Rove’s Contempt: For All the Reasons We’ve Been Talking About
As many of you noted while we were having our little server issues this morning, HJC just recommended Rove be held in contempt by a vote of 20-14. The big challenge at this point will be convincing Speaker Pelosi–whose phone number is (202) 225-0100–to take up this recommendation immediately, and do so with the goal of holding Rove in inherent contempt. The ruling from Judge Bates–on Miers’ and Bolten’s contempt–should be forthcoming, which may or may not accelerate this process.
While we’re waiting for Bates’ ruling, I thought I’d look at Conyers’ report on the contempt vote for Rove–not least because it hits on many of the points I’ve hit on here–but which journalists seem to be missing. Among other points Conyers makes are:
Rove Didn’t Deny the Central Allegations against Him in the Siegelman Case
As I pointed out in this post, Rove doesn’t even answer the jerry-rigged questions Lamar Smith gave him to try to get him out of testifying. In particular, Rove refused to answer questions about whether he had spoken with "any individual" aside from DOJ or Alabama officials regarding the Siegelman prosecution. As Governor Siegelman pointed out when he did our live chat last week, that doesn’t even exclude conversations with Rob Riley or Bill Canary!
First, Mr. Rove’s written answers to the questions posed by ranking Member Smith do not appear to resolve the questions about his possible role in the matter. For example, Mr. Rove was asked if he ever communicated with “any Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any individual” about the investigation or prosecution of Governor Siegelman. He answered only that he had not communicated with “Justice Department or Alabama officials” about the matter. The failure to address whether he communicated with any other “individual” suggests that Mr. Rove may have communicated with political operatives such as Bill Canary, the Governor’s son Rob Riley, non-Department of Justice Executive Branch officials such as his White House colleagues, or even members of the federal Judicial branch.
The White House Is Relying on an Untested "Absolute Immunity" Claim
As I’ve been pointing out, the only assertion by the White House on this point doesn’t even mention "executive privilege." Rather, it relies on a much more expansive "absolute immunity" from appearing before Congress, one that no court has ever recognized.
The July 9, 2008, letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding claims that Mr. Rove “is constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his or her tenure as a presidential aide and that relate to his or her official duties.” As discussed in greater detail below, no general freestanding immunity exists for former presidential advisers and thus the proper course is to recognize claims of privilege only when properly asserted in response to specific questions during a particular hearing.
[snip]
Second, there is no proper legal basis for Mr. Rove’s refusal even to appear before the Subcommittee as required by subpoena. No court has ever held that presidential advisers are immune from compulsory process – in any setting.
This Immunity Would Be Even More Expansive than Clinton’s Alleged Actions in the Jones Suit
Finally, Conyers hits on a point I’ve been making–that Fielding has basically asserted (with no backing from DOJ, apparently) that the issues about which Rove was asked to testify were part of his "official duties" in the White House. Conyers goes even further than I have on this point, by noting that if this claim were to stand, it would mean that Rove was invoking greater immunity from testimony than even Presidents enjoy.
According to Mr. Fielding’s July 9, 2008, letter, the White House believes that the matters covered by the subpoena relate to Mr. Rove’s “official duties.” If that assertion is to be credited, then apparently this Administration believes that Mr. Rove’s official duties included the alleged pressuring of the Justice Department to criminally prosecute a political opponent of the President’s party and also included ensuring the political loyalty of the U.S. Attorney corps and forcing politically unhelpful U.S. Attorneys to resign. While it is true that Mr. Rove denies at least some of these allegations, the White House claim that these alleged actions would fall within his “official duties” is disturbing. On the other hand, if the White House does not believe that such interference in the Department of Justice’s prosecution function was an official duty of Mr. Rove, then either the claim of immunity fails on the Administration’s own terms (because they claim the immunity applies only where official duties are involved) or they are actually asserting a total immunity from compelled testimony for Presidential aides on any subject and regardless of any nexus to the individual’s White House responsibilities. That form of immunity, of course, would be even greater than that held by the President, as the Clinton v. Jones case makes clear, and should be rejected as legally unsupportable. [my emphasis]
It’s a pretty good summary of the audacity of Rove’s claims to be immune from testifying. I mean, heck, if Clinton had to testify about his Clenis, then it seems like very little to ask for Rove to testify about all his actions involved in politicizing DOJ.
