Haul Karl’s Ass into Congress

Karl says he’ll testify.

As Governor Siegelman states, bring him in, let him swear on a bible and either testify or lie under oath.

Rove has, of course, reportedly lied under oath on two other occasions, once in Texas and once in the CIA leak case. He’s probably thinking "three’s a charm."

But let’s do it, this time, in front of the teevee cameras. I’m sure Artur Davis–of Alabama–would welcome Karl’s testimony. And while he’s there, you might ask him all the questions about the USA purge he has refused to answer.

40 replies
  1. JohnForde says:

    And if he doesn’t show up throw him in the congressional dungeon.


  2. PJEvans says:

    Rove can probably lie, can tell everyone that he’s lying, and still convince a lot of them that he’s telling the truth.

    I don’t know how he gets away with it.

    • emptywheel says:

      I don’t think he’s ever fooled anyone that he was telling the truth in his previous reportedly perjurious appearances under oath. I just think he’s been able to prevent anyone from developing enough evidence against him to bring charges.

      Rove played the journalists in teh Plame case like a fiddle (hello, Michael Isikoff). He has been trying to understand what 60 Minutes had since the first installment of the 60 Minutes thing went on the air, using some of his same old tactics. I suspect he’s gotten ahold of whatever 60 Minutes has, and believes he can now ace HJC. Frankly, except for Artur Davis, I suspect he’s right. But Davis is pretty good. I just hope Conyers gives him free rein.

      • Petrocelli says:

        Could the HJC bring in someone else to do the questioning … say a junior Senator from Rhode Island ?

        • emptywheel says:

          No reason SJC can’t subpoena him themselves. They’ve largely ignored the Siegelman issue, of course. And in SJC there’s the whole neat detail that Jeff Sessions would presumably be running interference for Rove–the same Jeff Sessions named as one of the two other people who actually do have criminal involvement in the scheme in question.]

          • emptywheel says:

            Though one more thing: remember that the outstanding subpoena for Rove (which is not part of the suit for non-compliance) came from SJC. So Rove might be less willing to show up before SJC.

          • Petrocelli says:

            Wouldn’t someone on the SJC have enough backbone to “request” that Sessions recuse himself ?

            • emptywheel says:


              Senators are very deferential to their colleagues–it’s one of the membership rules of belonging to the most exclusive club in the country. Furthermore, there’d be no legal justification for doing so. Rove would be testifying, after all, the SJC would not be prosecuting Rove.

  3. bmaz says:

    Won’t happen. The child of the man with a golden ring, and his lawyer of the golden bars, will manufacture a pretext to refuse testimony, even under a subpoena, should it ever truly get to that point. I hope I am wrong; but I’m thinking that is not likely here.

    • BooRadley says:

      Completely agree.

      The “sure” is just the typical I’m pure as the driven snow head fake. Months down the road, Karl is banking that no one except the liberal blogs will remember “sure.

    • MadDog says:

      Probably use Alabama’s “executive privilege” shield to diss any new Congressional subpoena.

      What, you didn’t know that Alabama has an “executive privilege” shield?

      If they don’t right now, wait a few minutes and I’m sure Karl will invent one for ‘em. Can’t have no Repug government without one, no sirree!

      • bmaz says:

        It’s been around for a while now; can’t remember where I first saw it, maybe Atrios. Still cracks me up though…..

  4. WilliamOckham says:

    Totally OT, but the WH was supposed to tell us today exactly when and why they decided the OA wasn’t covered by the FOIA. Anybody talked to CREW today? Bueller… Bmaz…

    • bmaz says:

      There is zip on the issue at either CREW or NSA. My guess is per Kollar-Kotelly’s order, nothing but a privilege log was, or will be, produced today and they will proceed to the briefing schedule KK already promulgated. If they are devious and want to bugger up the pie, the government could trump up an interlocutory appeal.

    • Neil says:

      Totally OT, but the WH was supposed to tell us today exactly when and why they decided the OA wasn’t covered by the FOIA. Anybody talked to CREW today? Bueller… Bmaz…

      Yeah, I like the nickname Bueller for Bmaz too. How about it Bueller?

