Panel moves toward finding Rove in contempt
Lawyer argues that executive privilege gives the former presidential adviser immunity from testifying.
In a step toward holding Karl Rove in contempt of Congress, a House panel Thursday found the former White House political adviser in violation of a subpoena requiring him to testify on the suspected politicization of the Justice Department.
Rove's absence at the House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee hearing was expected. His lawyer, Robert Luskin, has pointed to a letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding instructing Rove not to appear.
As a former presidential adviser, executive privilege gives Rove immunity, Luskin has argued.
Subcommittee Democrats disagreed. "Mr. Rove's claims of immunity are not legally valid," said Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.
Courts have found executive privilege does allow witnesses to refuse to appear at congressional hearings, but does not cover former White House officials and does not apply to decisions not involving the president, according to a ruling approved by the subcommittee. The White House has said President Bush was not involved in issues Rove was asked to discuss.
Whatever its legal merits, a contempt finding against Rove faces several hurdles. After the subcommittee's vote today, the full committee and the House would have to vote on a contempt charge.
As with a contempt finding last year against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers under similar circumstances, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, responding to White House instructions, would likely refuse to prosecute contempt charges.
House lawyers are pursuing the charge against Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in U.S. District Court in a case unlikely to conclude this year. Action against Rove could follow a similar route.
Subcommittee Republicans called Thursday's vote, which featured an empty chair and a placard for Rove, a political stunt.
"Today's meeting is a travesty of a mockery of a sham," Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee ranking member Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said, quoting Woody Allen in the film "Bananas."