Rove Once Again Saying Things on Teevee He Claims He Can’t Say to Congress

Thanks to TPM’s reader GB for watching Rove on Stephanopoulos so I don’t have to. Rove claims he shouldn’t have to appear before Congress because–in a different subpoena–the White House invoked executive privilege.

Rove: Congress–the House Judiciary Committee wants to be able to call Presidential Aides on its whim up to testify, violating the separation of powers. Executive Privilege has been asserted by the White House in a similar instance in the Senate. It’ll be, probably be asserted very shortly in the House. Third, the White House has agreed–I’m not asserting any personal privilege, the White House has offered and my lawyer has offered several different ways, if the House wants to find out information about this, they can find out information about this and they’ve refused to avail themselves of those opportunities.

Two things here.

First, the circumstances between this and the Senate subpoena are actually somewhat different. Rove’s documented involvement in the USA firings is actually much more minor than that in the USA purge. In the USA purge, he briefly attended on meeting at the White House strategizing how they would respond to Congress’ investigation and instructed the DOJ folks to come up with one story about what they said had happened. And some Republicans have said they asked Rove to fire Iglesias and later–in December 2007–that Rove told them Iglesias was gone. The discussions of what Rove did subsequent to those requests is based on anonymous sources claiming that Rove intervened directly. Those same anonymous sources, though, say that Rove had to get Bush involved personally, which would implicate the President and then–except insofar as someone was arguing that the firing constituted obstruction–executive privilege.

Here, though, we’ve got a sworn source saying she heard references to Rove directly contacting DOJ, bypassing the President and therefore bypassing executive privilege.

Also, given Rove’s involvement in Alabama politics, it’s hard to say whether his activities were those of a presidential aide or a powerful GOP operative.

In any case, the White House has not yet invoked executive privilege here. And a few things are going to make that harder to do. First, who will provide the legal review to justify it? Paul Clement did the heavy lifting the last time the White House invoked executive privilege here–but it pertained solely to the hiring and firing of USAs. As faulty as I believe that decision to be, at least with that subpoena Clement could twist an argument into claiming the issues at stake were solidly presidential. But the basis for executive privilege would be very different here–in fact, the stronger argument would be for DOJ to argue that it cannot disclose information relating to charging decisions, rather than the President invoke executive privilege. But no one seems prepared to do that. In addition, Clement will be gone by the end of next week, meaning some one else would have to take one the nasty task of invoking privilege when it so clearly seems to be an attempt to cover up a potential crime. It’s possible that DOJ is less willing to do so in this case–we shall see.

Particularly given the frequentness with which Rove has commented on this publicly–as he did once against this morning. It’s an increasingly ridiculous argument to say that Rove can talk about this to 60 Minutes, GQ, Fox, and now George Stephanopoulos. But he can’t talk about it to John Conyers.

And finally, add in the fact that when faced with a marginally antagonistic questioner, Rove’s denials look increasingly like empty spin.

Steph: But to be clear, you did not contact the Justice Department about this case?

Rove: I read about–I’m gonna simply say what I’ve said before which is I found out about Don Siegelman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper.

Steph: That’s not a denial.

Rove: I, I, I’ve, you know, I heard about it, read about, first learned about it by reading it in the newspaper.

If Rove repeatedly goes on the telly to deny he was involved, but also refuses to say he had no involvement in this, it’ll be tough to argue he shouldn’t testify.

That said, there’s an underlying issue here that makes this weak claim to executive privilege even more dangerous.

Josh claims that if Rove is implicated in the Don Siegelman firing, it’s the most scandalous revelation that might come out of the USA Purge.

If Siegelman’s and Alabama GOP lawyer Jill Simpson’s stories are true, that would make this case the centerpiece example of the corruption of the DOJ revealed by the US Attorney firing scandal. In fact, it would make most of what we know now seem minor by comparison.

I disagree, strongly.

You see, Rove is treating this HJC request as if it’s a duplicate of the USA Purge subpoena he received from the Senate. As I’ve argued above, Rove is actually being asked to testify about politicized prosecution, and not about USA firings. And that should distinguish it from the Senate subpoena, not to mention disqualify it for executive privilege.

But what Rove appears to be truly afraid of is not answering questions about Don Siegelman. It’s answering questions about the other politicized prosecution that several witnesses have recently sworn that Rove was involved in: that of Bob Kjellander.

