Karl Rove Could Land in the Slammer if he Doesn't Appear Before Congress

Big words are flying like "contempt" and "jail" and Rove may not be able to think his way out this time.

(SALEM, Ore.) - "Rove has a week to appear before this committee. If he doesn’t we’ll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We’d hold him in contempt or go and have him arrested." Strong words from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., who's gunning for the big game; Karl Rove.

Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, issued a subpoena to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony about the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's case.

Wednesday, Rove attorney Robert Luskin sent a letter to the committee saying Rove won't agree to testify voluntarily.

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers said.

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

In another development, Chairman Conyers was notified by the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, that they have opened an investigation into allegations of selective prosecution of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat, and others.

Appearing on MSNBC with Dan Abrams, investigative Correspondent with Newsweek Magazine, Mike Isikoff, says Rove may indeed be involved in a process that could bring him down. Congress has power under what is known as Inherent Contempt.

The Congressional Oversight Manual states, "Under the Inherent Contempt power, the individual is brought before the house or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the capitol jail."

John Conyers threat to have Rove arrested goes beyond the Department of Justice, Isikoff said. Three quarters of a century have passed since this process was used in the nation's capitol.

Law Professor Stan Goldman from Loyola Law School said, "They haven't done it since around 1935 or so, they decided they didn't need it anymore because they have subpoena power that could be enforced by way of criminal or civil contempt in the courts."

But an Executive Branch that does not comply with the wishes of Congress may leave the elected body little choice.

"Now if the administration is telling the Congress 'you no longer have this power when it comes to anybody who worked for the Executive Branch,' then it may very well be that Congress will at least think about the idea of exercising its inherent contempt powers which means it literally sends the Sergeant-at-Arms out to find Karl Rove, arrest him and bring him in to be tried," Goldman added.

Inherent Contempt power has been used 85 times in U.S. history, allowing Congress the ability to legally arrest and hold a person in the Capitol jail below Congress.

After the mid 30's this idea faded because Congress will typically try these cases in front of the full House, which means they have to shut down all other business for the extent of the trial. Goldman says that he reviewed this policy and has determined that this case could be tried in front of a committee versus the full House, making the process much simpler.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark May 29, 2008 11:19 am (Pacific time)

Forgive, please --but could not resist these two:

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men": George Orwell

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them": George Orwell
-----------------
BUT if only a portion of our really-free press puts out the detail needed, we may still survive, and still succeed, as we remedy what went wrong with our once-powerful democracy.

Henry Ruark May 29, 2008 11:13 am (Pacific time)

To all: Rove widely noted for strong influence on Bush II actions. SO the rough treatment for police support in the U.S. while multiplying millions for Iraq police is also relevant to Rove avoidance of sworn testimony. Here's one on that: Bush Shortchanges US Police By Paddy , The Political Carnival Posted on May 28, 2008, http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com//86650/ Not my headline, McClatchy's. As the protesters said today, "Endless War, End This War". WASHINGTON — At the same time the Bush administration has been pushing for deep cuts in a popular crime-fighting program for states and cities, the White House has been fighting for approval of $603 million for the Iraqi police. "The White House earlier this year proposed slashing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which helps local law enforcement officials deal with violent crime and serious offenders, to $200 million in the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. =============== In 2002, the year before the Iraq war, the program received $900 million." -------------- Always understood President owed responsibility for nation first and foremost, prior to that in any other situation. Irrational usage of funds abroad, defiying logical allocation to needs here, may well also become impeachment charge, don't you agree ??

Henry Ruark May 28, 2008 4:45 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Here's one book WH will be sure to skip completely, if possible. This is excerpt from "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder": "Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did." By Vincent Bugliosi, who was the prosecutor of Charles Manson. He makes the charge; I only report it for your own-mind evaluation. "See with own eyes at: Alternet Rights and Liberties Newsletter May 28th, 2008

Henry Ruark May 28, 2008 1:58 pm (Pacific time)

To all: For probable-cause of great current concern in Bush WH, be sure to see CNN et al re the new McClellan book. Final dots being connected for that unavoidable impeach or wipe away history situation we keep pointing out here. WIth what McClellan insists is fact, and what is already on record from disclosed CIA and other documentation, we stand silly/stupid/will/less if we let this cabal create the greatest-ever inside-job of seduction, sabotage and cynical destruction, without taking Constitutional action surely now demonstrated as both sensible, seemly, sadly demanded, and perhaps now truly unavoidable if we are not to surrender rapidly to fascism in cabal-formulation.

