Karl Rove was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday on his role in politicizing the Justice Department and in using the Department to selectively prosecute Democratic officials (the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, the blackballing of Justice Department hires, etc). He didn't show. He claims that the president's assertion of executive privilege "obligates" him to disregard the Congressional order. Not only that, the Committee was told that Rove had left the country on a "long scheduled" trip.
I think Arianna Huffington summed up my feelings precisely (which is very weird, but perhaps a subject best suited to another time). So I am going to steal this from her:
…Throughout its seven-plus years, the Bush administration has demonstrated an unwavering belief that it is above the law and a deep-rooted disdain for checks and balances, and the Constitutional imperative of coequal branches of government.
Rove's refusal is, of course, part and parcel of the Bush White House's ongoing efforts to keep its actions cloaked in secrecy. But beyond that, it is further evidence that for Bush/Cheney and company the ultimate power in America lies in their hands, not in the hands of the people or the laws that govern us.
This is no petty partisan squabble; this is a fight about the foundations of our democracy.
The good news in all this is that the Committee ruled that Rove’s claim of executive privilege was invalid. This leaves open the possibility of a contempt vote next week.
Of course, Rove has already been cited for contempt by the Senate Judiciary Committee for refusing to testify about the U.S. Attorney scandal. That citation hasn’t slowed him down any, as regular viewers of Fox News can tell you.
So ultimately, what does all of this mean? Apparently, it means that the rule of law and the statutes of our Constitution don’t apply to our elected officials. Or to their Consilieres.
As if we didn’t know that already.
Comments