I also can’t help but wonder whether Karl wants to limit testimony to Siegelman because of something he noticed on HJC’s website. HJC has put PatFitz’s QFRs right there alongside all the material on politicized prosecutions. The only thing PatFitz mentioned regarding politicized prosecutions had to do with the revelations that have since come out in the Rezko trial–revelations that put at least 3 people, some of them solidly corrupt Republicans like Turdblossom, on the record with hearsay evidence about Rove working to fire PatFitz. And since Rove has already sent his BFF Michael Isikoff out to figure out what evidence there is against him, it sure seems like Rove doesn’t want to testify about the conversations he had with Bob Kjellander about firing Patrick Fitzgerald.

But this is one area that has the evidentiary justification of the Siegelman case (several people, also including Republicans, with hearsay evidence stating Rove was acting improperly). Like the Siegelman case, it pertains to politicized prosecutions.

But it also pertains to the USA purge, which makes Rove’s claim to executive privilege pertinent again.

Now, in general, Rove freely admits (to GQ, but not to Congress) that he conveyed complaints about USAs to the White House. He also asserted that that was perfectly okay.

What about the U.S. attorneys? Should you have had a role in hiring and firing?
[a little peeved now] What was my role in firing those U.S. attorneys?

Your position has been—and tell me if I have this wrong—that you basically relayed complaints?
To the counsel’s office. Correct.

And that was an appropriate thing to do?
Oh sure. Sure it is. Sure it is.

Oh sure, Karl Rove is saying, it would be perfectly fine if I told Gonzales that our big corrupt Chicago donors were pissed that they might be prosecuted for their corruption.

Except that, in this case, Rove would have been relaying complaints about a prosecutor not only prosecuting corrupt Chicago Republicans (and Democrats–Chicago is a bipartisan den of corruption). Fitzgerald’s oblique answer to the QFRs from the House strongly suggests that Rove was relaying complaints about Patrick Fitzgerald from Kjellander while Fitzgerald was actively investigating Rove’s own involvement in outing Valerie Wilson.

Rove’s alleged role in the prosecution of Don Siegelman is pretty terrible. But the allegation that Rove appears to have even more disinterest in answering has to do with his own efforts to get Fitzgerald fired during the time when Fitzgerald was investigating Rove himself.

image_print
88 replies
  1. perris says:

    Here, though, we’ve got a sworn source saying she heard references to Rove directly contacting DOJ, bypassing the President and therefore bypassing executive privilege.

    I would like to point out as I always do, these criminals make up the rules they don’t follow them

    there is nothing the president won’t do, he will invoke executive priviledge regardless there is none, he’s done it before and he will do it again

    congress will again do nothing about it

    they need to first jail meyers and then serve subpeona, and when rove refuses to appear they need to jail him

    they need rove to get on the stand and say the president told him to act, he must do this under oath in order to invoke executive priviledge

    then the propaganda corp will do nothing about rove claiming the president had him persue a prosecution to steal yet another election

  2. Badwater says:

    The coming wave of Presidential pardons will close most of the sorry Bush chapter of this Nation’s history, at least as far as the courts are concerned.

    • perris says:

      in that case they must be called to testify, they will not be allowed to invoke executive priviledge and the bush will not be ablle to claim it post office

    • freepatriot says:

      presidential pardons can be nullified by impeachment

      so we ain’t heard the last of this

      and blanket pardons compound the problem for the gop

      the way I see it, we let bush pardon these assholes, call them to testify without 5th amendment protections, then we impeach the POS and nullify the pardon

      how ya like me now ???

      • Badwater says:

        Impeachment will remain off-the-table. It’s just never going to happen with Pelosi in power. Blanket pardons may be a problem for the GOP, but Bush doesn’t care. The least he’ll do is wait until after the November election…probably the day after.

        • Rayne says:

          My money is on Pelosi not having the votes to pull the trigger; I’ve begun to think she has no choice as long as Rove is not behind bars, because Rove is the key to getting the votes.

          Think about it: what if Rove has enough dirt on enough of the Dems in Congress to ensure they won’t vote for impeachment?

          And what if the reason that DC Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey offed herself was not just that she did not want to go to prison (which Rove/Cheney/Bush might ensure for a lot of reasons), but that she knew she was a chit in their game? Speculation, of course, but think about it…who and what did she know?

    • Leen says:

      The Bush administration’s effects on this country are very similar to having termites in your house. Totally destructive. They have been eating away at the framing of our constitution for seven long years and the results have become very evident. If left untreated they will destroy this house.

