Conyers to Luskin: We Told You So
Today it’s Conyers’ turn to take a victory lap with Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove. This time, it’s the letter to Luskin that is the most enjoyable, particularly for the paragraph that basically says, "Remember when we said this absolute immunity stuff was bullshit? Well, Judge Bates agrees."
As your July 29, 2008, letter points out, the "precise legal issue" raised by Mr. Rove’s claim of immunity from our subpoena as a former White House official was before Judge Bates in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. Yesterday’s decision in that case provides an unequivocal answer. In accordance with the ruling by Chairwoman Sanchez rejecting your immunity assertion, the court found that the absolute immunity claim is "entirely unsupported by existing case law" and explicitly "reject[ed] the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides." Opinion at 78.
Then, Conyers makes the most of Lamar Smith’s blabby mouth, reminding Luskin that Smith has promised Rove would abide by Bates’ decision.
In his letter to me of July 29, 2008, Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith also noted the pendency of the District Court case and stated that "Mr. Rove assuredly will abide by the court’s decision when it issues."
Then again, long ago Luskin assured Dan Abrams that Rove would testify. And we see how that worked out.
Rove will show up, plead some form of privilege for each substansive question and throw it back in the courts hands to decide if he really has that flavor of privilege in this case. He will have just enough softball questions thrown to him by GOP members to be able to pretent he cooperated where he could.
OR he’ll lie like a carpet, get called on it, fight it in court, and get pardoned when he loses.
Boxturtle (Karl will be protected, if he goes down so does BushCo)
he won’t lie at all, he knows he is a bad liar under oath, it’s why he kept getting fitz back and he knows under oath on the record everything is verified
he will not lie, he will obstruct, he will refuse to ansewr, he might even convince himself he’s telling the truth when he’s not, but he will not lie
Pig Missile Smith, Rove’s spokesman. What with the faux interrogatories, unsigned and unsworn, that he supplied on behalf of Mr. Rove, without objection by Rove or Gold Bars Luskin, indeed with their full participation, I don’t see why he should not be considered Karl’s official spokesman. Smith also, it should be noted, submitted himself into the Bates decision as an active amici (not so illuminati).
“OR he’ll lie like a carpet, get called on it, fight it in court, and get pardoned when he loses.”
Only if the prcoess is complete before January 21st, 2009.
This is a hunt. Can’t pounce too soon. Got to paper the case too.
I hope you’re right, but I fear he can be successfully pardoned for things he’s not even accused of. Granted, that point of law has never been litigated but Nixon’s pardon stands.
He could also plead guilty before the 20th and then get pardoned. He KNOWS he’s going to be protected.
Boxturtle (Can’t even threaten him with the Hague, his crimes are All-American)
the democrats are surely having fun with this ruling but really, they need the back up plan when these criminals continue their defiance of subpoena and our law
Given what Mary said yesterday (that is, the govt has a full 60 days to decide to appeal), I think they’re trying to force the issue so they’ll know whether these folks will cooperate sooner.
Conyers’ other letters set a deadline of August 8, one day after Leahy’s deadline from yesterday’s letters.
With no stay, that is exactly what they should be doing, forcing the issue. Irrespective of Bates’ meandering diatribe on inherent contempt, the Committee should be jawing that up a little as extra incentive too; doesn’t have to be in a formal communique, just kind of talk about it like they have been doing previous to Bates’ ruling.
D.C. Circuit FRAPs and all of them for that matter
Require a notice of appeal to be filed within 60 days of the district court decision in a civil case by either party when the government is a party (Rule 4)(a)(1)(B)
as Mary said.
The DC Court of Appeals (or any) has the power to stay Bates’ order (or any CA has the power to stay a district judge’s order) while the appeal is pending.
The district court can extend the notice of time for filing of the appeal if either party moves for an extension within 30 days after the 60 days expires
Fed Rules of Civil Procedure 60 (g) and
FRAP 4 (B) (5) (A) (i)
So if the government wanted to it could motions to extend the time for it to file its appeal to a maximum of 90 days if the motion were granted.
Or to clarify, they have a potential 90 days to extend their time for filing of their appeal (for a period that would be granted beyond that 90 days for the filing) to file an appeal, and a stay by the D.C. Circuit of enforcement of any of Bates’ orders is possible and within their FRAPs (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure).
Rove must be placed under oath. For the life of me, I don’t understand why aany Bush Administration official that testifies in front of Congress isn’t placed under oath. Yes, lying to Congress is a crime, whether under oath or not, but I still don’t understand why the step is not taken.