Henry Ruark May 27, 2008 7:09 am (Pacific time)

To all: For full clarity in Comments from K. vs. mine own, you need to see thread of dialog with Op Ed. K.-crap common-thread among neocons seeking to distort, disturb, disrupt and if can be done destroy open, honest and democratic channels like S-N. National experience shows most of such muck now further extension of 30-year GOP "noise machine", with those engaged in it doing books of escapades and confrontations. Documentation in depth for anyone, with ID to Editor Tim for direct-from-LMA.

Henry Ruark May 26, 2008 10:56 pm (Pacific time)

To All: Since no response from K., as expected, here's the Media Matters content about which he makes distorting (read "lying" if you agree) statement: "One of the most common claims, discussed during 94, 66 and 29 episodes of Dobbs', O'Reilly's and Beck's shows, respectively, is that illegal immigrants are more prone to crime, endangering the very security of Americans. "Noting that no academic or government study on immigration and crime differentiates between illegal and legal immigrants, the Media Matters report says, "The evidence strongly suggests that immigrants in general are less likely to commit comes" than the native population. "As they're wont to do, the cable news anchors have their own statistics that show otherwise. However, their statistics are twisted or misrepresented, as with their claim that a vastly disproportional number of U.S. federal prisoners are non-U.S. born -- about a quarter of the total. "That number is skewed, as federal prisons only comprise one-tenth of the total prison population, and immigration violations are federal offenses. The actual share of non-citizen prisoners is 5.9 percent overall; the foreign-born population of the United States is about 12 percent of the total, which means that foreign-born people are significantly less likely to be behind bars. "Furthermore, the anchors often repeat the same stories about undocumented workers committing crimes over and over again, giving the impression that many crimes are being perpetrated. "Media Matters documents that O'Reilly dedicated segments on 13 separate programs to a single case of an undocumented worker who was responsible for two drunken-driving fatalities in Virginia, "brush(ing) aside arguments that such cases are unrepresentative." ---------- SO, K., "put up or shut up" via comparable documentation NOW for all to see...and then evaluate with their own minds. from evidence seen with their own eyes, from solid-source not open to challenge by anyone with only single-name credibilities and NO FURTHER PROOF despite repeated challenges. We honor participation here, but we do expect it to be honest, open to challenge, and with documentation when sought which is the ONLY way in which any channel respecting its readers can possibly operate. Never forget, either --we do NOT seek "ratings", which are bread butter champagne and high-living for those on network assignment, and thus fully open to those blandishments, lavished ONLY on those whose ratings reach the level demanded by corporate management whose own compensations hang neatly on next-day stock-values in Wall St.

Henry Ruark May 26, 2008 9:53 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Since K. continues to distort (read "flat-lie") about what the Media Matters study really shows, let me bring that part here, now, for your very own "see with own eyes" reading and evaluation. THEN let him offer you the same demanded-courtesy, to put up or shut up...with his own documentation if any-such does really exist. While he's at it, we should also demand proof from him via copy directly from the LA publications which should by now surely have printed any such huge story as his re the ER-rooms closed "in 60 hospitals". SO, friend-K., how much more direct does one get ? You want more ? Can-do...Meanwhile, where's your proof ???

Kittleson May 26, 2008 6:00 pm (Pacific time)

This Rove matter will be decided by the courts, and as it goes through that never ending appeal process much water will have gone under the bridge, so break out the cards and yahtzee for it's going to be a long wait. Regarding Conyers, well there are people who are trying to get this investigated, but who knows? I personally do not care much for Conyers because he is a very divisive individual in some of his national pursuits, one being reparations, which is a fool's errand. I do not expect him to be bringing it up before November's election, but I would not be surprised if other's make it an issue, much to his chagrin, for timing will not be on his side. It's very easy to expose those who have aversely impacted our energy independence needs: Approximately 90% of democrats have voted against developing energy independence and approximately 90% of republicans have voted for it. I would imagine that this will be an election issue quite soon, but hopefully our congress will act in a bi-partisan fashion and collectively greenlight new energy development asap, for we are getting into a deeper hole by the minute. We all need to pull together, we are Americans, let's act like it.

