Conyers to Rove: No, It’s Not an Open Book Test…

(Updated with Conyers video–did I mention he seems cranky of late?) 

…And, besides, we want to see you sweat.

Karl Rove, still trying to back out of Robert Luskin’s taunt that Rove would be happy to testify, tried to get John Conyers to settle on written responses to questions. Conyers, who’s finally beginning to lose his temper, said no.

Our position remains, however, that since your client has made a number of on-the-record comments on these subjects to the media, and in light of your (now modified) statement that Mr. Rove would be willing to testify, we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee. Please contact Committee counsel or respond in writing no later than May 21 as to whether your client will make himself available to the Committee for questioning.

[snip]

Your letter also suggests that we address written questions to Mr. Rove, which may reflect a misunderstanding of Committee procedure. Although we do often address written questions to witnesses, that occurs after live testimony, which is critical in order to allow the follow up and give-and-take that is necessary to inquiries of this nature. Since you indicate Mr. Rove is now willing to submit written answers to questions, which by definition would be recorded in a manner similar to a transcript, we do not understand why he would not submit to providing transcribed answers to live questions, as he has done in media interviews. [my emphasis]

Actually, Conyers would even agree to an almost-open-book test, providing Rove the questions before he testified.

We are willing to consider other possible accommodations, such as providing a list of initial questions that may be asked.

I thought Turdblossom was smarter than this–why does he need so much help to pass a simple little test?

One answer may have to do with scope. Rove is on the hook, of course, for all his blabbing about the Siegelman affair. But he appears to want to limit all questions to that narrow subject, something Conyers is unwilling to let him do.

We are writing in response to your May 9 letter with respect to the invitation to Karl Rove to testify before the House Judiciary Committee concerning the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Because your letter appears to reflect several misunderstandings concerning the subjects we wish to question Mr. Rove about…

[snip]

As our previous letters have made clear, the Siegelman case is a principal reason for our invitation to Mr. Rove. But as we have also explained, that issue cannot be separated from the broader concerns about politicization within the Department and the U.S. Attorney firings, and Mr. Rove has made on-the-record comments to the media about all these interrelated matters. This is different from the case of Harriet Miers, who has not made such public statements and has not been linked to the Siegelman case.

I’m pretty sure Robert Luskin would be pulling his hair out about now, if he had any. It’s a really tough sell to argue that Rove can blab all he wants about Siegelman, but it’s still privileged material. But Conyers is clearly using Karl’s Siegelman comments to haul Karl’s fat ass into HJC to at least force him to answer questions about his role in firing David Iglesias, and others.

I also can’t help but wonder whether Karl wants to limit testimony to Siegelman because of something he noticed on HJC’s website. HJC has put PatFitz’s QFRs right there alongside all the material on politicized prosecutions. The only thing PatFitz mentioned regarding politicized prosecutions had to do with the revelations that have since come out in the Rezko trial–revelations that put at least 3 people, some of them solidly corrupt Republicans like Turdblossom, on the record with hearsay evidence about Rove working to fire PatFitz. And since Rove has already sent his BFF Michael Isikoff out to figure out what evidence there is against him, it sure seems like Rove doesn’t want to testify about the conversations he had with Bob Kjellander about firing Patrick Fitzgerald.

Luskin has probably resigned Turdblossom to having to testify in some sense or another, given all the blabbing Rove has done. But he sure seems intent on keeping these other damaging things out of it.

image_print
27 replies
  1. GeorgeSimian says:

    He’s stalling and trying to get the best possible situation for himself. Like Bush and Cheney holding out before the 9/11 committee, which no one remembers anymore. They said they were too busy to answer questions. Eventually, they stayed longer than the agreed upon half hour, and the spin was that they were open and cordial in answering the questions. But we’ll never know because there was no transcript.

    • perris says:

      He’s stalling and trying to get the best possible situation for himself.

      he’s not stalling at all

      he is going to defy congress and congress is going to do nothing about it

  2. Ishmael says:

    I don’t have high hopes for Karl’s congressional testimony – too many opportunities to stall, tapdance, claim to forget, etc. It would take someone with the skills and preparation of Pat Fitz with a no-nonsense judge to nail Karl to the wall, and I know that Shrub will make certain on Christmas Eve that Karl will never see the inside of an (American) criminal court.

  3. ThingsComeUndone says:

    I think Karl is afraid of leaks. Karl and the rest of the Bushies have lied without fear for 7 years but now that Bush is getting ready to leave office cracks in the wall of silence are appearing.
    With the wall of silence breaking Karl now is very afraid of video tape answers to Congress that might be shown to be lies before election day.
    Karl is worried about becoming the issue. Karl is worried about eclipsing McCain’s message for GOP voters.
    Karl should not worry McCain does not have a message.

  4. scribe says:

    re: Unka Karl sweating – he’s so … he’ll start sweating just buttoning his shirt.

    re: stall and tapdance – not if the committee members prepare properly to interrogate him, and

    re: try to lie between the info out there already – all the more reason to bring him in now, rather than later.

    • Ishmael says:

      I would love to see the Committee members prepare properly, but the format conspires against effective questioning – too many questioners, making it too hard to co-ordinate effective examination, and the breaks between questioners allow Karl to regroup. If the HJC had someone to calibre of Whitehouse on SJC, and let him/her do all the questioning, it could lead to something.

      • Bushie says:

        It’d be great if the Dem’s on the Committee could subjugate their ego and turn their time over to Committee Counsel in order to increase continuity, depth, and breadth of questions

      • emptywheel says:

        Don’t forget that one of the most effective Dems (so long as it doesn’t involve DLS finance) is Artur Davis, who is himself from AL. Davis was reportedly not happy that the committee called Siegelman, but I suspect he will be happy to question Rove thoroughly.

