Connecticut governor fights subpoena from impeachment panel
Rowland under federal investigation
From Jonathan Wald
CNN
 |  Rowland's attorneys say the subpoena violates the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. |
| |
|
 VIDEO |
 CNN's Jeff Greenfield on the White House race heating up with the summer.
 CNN's Kelly Wallace on Kerry and security.
 CNN's Bill Schneider on Democrats who want tougher talk from Kerry.
|
RELATED |
Ex-president: Kerry running smart campaign
• Connecticut's hot summer
|
|
Gov. John Rowland of Connecticut has sued a state House committee investigating him after he was subpoenaed to testify as its first witness in a case that could lead to his impeachment.
The governor's office filed the lawsuit Thursday in state Superior Court, arguing the subpoena violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
"Under no circumstances is it ever permissible to subpoena a chief executive," said Ross Garber, Rowland's lead attorney. "This is such an egregious violation and a blatant disregard for the constitution."
The impeachment inquiry began in January after the 46-year-old Republican governor admitted in a televised address that he lied about who paid for renovations to his summer home.
After originally claiming he paid for the construction, Rowland confessed that state employees and people wanting to do business with the state paid for the installation of a hot tub, a heating system and cathedral ceilings in his vacation home.
Rowland is also under federal investigation for his dealings with state contractors, making his decision not to appear before the committee an awkward one.
Co-chairman of the impeachment committee, Rep. Arthur O'Neill, R-Southbury, believes the governor's lawsuit has no merit.
"It is not only permissible for the committee to reach over the boundaries which normally separate the executive and the legislative, it is our duty," O'Neill said. "I am disappointed that the governor has chosen not to testify, and I am disappointed that he is filing a lawsuit."
If Rowland testifies, he runs the risk of incriminating himself in the federal investigation.
If he stays silent by asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, he runs the risk of damaging his political image further by appearing as if he has something to hide.
O'Neill suspects the governor's office has chosen the lesser of all evils by blaming the impeachment committee.
"There's no constitutional basis for asking to be exempt from the committee, so the only thing I can think of is they're concerned about the impact his testimony would have on the U.S. government's investigation," O'Neill said.
Earlier this month, the committee drafted, but delayed, a vote on an article of impeachment against the governor, alleging he "has knowingly and willfully, impeded and hindered the investigation ... and warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the state."
O'Neill said Rowland's refusal to testify would make the committee more likely to vote in favor of impeachment.
The hearings have already been postponed once and Rowland, serving his third term as Connecticut's governor, was scheduled to go before the committee on June 8.
The Superior Court holds its first hearing on the governor's lawsuit on June 7.
O'Neill and the committee's other co-chairman, Rep. John Wayne Fox, D-Stamford, insist the public hearings will go ahead on June 8.
"It will take something huge for us to postpone the hearings again. The governor's absence makes it a bit more difficult to complete our work on time," O'Neill said.
The hearings, with Rowland's participation, were originally expected to last three days. Without his testimony, they might go on for as many as eight days.
The committee now plans to rely on information from investigators rather than seeking it from the governor.
Alleging a lack of openness, the governor's legal team has complained about the committee's conduct for months.
"The governor would theoretically testify, but the committee would have to address several issues of fairness," Garber said. "They would have to set a standard of impeachment, define the scope of their investigation, clarify whether the governor has the burden of proof and reveal all the evidence they've been gathering in secret to the governor or the public."
The committee's co-chairmen have remained defiant in response to Garber's criticism. "This impeachment panel is as open and fair as any in history ... and I'm happy to have any court in the land review it," Fox said.
Added O'Neill: "We are not prepared to negotiate the terms of the governor's testimony according to Mr. Garber's wishes."
The impeachment committee plans to report its findings to the full House of Representatives by June 30. If the committee recommends impeachment and the House votes to impeach, the governor will face a trial in the Senate.