  5. Loo Hoo. says:

    Karl saying, “Put up your dukes, mofo.”

    Put ‘em up, Conyers. DO IT.

    And bmaz, you’re right. Talk without action ain’t squat.

  6. lilysmom says:

    I was very disappointed by the interview done by Dan Abrahams.
    It was clear to me that he wasn’t really listening to Gov Seigleman. He interrupted too often.
    Gov. Seigelman IS southern, speaks more slowly than Dan and doesn’t give his answers in short, precise, third year New York law firm associate summations. That does not mean that he deserved what happened to him.
    I was left with the impression that Dan thought that he was slow, stupid and perhaps actually guilty.
    How could Abrahams possibly think that the odious beast of the Apocalypse, Karl Rove might be more honest? He seemed to be defending Rove.
    An interview with Keith O. would have been better. Keith usually listens to the person that he is interviewing and then reacts.
    And do haul Karl’s sorry ass into testify. He is squealing far too loudly about this to be innocent.

  7. pdaly says:

    Karl was in Cambridge last week. From what I can tell he said nothing new during his speech. He was interviewed afterward by the student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson. If he’s seeing that permanent Republican majority coming soon, Rove seems awfully eager to spread the idea of bipartisanship,

    The Harvard Crimson: If you could advise our generation about one thing we should change about American politics in the future, what would it be?

    Karl Rove: The sense that once an election is over, the election is over. I come from Texas. Politics is a blood sport, but once an election is over, people try to put politics aside. What amazed me about Washington was that people would sit in my office who were Democrats that would say, ‘I’d like to work with the administration on solving X, but I can’t because my caucus won’t let me.’ People of good will can find ways to rule the country together, maybe not exactly precisely the same way they would if they had their own way, but nonetheless be able to move the country together.

    Or is he endorsing bipartisanship? Given the wording of the question, his answer can be parsed as expected more than one way.

    • Neil says:

      What amazed me about Washington was that people would sit in my office who were Democrats that would say, ‘I’d like to work with the administration on solving X, but I can’t because my caucus won’t let me.’ People of good will can find ways to rule the country together

      “What amazed me” is a sure tell. The big lie is hard to believe at first blush but… true. What’s interesting is that Rove frames the question of bipartisanship as a question of good will. All you have to do is watch Congress on C-Span since 2006 to see that Rove’s party was conducting an obstructionist strategy in both houses since they lost their majority. Rove’s meme is the opposite of the truth. He wants you to believe THEY [Democrats] are the obstructionists and that they are the ones that must demonstrate their good will by sharing power now.

      I’m sure a lot of democrats had meetings in the White House with Karl Rove in which they opened their hearts and confessed their party was not allowing them to “work” with Bush. Karl tell us, who were these people? We’d like to help find them other jobs.

      • pdaly says:

        Yes, it is the ultimate hypocrisy for Rove to be lecturing to Democrats about how to play fair and be bipartisan (attack their strengths, right?).
        Rove should name names–Democrats and Liebermans in his office pleading for mercy. Mercy!

        Technically, in his answer Rove is stating what we should change about American politics (that was the question posed him), and he says we should change “the sense that once an election is over, the election is over.” So his answer advocates for Partisan politics all the time–just like he practiced. But this hardly represents change, so maybe Rove really is Conservative. The rest of his answer is unrelated fluff about supposed Democrats.

        Now for my soapbox:

        When will our Congress start supporting our troops? Nearly ALL the Republicans have been willing to cut & run from the hard-fought freedoms and life of liberty that our US troops (from 1700s through 1945) bequeathed to us and defended to the death for us.


  8. pdaly says:

    Here’s a second Harvard Crimson article about the event.

