Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee (chaired by John Conyers [D-MI]) voted 20-14 along party lines to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for not showing up to testify back in early July. This vote was only a recommendation, and it will be up to Nancy Pelosi whether or not to bring this for a vote before the full House in September. If they did vote to hold him in contempt, the citation would be forwarded to the Justice Department for prosecution, or file a lawsuit, as she has done against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers.
Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, called the vote “gratuitously punitive,” since the question of executive privilege was already pending in a federal court (and that decision will be my next blog post tonight).
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) made the comments, “This is simply more election year politicking. Nothing more need be said.” And I partly agree with that, but I have ALSO said before, that Rove should be held in contempt. You can’t just refuse to testify to Congress, and if Rove has nothing to hide, he should just testify.
I would’ve voted with the Democrats on this one. But before the Republicans get on my case for this, let me remind you that many of you called foul at the Clinton administration for not having his people testify. And to the Democrats who are calling foul now, if you didn’t cry foul at the Clinton administration, you have no right to do it now. Investigations shouldn’t be partisan-controlled. Period.
Tags: 2008 Election, Attorney, Bill Clinton, California, Chairman, Congress, Contempt of Congress, Court, Court Case, Democrat, Democrats, Department of Justice, Election, Elections, George Bush, George W. Bush, Harriet Miers, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, John Conyers, Josh Bolten, Justice Department, Karl Rove, Lawyer, Michigan, Nancy Pelosi, Partisan, Politics, Representative, Republican, Republicans, Robert Luskin, Speaker of the House