Yeah! First!
Great thanks for all that you do.
I hope Nancy gets enough calls to support contempt for Rove that her phone lines melt.
I’d love to see em get Rover- of course he’d be pardoned- but it would still be a show of life in the democratic party…Trouble is- we’ve got August break coming up at the end of the week- time’s running out.
Looks like Conyers’ office is monitoring this blog…
Kudos Emptywheel, I only hope Nancy will move on this.
In order to get rid fo Rove, and the rest of BushCo., we’re going to have to get rid of Pelosi.
Another dem speaker would have behaved the same way during this congress I’m afraid.
Pelosi’s been protecting dems from purple/red districts. She tries not to bring bills up unless she knows that they win- and that they will not require votes from other dems that might endanger them….it’s all politics.
And then Pelosi wouldn’t be so bad after all, maybe.
Unkle Karl to be held on contempt charges?
Is it really time to invest in porcine aviation?
Be still my trembling heart, be still…
What difference does this make. The Repukes insist on backing the party at the expense of their own power and Nancy Plodalong hasn’t indicated, even at the Netroots love fest, that she’d allow a floor vote. The 9% solution.
Arbusto @ 7
She did say she was listening to Conyers on this issue. While I expect they may wait until they get the ruling from Bates, I do think they’ll vote soon thereafter.
this vote doesn’t appear to be threatening to me- but who knows?
I would like to volunteer my labor to rebuild a jail cell in the Congress basement
I recommended that they rent a shipping container and plunk it down in front of Congress, outfit it with airconditioning and TV, but make Rove-in-Jail a tourist destination for all the high school kids visiting DC.
I love the idea–and let’s sell US Constitution souvenirs in front of the trailer.
The only tweaking I’d suggest: the a/c might be a little too much like the comforts of home away from home. This is jail in which Rove holds the keys to his freedom–just spill it, Rove. Why not (instead of A/C) have a member of Congress remove clothing from Rove as needed if Rove looks like he’s overheating.
OMFG. That’s hysterical.
We could call it “D*ck-in-a-Box.”
I think we have to reserve that for Darth Cheney.
Nah. Darth would pull a Bill Casey on us before he ever let the elected minions of the citizenry force him into captivity.
He’d disappear just like he did between the time he shot his buddy in the face and whenever the media was finally able to make contact with him.
OT – but why in the world would a campaign set a fundraising goal of $10.6M for a two month period? That’s what the email I just got from McCain’s campaign says:
McCain opted in for federal funding which puts some restrictions on what he can raise. Most of his donors will give to the RNC who will spend it the same way he would anyway I suppose.
One feels compelled to ask; is this more kabuki or may we have some reason to hope that spinal lacksity has finally begun to stiffen into more than mere ‘intent’.
It has been a long, hard road and its pavement much resembles that of the proverbial road to hell …
Is this a heavenly whiff or are we to be strung along, once again?
Oh well, ’tis an excuse to call upon the great and wonderful Peolosi, who, once upon a time, promised us the ‘most honest government’ this nation has known.
We are still waiting. But we are also much more inclined to do.
While the leadership has, apparently, been resting on its laurels, we have not … and.we.will.not.go.away.
Last nioght here in the Denver area, the McCains held a fundraiser
It was an $80,000 per couple affair according to local news
Nate at 538 has some interesting ad expenditure numbers posted- he draws attention to Florida where Obama has been spending a shit pot full of money and McCain has spent nothing….Obama is also coming up a bit in Florida polls. Worth watching.
