Hearing of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee - Politicization of the Justice Department and Allegations of Selective Prosecution

Statement

REP. CHRIS CANNON (R-UT): Thank you, Madame Chair.

I was just wondering, as you read your statement, if you're aware that Mr. Rove is out of the country on a trip that was planned long before this hearing was set.

REP. SANCHEZ: With have been in constant communication with his attorney and himself. And he has refused to testify, not because it was inconvenient to his schedule but because he is asserting that he is covered by an executive immunity claim.

REP. CANNON: So I take it you are aware that he is on a long- planned trip and this hearing was scheduled for our convenience, not his?

REP. SANCHEZ: He did not -- his attorney never mentioned it to us in all the numerous correspondence and -- specifically relating to the date that we asked him to appear before the subcommittee.

REP. CANNON: It was my understanding that he actually communicated that he had a trip planned, and so he could not be here today. Are you also aware that --

REP. SANCHEZ: We were not aware, and we were not made aware by his attorney or by Mr. Rove himself.

REP. CANNON: Are you aware that Mr. Rove has offered to sit down and talk about these things off the record -- not off the record, but in a private conversation and answer the questions that you've asked?

REP. SANCHEZ: He has tried to assert a position that he would come and discuss one matter only. And the subcommittee has significant interest in more than just one matter. We believe that he should appear like any other witness to be sworn in and to have his comments made into the record and to be asked questions by the subcommittee in a give and take that mere written questions would not suffice.

REP. CANNON: Thank you, Madame Chair.

This hearing was called to hear from Karl Rove about allegations that he politically manipulated the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the fired U.S. attorneys, and other matters. The allegation is that, with Mr. Rove's involvement, Democrats were prosecuted while Republicans were not, that U.S. attorneys that did not cooperate were sacked. If such allegations were true, they would be very serious. But there is no evidence supporting these allegations at all.

In fact, there is compelling reason to question the basis of these allegations. In the Siegelman case, the majority rests on the transparently ludicrous allegations of Jill Simpson. Even Don Siegelman has denied her allegations. Equally important, the career prosecutor who led the Siegelman prosecution -- this is a career- person, not a political appointee -- acting attorney Louis Franklin clearly stated, long ago, that the prosecution was not the result of political influence, but quote, "I can state with absolute certainty that Karl Rove had no role whatsoever in bringing about the investigation or prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.

It is intellectually dishonest to even suggest that Mr. Rove influenced or had any input into the decision to investigate or prosecute Don Siegelman. That decision was made by me, Louis V. Franklin, Sr., as the acting U.S. attorney in the case in conjunction with the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Section and the Alabama Attorney General's Office. In each -- each office dedicated both human and financial resources. Our decision was based solely upon evidence in the case, evidence that unequivocally established that former Governor Siegelman committed bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice and other serious federal crimes."

That puts the matter to rest. What about the U.S. attorney firings? Same answer. Kyle Sampson, the key witness, told us exactly one year ago today that neither Mr. Rove nor anyone else in the White House ever, to his knowledge, sought the resignation of any of the dismissed U.S. attorneys in order to seek a partisan advantage in a given case or investigation or for any other reason unrelated to ordinary performance concerns.

So this is all old news, and it's old news that nothing happened. What else is old news? That as early as March 2007 the White House was willing to let us sit down with Karl Rove and interview him about allegations against him, that in the run-up of this hearing -- to this hearing, Mr. Rove was still willing to sit down and talk to us in an interview about the Siegelman matter, with no prejudice to the committee's ability to institute further proceedings if it found anything wrong.

Then, on July 23rd, in oral argument in the committee's case against Harriet Meiers, the district court judge told the committee pointedly that negotiations should be the preferred way to work these things out and, of course, that once again ignoring the court's admonition on common sense, committee Democrats rejected Mr. Rove's offer of voluntary testimony and opted to hold a hearing today in front of an empty chair.

If the majority was serious about getting to the bottom of this issue, it would've taken Mr. Rove and the White House up on these offers. In fact -- the fact is that it hasn't; proof of their efforts amount to more than a partisan stunt.

Rather than indulge in partisan antics, the majority should be attending to the truly important matters that are confronting Congress in the few legislative days we have left in this Congress. We should be holding hearings on the Milberg Weiss class-action trial lawyer scandal. A convicted lawyer at the center of the scandal says, "Illegal kickbacks to class-action plaintiffs are industry practice." We have no business considering the majority's bills of next week to roll back arbitration and deliver consumers to the trial lawyers until we get to the bottom of this abuse of our justice system. But we won't.

We shouldn't be holding hearings -- we should be holding hearings on legislation to bring down gas prices, such as my bill to cut the red tape keeping trillions of barrels of oil from Mountain West shale from getting to American consumers or my bill to equalize discriminatory taxes on natural gas consumers, so that they can pay their bills this winter, but we won't.

To quote Woody Allen in the movie "Bananas", this meeting today is a "travesty of a mockery of a sham." I hope we can act on the issues that are important to the American people before we adjourn. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Source