      Growing up I was led to believe that those within the Justice system and our Reps have an obligation to enforce the full power of the law no matter what your standing was in your community or in this country. Whether you are the Vice President or a gardener. How does that go “Equal justice under the law”. We are not talking about petty crimes here, we are talking about breaking National and International (torture) laws. We are talking about undermining U.S. National Security. (outing of Plame etc)

      Those in power can turn the situation that the Bush administration has put our nation in into an opportunity by FIXING our nations framing. Those in power can enforce the FULL POWER OF THE LAW on Rove or any other member of the Bush administration who has broken these laws. Or those in power can patch the framing of this country that the Bush administration has been persistently chewing on and have the house crumble later. Americans are watching, our children are watching and listening.

      If those in power turn their heads away from their moral and legal obligations and do not enforce the full power of the law, they will have proved to the American public that the “Two Americas” which John Edwards has addressed not only has two economies, two health care systems, two education systems. They will have proved that we clearly have “Two” or more justice systems. They will prove that we are NOT equal under our laws.

      If they choose to set a clear example by enforcing the law fairly on officials in the Bush administration I believe they will reinforce this system and re-establish trust between the American people, our leaders, the Justice System and our nations relationships around the world. Some Americans are doing their part hoping that the Laws that apply to the crimes committed by officials in the Bush administration will be enforced.

      The whole world is watching

      • freepatriot says:

        The Bush administration’s effects on this country are very similar to having termites in your house.

        yeah, but there is a silver lining:

        The Bush administration’s effects on THE REPUGLITARD AGENDA are very similar to having termites in your house.

        and America is a LOT more resilient than the repuglitards

  3. freepatriot says:

    just so you know, the world is gonna change in the first week of November

    the old way of “going along to get along” is over

    the repuglitards have burned their bridges

    joezoe tortureman is gonna be the posterboy for extinguishing the repuglitard revolution

    that “whiney assed titty baby” routine ain’t gonna stop the criminal charges from being filed

  4. Rayne says:

    This sounds so very familiar, doesn’t it?

    “I’m going to simply say what I’ve said before, which is I found out about Don Siegelman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper,” Rove said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos.

    It sounds so very much like this:

    The lawyer, who has knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors, said President Bush’s deputy chief of staff has told investigators that he first learned about the operative from a journalist and that he later learned her name from Novak.

    Rove has said he does not recall who the journalist was who first told him that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, or when the conversation occurred, the lawyer said.

    In which paper did you read about Siegelman’s investigation and indictment, Karl? The M.O. is getting a bit tired, and it’s also looking like a pattern.

    • FrankProbst says:

      It sounded an awful lot like, “I didn’t know her name. I didn’t leak her name.” But we now know, via uncontested sworn testimony, that he knew her IDENTITY, and that he leaked it to the press. Twice. (At least.) What was interesting here is that Stephanopoulos called bullshit in under 60 seconds, and Rove had no idea what to do.

      It’s fairly clear that Fitz is circling a lot of bad guys in Chicago, some of whom have dirt on Rove. And any serious investigation of the Don Siegelman prosecution is probably going to scoop up a few little fishies, too. It’s only a matter of time until someone flips on Rove.

  5. FrankProbst says:

    Rove’s statement today was so bizarre that I wasn’t really sure what to make of it. First, Stephanopoulos was able to trip him up fairly easily. Second, he admitted that the White House hasn’t really invoked Executive Privilege for the House’s subpoena, so he probably should at least be pretending like he’s going to show up. Third, he claims that he’s willing to give the House all of the information it wants, but just not in public and under oath, which sort of invalidates any sort of Privilege argument.

  6. JGabriel says:

    Badwater:

    The coming wave of Presidential pardons will close most of the sorry Bush chapter of this Nation’s history, at least as far as the courts are concerned.

    Which is yet another reason to impeach the president.

    On the other hand, assuming that won’t happen, a potential Congressional “Truth & Reconciliation Commission” would be able to subpoena and demand testimony from Bush’s pardoned cronies on the basis that – since they are not under threat of prosecution – they have no 5th Amendment right to silence.

    Don’t know if you can get around executive privilege with that gambit, though. I assume it’s an open question whether a sitting president can rescind the executive privilege granted by a predecessor.

    .

