« Previous | Main | Next »

Rove Subpoenaed in Congressional Probe

Share

May 22, 2008 3:29 PM

ABC News' Jack Date, Theresa Cook and Jason Ryan Report:  The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former senior Bush advisor Karl Rove, a panel spokesman tells ABC News.

The committee has been investigating claims that the Bush administration played politics in decisions made at the Justice Department, including the firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.  Those firings created a political firestorm on Capitol Hill, and led to former attorney general Alberto Gonzales’ resignation last summer.

Additionally, the committee has launched an inquiry into the Justice Department's prosecution of former governor Don Siegelman, D-Ala.  A federal jury convicted Siegelman in 2006 on bribery and other corruption charges.  He faces a seven-year prison sentence, but was released on bond while his attorneys appeal the conviction.

"Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate," House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."

The subpoena calls for Rove to appear before the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee at 10:00 a.m. on July 10.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Chairman Conyers, Rove's attorney Robert Luskin said, "the decision about when, where, and what a former assistant to the President may testify about raises issues of executive privilege and separation of powers that Mr. Rove does not control."

Rove had already received a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee on the same subject, which is being litigated.  In his letter to Conyers, Luskin wrote, "it is hard to see what this [subpoena] will accomplish, apart from a Groundhog Day replay of the same issues that are already the subject of litigation."

Luskin's letter also called into question Conyers motives and intentions, referring to his "reported remarks about the need for 'someone' to 'kick his [Rove's] ass.'"

Contacted by ABC News, Rove's attorney said he did not wish to comment beyond his letter.

The committee's top Republican, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, also criticized the move by his Democratic colleagues, charging that they are "not really interested in the facts."  Smith said panel Republicans "will accept Mr. Rove's offer of voluntary information, choosing responsible oversight over partisan games."

Senior Bush administration officials who have been asked to testify on the matter have asserted executive privilege or told lawmakers that they would only appear if they were not sworn in and if there were no transcripts of the hearing made.  That offer has been rejected by Democratic legislators.

The House Judiciary Committee also revealed that the Justice Department is investigating committee allegations of "selective, politically-motivated" federal prosecutions.  In a letter sent to Conyers and released by the committee, the Justice Department's office of professional responsibility confirmed that it is investigating Siegelman's prosecution and several others.

May 22, 2008 in Veepstakes | Permalink | User Comments (57)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Poor Conyers. Don't he know rules apply only to little people. And they aren't gonna apply to Rove.

Speaking of Rules applying only to the little folks, what's the deal about not seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida!?!

The rules are clearly inconvenient at this point. And this wrong must be righted by changing the rules.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | May 22, 2008 3:40:23 PM

They absolutley need to seat these two states, but how is the questions. Should their be no penalties? if so, does that mean the states can now choose their own voting date...I don't have an answer.

Posted by: newera | May 22, 2008 3:51:11 PM

Joaquim

If by witch you mean criminal...yeah then it is a witch hunt.

Are you seriously defending the architect who gave us with Bush, Cheney Rummy and the Committee for Liberation of Iraq...the war, and all the crap they are leaving with...

I am sure historically this is only the first of the crimes to be uncovered.

He should think of this as a warm up.

Posted by: dl | May 22, 2008 3:52:44 PM

The answer is the rules must be followed. BOTH campaigns agreed to them from the start. If the rules are tossed at this point, why have rules?

Posted by: dano | May 22, 2008 3:53:34 PM

Since Karl Rove openly discusses issues on public airways I really want someone to tell me how Executive Privilege will stand the test against a Congressional suppoena?

Posted by: OnTheGloryRoad | May 22, 2008 3:56:24 PM

Witch Hunt? You gotta be kidding. That is all the Bush administration has done for the past eight years - if not worse, and Karl Rove was right in the middle of it. He is a big boy, so don't worry Joaquin, he can afford the best attorneys to defend him.

Posted by: sunny | May 22, 2008 3:57:27 PM

If executive priviledge applies, I'd be surprised. Maybe we could talk to the state trooper who gave George W. his first DUI unless he is also covered by E/P.
Further, illegal acts have no priviledge.

Posted by: DAVID NH | May 22, 2008 3:57:44 PM

Cool lets hope Rove and Bush do get away with murder. This is a small issue compared to all of the feloneys Bill and Hillary committed. Now we have a x crack user running for president. Thank you Soros and Moore for financing him because if you 2 had not Hillary might just have won! Lets hope Bush pardons our boy Rove in the end if it gets to the end of the presidency.

