who were blacklisted because the resisted the subpoenas of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee looking for evidence of Communist influence in Hollywood in 1947?

[The Phantom]

Jack

I don't think that this Congress has any interest in seeking the truth. I believe that they would like to have a show trial with lots of high dudgeon and klieg lights.

Karl Rove has a moral duty not to be part of this.

If there are issues to be pursued re the Alabama governor trial, then let them be pursued by prosecutors. Not by Pelosi's henchmen, who already have convicted Rove in their minds and who want to impose the death penalty by hanging on the Capital steps, as pay per view special prompoted by C Span.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Congress is investigating, not prosecuting. Rove worked for the US taxpayer. We have a right to learn, through our representatives in Congress, whether he was abusing his office for partisan purposes. There are 14 Republicans on that committee. So, the idea that the deck is stacked against Rove is absurd. He also has plenty of legal help. He's getting more than a fair shake.

This week, the DOJ's Inspector General concluded that Rove's protegee Monica Goodling habitually violated federal law with partisan hiring at Justice. Goodling was the White House Liaison and her main point of contact was Rove.

[Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog]

The Phantom is the best parody winger I think I've ever run across. "Rove has a moral duty not to be part of this!"

[The Phantom]

He is a fine moral leader.

I hold the House in contempt of the public for harassing him. Send Pelosi to the brig, 30 days of bread and water.

[The Phantom]

Though not prosecuting, it is virtual prosecuting.

I can see these self righteous criminals wagging their fingers at the beloved Rove and yelling at him, and making him seem like the worst person who ever lived. About as honest a process as a witch trial conducted by a triumverate of Olbermann, Hugo Chavez, and the Daily Kos guy.

Think what it would mean for Rove's self-esteem.

He will never appear, and should never appear!!

[Jack]

"I don't think that this Congress has any interest in seeking the truth. I believe that they would like to have a show trial with lots of high dudgeon and klieg lights."

Like the Whitewater / Impeachment fiasco?

[The Phantom]

Jack

I opposed Clinton's impeachment, and had many fights over that issue with my conservative friends over that issue.

I also opposed some of the scorched earth Republican bullshit that went along with it--as when Clinton sent missiles after the suspected arms plant in Sudan, that was derided by talking points Republican types as "Monica missiles" meant to distract from the Lewinsky story. Clinton tried to do something good re terror and some Republicans attacked him for doing so.

I remember this well .

[Jack]

Thanks Phantom. It's so seldom I hear anybody from the right admit that the Clinton impeachment was anything other than a feeding frenzy over a president who was (in my estimation) too conservative :-)

We must agree to disagree on this one. Karl Rove should have been subpoenaed by a previous Congress. There is clearly a good possiblity of criminal behavior that should have been investigated when it happened. But the GOP controlled Congress then, and they were ridin' high and feelin' their Cheerios. (And droppin' their G's.)

I do think, however, that the current leadership should realize they're not getting anywhere with this sometime soon and get on with the business of undoing the last seven years of Rove's protege.

Revenge is ugly; Clinton's impeachment was nothing more than the revenge of the right for "what you people did to Richard Nixon" (direct quote from a friend of mine). We shouldn't be doing the same thing to get back at the GOP for the disgrace that was the Clinton impeachment effort.

So, in other words, I feel split on this. Injustice was done; but revenge isn't going to get us anywhere.

I am just so tired of all this "Get 'em" crap . . . .

[Margalis]

Invoking executive privilege means you show up and say nothing, you can't just blow off a subpoena entirely. And there is no executive privilege here, it has nothing to do with Bush.

Rove has the same "moral duty" to blow off the subpoena as I do to rob a liquor store.

[norbizness]

Well, at least a GW Bush-appointed judge who was mentored by Rehnquist, has today put Phantom's belligerent and numerous (like Morbo's children) objections concerning executive privilege to rest.