When Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and subpoenaed Karl Rove, he refused to appear by claiming "absolute immunity." This claim was always without basis in law, but it became ludicrous after Rove left the White House. Still, Rove stuck to it because George Bush was still the Unitary Executive  until January 20, 2009.

One of the first acts of the new Congress was to renew its old subpoenas to Rove, Harriet Miers, and John Bolten. Today John Conyers sent another subpoena, but this time he won't have the White House protecting him. Could a frogmarch be in Rove's future?

Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. issued a subpoena to Karl Rove requiring him to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.  The subpoena was issued pursuant to authority granted in H.R. 5 (111th Congress), and calls for Mr. Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009.  Mr. Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.  That “absolute immunity” position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as “completely misguided.”

"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” said Mr. Conyers.  Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it.  After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk."

It sure is.

Update 1: From David Swanson: Here's an updated chart of outstanding subpoenas from the last Congress. There's a new column on the right for actions taken in the new Congress. Thus far there's only one update, thanks to Conyers subpoenaing Rove.

Update 2: What if Rove refuses the new subpoena? Jason Leopold writes,

While historically Congress has ordered people detained for refusing to comply with subpoenas, the power has not been used in modern times. 

But on Monday, several members of the Judiciary Committee said if Rove refuses to comply with the subpoena they will act on Bates's advice and have him arrested.

This could get interesting...

Update 3: Jason Leopold says Bush is trying to protect Rove from his political grave:

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, told the Washington Post Monday that George W. Bush recently sent a letter to Rove and reasserted executive privilege claims in blocking him from appearing before Congress to testify...

"It's generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege as to matters occurring during their term," Luskin said. "We'll solicit the views of the new White House counsel and, if there is a disagreement, assume that the matter will be resolved among the courts, the president and the former president."

Luskin's legal argument may be off base.

Yeah - way off base.

Update 4: On Tuesday, John Dean got into the weeds with Keith Olbermann. The bottom line is: when Obama's legal team responds in February, will they uphold Bush's absurd claims of executive privilege or not?