DOJ Doesn’t Want to Say Whether It Agrees that Karl’s “Official Duties” Include Witch Hunts

/in /by

As you all know, I started calling DOJ last Friday, asking them whether, as Fred Fielding suggested, they had advised the White House that Karl Rove’s duties include witch hunts of Democrats.

We have been further advised that because Mr. Rove was an immediate presidential adviser and because the Committee seeks to question him regarding matters that arose during his tenure and relate to his official duties in that capacity, Mr. Rove is not required to appear in response to the Committee’s subpoena. Accordingly, the President has directed him not to do so.

Apparently, DOJ Deputy Public Affairs Director Peter Carr (whose phone number is 202-616-2777) received the request. Yet, surprise surprise, I have not had a response to my question.

From which I am assuming that Mr. Carr refuses to say whether DOJ actually told the White House, this year, with regards to HJC’s May subpoena of Karl Rove, that the subpoena pertained to his "official duties." I find that mighty curious, given the fact that the White House Counsel, Fred Fielding, strongly implied that DOJ had given the White House that advice. Is Fred Fielding deliberately mis-representing to Congress the advice he has gotten from DOJ? Because that sure sounds like either an ethical or legal problem, to have the White House Counsel making such representations if they are not in fact true. Especially since Fielding suggests that DOJ really reviewed this and decided that making resource allocations in PIN, channeling oppo research on Democrats to DOJ, and talking openly about having Patrick Fitzgerald fired to protect RNC donor Bob Kjellander from investigation were part of Rove’s "official duties."

Well, just to be sure, I called Fielding’s office. Yup, not holding my breath there, either, but you’ll be the first to know if I do get a response. But it is sure beginning to look like Fred Fielding decided, on his own, that Rove’s official duties included witch hunts of Democrats.

Or maybe he decided that because Bush told him to?

image_print
  2. BayStateLibrul says:

    Bates, Bates, Bates, Bates.
    Where the fuck is Bates, and where is his decision (does it take
    that long)

    • bmaz says:

      That is strikingly early and fast for such a decision. Of all the things I have gripes with Bates over, his handling of this case is not at the top of the list. Yes, he had latitude to do more; but, unfortunately, he is on reasonable fair ground so far as to how he has approached it. Maybe the ultimate decision will change my view, and lord knows Bates comes up with some rancid ones often enough, but so far he is nowhere near the bad guy in this drama.

      • BayStateLibrul says:

        Not yet, but didn’t he tell the Wilson’s to fuck off…
        I don’t trust anyone (as Ashcroft said today, ironically, “Trust but
        Verify”)

  3. cboldt says:

    Totally O/T.

    Thinking about FISA, the below article has some interesting information.

    Sweden legal group files challenge to wiretapping law with ECHR

    A July 1, 2008 legal opinion is linked, and Paragraph 43 of that legal opinion describes the snoop/filter/keyword search/minimize/disseminate process used by the UK. It reads exactly like the process of US law, differing only in the legalese used to express the activity and justify the activity as “not an invasion of private life.”

  4. LS says:

    So….all those GWB43 and other RNC email accounts would also relate to his presumed official duties too wouldn’t they?….ummmm…It is pretty clear that his “official duties” were understood to be to create a permanent Republican Majority…via the RNC….and operating out of the WH first secretly and then with impunity…He was the resident politicizing “Hatch”man so to speak. Truly, when you look at it from afar, it is obvious that their entire mission was to infiltrate and take over the entire control of the United States…in every single area. Sounds like an organized plan for a coup. Really evil stuff.

    Fielding obviously made a “boo boo” by slipping that out. Now, they are between a rock and a hard spot….I’ll bet Mukasey is a bit constipated by now….

    That Wheeler woman!!!! She keeps calling….and writing…on the toobz…and people are paying attention….what to do? What to do?

  5. Citizen92 says:

    Was the much ballyhooed Ken Fournier-Rove e-mail exchange authored on the gwb43.com account or the WHO.EOP.GOV account?

    • WilliamOckham says:

      That is almost certainly his WH account. The display name format matches the WH style (LastName, FirstName [MI Optional]) rather than the RNC style (FirstName LastName [ – Group Optional]).

      I can verify against known samples when I get home in a few hours.

      • Citizen92 says:

        The report didn’t show an image of Karl’s e-mail which is why I’m speculating.

        I’ve read anecdotes that it was an “open secret” about the gwb43.com system being used before CREW/Waxman/Froomkin made an issue of it and eyes were opened.

        If Karl mailed Fournier from his RNC account that’s evidence that their relationship was indeed ‘breezy’ and substantiation that it very well may be been an open secret.

        If Karl mailed from the eop account, well, not so much.

        And then, of course, there’s the possibility it could have come through an entirely different account…

        I think we only know of two Karl accounts right now:
        [email protected]
        [email protected]

        I’ve never seen any evidence that Karl was emailing from gwb43.com, which was the favoured domain of his minions and most senior staff. No, for some reason Karl stuck with georgewbush.com

        • WilliamOckham says:

          Emails are here. Rove email on p. 6 of 17.

          Btw, Rove also had (may still have) a personal domain with email.

          As a general rule, people who were employees or volunteers of the 2000 Bush campaign before he won the nomination had georgewbush.com accounts. rnchq.org and gwb43.com were actual RNC domains.

  6. klynn says:

    Thanks for the phone number. Is that “code” to us troops to start our calls with the same question?

    Funny things happen under pressure, often the truth slips or something so slippery is given, that the “truth” is obvious.

  8. leveymg says:

    There’s an Explanation for Why Rove Wasn’t Indicted

    Many of us have concluded that Fitz gave Rove limited immunity in exchange for the goods on Bush’s role in the Plame outing, of which Karl had personal knowledge. Fitz was then persuaded to not pursue the President, and to keep Bush’s complicity under wraps, but some sort of deal was made. Something tells me all this effectively stopped the plan to expand the war into Iran.

    – Mark

  9. MarkH says:

    Now that it’s come out that the Bush administration, or perhaps the Sec. of State, is opening an ‘office of interest’ in Iran and that face-to-face negotiations may soon occur it means the Congressional Dems and Patrick Fitzgerald have less to fear from a sudden Bush attack (preemptive defense) on Iran.

    Soooo, does that mean there’s a greater latitude for Congress to impeach?

    Surely a Q&A with Rove on politics in government would be enlightening.