    • FrankProbst says:

      I can do you one better–Don Siegelman almost certainly is going to file a civil suit. Pardons mean no 5th Amendment protection. And there will be a new Executive in place who may be quite happy to wave Privilege.

  7. JGabriel says:

    Freepatriot:

    presidential pardons can be nullified by impeachment

    No, not really. Future pardons can be prevented, of course. Already granted pardons cannot be retroactively nullified – as far as I’m aware.

    .

    • freepatriot says:

      Impeachment can be done retroactivly

      it’s been done in the past

      and Pelosi is gonna have a LOT of new members to deal with in January

      the blue dogs are being hunted down and eliminated

      the repuglitards are defending two dozen senate seats

      and john mcsame is even LESS INSPIRING than bob dole (if that’s possible)

      the repuglitards ain’t the only ones who are gonna be wondering what the fuck just happened on November 5th (???)

      • JGabriel says:

        Freepatriot:

        Impeachment can be done retroactivly

        Yes, that’s what I said:

        a post-hoc impeachment (which is permitted)

        However, that doesn’t nullify (as far as I know) the pardons granted by that president.

        .

        • freepatriot says:

          it’s “directly enumerated” in the constitution

          he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

          doesn’t say when the impeachment has to occur

          just says that in cases of impeachment the power of a pardon doesn’t exist

        • JGabriel says:

          Freepatriot:

          it’s “directly enumerated” in the constitution

          he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

          Ah, that’s where you’re coming from. You’re reading that clause incorrectly. It simply means that the President can’t pardon those who are being impeached by Congress.

          (I.E., the operative verbal clause which applies to ‘except in Cases of Impeachment’ is ‘grant Reprieves and Pardons’, not ’shall have power’ – if that helps clear it up.)

          It doesn’t mean that impeachment of the president nullifies his/her previous pardons.

          .

        • JGabriel says:

          Freepatriot:

          got a precedent that says that ???

          Obviously not, since there’s been no impeachment of a president that ended in conviction.

          However, you’re reading of that clause would lead to ridiculous consequences.

          First, it flies in the face of plain reading and accepted grammar: the subjective clause (”except in Cases of Impeachment”) applies to the most recently preceding object (”to grant Reprieves and Pardons”).

          Second, consider how your reading of the clause would play out. Any person pardoned by an impeached president – no matter how distant the pardoned crimes are from the political world – would have their pardon revoked. Someone pardoned for, say, an act of civil disobedience that saved lives, would have to go back to jail and complete their sentence.

          Presidents usually pardon a couple dozen people a year, maybe more. Impeachment, in your scenario, could mean revoking the pardons of 50-150 people – most of whom have nothing to do with whatever crime provoked that president’s impeachment. It’s nonsensical.

          I hope that clears it up. If not, you’ll have to get confirmation or clarification from a lawyer or Constitutional scholar. I don’t think I can make it any clearer.

          .

        • bmaz says:

          Freep – Gabriel is right here, the historical interpretation of that clause is simply that the pardon power cannot be used to negate Congress’s check and balance power of impeachment; because to allow otherwise would be to have an executive branch with no effective checks, balances or accountability.

      • hackworth says:

        Bob Dole and McCain are quite similar. Lackluster Rethuglican corporate whores. Remember – tobacco is healthy.

  8. JoFish says:

    Rove to GITMO. Now what could be more equitable than that? After all, that stupid Navy Admiral said it was like college and Rove never did finish up his schooling. Perhaps a “full-ride” scholarship involving a cell, halal meals and a waterboard at the hands of some of the “CAT IV” (the least intellectually suited) recruits they are now taking into the Army might make him feel like talking to Congress.

    Seems to have worked for Jose Padilla, why not KKKarl Rove too?

  9. JGabriel says:

    Freepatriot:

    blanket pardons compound the problem for the gop

    How so? Bush will be on his last day of office, so, barring a post-hoc impeachment (which is permitted), no consequences for him. And not consequences for the GOP cnadidates either, since that’ll be after the elections.

    .

  10. ezdidit says:

    No such executive privilege exists in questions of legality or obstructions of justice. None whatsoever. Rove knows this, as does Cheney’s brain, Addington, who has wisely decided he will appear.

  11. Badwater says:

    Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc. will likely escape any legal consequences for their years in power. They might, however, be held historically responsible for the end of the GOP’s reign of terror and perhaps even the end of the GOP as a national party.