Posted by: Mike | May 22, 2008 4:02:37 PM

Once the Bush Administration has left the White House, there will be no more specious and spurious claims to executive privilege to cover his lackies! Let it rain, let it rain. It's about time that justice is served.

Posted by: KatoP | May 22, 2008 4:03:00 PM

Dano - When rule become inconvenient they must be changed. Everyone knows this.

The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.

HIllary won the vote in two states (MI – FL) that are prohibited from allocating delegates to the nomination convention. As Long as Hillary won these states it does not matter that the candidates did not campaign there or if Obama’s name was even on the ballot. The Voters cannot be disenfranchised by their party, especially the Florida voters who were disenfranchised in 2000. Obviously, these inconvenient rules must be changed and these delegates must be seated.

Rules apply to little people. They do not apply to Rove and they don't apply to Hillary.

Posted by: The Commander Guy | May 22, 2008 4:04:04 PM

I wonder what will happen after November when in all likelihood congress and the executive branch will be controlled by Democrats. I would hope that investigations from the VPs energy commission to the bungling of the war (in all of it manifestations) would be undertook. But I fear that Dems would shy away from this course for fear of looking partisan. The facts are the facts and if high crimes and misdemeanors were perpetrated then they need to be brought to the light of day. If this costs the Dems some of their political capital then so be it. WE THE PEOPLE need to know exactly what went on in this administration and who knew about it.

Posted by: BonVivant | May 22, 2008 4:05:07 PM

He's an over-rated operative. Unfortunately, half of America believed the "terrorist hype." That's fine. November will be different!

Posted by: JOE | May 22, 2008 4:06:04 PM

Gonzales fires 8 US attorneys? Funny, when Clinton first came into office, he and Janet Reno fired 93 U.S. attorneys. Funny how nobody was outraged then. In fact, in the case of the investigation into the Whitewater deal, Clinton fired the Little Rock U.S. attorney. They replaced that U.S. attorney with a former law student of Mr. Clinton's. And, yet, they're trying to make hay on what the Bush administration did???

Posted by: MDB | May 22, 2008 4:22:12 PM

That is all this do nothing congress is good for..

Posted by: Linda | May 22, 2008 4:26:37 PM

MDB - I think others more qualified will comment on your remarks. When Clinton replaced the attorneys that is the perrogative of any newly elected President and it wasn't the first time. Bush didn't do it, but when attorneys didn't tow the mark Gonzales fired them not on something of merit, but in political retribution during service when they followed the law against the wishes on a political agenda - big difference I think.

Posted by: OnTheGloryRoad | May 22, 2008 4:26:39 PM

I'm glad Congress is addressing our real issues. Because political posturing is so important to me. It really makes a real difference to the little guy. All this political posturing.

Posted by: p0s3r | May 22, 2008 4:30:17 PM

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Subponaed by the most ethical congress EVAH!

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Posted by: Balderdash | May 22, 2008 4:31:44 PM

I would love to see Bushie's little toadie Rove twist slowly in the wind. Better yet, let him rot in prison for the rest of his life.

Posted by: Agnostic Free Thinker | May 22, 2008 4:33:19 PM

How convenient the liberal mind is that that they can forget the Clinton fired 3 times as many prosecutors on his watch and there was know out cry about that. Hypocrits! These people server as political appointees on an at will basis. Get over it and enough of the Dem fishing expeditions, your just making yourselves look like the petty little people that you truly are. Concentrate on some real issues like opening up oil drilling and exploration in our own country so we can get of the OPEC roller coaster ride we find our country on. If you can't be part of the solution, get out of business' way so the market can solve the problem. But that would be to go again some of St. Marx's tenets wouldn't it?

Posted by: drogum | May 22, 2008 4:43:01 PM

In 2002 when Max Cleland was running for re-election Karl Rove designed ads showing Max Cleland's face after Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The good old association factor harken to the days of McCarthism or to this day the Rev Wright events. Cleland lost. Karl Rove knows exactly what he does, he has given lectures and classes on winning by negative campaigning and the put them on the defensive. To even begin to claim Executive Privilege in this case is to insult the people of this great nation - while he banters forth on public airwaves and seems quite satisfied with himself and his conduct, there are some things the taxpayer has the right to haul him before Congress - we call that accountability. A word this Administration seems to think applies to everyone else, but them.

Posted by: OnTheGloryRoad | May 22, 2008 4:44:32 PM

Post a comment