The Rove Subpoena

by emptywheel

I guess it's my day to be underwhelmed.

I find it really hard to get excited over SJC issuing Rove a subpoena today. That's partly for tactical reasons. Until we get the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Harriet and hold her in contempt, after all, it doesn't make sense to subpoena Rove because we don't have the tactically proven tools to enforce such a subpoena.

But it's also a question of focus. We've got a well-supported claim against Alberto Gonzales moving foward right now. And we should have the same on Cheney--there is the same richness of evidence to go after Cheney. Whereas with Rove (with the exception of Presidential Records violations on the RNC emails and, eventually, Abramoff) we don't have that evidence. And without tactical tools to force him to turn over the evidence ...never mind, I'm going in circles.

So without that evidence, we're forced to make claims that, I suspect, aren't entirely well-founded. For example, Leahy states the following in his statement on the subpoenas.

What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these federal prosecutors.  We know from the testimony that it was not the President.  Everyone who has testified said has said that he was not involved.  None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to be replaced.  Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House.

I have no doubt Karl Rove was intimately involved. But for some of the firings (such as that of John McKay) it seems just as likely that Harriet implemented the will of the partisans from the USA's home state--and she was clearly involved in the day-to-day development of the list of USAs to be targeted. Furthermore, with the exception of Iglesias and (to a lesser degree) Cummins, we don't have the evidence of Rove's direct involvement in the firings. And finally--though I seem to be the one person to insist on this--we don't have evidence that Bush wasn't involved. We have only the testimony of those who didn't interact with Bush that they have no evidence he was involved. In at least one case, we have a report that Bush was directly involved, right along with Rove.

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.

The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

Iglesias' name first showed up on a Nov. 15 list of federal prosecutors who would be asked to resign. It was not on a similar list prepared in October.

Democrats have a habit of focusing with monomaniacal intensity on Rove, which often (as in the case of the CIA Leak) allows others equally or more culpable to escape any pressure for their actions. In fact, I suspect a narrow focus on Rove is one thing that led HJC to give Monica Goodling immunity, in hopes they could nab Rove. She used it to get away with clearly illegal activity, but she had almost nothing to implicate Rove. I don't doubt Rove is involved, was (probably still is) directing efforts to use the judiciary to tamper with elections, and is responsive when big Republican donors ask to have their USA replaced.

But I think this subpoena is premature. Before we subpoena Rove, we need the tactical tools to enforce a subpoena. And we need a tighter case of his involvement in these affairs. We'd be better off going after the inconsistencies of the Schlozmans and the Spakovskys to get to Rove, than going after him directly at this point.

I've got just one ray of sunshine for Leahy's subpoena. It's this tidbit, squeezed into the end of his cover letter for Rove:

This response included an attempt to cover up the role that you and other White House officials played in the firings.

I'm not sure what this refers to--I'd love to hear more, Senator Leahy. It might refer to Rove's cameo at the meeting to prep for someone's SJC testimony (Moschella's I think), where he basically told participants to get their stories for the reasons behind the firing straight. In any case--tag Rove directly with such a cover up, and I'll be happier about a subpoena. But for now, I'll just remain grumpy.

Comments

[William Ockham]

I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think anybody in the White House would get all concerned about Harriet Miers getting hauled off by the Sergeant At Arms, but they have to be worried about Rove. I think this is an excellent move because it ups the ante. I will qualify that by saying this is a waste of time unless they are committed to following through.

[green heron]

Perhaps Leahy has learned something new in the last few days.

[bmaz]

I'll pretty much join your grumpiness here, with the sole exception that it doesn't hurt to go ahead and have issued a subpoena to Rove to testify and/or produce documents, just to get his refusal to comply out of the way and established for future use. We don't need "the goods" on Rove to ask him to testify as part of the puzzle on these matters, so I don't think that is a critical element. There exists plenty of basis for asking him questions under oath. I fully agree it is not the critical focus we should be having right now, but as long as it is just keeping procedural details moving, I am ok with it.

[albert fall]

I go along with the person who commented that asking Rove if he was the one who ordered Gonzo to the hospital to appear "on behalf of the President"--which was clearly a rehearsed line Gonzo delivered to SJC--is plenty. If yes, Rove has issues, if no, then the circle of folks who could order Gonzo around is one body tighter.

[Loo Hoo.]

Is it possible that they are handing him some rope? If he knows that they don't know enough now, he may say things that he will regret later.

[On the Clock]

No doubt this feeds the White House line about political motives, because in the short term this move really just serves to keep DOJ scandal at the top of the news heap. It appears political because it is partly political. But at the end of the day, White House claims of political witch-hunting are farcical, and two-thirds of the public are ready to call bullshit reflexively on the administration. So, maybe the political risks are diminished beyond their capacity to damage the overall investigation.

