Dan Abrams and Catherine Crier Salivate Over 'Inherent Contempt' Arrest of Karl Rove

Dan Abrams, apparently still smarting from the castigation he received in April from Karl Rove, just cannot let go. Despite the fact that the "high level" Republican operative, Jill Simpson, who accused Rove of orchestrating the prosecution of convicted Democrat former Alabama governor, Dan Siegelman, never actually met nor talked to Karl Rove and whose "high level" operative activities in her own words never rose above typical volunteer work, Abrams continues to wander into the swamp created by this much less than credible source. On Thursday, Abrams and Catherine Crier were salivating with glee on MSNBC's Verdict over the prospect that the House Judiciary Committee might issue something called an 'inherent contempt' arrest for Karl Rove (emphasis mine):

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  We have got breaking news tonight: The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has threatened to have Karl Rove arrested, at issue whether Rove will testify about the prosecution of Alabama‘s former Democratic governor, Don Siegelman.  What role if any did Rove play in bringing down the popular Democrat?

Thus far, Rove has refused to testify and the committee has given him another week or they say they‘ll subpoena him.

If he still refuses, Politico.com reporting that John Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee said today, quote, We‘ll do what any self-respecting committee would do.  We‘d hold him in contempt.  Either that or go and have him arrested.  We‘re closing in on Rove,” Conyers said.

Joining us now is former judge, Catherine Crier.  Catherine, the congressman has been getting very serious about this.

Um, Dan, you might have mentioned what Politico.com also reported Conyers as saying:

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: “We’re closing in on Rove. Someone’s got to kick his ass.”

Not exactly an example of blind justice in that quote which is why Abrams neglected to use it in his introduction. Let us now return to Abrams and Crier as they pretend to not openly lust for Rove's arrest based on not much more than the testimony of a highly questionable source:

CATHERINE CRIER, FORMER JUDGE:  It‘s about time.

ABRAMS:  Tell me why.

CRIER:  I‘m serious because we‘ve got - well, there was the Harriet Miers, there have been several individuals if you go back throughout this Bush administration that haven‘t responded.  Now, they‘ve got Karl Rove in the Siegelman affair and he has refused repeated offers to compromise, to give him an opportunity to testify and it‘s finally to the point where you say—either this third branch has power or it has been completely a masquerade.

ABRAMS:  Because up to now what they‘ve been saying is—we‘ll like you to come in voluntarily and testifying.  So far, he‘s been saying—we‘ll answer questions in writing, we‘ll come in and talk but there can‘t be a transcript.

CRIER:  Can‘t be under oath.

ABRAMS:  Not under oath, et cetera.  And now it sounds like Congress is getting a little tired of it.  This is Congressman Wexler, also a member of this committee, on this program last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ROBERT WEXLER, (D) FLORIDA:  And if he refuses to honor the subpoena, then the full House of Representatives must hold Mr. Rove in contempt of Congress and then we must ask the attorney general to enforce the contempt of Congress subpoena or citation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS:  Inherent contempt—what does that mean?

CRIER:  Well, here‘s the way this plays out.  If the full House issues the contempt citation, then it‘s supposed to go to the Department of Justice.  And they‘re supposed to take it to a grand jury, they‘re supposed to enforce this.  Well, they‘ve already—the Bush administration says—no, through executive authority we‘re saying privilege—they‘re not going to enforce it.

You might then try the federal courts.  The federal courts are liable to say it‘s a political question but the Constitution gives Congress the inherent power to issue contempt and then to prosecute on this.

ABRAMS:  On their own?

CRIER:  They can send the sergeant of arms out into the countryside, arrest, haul somebody in and in days gone by use to literally hold them in the basement of Congress, an impromptu jail and then they could have a trial.  That is still their power today.

ABRAMS:  Unlikely to happen here but it does sound like they‘re getting ready to move forward with something here.

CRIER:  Well, unlikely to happen in the sense that they might not jail them in the basement any longer.  But at this point in time, if you look at the DOJ, it has already basically said—we are not going to do what we‘re supposed to do.  They must take it to a grand jury.  So no (ph), executive privilege, we‘re not going to act.  The courts probably won‘t.

So, it will—if the full Congress asserts, if the full House votes, then they will have to try this case themselves which means issue the arrest warrant and try them.

ABRAMS:  Again, final question on this, executive privilege—with Karl Rove has said that he didn‘t talk to anyone in the White House about it.  So, what‘s the potential executive privilege?

CRIER:  Well, he‘s making the claim and that assertion I don‘t think will go anywhere.  It might be something a federal court will go with.  But right now, the Department of Justice has given no indication that they will—that they will go out and serve those subpoenas issued by Congress.

ABRAMS:  Are you surprised Conyers is using language like arrested?

CRIER:  At this point?  No.  I‘m a big rule of law.  This has nothing to do with politics for me.  It is respecting the rule of law, regardless of Democrat or Republican.  And at this point in time, if they don‘t show backbone then there are not three branches of government in this country.

ABRAMS:  And we should say again, the subpoena has not been issued yet.  So, we shall see what happens if and when the subpoena is issued and I‘ll continue to follow this case.

To fully appreciate the orgasmic glee with which Abrams and Crier ponder the "inherent contempt" arrest of Karl Rove by the House sergeant-at-arms as he is possibly hauled off to incarceration in the basement of Congress, you need to check out the video of this segment of the Verdict. As for Crier's absurd claim that  "I‘m a big rule of law.  This has nothing to do with politics for me.  It is respecting the rule of law, regardless of Democrat or Republican," perhaps she has deluded herself into thinking this but the leftwing blogosphere is quite open about their political motivations in their Karl Rove "inherent arrest" bloodlust. Here is a sampling of the sanity challenged Daily Kos postings about this segment of Dan Abrams' Verdict:

DON'T THREATEN THE BASTARD! Just arrest his skanky ass and frog march him into the Capitol.

Five cops kneeing on and handcuffing him after they tasered him a few times for good measure.

Could congress hire a bounty hunter? Charter some privateers?

It would not be unjust to see this filth brought up before a crowd of The People who would watch and jeer as he was Tarred and Feathered.

they all deserve Mussolini treatment the only question is when will they get it

Karl Rove belongs in prison together with the rest of the criminals in the Republican Party.

This is only a very small sampling of the posts on this topic in the Daily Kos rubber room. You can see a much larger collection of their rantings about Karl Rove's "inherent arrest" at the DUmmie FUnnies. And while reading their postings, please keep in mind that much of the MSM holds up the Daily Kos as an example of the voice of reason in the "progressive" blogosphere.