The latest and greatest in Sternly Worded LettersTM:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) sent a letter to former White House adviser Karl Rove's attorney Monday making clear the committee expects Rove to testify at a July 10 hearing investigating the federal prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (D) on bribery charges.
"We want to reemphasize that we expect Mr. Rove to attend the hearing," Conyers wrote, pointing out he had not yet received and formal objection to Rove appearing.
And if he doesn't? Well, we know that story already.
Or do we?
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if the former White House official doesn't testify about his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.
Asked by MSNBC host Dan Abrams if the committee would go far as having Rove arrested, Wasserman said it would.
"Well, if that's what it takes," she said. "I mean we really cannot allow the co-equal branch of government, the legislative branch, to be trampled upon by the executive branch. The founding fathers established three branches of government. We are a co-equal branch, and this is an administration that essentially has ignored and disrespected the role of the legislative branch for far too long."
And here's fellow Judiciary Committee Member Robert Wexler making the same threat, also to Dan Abrams, who has been all over this:
So, will Rove testify? Will the committee be able to force it if necessary? And whether they have to force the issue or not, does Rove's agreement to appear necessarily mean he'll agree to provide anything of value, or will he get away with invoking the "I don't recallTM" dodge?
Time will tell.
And it's worth noting, I think, that time matters here. Even if this thing goes all the way, the power of the House to imprison someone under inherent contempt extends only to the point when that Congress adjourns sine die. That'll most likely be in the first days of January 2009. Considering that the House will be in recess for most of August (not to mention the week leading up to July 4th) and the fact that it took the House over six months to work up the gumption to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in statutory contempt for defying their subpoenas, if the threat of inherent contempt is going to actually mean anything, the House is going to have to hurry up and get that done if they find themselves dissatisfied on July 10th.