That said, I don't think Leahy would move forward with this without a good file. I think the tectonic plates are shifting rapidly after the Comey earthquake, which registered between a 6.0 and 7.0 on the Richter scale.

[Carolyn in Baltimore]

They have already asked him nicely several times. It will take time to get the subpoena served and have him not show. So no action anyway till Sept. I don't mind him thinking about it over August.

[On the Clock]

No doubt this feeds the White House line about political motives, because in the short term this move really just serves to keep DOJ scandal at the top of the news heap. It appears political because it is partly political. But at the end of the day, White House claims of political witch-hunting are farcical, and two-thirds of the public are ready to call bullshit reflexively on the administration. So, maybe the political risks are diminished beyond their capacity to damage the overall investigation.

That said, I don't think Leahy would move forward with this without a good file. I think the tectonic plates are shifting rapidly after the Comey earthquake, which registered between a 6.0 and 7.0 on the Richter scale.

[emptywheel]

albert fall

But I think that falls (sorry) udner the same category--a focus on Rove when there are other more likely culprits.

It was Cheney's damn program. Several pieces of reporting have already said he was at hte forefront of the response, both then and since. So why focus on Rove, when Cheney is more likely?

[Katie Jensen]

I also think that Harriet meirs is so pathetic that she might have been able to garner sympathy. She is clearly not alone and not being attacked by the big bad mean congress, which is what I fear might have happened if they had gone after her tooth and nail without these other examples of obstruction.

I also think that this sets up a pattern where they are blocking every attempt in a very public way for the congress to get information. I think it beats the drum over and over again that they are obstructing justice. In my opinion it says in a very loud and clear way that they are refusing to cooperate and it doesn't look good to the public.

In the end is it possible that they could take out the administration for obstruction of justice since we have evidence that they are all working together to block the information. They are co-conspirators preventing congress from doing it's duty of conducting over sight. These issues all have ramifications to our constitution and to our ability to behave as a democracy.

Is that possible that this is the strategy?? I think at the very least the public is getting a drip by drip idea that Bush is refusing to work with congress on just about every investigation. I was amazed at the number of republican who they allowed to speak on c-span this morning stating that the president should not be above oversight or above the law. One or two expressed the opinion that perhaps congress is being over zealous as payback for Clinton but stated that Clinton cooperated much more fully than Bush is. It's the first I have heard turning the tide so to speak. I think the message is getting out to the public that he is preventing the truth from getting out and that he wouldn't be doing this if he didn't have something to hide.

I could swing either way here, but for the sake of the argument that's my two cents.

[On the Clock]

Sorry for the double-double.

[nomolos]

At this point I have to believe that the line "This response included an attempt to cover up the role that you and other White House officials played in the firings." is very important.

It seems that the turkeys in power never seem to get it that it is the cover up not the crime that becomes the uber issue and the one that brings them down. Frankly I think the HJC and SJC have gone way beyond the attorney firings and are now going for cover up and collusion and one step closer to impeachment.

There would be no way in heck that they could get impeachment going just on the fired attorney issue alone.

[Boo Radley]

"In for a penny, in for a pound."
IMVHO and FWIW, Rove is a lot less likely to be perceived as a victim than the relative unknowns, Harriet and Josh. If SJC is unable to enforce the subpoenas, that failure makes a much more effective sound byte with Rove's name in it. The public is much more likely to be concerned about Karl Rove's influence on US Attorneys than the unknowns, Harriet and Josh.

[EH]

What is supposed to be so pathetic about Harriet Miers? Sure, she looks mousy, but what does anybody know about her demeanor on the job? I certainly haven't come across anything illustrative.

On The Clock: That's some tortured logic, like saying the purpose of murder is to give electric chair manufacturers something to do. Just because something has a political dimension that doesn't mean politics is the cause. In old tymey terms it's a fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

There are no political risks in this investigation as it's been carried out so far, solely because Leahy doesn't go all Kagro OMGIMPEACH. The Judicial Committees are taking the conservative line on this whose purpose will be to engage a process that conservatives cannot quibble with. This administration is being given plenty of opportunities to come clean, which means we get to repeat this dance of being frustrated by their responses to this state of affairs. It's all of a piece, though. The more times the administration stonewalls the more legislative avenues they cut off.

[DISISUS]

Somebody convince Leahy not to recess the Senate in August. The
Bushies are waiting 'round the corner..Too much B.S. is in the offing. Shame on us all if it happens.

[pseudonymous in nc]

Scott Jennings is subpoena'd as well. That should have taken place a while ago, perhaps when Sampson, Goodling and Taylor were being hauled in, and before it moved up to the principals. And Jennings is part of a nexus of little soldiers, implicated in the Hatch Act-violating briefings as well as the DOJ firings.