McCain is spending heavily in Pennsylvania.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
link to 538– a great site for campaign numbers
So, what would be the downside, politically, for Nancy to go after Rove?
None, as far as I can tell.
From Conyers’ report, KKKarl didn’t really deny he was involve as EW has noted.
(my enphasis)
Some independent voters might take it to be a “political prosecution” but I agree- it seems like a pretty low risk move- and would show that congress is not going to be run over by a criminal.
Called, they have a lovely “voice mail” they connect you with to leave a comment. Hope she gets a lot of calls
That tells us what we need to know. Hoyer and others had live staff answering the phones during the FISA debacle. Nancy-poo, as Speaker, hasn’t a enough budget or courtesy for that, I guess. Or has she recently discovered that government spends too much and she’s cutting back?
The community organizer, grandmother, concerned leftist legislator from SFO stereotype was never accurate. Among other attributes it fails to convey, it leaves out her ability ruthlessly to shut out her opposition, even among her friends and neighbors. Is she suggesting that she opposes us more than the friendly incumbents of the GOP? Inquiring minds want to know.
I think a good deal of what is happening is orchestrated by Hoyer/Emanuel/Pelosi. I keep going back to the decision to move the DNC to Chicago and close the DC office. When I tried to contact them in DC two weeks ago the phone number was “out of service”.
I guess everyone by now knows what I am going to say, but still, I must;
the president’s claim is not untested, it is in fact tested.
the president has any and every privilege he chooses or invokes, there is nothing he cannot do, no claim he cannot make, no law he must follow, no precedence that holds, no court ruling that means anything at all
no matter what congress decides, the president has all the power he claims and chooses to use
PERIOD
the only means congress has at it’s disposal is to remove the president from office
THAT IS IT
and the president knows this, and he will simply pardon anyone found guilty, he will snap his fingers and make them un guilty
do not suppose for one moment the person has to admit guilt, this simply isn’t true, all they have to do is say;
“I had the power of the president and used his orders, I would be guilty if I did not follow his orders”
AND IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THIS REASONING IS SOUND OR NOT, ALL THAT MATTERS IS CONGRESS CANNOT STOP THE PRESIDENT
unless they remove him from office
now, they can possibly jail rove, Meyers and Bolton with “inherent contempt”, but that can’t possibly stand either, the president will simply have them removed from custody.
sorry, the president now has all the power he claims, all the power he grabs, congress is helpless
“congress is powerless unless they use their power”
and the only power that matters is removing the president from office, since they refuse, the president does indeed enjoy every single stitch of power he claims
Thanks for this as always, Marcy.
Any sense of timing on the Bates ruling? Any day now?
Sometime in August. But closer than that I can’t say.
Would absolute immunity have protected Hillary’s billing records from the Rose Law Firm? No, because she was a “Democratic.” But any record involving Bush, even as owner of the Texas Rangers should be granted the priviledge of “State’s Secrets.”
From Conyers’ report:
Just called Pelosi’s office. Answered by a young man, I started to express my opinion on Conyer’s contempt citation and the guy cut me off and said to use the Speaker’s comment line which he connected me to. Got a recording and it ended with “this mailbox is full”. So much for letting our elected officials know what the unwashed masses think about anything!!!!
OT breaking:
Olmert stepping down in two months:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7533855.stm
If Pelosi lets this go before the full House, certainly in question, every Republican will vote against and enough Blue Dogs will go along to allow Rove to skate.
I just called. Nice chap–COmment Line–Taped Message–but no mailbox full message. Call away folks!
Let’s see, at 10:25 VM is full per FormerFed. At 10:31, No mailboxfull message per dude. At 10:34, I’m routed right to full VM box.
We’re in her bozobin, they’re just dumping the comments on the floor. Again.
Boxturtle (It’s nice in her bozo bin, lot’s of DFH’s like me here)
Called Pelosi’s office, was routed to a full voicemail without human intervention.
