Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee received a letter from Karl Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin, stating that his client refuses to testify before a House subcommittee, despite a congressional subpoena. He reiterated his offer to have Rove appear for an off-the-record interview, not under oath, about the prosecution of formerly Alabama governor Don Siegelman only. In a response to Luskin, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) reject the offer:
We want to make clear that the Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.
Your letter states that Mr. Rove will not attend the hearing because he is “obligated” to disregard the subpoena as a result of the White House’s claim of immunity for former advisors. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. As a private party, Mr. Rove is “obligated” to comply with the subpoena issued to him and, at the very least, appear at the July 10 hearing.
In addition to the Siegelman matter, the committee has also asked Rove to testify on the politicization of the Justice Department, including the U.S. attorney scandal.