Karl Rove testifies - but no TV cameras

Friday, March 6. One of former President George Bush's top aides, Karl Rove, is to testify before Congress as part of an investigation into the controversial firings of nine federal prosecutors in 2006. At the time, many felt that the dismissals were politically motivated and the controversy has since become the most aggressive point of contention between the GOP and the Democrats outside of the Iraq war. Former legal advisor Harriet Miers and ex-Chief of Staff Josh Bolten will also be hauled before the gathered Congressmen to account for themselves.

Yesterday, Rove (pictured) told Fox News that the Democrats had planned a "show trial" in which they wanted him "barbecued". "I understand they [Miers and Bolten] may be the hors d'oeuvres, but I'm the main course," said Rove, a close friend of Bush, who consistently used his executive privilege to protect Rove from scrutiny. "Some Democrats would love to have me barbecued."

Rove's appearance before Congress comes only after Barack Obama's legal team pressured the House Judiciary Committee to work with the Bush Administration's lawyers to reach an agreement under which Rove will give his testimony. Until now, he has failed to show up at hearings and ignored congressional subpoenas. The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Republican Governor John Conyers, was overheard last year saying: "We’re closing in on Rove…somebody's going to kick his ass."

On Wednesday, that agreement was reached and it was announced that although only a presidential aide, Rove is accountable before Congress. However, under the terms of the agreement, the hearing will be held behind closed doors and Rove, Miers and Bolten will not have to disclose the content of discussions they had with President Bush about the sackings. Despite the imperfections in the agreement, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy said he hoped Rove's testimony "will help to finally uncover the truth about the firings of US Attorneys and the Bush White House cover-up designed to shield from public view the inappropriate and illegal actions of the last administration."

For Politico, Mark Rozell and Mitchel Sollenberger have spotted another fault with the agreement. By forcing through the deal between the House Judiciary Committee and the Bush Administration lawyers, Obama's legal team have allowed through an agreement that does not fully distance the new President from Bush's controversial understanding of executive privilege. "He [Obama, through his legal team] had the chance to take a strong stand and declare that there is no absolute immunity for former or current White House aides, or anyone else in the government. He could have made good on the promise to reject Bush era claims of privilege and to move toward more open government," say Rozell and Sollenberger. Instead, "the Obama Administration did not distance itself from the absolute immunity claims and there is still no clear guidance on the standards of this Administration for any future claims of privilege."

According to Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post, it is undoubtedly good news that Rove is having to testify. But is is bad news that the interviews "will be held behind closed doors – and the transcripts will only be released on a delayed basis".

Says Froomkin: "That's bad in part because the public now won't see Rove and Miers sweating under the hot lights. But the more significant problem is that journalists, bloggers and the greater public won't be able to immediately pore over their responses in detail.

"Rove, in particular, is the reigning champion when it comes to giving the superficial impression of answering a question while in fact dodging, weaving and spinning to the point of misdirection. If a transcript is not immediately available, the public will have to rely on second-hand accounts that could be profoundly misleading."

FIRST POSTED MARCH 6, 2009