    • hackworth says:

      Only if the media turns. That’s a mighty big IF. The MSM could hardly become any more right-wing toadified than it is right now. It ignores rethuglican malfeasance, shrugs it’s shoulders at it or blames democrats for it.

  12. perris says:

    No such executive privilege exists in questions of legality or obstructions of justice. None whatsoever. Rove knows this, as does Cheney’s brain, Addington, who has wisely decided he will appear.

    it exists if congress allows it to exist

    period

    there is no such thing as executive priviledge when it comes to congress, the president derives ALL his power from congress and they have it within their power to remove him from office

    he can invoke any power, any privilege he wants, he has nothing but what congress allows, not what the supreme court allows, not what he claims

    but congress will do nothing and they will indeed allow any priviledge the president claims

    and once they allow it, so it is done

  13. JohnJ says:

    Rove: I, I, I’ve, you know,

    This answers my question a week back about rover being able to think on his feet; HE CAN’T!

    He’s good when he has time to think about it, but this will be a riot if they can get him to speak ”live”.

    It looks like I get to take off my tin hat about Pelosi, they have to have something on her and Reid.

    • hackworth says:

      That is enlightening. The turdblossom expected Media Whore Stephanopoulis to be totally compliant as per rethuglican guidelines. Look for Step to step it down a notch next week. maybe apologize.

    • freepatriot says:

      It looks like I get to take off my tin hat about Pelosi, they have to have something on her and Reid.

      get rid of Pelosi and give Reid a SOLID LEAD BASEBALL BAT

      67 Democrats in the Senate oughta take care of that

  14. WilliamOckham says:

    What happens if the WH & DOJ hang Rove out to dry? There a lot of ways to slow-walk this thing between now and July 10. There are more than a few people who have no love for Karl Rove who would jump at the chance to let him twist in the wind, esp. if they could do it without him being able to find out who the culprits are. I wonder if that has occurred to Karl.

    • emptywheel says:

      Or what happens if DOJ refuses to play along? I suppose Fred could invoke executive privilege without a DOJ opinion–but if they did it after DOJ had refused to sanction it, would DOJ then pursue contempt? Muksaey’s big reason not to do so before was that DOJ had written an opinion sanctioning it.

      Though I suppose Stephen Bradbury could just write one and send it to Dick to have it published.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        I think you got that backwards. It would be Cheney having Addington write it and sending to Bradbury for publication.

      • freepatriot says:

        I suppose Fred could invoke executive privilege without a DOJ opinion

        uhm, how would that work ???

        it’s the “executive’s privlige”, so it kinda has to be invoked by the executive, no ???

        he at least has to support it, right ???

        or can I just invoke “executive privlige” the next time I get hauled into court ???

        I could live with that, maybe …

  15. JGabriel says:

    JGabriel:

    However, you’re reading…

    *Sigh*. That should be “However, your reading…”

    It’s like a sub-paragraph of Murphy’s Law: Whenever one is making a argument about grammar, one shall make a grammatical error.

    It’s so inevitable, it’s almost like a law of physics. It must be the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s way of teaching us humility and reminding us of our own fallibility.

    Either that, or I just can’t help unconsciously subverting myself…

    .

  16. freepatriot says:

    you’re real clear, but you don’t understand what I’m saying

    impeachment applies to more than just the president

    if bush pardons dumsfeld (for example), and we impeach dumsfeld, then dumsfeld’s pardon is nullified

    I have a middling understanding of the history of impeachment, while you’re focused on impeachment of the president, and that’s causing a misunderstanding

    I ain’t talking about a blanket nullification

    I’m talking about individualized nullification by impeachment of the person who was pardoned

    and as a side note; in all my studies of constitutional issues, I’ve learned one thing, The constitution says whatever you can get 5 supreme court justices to agree it says

    it’s that simple

    it’s all bullshit, and we give meaning to some of the bullshit by believing it

    the SCOTUS is who gets to decide what we believe

  17. JGabriel says:

    Freepatriot:

    if bush pardons dumsfeld (for example), and we impeach dumsfeld, then dumsfeld’s pardon is nullified

    That’s an interesting question. It’s open to interpretation, but I suspect the current Supreme Court would disagree. I don’t know that it’s ever been addressed.

    Anyway, my understanding is that the president’s pardon would not protect one from an impeachment proceeding, but that it would continue to protect one from a criminal conviction. I could be wrong about that, but I think that’s the general understanding.

    That said, I don’t believe it’s ever been tested in court. Until then, there’s always the possibility that you’re right.

