Congress should not let Rove get away with immunity ploy

For two years during the Bush administration, White House aide Karl Rove contended he was legally immuned from testifying in Congress about his role in the firing of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of a Democratic governor.

Now that George Bush is out of office, Rove’s lawyer contends that his client was only following the former president’s orders with regard to ignoring a congressional subpoena, and never asserted a personal claim.

“This is not Mr. Rove’s dispute,” Atty. Robert Luskin said this week after Rove was again subpoenaed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

So, if the claim of “absolute immunity” was Bush’s, then Rove should have no objection to appearing before the Judiciary Committee and answering all the questions fully — and, it is to be hoped, truthfully — with regard to the termination of federal prosecutors.

Various investigations have found that the Justice Department under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales embraced a blatantly political litmus test in the hiring of professional personnel. In so doing, they denied highly qualified top-of-their-class candidates for U.S. attorney positions and civil service jobs.

The investigations also revealed the president’s involvement in the firings. Bush talked to Gonzales about concerns voiced to him by Republicans about the way some prosecutors were doing their jobs.

When the firings became public, the administration contended that they were not triggered by job performance. Officials then changed their story and said the terminations had to do with the way the nine prosecutors were doing their jobs. However, records of the prosecutors showed they had received high marks for the way they carried out their responsibilities.

Accepted practice

It is clear that the Bush administration went beyond what had been the accepted practice in the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys. That is why Congress should pursue the investigation.

“I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” Rep. Conyers said Monday after Rove was subpoenaed to appear at a deposition on Feb, 2. “Change has come to Washington and I hope Mr. Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.”

Last year, several fired U.S. attorneys told the Senate Judiciary Committee that there was improper pressure on them by Republicans with regard to pending cases.

What role did Rove play in former Attorney General Gonzales’ decision to fire the prosecutors for not toeing the political line?

And, what involvement did Bush’s right-hand man have in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman on bribery and other charges? Siegelman was sentenced to seven years in prison, but was released early after a federal appeals court ruled that the ex governor’s appeal raised “substantial questions.”

Although a federal judge has rejected Bush’s claim that senior White House advisers are immune from subpoenas, the fight continues. Bush has filed an appeal.

But that does not mean Rove is prohibited from doing what he wants. He should appear before Congress.