Apparently Karl Rove just told a Congressional subcommittee that he would not bother to show up to an oversight hearing, despite a subpoena.
In justification his lawyer cited a letter allegedly sent by the President's lawyer, to Karl Rove, telling him not to appear, claiming Executive Privilege.
Chairwoman Linda Sanchez issued a six page ruling (pdf)
It is a thing of beauty, rather nice crisp point by point refutation of the assertion by Rove and his lawyer.
Stern letter, well written, are nice.
Now what?
...
Personally I'm pondering whether Congress will keep surrendering power to the Executive until Article 1 Section 6 is breached.
At that point it will be too late, of course.
More like this
Yesterday, Karl Rove was interviewed by Robert Siegel on NPR.
I know too much schadenfreude isn't good for you, but I just couldn't resist posting this little excerpt of Rovian braggadocio from NPR last week:
Is this the same way that one "accidentally" invades a country, "accidently" sets up offshore subsidiaries to avoid US law, and "accidently" profits off the misery and death of the poor and unfortunate? I think that Rove needs to be "accidentally" deleted from his job.
What are the penalties for contempt of congress?
The letter does a nice job of demolishing any arguments put forth by Rove that he has an immunity whatsoever. In fact by his refusal to testify under shaky legal theory he pretty much admits that he knows something but isn't going to tell anyone.
I say congress should appoint the Sergeant at Arms to do his duty and go and carry Rove before them.
It would be nice if they nailed his hide to a wall. That said, I think that the system will have to be gamed until November.
Having Rove get a pardon after telling Congress to subpeaona itself would be counterproductive.