Luskin, the guiding force in moral clarity, and who specializes in ferreting out white-collar crime, hears the clang of billable hours for the
Law firm of Patton Boggs LLP.
How’s that for a long drawn out sentence…
OH BABY!
this should warm everyone’s heart, from think progress;
“I only found about Siegelman when I read it the papers”
Was that the Tuscalooooosa News?
THIS IS WHY THOSE WHO DEFY SUBPEONA MUST BE JAILED
and jailed immediately;
once the floodgates fail, the flood comes no matter what you do, until you close that floodgate
Thanks for that link, perris. Someone was describing that scene live yesterday a number of threads back, and I was very curious to see Waxman/Shays/Tierney do what they did, but I got there too late. Well done it was too.
no one ought to be taking an victory laps at this point.. they are all premature…
cannot agree with you more
To be fair, I was the one who labeled it a vitory lap. I think these letters are a necessary next step, even assuming Rove will eventually be held in inherent contempt.
an – any
My optimism grows… Cautiously
But I still don’t think that it’s time to invest in porcine aviation.
Unkle Karl will never testify under oath — ever. When Unkle Karl does testify before Congress, stand back and watch the miracle of pigs taking to the air, and flying.
What about porcine missile technology?
Has anyone heard wind of an inside investigation of Pelosi and possible charges against her related to her statement “impeachment is off the table” and how this statement conflicts with her over all duty and obligation to provide oversight? I think I read an article a couple days ago on Kos. Never heard any more about it, and didn’t have time to evaluate the veracity of the claim. To me, it’s an intriguing idea, that Pelosi in making that statement basically sets up an obstruction to oversight. The article sighted suggested that by doing so she is hiding some democratic improprieties…including her own and that this could at the least invite an investigation?
Sorry no link, I can find the article and now wonder if I hallucinated it.
Sounds unlikely to me; wouldn’t give it too much credit
I believe I read yesterday that in an inverview she actually said, “if there were a crime someone could demonstrate that would be another story”, or something to that affect
she is batty, like torture, the illegal wiretapping, faking data to start war…like she never heard these are crimes
Oh, it’s better than that. From this week’s Time Magazine when asked why she took impeachment off the table:
“I took it off the table a long time ago. You can’t talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can’t have the facts unless you have cooperation from the administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda”
So point 1: All the criminals have to do is keep quiet and they win; and
Point 2: They want impeachment and boy are we showing them!!!!
Here is the Pelosi tag over at the Great Orange Satan.
I can’t see anything like what you’re saying on a quick scan, but I’d like to know if any such thing is afoot. I’d like to see it.
Bob in HI
In a recent impeachment petition comment, I said:
In 2006 we worked harder than ever before to elect a majority of Democrats. We did this because we wanted to stop this administration from destroying the country. This is not a partisan issue. There are rumors that Congress won’t impeach because they are complicit in the destruction of our civil rights. The truth is, you become complicit by not reining in this President. With impeachment off the table he laughs at everything you do to try to stop him. Impeachment is the tool given to you by the constitution to accomplish this, the Constitution you’ve sworn to defend. It’s your job to do it. Saying you don’t have the votes is just politically blind to the necessity of impeachment. Impeach first, then GET the votes. That’s how it’s done.
Indeed. That is exactly how it was done in 1973-74.
Just who, or what (organization) would have the standing to do such an investigation? A House committee? Call me stumped.
the article “sighted”…makes me laugh…cause that’s basically the truth. I just think I “saw” it.
face it folks, a pardon is an admission of guilt
and it extinguishes 5th amendment protections
bush isn’t just guilty of crimes against the People of the United States
george has a little problem with CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
If george pardons ANYBODY, we can force that person to testify about their crimes (no assumption of innocence needed)
and once we’ve conducted the “discovery”, we can turn the evidence over to the International Criminal Court
slobadon milosivic died in a cell, as a convicted war criminal
history ain’t gonna forget that
all george can do is decide the venue
if I was george, I would want to face charges at home, where national politics can protect him
either way, I see the opportunity to destroy the repuglitard party
I actually prefer the pardon route, cuz it’s gonna make the repuglitards look awful small, cowardly, and even TREASONOUS
4130 SOLDIERS HAVE GIVEN THE LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION TO aMERICA, AND YOU CAN’T EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ???