        Now how do we convince everyone else to give up their shot at Rove and give their minutes to Davis?

        • Ishmael says:

          I would think that Chairman Conyers would have to promise the others that each of them would get their own “star turn” in subsequent hearings, but Rove’s fat ass may be too tempting a target to pass up.

          Why would Davis object to Siegelman appearing? I would have concerns as Siegelman’s counsel that the Rethugs on the Committee would ask misleading questions to put Siegelman in a bad light, or force him to take the 5th while his appeal is outstanding, but they probably think that the risk is minimal and the upside very high for him.

        • MarieRoget says:

          Above all, Conyers needs to hold some kind of team meeting on how to proceed w/a witness as important as Rove. No fumbling the ball on this one- game plan needs to be in place. Artur Davis, Alabamian who knows the Siegelman situation well & has the facts @ his fingertips, should be point man. Conyers needs to put his foot down on that**

          Here’s one possible line of persuasion:
          -During 1st round of questioning @ least half the Dems give over their minutes to Artur Davis. All available Dem committee members will show up for Uncle Karl, so that’ll be plenty of mins.
          -On 2nd round Dems retain all their individual minutes, & really have a chance to skewer Rove by building on the careful groundwork laid by Davis. All Dem committee members get to look brilliant by using previous Davis q&a to dismantle Rove’s answers.
          -3rd round would be great w/a witness as meaty as Rove (pun intended). Scheduling this hearing so there is a decent amount of time for it would be nice, if @ all possible.

          **Conyers might quote a little background from Artur Davis’ Congressional website bio:

          “From 1994 to 1998, Congressman Davis established a 98 percent conviction rate as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama fighting white-collar criminals and the scourge of drugs and violence on our streets and in our neighborhoods.” (my bold)

  5. GeorgeSimian says:

    He’s just going to claim EP on everything if he ever does get in there, and Bush will back him up.

    • emptywheel says:

      True. Though he simply CAN’T credibly claim EP on Siegelman–he’s been talking about it too much on teevee.

      And he would love to pre-empt whatever testimony Conyers plans to get from Kjellander, but that woudl require testifying about it.

      • GeorgeSimian says:

        It doesn’t have to be credible. It wasn’t credible to pardon Libby. It wasn’t credible that Gonzo forgot everything. Rove can go in there and answer the questions he decides he wants to answer, thereby giving him an opportunity to put others in a bad light, or whatever. And the rest, he’ll claim EP, or secrecy or he can even, though I doubt he will, pull the Gonzo special and not recall anything. He could even pull on Condi and twist words around to avoid answering anything.

        • freepatriot says:

          ah, but it DOES have to be credible

          if the Democrats win 67 seats in the senate, we can start impeaching and removing Supreme Court Justices

          all of the repuglitard revolution can be wiped out with 5 votes to impeach and five votes to remove

          you people think I’m crazy

          but we just took a heavily repuglitatd seat mississippi BY 8 FUCKING POINTS, toe tapping senator craig just came out against veterens, and the stupid fucks at the rnc decided their anti-Obama campaign is showing no problems, and did I mention that arlen “magic bullet” specter just described the 9/11 commision (cept he was trying to criticize the NFL or something)

          say bye bye to scalia and scalito. mr roberts, we hardly knew ya, but we’ve seen enough of you to waana say goodbye, and mr thomas, being impeached for gross incompetence is no way to go thru the rest of you life, and I hope that works out for you

          we’re gonna give the repuglitards the cange THEY deserve

          btw, presidential pardons can be undone by a Constitutional Amendmant, and America is about that pissed of at george bush RIGHT NOW

          ever seen what 300 million pissed off people can do to a ranch in Paraguay ???

          • perris says:

            we’re gonna give the repuglitards the cange THEY deserve

            that’s a great slogan for obama, I hope soneone suggests it

  6. Jim Clausen says:

    Ok legal beagles. How about getting a list of questions generated from the blogosphere into the right hands? Maybe for once we can coordinate something resembling a good cross examination? IANAL but know several legal scholars that have the knowledge and PULL to get this done. Peace.

  7. SparklestheIguana says:

    And how do we prevent Rove from lobbying the members with morsels of delicious quail and other gourmet delicacies? Be strong, members, be strong! Though a big wet kiss or other enticement from Karl sounds appetizing indeed, be strong!

  8. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    I’m pretty sure Robert Luskin would be pulling his hair out about now, if he had any.

    I hope Luskin’s bills are putting a serious dent in Rove’s finances.
    As for the hair… Sting once said something to the effect of, “When you’re really pissed off with someone, take a deep breath and remind yourself they’re going to end up bald, paunchy, arthritic, and wheezing.”

    Small comfort, but I take it where I can get it.

  9. sojourner says:

    I think the biggest issue in this is that K-K-K-Karl just does not know what the truth is… and if he ever did, he has forgotten it. That leaves him wide open for trouble.

  10. bobschacht says:

    I think the biggest issue in this is that K-K-K-Karl just does not know what the truth is… and if he ever did, he has forgotten it. That leaves him wide open for trouble.

    Well, the trouble is that there is their constructed “reality,” but then there’s this real reality, which is about to bite them on the ass. KKKarl has trouble remembering which is which.

    Bob in HI

  11. 4jkb4ia says:

    The Democrats would have to win every competitive race for the Senate to get 67. Some of those competitive races involve actual incumbents like Susan Collins.

    • perris says:

      the thing is we have a shot at races that nobody thinks are competitive

      the republican brand is trasheroo

      • perris says:

        the republican brand is trasheroo

        trasheroo

        trasherama

        trashdomingo

        trashamondo

        trashabundo

        errr

        bushed

Comments are closed.