    .

  18. freepatriot says:

    two points I should clarify

    #1: I’m not talking about a blanket nullification that is done by impeaching george

    shoulda added that last part

    and about the “Bullshit”

    think of the film “History of the World”

    Mel Brooks at the unemployment office:

    what’s your job ???

    Stand up Philosipher

    snip

    ohhh, a bullshitter

    did you bullshit last week ???

    did you try to bullshit ???

    that about sums up government for me (you’d have to meet my uncle to understand)

  19. JGabriel says:

    Freepatriot:

    I’m not talking about a blanket nullification that is done by impeaching george. shoulda added that last part

    Fine, then I should have added:

    Until then, there’s always the possibility that you’re right… on the point of consequences for an impeached executive branch official under the president. You’re still wrong about blanket nullification of the president’s previous pardons being a consequence of impeachment.

    • freepatriot says:

      impeachment was applied retroactivly in a case involving a judge in the early 1800s, and his conviction was used to nullify the part of the constitution that says judges get paid for life. The judge resigned before he was impeached, and his conviction was used to deny his pension

      we’ve only had two impeachments of sitting presidents, and about 50 impeachments over all, so there isn’t a lot of case law on the topic

      this means, with 67 votes in the senate, we could make up a lot of new bullshit, er, precedent

      but people think I’m crazy (hasn’t been proven yet though)

      an I never though of the blanket nullification issue till you brought it up

      I also believe that impeachment and conviction of george bush would extinguish any claims he might care to make regarding “sovereign immunity” in the future, but that’s a whole other set of crimes …

  20. JGabriel says:

    Freepatriot:

    uhm, how would that work ??? it’s the “executive’s privlige”, so it kinda has to be invoked by the executive, no ???

    Which Fred could get by asking the president, with or without a DOJ opinion.

    .

    • freepatriot says:

      so george is just gonna what, show up and say “what fred said”, and consider that invoking executive privilege ???

      does bush have a law degree ???

      maybe he’ll write a letter. if so, I’d love to read it (and ya know we’re gonna get to see it)

      anybody wanna bet he draws a picture of a cat ???

      seriously, there IS some case law about executive privilege, and it don’t involve magic wands or pixie dust

      • JGabriel says:

        Freepatriot:

        so george is just gonna what, show up and say “what fred said”, and consider that invoking executive privilege ??? does bush have a law degree ??? maybe he’ll write a letter.

        Pretty much. Bush might send a lawyer along to assert the privilege on his behalf and implicitly challenge Congress to take it up with the Supreme Court – if they can get the votes to do so – but that’s that.

        It’s not like he hasn’t done it before. It’s just standard operating procedure, no matter how extreme the circumstance.

        .

  21. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Yes, if Rove tried to get Fitz fired while Fitz was investigating Rove, that’s obstruction of justice. Without a pardon, that ought to be jail time. At a minimum, it should finally result in Rove losing his security clearance, which makes him unable to do a lot of business in DC.

    I think Rove’s has and had his fingers in a lot of pies; dirty tricks, after all, are his specialty and have been for over two decades. A serious review of any of these politicized prosecutions will very likely reveal prosecutable wrongs by Rove. It would also reveal ties to other, related political prosecutions. The daisy chain might come undone. I think that’s the ugly end Rove and his GOP are trying to avoid, which means both will pull all the tricks they know to stop that first serious investigation – or discredit it so that it doesn’t result in a prosecution.

  22. masaccio says:

    I say again, the loathsome John Yoo is right. Congress has the power to deal with these scofflaws. They just don’t have the guts. If Rove, Miers and the rest of them don’t show up, lock them up. If they plead some ridiculous executive privilege, lock them up. If they think they get a free pass, show them they don’t.

    Over the years we have built up institutions to reduce the conflicts among the three branches. We have precedents, not just judicial precedents but legislative and executive precedents, to show us plausible ways to work out harsh political differences. Bush and his crony government have ignored all of that history and the rightful expectations of all citizens.

    We need to see Congress take its rightful powers back. Or we can kiss our old civics books good bye.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      I actually saw these on Friday and forgot to mention them. They mostly consist of CREW and NSA calling the EOP on all the omissions and contradictions in their filings. They do point out the places where the judge ought to be offended by the crassness of the EOP’s postion.

      • MadDog says:

        Per InternetNews.com, it looks like the White House has until next Tuesday to respond:

        Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers for EOP now have until May 27 to respond to the groups’ latest court filings.

