The Judiciary Committee seems serious about asserting their Constitutional right of authority to force Rove to testify in the investigation on dismissed U.S. attorneys, and Gov. Don Siegelman. They have given Rove one final extension and warning - 5 days to comply:
"This letter is to formally notify you that we must insist on compliance with the subpoena and urge you to reconsider your position... . Please let us know no later than Tuesday July, 15 if Mr. Rove will comply with the subpoena, or we will proceed to consider all other appropriate recourse... 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."Under the process of 'inherent contempt,' the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House (or Senate), brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate. The last time inherent contempt was enforced was in 1934 in the Senate.
-- Rep. John Conyers and Rep. Linda Sanchez, chair of the Judiciary subcommittee
Although Rove does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on Fox News, he apparently is afraid to make his statements under oath. WHY?
Let's put it to a public referendum... how many think Karl Rove should testify under oath?
(Does this guy look like a Republican or what?)