[marksb]

And, if we look at this from a political marketing point of view, having a contempt event happening on Miers and Bolton while pinning the subpoena tail on Rove's elephant--and eventually contempt after *he* doesn't show up, while demanding a special prosecutor, and hearing the escalating mutinous rumblings in the House for impeachment of Gonzo (at least)...it's just great politics.

Back the WH into the corner and make the ugly beast get nasty. Set 'em up to publicly act like the dirty rats they are and keep it going right through the election. Can't buy this kind of long-term market presence and message---going negative without having to say a word. We ought to set up a poll to guess the date De Man goes under 20%...

[Boo Radley]

"What is supposed to be so pathetic about Harriet Miers?"

Robert Bork said that Miers has, quote, "no ability to write clearly and argue incisively..."

[Woodhall Hollow]

If I read the subpoena correctly, it said that Rove and Jennings had to show up with all their documents on Aug 2nd, so perhaps Leahy is considering holding hearings through the Aug recess? Can he do that if the Senate is out of session?

[global yokel]

The basic problem with all of this wrangling between Congress and the White House is that we have a Senate half-full of cowardly and unprincipled Republicans who will not take action against the Bush administration. When push comes to shove, they will circle the wagons and protect their own, the Constitution be damned.

[OldCoastie]

I am hopeful that if the Dems keep making the admin spin all those plates in the air simultaneously, plates will start to fall...

I do not think the Congress should take August off.

[emptywheel]

pseudonymous

Agree--I'm absolutely in favor of the Jennings subpoena.

[Katie Jensen]

The more I think about it and read what folks are saying the more I think the politics behind the dems strategy is solid. I think they are being "overly cautious", but then I know that they are fearful of "looking" as if they are seeking retaliation.

I got to thinking about how this plays out over the long haul. We have Libby, (let's say you are a republican and you give the administration a pass on this one.) Then you have Libby's commuted sentence. You give another pass. Then you have Harriet Meirs refusing to testify. Then you have Bolton refusing to testify. Now you have Karl Rove who is once again caught in the middle of obstruction. It really does start to stack up and look like the administration is hiding a lot.

I think politically it is working to break down the denial. I was listening to Snow on Blitzer tonight and he was arguing that the administration has offered to cooperate but the dems won't have it. I think his talking points kind of point out what they fear.

They are trying to spin it that they are cooperating. Also he used the whole "grey mail idea". This stuff is secret and classified and we can't take any chances that something would get out that would give our enemies a hand up. It's too dangerous to cooperate. Well a little bit of that might work but at this exreme it just doesn't play out. Unless, we have another terrorist attack. That might shift the argument in their favor. But at this point it just sounds hollow.

I agree that right now they are giving Bush/co every chance to come clean and take the higher path. At each turn he refuses he looks dirtier and dirtier.

We will have to see what they do with it.

I do think it would behoove the dems not to take a recess at this point.

[earlofhuntingdon]

I have to agree with the grumpy and sneezy views. No doubt, Cheney, Rove, Bush are the brass rings. Their corruption has debilitated govt for a decade. But an unrelenting focus on Rove is not a strategy, it's a target.

I think that a focus on Gonzales would readily disclose incompetence and illegal behavior that would fully justify his removal from office (and quite likely subsequent criminal prosecution). It would also very likely disclose mountains of evidence about his closest associates in the White House and the DOJ. Much of it could be achieved within the term of this Congress.

In short, a tight focus on Gonzales would get the Dems where they want to go politically, morally and legally, and could lead to getting Americans a competent Attorney General. I also think that the plot line, the issues and wrongdoing, could be spelled out readily to Main Street America.

Directly attacking Rove, on the other hand, is more complex and difficult, certainly in the time allowed. Bush and Cheney would bring down the govt to avoid Congress successfully toppling Rove. A full frontal assault on him by this Congress would be like sending World War One troops over the top into massed machine gun fire. You may win eventually, but at what cost?

The Dems need a more complex strategy and better facts to win that battle, they're not likely to have them in time. But it could certainly be done via a series of investigations backed by the next Congress and president, and should be. Dems should focus on what can be accomplished in this Congress, and follow up with the large number of issues that will remain in the next one. Or they can do what they're good at and shoot themselves in the foot.

[Neil]

You are not alone... And finally--though I seem to be the one person to insist on this--we don't have evidence that Bush wasn't involved. We have only the testimony of those who didn't interact with Bush that they have no evidence he was involved. In at least one case, we have a report that Bush was directly involved, right along with Rove. You convinced me of this Wednesday during the hearing.

I'm not clear on what Leahy is doing with the subpeona for Rove beside the obvious. Prosecutors like to have witnesses talk themsleves into a corner but Rove will claim executive privilege so we'll have one more in contempt of Congress.