There must be a number that donors use that will get by that. Somebody ought to publish it.
Boxturtle (Feeling evil today)
Well, I have a question. I’m told that the only way to hold Congress responsible for their own actions or inactions is to vote them out of office. Then I listen to Jane’s interview with Bruce Fein, and he says the Congress does not have the option not to follow through with their oversight responsibilities, or their responsibility to hold accountable all of those in the administration (executive branch, or judicial, for that matter) that are offending the Constitution because they took an oath. That implies that there is some penalty for not living up to the oath of office that they took. Who imposes the penalty and how?
Well let’s think about this. Which branch of government would hold congress accountable for not fuckin with Bush?
Executive—that’s a big “no”
Congress itself? another big “no”
Judiciary? They either need a criminal referral or a civil suit- would they listen to a civil suit from me complaining about congress? I don’t think so.
That pretty much leaves the voters I guess.
I realize this is somewhat OT, but does anybody know if an Inspector General can be held in contempt for professional malpractice?
I’m thinking that the IG can be impeached for professional malpractice (no matter what the choice of words that make negligence or failure to do the job for which the taxpayers are paying them a high crime or misdemeaner), but I think that would be about it.
What kind of odds are you giving that the speaker will do anything remotely like calling anyone from bushcoland to account for their actions? I am thinking 100 to 1 against her speakership doing anything that might possibly upset the bushWH applecart. I am not talking her retoric, but her actions-which always speak louder than words.
The only hope is if 10,000 volunteers go and help Cindy Sheehans challange to Pelosi. Pelosi is corrupt and complicit and needs to be out of the peoples House.
I didn’t like getting routed to the voicemail box and just hung up. Here is the email comment tool for “communicating” with the Speaker’s Office. Also, the fax number for her regular office appears to be 202-225-4188.
Just called her office and before he could route me I told the aide, “don’t forward me to that mailbox again, it is full and I want Ms. Pelosi to get my message.” He said he would take a brief message and I told him, not very nicely, I’m afraid: “We want Inherent Contempt for Rove. The voters in this country have had it up to here with his criminal activity and we expect the Speaker to uphold the law and the Constitution.”
I called Conyers and got past the receptionist to a Judicial Committee phone-answerer who was fairly intelligent and well-informed.
His argument is that Congress cannot simultaneously pursue both Statutory Contempt and Inherent Contempt and they’ve chosen the former. If they enlisted their own police force to detain Rove, Miers and Bolten, they could only do so until the end of their term, and they would not be able to pursue the case currently in district court.
In other words, they could imprison the three contemptees, who would then sit in jail Judy Miller-style until January, after which the next Congress would have to start over.
I explained to him that this would be better in terms of not being perceived as impotent wimps, but it fell on deaf ears. people ranting on blogs is not a scientific poll, he said. The 9% approval rating is, I countered.
The call didn’t end happily, but he did make the point about the two types of contempt. Any thoughts?
Let me put it to the group in a different way: if WE had a majority in Congress, how would WE proceed?
I called Pelosi’s office and asked what the speaker’s position was on the issue of the inherent contempt motion against Karl Rove.
I was told that I could look at her website or leave a comment on the her comment line. I asked if her website stated her position on the issue. He said he did not know. I explained that the reason I was calling was to inquire about the speaker’s position and so I was disappointing that I could not get an answer, even an answer that says she if deciding. So I left a comment about all of the above.
Did anybody else call and inquire about the speakers position on this issue? What was you experience?
Mukasey won’t enforce contempt of congress
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..nforce.php
Can we at least Impeach Mukasey for refusing the enforce the contempt of congress. No Atty General would be better than this criminal.
Careful, though.
While I don’t think Mukasey will enforce this, this instance of a subpoena differs dramatically from the instances Mukasey was talking about (which is why I keep harping on these issues).