Henry Ruark May 26, 2008 3:42 pm (Pacific time)

K. et al: Perhaps this one can help to bring on elucidation, replacing hallucination: "Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage-----torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians-----which does not change its moral color when it is committed by 'our' side. ...The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." : George Orwell

Henry Ruark May 26, 2008 11:39 am (Pacific time)

K. et al: Your other key-phrase is: "we need to expose those who are literally involved in destroying our economy..." SO ? Why NOT name them, with documentation ? Open-ended accusation gets us nowheres. "See with own eyes" link is surely demanded here, or some documentation from source we know --with is not true of you signed only as Kittleson. IF you have such, put it out here for others to examine, as we try to do in S-N. If you prefer, ID self to Editor for direct, and we can then each put up sources for examination and honest, open, reported evaluation here. Dialog demands more than open-ended accusation, and if you have nothing more, then it is wiser to refrain, albeit swalling tongue after over-use is no easy feat --as I have reason to know, personally ! Your participation really appreciated, and I hope you will continue. Nobody learns from same-hand massage !!

Henry Ruark May 26, 2008 11:31 am (Pacific time)

K-som et al: Yur key phrase is: "It appears that the current president has the same right, right? NO -- since retaliation for opposition in doing the job they are selected for within the Justice system, not necessrily by the retailaiting President, is a different situation entirely. Congressmen appoint their staffs, can change at will, as do businessmen. Presidents often inherit Justice and other dept. personnel, and to smash lives for political advantage ONLY is unacceptable and sometimes illegal. Re yrs on corporate returns, profits must be tremendous to cover horrendous pay for CEOs and key personnel. Dollars gotta come from some source, and theirs is simply product sales. Average small-business return is around 6 percent, sometimes lower, seldom much higher. Daily newspapers often double or triple that, or more after corporate slashes of staff, canny choices for circulation areas (since newsprint, labor are largest costs), and even after huge interest costs for leverage. Things ain't all that easy,K. --as experience will show for those who seek out to know. Re Conyers complaits, those who know trust him far more than they do the complainants, perceived as bitter for own dismissals for cause, as is legally demanded.

Kittleson May 26, 2008 8:38 am (Pacific time)

Thank you for making my point that congressmen/women can fire their people at will, for that is their right because they serve at the will of that congressman. As I wrote below, Clinton fired all Atty. Generals when he took office, which is his right as head of the executive. It appears that the current president has the same right, right? Obviously no one is happy when they are terminated so there will be those who will try to take (political) advantage of this situation. I would imagine that the Bush Administration, like all previous presidential administrations will continue to pursue a seperation of powers tactic in this Rove matter, and I doubt much will happen, certainly not a jail sentence potential for contempt, which I would imagine the president could stop. I still don't see the problem that these people were terminated, because after all they serve at the president's pleasure just like staff of congressmen. As far as staff complaints against Conyer's, these are centered around direct violations of congressional employee policy, so they do need a comprehensive review in this matter. To "This Guy"---we are all suffering from high energy prices, but who for the last 35 years or so have slowed down, even stopped all new drilling and refining? What happens as the prices continue to rise impacting literally everything in the economy? Who are those that are trying to develop and increase supplies? Who are stopping that process? Before long we will see more gas thefts, probably ration coupons, and then some major inflation that will simply turn into potential rioting. I'm no big fan of any big corporation, but have you ever looked at not what the profits are that they make, but the profit margins? This Rove thing is a distraction, we need to expose those who are literally involved in destroying our economy, because a few more bucks for gas will certainly do it.

Julie May 25, 2008 10:01 pm (Pacific time)

Go get em! Nothing could be more proper!

