Wednesday, July 9, 2008

A Schnauzer Take on the Rove/Subpoena Issue

As I have read numerous reports about Karl Rove's extraordinary efforts to avoid testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, one question has repeatedly come to mind:

"Why didn't you immediately go before the committee, upon the first invitation, and lie your you-know-what off?"

Many words have been used to describe Rove, but "stupid" and "out of touch" are not among them. Of all people, Rove must know that the American justice system is built on a heaping, steaming compost pile of lies.

This is one of the primary lessons I've learned from my unpleasant experience with America's justice system. If I know it, Karl Rove has to know it.

Under normal circumstances, Rove would stand a far greater chance of snagging a date with Sheryl Crow than he would of getting nailed for perjury.

The fact that Rove is so reluctant to testify, apparently concerned about perjury, makes me think something is not normal about the circumstances in which he finds himself.

Hard experience has taught me that perjury is an American pastime, right up there with baseball, reality TV, and celebrity scandal. How many instances of perjury are there every working day in American legal proceedings? My guess is that the number is well into the millions. How many people are caught on a given day? You probably could fit them into your corner phone booth--certainly you could fit them into your neighbor's Volkswagen.

What does this mean to the everyday American? Consider my experience: The legal nightmare that led to this blog started because my wife and I were the victims of a crime--criminal trespass, third degree.

After multiple verbal warnings and a letter from a lawyer had failed to keep the trespasser off our property, we reluctantly decided we had to swear out a criminal complaint. How naive were we that day as we drove to the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama, to talk with representatives from both the DA's office and the county magistrate? It never crossed our minds that anyone in the process would not behave honestly. We assumed that the defendant would raise his right hand, take an oath, and tell the truth. And since we knew (and he knew) that he had repeatedly trespassed on our property, we figured, "Hey, what could go wrong?"

Ah, to be young and foolish. Little did we know that our defendant had been convicted of crimes on at least eight other occasions. He knew how the game was played. We didn't have a clue.

Heck, he probably knew there was a good chance the judge either would slap him on the wrist or twist the law beyond recognition in order to let him off. Numerous judges already had done that over the years, so why should this one be any different?

My wife and I, without even a speeding ticket between us, were like lambs to the slaughter. We had no idea the judge, the defendant, and the defense attorney would combine to fill the courtroom with verbal and procedural feces, while the prosecutor (our "representative") let it happen, never even asking, "Doesn't something smell funny in here?"

The end result? An acquittal for a defendant who, we learned later, had unwittingly confessed to the crime. And because of that, I got sued for a tort called malicious prosecution. And the fallout from fighting that bogus lawsuit continues to this day.

If most any ding dong can take an oath, break the oath by lying, and get away with it, why hasn't Karl Rove followed that route?

The only answer that comes to my mind is this: Rove must know there is evidence--somewhere, in some form--that will prove he is lying if he says he had nothing to do with the political prosecutions of Don Siegelman and other Democrats.

For all of the computer records that apparently have been wiped out, something pretty damning must still be out there. The existence of such hard, fast evidence is about the only way anyone in America--particularly someone of Rove's stature--could get nailed for perjury.

So the Schnauzer take is this: Rove knows damning evidence exists. And he must figure that someone else knows it exists, too. Would that someone point authorities in the right direction if Rove goes before Congress and lies? "Bush's Brain" must be convinced that the answer is "yes."


Anonymous said...

I think he likes standing behind his invisible wall of protection, wagging his tongue and chanting 'what ya gonna do about it'? because that's their attitude. The entire administration. Addington even said, " We are going to push, and push, and push until some greater force stops us." There are no consequences for them and Rove like to flaunt that fact. What amazes me most is that republican voters haven't thrown them overboard. Where are the gooood, solid, honest republican voters that occupy half the homes in America?

Anonymous said...

I do not think it would matter whether Rove thought someone could finger him for perjury. Rove, Cheney & Bush have thumbed their collective finger at the law since the Supreme Court selected Bush. Rove is ignoring the subpoena because he knows he can, and he knows that Congress will bluster but do nothing. This only strengthens the Bushian position that the King and his minions are above the law.

We should be very concerned that Congress is unwilling to do anything. Impeachment is off the table, assures Pelosi, and Congress has couched all its "warnings" about contempt in permissive language - meaning Congress will not do anything.