TRANSCRIPT
By David Shuster
MSNBC correspondent

updated 9:18 p.m. CT, Thurs., July. 10, 2008

‘Verdict’ guest host David Shuster talked with Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., about Karl Rove’s refusal to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Sanchez is chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee and Thursday, rejected Rove’s executive privilege claim as inadequate.

Rove was subpoenaed for a hearing on the alleged politicization of the Department of Justice under the Bush administration.

Below is the transcript from the interview.

DAVID SHUSTER, GUEST HOST, ‘VERDICT:’ Rep. Linda Sanchez who heads that subcommittee joins us now. Congresswoman, today you’ve voted to reject Rove’s claim of executive privilege. What are you going to do now?

REP. LINDA SANCHEZ, D-CALIF.: Ah, well the next step would be for the full committee to take up the contempt recommendation to vote on it which I’m being told by Chairman Conyers that he’s anxious to do. And from there it would go to the Full house for a vote.

SHUSTER: And how anxious? When will this vote in the committee take place?

SANCHEZ: Mr. Conyers hasn’t given a time dead line but I can imagine it would be in the next couple of weeks or so.

SHUSTER: And you want the contempt vote to happen right? You do want to hold him in contempt. Is that what you’re saying today?

SANCHEZ: Absolutely. Absolutely. The claim of executive privilege and immunity is ridiculous. It’s clear that in conversations that he’s had with the U.S. attorney’s office over different matters that he was handling, the president wasn’t involved in those communications and so the claim of executive privilege is really not a valid one.

SHUSTER:And Congressman I just want to clarify there is a jail in the U.S. Capitol that hasn’t been used for sometime, but you are saying and the committee and some of your colleagues are saying tonight, “you want Karl Rove in that jail.” If he continues to refuse the demands of this committee Is that what you’re saying?

SANCHEZ: Well, the inherent contempt powers of Congress were last used in the 1930s and there was a jail cell located in the Capitol that was utilized for that purpose. My understanding is that with some of the renovations that have gone on in the Capitol over the years there really isn’t an actual jail there.

SHUSTER: But in any case, you want Karl Rove put in jail for this, right?

SANCHEZ: I would like to see him held accountable for his complete disregard of the law absolutely.

SHUSTER: But will you say “Yes, Karl Rove should go to jail if he doesn’t cooperate”?

SANCHEZ: I personally believe, yes, absolutely. Anybody who scoffs at the law and who has committed an offense that is punishable by jail time should be put in jail.

SHUSTER: Congressman are you worried at all about the time frame though? I mean isn’t this the sort of thing- you’re up against the election. Doesn’t this need to happen within the next five months?

SANCHEZ: Well, it’s not limited to particularly this year. I mean in an ongoing investigation it could potentially happen next year but personally I think time is of the essence and the sooner we act on this the better.

SHUSTER: But just to clarify, and again, real quickly here, do you believe yes or no that the United States House of Representatives, your colleagues will support holding Karl Rove in contempt, if you guys send it to the full House.

SANCHEZ: I think if it goes to the full House there is a very great probability that yes, they would hold Karl Rove in contempt.

SHUSTER: Ok Congresswoman Linda Sanchez who’s subcommittee today rejected Karl Rove’s claim of executive privilege. Congresswoman thank you for coming on we appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: My pleasure.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25630920/

Members of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law didn’t even wait until the 10 a.m. mark to declare former presidential adviser Karl Rove a no-show this morning. The committee had subpoenaed Rove to appear to discuss the politicization of the Justice Department and allegations of selective prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. But Rove, through his lawyer, asserted that “as a close advisor to the President,” he is “immune from compelled Congressional testimony.”

Committee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) was having none of that, saying, “I hereby rule that Mr. Rove’s claims of immunity are not legally valid, and his refusal to comply with the subpoena and appear at this hearing to answer questions cannot be properly justified.” In her official statement, she pointed out that if the White House wanted to assert executive privilege on Rove’s behalf, it was required to do so by going to court, which it hasn’t done. She also noted that the Judiciary Committee has already seen a parade of witnesses from the White House who have not made this argument, most notably, David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, who, while clearly hostile, did actually make the trip up the Hill to testify recently.

Sanchez disparaged Rove for failing to cite a single court precedent that would back up his claim that running political campaigns inside the White House gave him absolute immunity from ever having to talk to Congress on any subject whatsoever. Quoting the Supreme Court, Sanchez said, “no man in this country is so high that he is above the law,” and “all the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”

Mother Jones