Conyers Subpoenas Rove in U.S. Attorney Firing and Siegelman Case

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:20:43 PM EST
Tags: Karl Rove (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here we go again. House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify about the U.S. Attorney firings and Don Siegelman case. Via Marcy, here's the subpoena (pdf).

The subpoena commanded Rove to appear on Feb. 2 for a deposition on the U.S. attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey named a special prosecutor in September to investigate whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, other Bush administration officials or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

Conyers is hoping having Obama in the White House may make a difference.

''Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk.''

< Monday Night Open Thread | Will Third Time Be the Charm for Liberty City Trial? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Conyers Subpoenas Rove in U.S. Attorney Firing and Siegelman Case | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Legal question: what can Rove be charged (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:30:58 PM EST

with if he fails to appear - other than contempt of Congress? What are the prospective penalties for that anyway? Could a person go to jail, as in contempt of court?

Remember (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:37:40 PM EST

Judy Miller?


How about Susan McDougal? (none / 0) (#4)
by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:51:36 PM EST

: More Apropos (none / 0) (#6)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 08:08:03 PM EST

Although unlike Miller and Rove, McDougal had nothing to do with those legendary Aspens which turn in clusters, because their roots connect them..

: How About Pete Seeger (none / 0) (#19)
by kaleidescope on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 11:05:03 PM EST

He got sentenced to ten years for contempt of HUAC for refusing to name names.

I fully expect Rove (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by weltec2 on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 08:30:33 PM EST

to thumb his nose at it. He won't show up. And even if somehow they find a way to force him, he won't say anything.

: Well Then (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 08:31:48 PM EST

He is likely to serve time.

Accountability (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 07:19:06 AM EST

The Republican's continued to hold hearing on Clinton well after he left office. They wanted to be sure to tarnish the Democratic brand to the max. They've never had a problem with playing hardnosed politics. But Democrat's are supposed to let it go "for the good of the country" as with Iran/Contra. They always buy into the Republican spin that the country wants to move on. I don't think that's true. The 2006 election was all about accountability. Democrat's need to fulfill that promise. We need to restore some level of faith that our elected officials work for us and aren't above the laws they're paid to enforce.

I'm sure it was a delivered with (none / 0) (#3)
by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:46:37 PM EST

an appropriately stern demeanor...

I hope it works this time! (none / 0) (#5)
by mmc9431 on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:55:52 PM EST

Can he claim that what they are asking about was covered under executive privlege?

This will just fire up the Republican opposition to Holder. They want him to assure them that he won't go after them before they agree to confirm him.

actually, (none / 0) (#7)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 08:28:31 PM EST

They want him to assure them that he won't go after them before they agree to confirm him.

they don't have to agree to anything. their opinion is strictly for courtesy purposes, no one really gives two nanny goat sh*ts what they think.

oh, wait, that's if someone like me was in charge, who took that whole majority thing seriously. instead, we have weenies all over the place, masquerading as democrats.

geez, what a waste of time and effort.

perjury trap again (none / 0) (#12)
by diogenes on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 09:46:14 PM EST

Do you really want a Republican Congress in 2017 to play perjury trap with Obama aides? If this were really about an actual crime being committed in US attorney firings then maybe the people in charge of the justice department should have been called to testify. Karl Rove as a political advisor can suggest anything he wants, but he didn't fire anyone.

If you're suggesting that (none / 0) (#13)
by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 10:02:58 PM EST

it's not even possible that Rove committed a crime, guess again.


P.S... what Republican (none / 0) (#14)
by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 10:03:27 PM EST

Congress?


Are you really that obtuse? (none / 0) (#15)
by shoephone on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 01:45:19 AM EST

You don't remember all the Justice Department officials who were called before the House and Senate Judiciary committees in 2007?

Gonzalez
Sampson
McNulty
Goodling
Schlozman...

Shall I continue, or wouldn't you rather just google it?

Oh, and yes, by all means, let's NOT hold corrupt people accountable, for fear they may come after Democrats later.


: justice dept officials in Congress (none / 0) (#18)
by diogenes on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 07:07:54 PM EST

How many of the above were tried and sentenced for criminal offenses?

Have you forgotten! (none / 0) (#17)
by SoCalDem on Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 08:58:29 AM EST

The Democrats have been in the majority since 2006, you remember when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, how can you try to hold someone accountable if you are part of the problem? Pelosi and other members of are own party are making money off of this war. Be a little hard to investigate Bush & Company without bringing that up, why else remove it from the table?