May 25, 2008
Rove, Siegelman, and executive privilege
The law of testimonial privileges is among the (many) areas of law of which I'm pig-ignorant. But I know that in general the holder of the privilege can forfeit that privilege by making elements of the otherwise privileged communication public, or allowing them to be made public. If I tell my lawyer something in private, neither of us can be required to recount that conversation to a third party. But if I say "I told my lawyer X, and he told me Y," then the lawyer's memory and notes of that conversation are no longer privileged. The same is true if I give her permission to say "Based on what my client told me, I told him that what he intended to do was legal."
If Karl Rove can offer a non-denial denial about his role in the Siegelman prosecution to George Stephanopoulos, why can't he be compelled to tell the whole story, under oath, to the House Judiciary Committee? (Note how absurd Rove's position is: he claims that he did nothing, and that saying so under oath would interfere with the ability of the President to get frank advice from his staff.)
Rove is confident that the matter will remain tied up in court until after the election. I'm still hoping that the Congress in its wisdom will decide to use its own powers of arrest for contempt, and not rely on the other two branches to help it do its job. Of course, from his cell in the Capitol, Rove would have the right to petition for habeas corpus. But the same aversion to interfering in contests between the (other) two political branches that might keep the courts from ordering the Executive to enforce a Congressional subpoena would also argue against ordering the Congress to release a contumacious witness.
The facts of the Siegelman case are so outrageous — the theory under which he was convicted would send to prison every President who has ever appointed a fund-raiser to an Ambassadorship — that anything that draws attention to it can only help the Democrats. Once Rove ignores a subpoena and the Justice Department refuses to prosecute for contempt, the House should vote an arrest warrant and order the Sergeant-at-Arms to serve it.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
