Karl Rove on the wrong side of the law?

The House Judiciary Committee voted along straight party lines this morning -- 20 to 14 -- to issue a contempt citation against former White House political maestro Karl Rove. The offense: failing to honor a subpoena to testify about his role in the federal and possibly political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a popular Democrat sent who was to prison on corruption charges that are now under appeal.

A coalition of groups pushing for the contempt citation hailed the move. "We couldn't be more pleased with the Judiciary Committee for standing up for American democracy and the rule of law by recommending to the House that it find Rove in contempt," said Robert Greenwald, president of Brave New Films, the organization that launched the Rove campaign. (The group also wants Connecticut's Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman banished from the Democratic Party for supporting GOP presidential nominee John McCain).

Yesterday the coalition delivered three boxes of petitions containing 127,000 signatures urging a contempt citation to California's Linda Sanchez, a subcommittee chairwoman, who opined, "I think it's ridiculous that Karl Rove thinks that he doesn't have to follow the law. Nobody in this country should be above the law."

But with the contempt resolution now on its way to the House floor, the committee's ranking Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, castigated the action as "a Salem witch trial of Karl Rove."

Accusing Democrats and reporters of a rush to judgment, Smith said there is no credible evidence to support a contempt resolution against Karl Rove.

Rove failed to appear before the committee, citing executive privilege, and the session came to be known as "the empty chair hearing." But he did answer questions in writing. As C2C (Countdown to Crawford) reported last Wednesday, Rove sent an unsigned letter to Smith, denying any involvement in Siegelman's case. In the letter, forwarded to the committee by his attorney, Rove said:

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 Gov. 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. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.

But Siegelman, in a subsequent e-mail to Times staffer Tom Hamburger on Thursday, called on the former White House strategist to testify under oath. He particularly questioned whether Rove talked about the case with Bill Canary, a Republican whose wife is the U.S. attorney in Montgomery, Ala. That office indicted Siegelman -- though Canary recused herself from the case. In the e-mail, Siegelman wrote:

Rove refused to deny that he had plotted with the US Attorney's husband, Bill Canary, to get his wife to further the joint state/federal investigation which was started by Rove's client, the Alabama attorney general. Karl Rove built his career in Alabama working with Bill Canary. Rove's client started investigating me in 1999 right after I endorsed Al Gore. Then the wife of Rove's associate, Laura Canary, accelerated the case federally in 2001, she indicted me during the 2006 campaign, and she brought me to trial less than four weeks before the election. There is sworn testimony that Bill Canary said that he had it worked out with Karl to destroy me, and that two Alabama US Attorneys would do the job. Both those US Attorneys did in fact indict me. And now, Rove refuses to deny that he talked to Bill Canary about prosecuting me. They sent me to prison on less evidence than this.”

Back at the Judiciary Committee, Smith warned his colleagues that "the American people have a low opinion of Congress" and "the relentless efforts to malign an outgoing administration only lower the public's opinion of Congress."

Meanwhile Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, wrote a letter to the committee pointing out that Rove "has not asserted any personal privileges." In the letter to Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), Luskin writes:

He has declined to appear because he was directed not to do so by the president of the United States. While we understand that the committee disagrees with the legal position that the president has taken, punishing Mr. Rove will not vindicate the committee's authority. Neither will a contempt vote resolve the dispute.

The question of executive privilege -- does Bush or any POTUS have the right to withhold testify of top aides -- is now before the U.S. District Court in DC.

Reminds me of what was being said in this article

I like how you worded your question. It's very true that legal and illegal are simply matters of opinion in America today, despite the black and white nature of many laws. And what's more sad is that the average guy is left no option other than to defend which version of illegal best serves him. And more amazing is how many defend the version of illegal that doesn't best serve him.

As for Karl Rove, he's a smart guy that has figured out that hiding in plain sight on Fox News is what serves him best and not the American public that he and his charge professed to be so concerned about during the process that led up to them stealing the office. But, now that he works for the constantly self-espousing fair and balanced folks at FOX News, we don't have to worry about him. (Like George W. Bush isn't in his top 8 on MySpace anymore)

Precedent has been been pretty clear on the subject of executive privilege - it can only be invoked in instances where conversations between the President and his aides could be divulged. The reason for this is that if these were not protected, then aides would be reluctant to be frank with the President for fear that they would be discovered in Congressional investigation.

However, the House Committee on the Judiciary wants Karl Rove to testify because of the possible politicization of the Justice Department in the conviction of Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. It has been confirmed by both Rove and his lawyer that the President had no involvement whatsoever in the case. The invocation of executive privilege in this case is absolutely baseless and has no legal merit.

There's no way in hell this Bush administration would EVER have done anything that was politically motivated or that wasn't in the best interest of the American people or their delusion of a government that actually serves them! That's why they had to fire the guy from a Few Good Men. He suddenly became a loose cannon, despite him being on their side.