ThisGuy May 25, 2008 4:22 pm (Pacific time)

Every single person in this country, if you were targeted and attacked by Karl Rove et al. (both through attempted murder and identity erasing) as I was from 2004-present in order to protect White House and Supreme Court Counsel Alan Shapiro from being prosecuted for his arrogance in committing these foolish crimes against you, you might feel a little bit different about this entire "executive privilege" bull. I am quite positive when I speak here on behalf of the "less than 100" of us that were targeted by these Power Starved Idiots, that We the People should cut right through this "trial" and simply string Rove and Shapiro's nuts on the flag rope and raise their gangster wannabe asses up and into the wind on the Capitol routunda for a week or two. Gold Certificate Fraud of 1998? Enron? MERS Inc.? JP Morgan Chase? Bear Sterns? Sub-Prime Meltdown? $135 brl oil? $4.00 per gallon gas?
Guess what all of these "scandals" (more like "rapings") have in common? Alan Shapiro!!! Furthermore, I would like to thank the Presidential Identity Theft Task Force for erasing my identity, stealing $50,000 in credit lines from me, creating Patriot Scientific Corp. (PTSC)corporate facades for use in defrauding investors of their 401k funds, and for leaving persons such as myself no choice but to be foreclosed upon (even though all of my "assets" were frozen in bankruptcy.....allegedly) so that MERS Inc. (an Alan Shapiro Creation) would become the default titleholder on property as Second Trustee for the banks. Dammit Glen! I hope you are right!

Henry Ruark May 25, 2008 4:03 pm (Pacific time)

K. et al: Do not put too much credence in that ubiqitous "many complaints by their staff members" stuff...all too often that comes from obvious sources, for obvious reasons. Last word was that all the members of Congress appoint, continue and fire staffers at will. There is NO election nor other choice-process involved, except ongoing influence from campaign contributors and the vicissitudes of close party affiliation. This cometh from working experience in D.C, 3 yrs. as major association information director; albeit some years ago, recent check with old and valued contacts still there assure me things stay tough, mean, demanding, essentially the same...which is why we need complete, radical and extremely thorough clean-out, clear-up, and anti-corruption attack from citizens NOW. 40 years like that is at least 30 too-long !! It is not "government that is the problem", but those we have foolishly allowed to run it --nearly into the ground, it now does appear; and that is OUR responsibility, since it is not only our government, but also --at least yet !--OUR nation, too.

Henry Ruark May 25, 2008 11:06 am (Pacific time)

K-son et al: Few would contend that there is no similar problem to be found in recent history --but this is the problem we have now, and it is never too late to absolutely demand the right ways set forth for us in the Constitution. Even if some leaders are all too guilty of past failures to act, they are in place NOW to do what we have every right to demand and exact from them, no matter what it takes to do so, so long as it is legal and in Constitutional bounds. That's one of the great and most sensational principles of what we --sometimes mistakenly bowing to then-current circumstance--allow to shape and dismount our demands. We cannot erase what history shows us has happened, but there is surely no reason to continue the same errors, when the proper means for remediation are right in our hands --and all we really need is the will to act, given the proven wisdom and wit of the people themselves.

Kittleson May 25, 2008 8:08 am (Pacific time)

I realize Karl Rove has many people who dislike him, but he also has rights. Frankly Rep. Conyers is an individual who has been on the receiving end of many complaints by his own staff members, and Nancy Pelosi has steered investigations by congress awy from him so far. Do many of you recall that over 100 people from the Clinton Administration took the 5TH when they were brought up in front of various committees? This simply is going to be a challenge of power between the Executive and Legislative branches on a matter that is based on the Executive branches ability to terminate without needing to show cause. When Clinton entered office he terminated every Atty. General and staff, which included those that were investigating his activities in Arkansas...now that screamed for a congressional review, but nothing was done.

Henry Ruark May 25, 2008 7:26 am (Pacific time)

"Inherent Contempt" should also cover any Presidential recourse to the myth of the "unitary executive" --if one reads the Constitution as written in accurate English. Perhaps the Sergeant-at-Arms should also collar and drag in the major perpetrator, made responsible by that same set of solid, tested, successful working rules we have known for two centuries as --the Constitution. OR, perhaps, we can simply get on now with what the same Founders set up for ANY such situation of obvious executive defiance of Congress, the ONE chosen out of the famed "three components for governance" for dominance in matters of policy and procedure, via law applied "equally to all". Who knows ? This running tale of horrendous hoose-gow avoidance may yet make its way onto --the whole tv-broadcast afternoon-entertainment shows, since it has the same elements for which advertisers are so willing to pay !!

Glen May 25, 2008 6:15 am (Pacific time)

We may prove to be a nation of laws and not privilege after all.

[Return to Top]