Today’s Top Story You Didn’t Hear About

AP via NYT (buried inside the paper), Rove Subpoenaed on U.S. Attorneys [emphemeral link, sorry],

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove, a former top White House aide, to testify about the Bush administration's firing of United States attorneys and prosecution of a former Democratic governor. The subpoena, by Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, continues a long-running legal battle and directs Mr. Rove to appear for a deposition next Monday. Mr. Rove previously refused to appear before the panel, arguing that former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. Mr. Conyers said the transfer of power in the White House, with President Obama now in office, could affect the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove.

Rep. Conyers is the right sort of pit bull. If there's one thing Karl Rove wants as much as vampires want garlic and bright light, it's a chance to testify under oath.

Update: There's better coverage at the Washington Post, but I don't read that over breakfast.

This entry was posted in Politics: The Party of Sleaze. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Today’s Top Story You Didn’t Hear About

  1. R. Blagojevich says:

    No Democrat actually has the stones to compel that subpoena. When it comes to confrontation they just back down. They couldn’t even block Roland Burris.

    For those of you who have not seen this, here is a great video of John Conyers wife behaving inappropriately and then loosing an argument with a fourth grader:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TvgtGlcdTE

    John Conyers knows Karl Rove, the former Presidential Communications Director, would embarrass him so badly that he would never even consider enforcing this.

  2. LACJ says:

    Enforcing…the subpoena? Is Rove going to refuse to comply and take that risk?

    That would be foolhardy.

  3. R. Blagojevich says:

    Yes he will.

    John Conyers and the rest of the democrats will wilt, and either let it peter out or settle for some illusory promise.

    If he had any stones he would have done something back before we Invaded Iraq or Suspended Habeas Corpus.

  4. LACJ says:

    Well, I hope you are wrong, and I think you are likely wrong.

    But I cannot say that I am sure you are wrong.

    One thing about ‘stones’, as you call them (that’s not a dig, perfectly suitable word, in my book) is they tend to become more apparent as one’s surroundings change. I.e., power has shifted, and a person who before was unable to assert him or herself might feel differently under new conditions.

    Its the difference between punching the guy who says something highly offensive to you in a bar where, in the first scenario, he has 5 of his friends with him and you have none, and in the second, you have 5 friends and he has none.

    I tried to think of a better way to put that, but I think you can see my meaning.

    Rove claimed Executive Privilege, on loan from Bush. Now that is no longer applicable. Rove refused before, and Conyers went to the courts, who backed him up, but then Bush’s DOJ refused to do anything. So it could be argued that Conyers has been steadily working on this the whole time.

    What was Conyers to do in that case, with the politicized DOJ refusing to act? I will tell you what. Wait. And stew.

    Knowing, and please do not neglect this critical point, knowing that Rove and his patrons would very likely lose power. And then it would be game on. ;-)

    I really hope this last point is thought through completely. The failure of Bush and Rove is that, while they often were tactically smart, they were strategically stupid. I hope I am using the right terms here, and on reflection I do not like this phrasing very much.

    To put it in another way, their thinking was too short-term. They couldn’t see the bigger picture, which soon will have them becoming defendants for their many crimes. Look at what we are all talking about, as soon as they finish! To try, or not to try? That is not a good signal for them.

    They never learned game theory. Rove should have finished college. Bush should have paid attention. You can see their lack of strategic understanding in their many diplomatic failures and even in some of the so-called successes.

    Finally, ‘before we invaded Iraq’? You lost me there. That has no relation, we are talking about actions from, what, 2004-2005 if I am not mistaken, definitely after the war started in 2002.

  5. LACJ says:

    Well, looks like Rove is not going to show next week.

    Let’s see what happens next. Rove may as well play hardball; if he goes down, he will be in prison until he is ancient.

  6. What happens next:

    1. Rove and his cronies are digging up every skeleton that can be attributed to Conyers and people he cares about.
    2. Conyers becomes aware that Rove knows of these skeletons and will drag them out if he goes down.
    3. Conyers loses interest. (Please note, Conyers does not list anything about Rove on his webpage. And Conyers has already folded on the Bankruptcy issue that is listed)
    4. If Conyers does go forward, he uses the opportunity to grandstand as opposed to actually get anything out of Rove.
    5. Rove says I’ve got one of these: http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/740061.htm

  7. LACJ says:

    Well he hasn’t got a pardon, now has he? Gee, that sucks.

    Moreover, the pardon would not immunize him from the subpoena.

    Wishful thinking on your part, I am afraid. Rove will try to avoid it, but he is very likely to see criminal charges in the next year or two.

  8. R. Blagojevich says:

    Well it looks like we are never going to find out if Rove has a pardon tucked away.

    Conyers has lost interest. He must have heard the dinner bell at the government slop trough, and ran off to get his stimulus share.

    What does game theory have to do with anything? Rove knows Conyers is weak and will not do anything, even if Conyers does not realize this himself. It’s called Beltway Politics there is no need to complicate it with academic theories.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.