What Mukasey has always said is that he would not enforce a subpoena after DOJ gave the person an opinion saying EP was valid. In this case, WH never asked DOJ for an opinion about this subpoena. So to argue that DOJ can’t enforce this subpoena based on prior DOJ guidance, Mukasey woudl first have to assert that he believes the opinions from last year–up to and including the “official duties” claim–holds true for this subpoena, which asks for different stuff.
Agreed. However, it is just ridiculous stalling to wait until some unknown “time in September” as Pelosi has specifically stated will be done. At a minimum, the contempt should be voted out before they leave for break so that it is transmitted to Mukasey while the Congress is resting their poor, tired soles and souls from all that really hard work they have been doing. That way they would have Mukasey’s answer waiting when they return. Instead, Pelosi hold the country’s citizens, the Constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law in such contempt that she is intentionally wasting an entire month, if not more.
Three phrases:
Running out the clock (as in basketball)
Inherent contempt (as in you ain’t nevah gonna see it)
Bottom Line Stupid Pelosi sending things through the D.C. Circuit or otherwise running out the clock and they skate.
I’m thinking Pelosi and Rove on “Dancing with the Stars” has more possibilities than any consequences for Rove. You can take that to the bank.
Though I haven’t been told this precisely, I have been led to believe that the reason they’re waiting until the Bates ruling is that the Bates ruling will either be a big win–or it will establish a solid case for Inherent Contempt.
In other words, the reason to wait until September (that is, until after the Bates ruling) is that it raises the chances of whatever contempt you do do being successful.
I called Nancy P but her mail box was full…
WayneC
I totally agree with you on this parris. The President can, has and will do whatever he damn well wants and we are powerless to do anything because we wait for our officials to do what we ask them to do. They are politicians and will do whatever it takes to be reelected. And guess what? We’ll reelect them. Again and again. Bush was reelected for god’s sake. So, it’s up to us, the voters, as rwcole says in #36. But besides console eachother I feel powerless. It’s been said many times here before, that the Dems are “stalling.” We still don’t know why. With a 9% approval rating why isn’t some kind of action being taken of ANY issues??
I’m soooo tired of this BS. I think I’ll have another Fat Tire and retire.
WayneC
This is excellent analysis by Marcy, and tight reasoning by Conyers and his staff, but I do not doubt that left to the courts they will find a way to rationalize any kind of privilege, for any Republican administration particularly this one.
Well, I am afraid I see in all this only another case of ”rushing to the brink” of excitement only to fall down into the hole.
Mr Rove is everywhere. His opinions are even more available than when he was the President’s number one lackey. I just read a July 31 article from him over at the WSJ.
But then he seems very unwilling to accept the Democrats request for personal face to face hearings with the camera’s on, and oaths administered!
Now some say it is fear, but I think not. I see him teasing the Democrats, the liberal media, and, please don’t get upset, even the bloggers with what he will do and what he will say. I see wild speculation as every comment by him and his lawyer is analyzed up and down to see what he said or didn’t say.
Something like this –”Yes he said he didn’t speak to this group, but WAIT he didn’t say that he didn’t speak to the little green man at Area 51, so maybe that means something. If only we could corner him and as him specifically about what he said to the green man, why then we would bust this case clean open.” (note the quotes are for emphasis.)
So let us follow that fictional logic with the little green man a little further to make a point.
Various court rulings, or perhaps Mr Rove’s own sense of humor and a desire for more material for a new book finally bring him to the hearings—
Conyers at EW’s direction: ”Mr Rove did you speak to the little green man about the Governor’s case?” ”Well Sir, I won’t say that I didn’t mention it in passing in a casual conversation but I don’t recall anything particular. I only say that much because there was some scuttlebutt about the Governor at the time and it could have come up. I surely wouldn’t want you to think I was concealing anything.”
… once again over the brink into the hole. (sorta a rabbit hole in a classical way)
on the re-read, I see I said ”as him” in the 5th paragraph, 2nd line. It should have been ”ask him.”