gonna make that whole “Support the troops: argument moot
george is in a box, and the tools to fix that don’t exist
maybe george shoulda thought of that when he rejected membership tn the ICC
My heart agrees with you, and I wish my head could too. But this “we” of which you speak — does any such “we” actually exist? I’m becoming quite skeptical about that. The Bush DoJ is a non-starter, except insofar as scapegoat/smokescreen prosecutions of underlings are necessary to protect higher-ups. And clearly congressional D’s before the election are very unlikely candidates, until and unless absolutely undeniable evidence turns up that tests very very well in focus groups for popular reaction. In an Obama-wins scenario the likelihood of both do go up to some extent after the election, though how much remains to be seen. But even in the best case, after 1/20/09 when the new DoJ appointees come in and Congress has a significantly bigger D contingent, would we really be surprised if the marching orders were to “avoid divisive partisan attacks so the nation can move past all this unpleasantness”? Remember what a disappointment Bill Clinton was once he was in office. Remember Gerald Ford.
Free, what’s up you ol salty dog? Haven’t seen you in a spell. Damn, I miss the ol’ troll slappin days. Never laughed so hard.
As for your comment. I doubt Bush ever leaves the country after his time in office. But, you are quite right It’d be a hell of a pickle they’d be in if anyone (congress) gave a shit. I want to believe, but I’m afraid Nancy is just bent to far over the barrel some way or another.
I keep hoping that on election day plus one, congress opens the flood gates and starts kicking some ass, but I just don’t see it. Too many dirty hands in Washington, they want to wash ‘em and let the dirt flow on down the river.
There will be a few end up in the Hague, but not because our bunch of toga wearing congresspunks did anything.
I’m still waiting for anything – just anything that looks like accountability to happen – just ANYthing.
Nancy Pelosi’s Book: Know Your Power is a complete flop in the Amazon Rankings. What she means is Know Your Power–mine has been negative shit–”Bush kicked my ass and the Democrats from one side of D.C. to the other.”
Will Manny bleed Dodger Blue?
Bmaz, Can Randy Johnson blank Ramirez?
Yes, but the blood will be so slow to first that the Boys in Blue will be out.
?
Depends on the night. Sometimes he still has it; others, not so good.
Look for Lord Goldsmith UK, to take a call from GBLuskin Real Soon Now. The ostensible absolute privilege argument was in dispute at Runnymeade. I should refresh the Blackstone summer reading. Like someone said, this August seems to look different.
Yes, but Runnymeade was a struggle between the King (read GWB) and the Barons (read the Corpocracy) for power, with the peasants (that’s us) left on the sideline. The Barons won, but it was only hudreds of years later that any rights (from the Magna Carta) trickled down to the peasants. And habeas corpus has been extinguished of late anyway.
Hmm…this seems like a nice lawyerly place to ask a question about classification/declassification, albeit OT.
I’ve been stewing over this for some time:
From EO 12958 as amended:
” Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security. “
If it is impossible to classify in order to conceal violations of the law, why then do we (IE Congress, etc) respect the “classified” status of warrantless wiretapping so much that no one can talk about it. Those on Intelligence Committees and at DOJ who realized this activity was illegal should have been able to say something then, right? Or am I reading this wrong. Even when Bush admitted publicly, they still said nothing. Would certainly give the one who leaked it to the press legal cover.
Second question: We all know the classified status of Valerie Plame as a covert agent was beyond even Bush’s ability to declassify. It’s a special status. How is there any question ever about whether her covert status was rescinded by ANYONE at the White House? And why has there been no real and regular pushback on this claim? Or has there been and I missed it somehow?
Someone help me with this, please.
From Froomkin, who is quoting Bates:
So inherent contempt is there….but should never be used? How bad do things have to get before Congress should consider using it? Because they’re pretty bad right now, I would argue. Seems to me we ARE in a constitutional crisis. Like Elizabeth Holtzman kept telling the HJC, who didn’t seem to want to hear it, impeachment is there! It’s there to be used, if the need arises. So stop bitching and f**king use it! Put up or shut up, she seemed to be saying.
LOL! I know. I remember. No one did it with joy either like they did to Clinton.
pelosi is a huge disappointment and has abdicated her responsibilities…. when will the news finally reach her? if it has already and she continues to sit on her hands that’s an even worse thing… i think that is the case presently… give her a kick in the ass from me if anyone is in contact with her.. she is hopeless…
Happy to hear the Bates called the “absolute immunity” bullshit. Where was he on all of the other bullshit claims?