    Interestingly, when a student questioned Rove about his 2002 participation in the White House Iraq Group, Karl Rove (mis)corrected the student and declared that WHIG did not exist until 2004:

    Joanna I. Naples-Mitchell ’10 asked Rove why he was a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and had influence over President Bush’s decision to send troops to Iraq even though he was a political consultant with no background in the military or diplomacy.

    Rove initially replied by telling Naples-Mitchell, who is the political director for the Harvard College Democrats, that WHIG did not exist until 2004, two years after she claimed it had. [SEE CORRECTION BELOW]

    and here’s the Crimson correction:

    The March 7 story, “Rove Denounces Obama for Empty Rhetoric,” misstated the date of the creation of the White House Iraq Group. The group was set up in August 2002, not in 2004, as Karl Rove asserted in his speech.

    I was not there. Was the question and answer session considered part of Rove’s speech, or did he make the same fake claim in his speech?

  9. pdaly says:

    My last comment: the Crimson should correct their correction: their original article was printed April 7 not “March” 7, and Rove misstated the date not the Crimson. The Crimson has an odd way of declaring they are fact checking Rove.

  10. Xenos says:

    Rove will not appear. HIs attorney, Luskin, was not about to declare that Rove would refuse to show – why rush the issue be declaring an intent to break the law?

    Don’t worry, plenty of time to come up with BS rationalizations and absurd legal theories once Rove gets the subpoena.

  11. klynn says:

    One of the contacts out there has GOT to know the country is sick and tired of the Rove-Cheney-Bush crap. We need to start the rhetoric about how important it would be to the country, in a restorative sense, if SOMEONE finally spilled on these guys with truthful provable facts/testimony. A history making moment. Never forgotten.

    The egos are so big in this circle and the needs are so great when one pulls the finger out of the dike( no offense intended with talk of rings in the thread) it will begin a flow of facts and testimony that will be difficult to stop. It just takes one person…

  12. klynn says:

    O/T Hey EW, just an FYI. The Cheney’s Lawyer thread had problems with posting yesterday. I noticed a few mentioned it in the thread. I had posted questions after comment 9 and after EOH’s comment at 15 to let you know I too had comments thrown out of the system. But the comment was thrown out of the system — go figure.

  13. Neil says:

    bring him in, let him swear on a bible and either testify or lie under oath.

    Great quote!

    How much of Rove’s testimony in the CIA leak case is in the public domain as opposed to being GJ testimony that was not brought forward in the trial? The reason I ask, is that I would love to read it with EW’s annotations pointing out the lies under oath.

    • emptywheel says:

      None. But I think we’ve got a pretty good idea of his evolving story. The old, “I never spoke to Matt Cooper … well maybe I did, but I don’t remember talking about Plame … well, maybe now that you mention it”

    • emptywheel says:

      No, you can never be sure.

      But, on those occasions when Artur Davis has been ceded time by his colleagues, he has been by far the most consistently good questioner on the USA purge. Add in the fact that he’s from AL and would like to run for state-level office, and you realize that if he doesn’t expose and gut the anti-Democratic witchhunts in AL, he’ll never be Senator. Plus, Davis has his own tangential involvement in this, so he’s got background which no other Congressman has.

      I’m sure it has not escaped notice that the last Democrat in AL to succeed at the state level is in jail. There are a lot of reasons he will be on his game if and when Rove testifies.

  14. orionATL says:

    this would be one show i would pay for a ticket to see.

    but, since it will be on c-span, i won’t have to.

    i would just love to watch davis (alabama) and hank johnson (georgia) tag team rove.

    both are exceedingly sharp and persistent questioners, just the kind of lawyers you would want doing your depositions for you.

    i’m willing to bet they would turn the wicked warlock of west texas into a puddle of piss.

    and then finally we would understand that not only is karl rove an incompetent presidential and political adviser, but he is simply a bullying, lying sociopath who loses his power and his poison when he has been hauled out from under his rock into the sunshine.

  15. bmaz says:

    Yeah, I like the nickname Bueller for Bmaz too. How about it Bueller?

    Well, okay then Roger Rocket! Bye the way, how do you like your new appellation?

Comments are closed.