        “After that point it’s a waiting stage as the court will then determine whether it will grant our request,” Meredith Fuchs, Archive counsel, told InternetNews.com.

    • masaccio says:

      I’m only on page 100 of the monstrous OIG report. I hope to finish it by tomorrow, unless more yard-work and cooking intervene.

    • bmaz says:

      MadDog and EW – I must apologize. I got an email from Meredith Fuchs on Tuesday the 20th on this with the docs/pleadings attached. I saved it in my inbox queue for the express purpose of posting it as a comment (mostly to feed the insatiable MadDog appetite on the subject, which I commend and appreciate greatly, but also for everybody). Things just got hectic and I failed to remember to do it. I am lame; sorry about that…..

  23. JThomason says:

    The phrase that signalled Bush’s approach was “compassionate conservatism,” but it never amounted to a policy program. Within hours of the Supreme Court decision that ended the disputed Florida recount, Dick Cheney met with a group of moderate Republican senators, including Lincoln Chafee, of Rhode Island. According to Chafee’s new book, “Against the Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President” (Thomas Dunne), the Vice-President-elect gave the new order of battle: “We would seek confrontation on every front….The new Administration would divide Americans into red and blue, and divide nations into those stand with us or against us.” Cheney’s combative instincts and belief in an unfettered and secretive executive proved far more influential at the White House than Bush’s campaign promise to be “a uniter, not a divider.” Cheney behaved as if, not withstanding the loss of the popular vote, conservative Republican domination could continue by force of sheer will. On domestic policy, the Administration made tax cuts and privatization its highest priority; and its conduct of the war on terror broke with sixty years of relatively bipartisan and multilateralist foreign policy.

    “The Fall of Conservatism”, by George Packer, The New Yorker, May 26, 2008.

    • perris says:

      Cheney behaved as if, not withstanding the loss of the popular vote, conservative Republican domination could continue by force of sheer will. On domestic policy, the Administration made tax cuts and privatization its highest priority; and its conduct of the war on terror broke with sixty years of relatively bipartisan and multilateralist foreign policy.

      cheney has failed at everything, he blames everyone else for his failure and then he gets another job as if his failure were a success

      he is a moron who gets people to believe he has some kind of intelectual ability

      he is a sociopath that will do whatever he wants as soon as he thinks he can get away with it, he is a criminal and he is inept

      he cost the republican party their power and he cost us our country

  24. JThomason says:

    The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.

    “Republicans and Our Enemies” by Joe Biden, WSJ

  25. masaccio says:

    From the OIG report. It is clear that all of the DoJ people have a bad case of CRS disease. Alice Fisher, David Nahmias, Michael Chertoff, Larry Thompson, Ashcroft, “do not recall” hearing about any of the specific interrogation techniques. Instead they use the euphemism: the ineffective DoD interrogation techniques. This is from p. 113:

    Nahmias also told the OIG hat “pretty much everyone” involved in counterterrorism issues at DOJ, including the senior leadership of the Department, was aware of concerns about the effectiveness of DOD interrogations.

    • sailmaker says:

      Alice Fisher, Jack Goldsmith, Addington, and bunch of others who did the the torture tour (probably not the only torture tour, but the one in September, 2002 that Goldsmith writes about in “The Terror Presidency”) should be asked about what they saw on the tour. The tour was of GITMO, the South Carolina brig with Hamden, and the Maryland jail with Padilla. Whatever they saw, although Goldsmith does not mention techniques, it was enough for Goldsmith to say ‘This is what habeas corpus was created for.’ Goldsmith had been pro-torture, having worked for Haynes at the Pentagon before he went to OLC. Whatever he saw, it had to be beyond horrible.

      Make those people say what they SAW. Take their testimony privately, and compare the testimonies. That’ll cut down on the CRS.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      A huge chunk of the OIG report is based almost solely on the contemporaneous notes, documents, and emails that Nahmias saved. The whole section about the plan to send al-Qahtani to the CIA to be waterboarded is there only because Nahmias saved a draft document about it.

      Also, pay close attention to the stuff Alice Fisher says that just ain’t so.

  26. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    You see, Rove is treating this HJC request as if it’s a duplicate of the USA Purge subpoena he received from the Senate. As I’ve argued above, Rove is actually being asked to testify about politicized prosecution, and not about USA firings.

    It sure looks as if he’s hanging his hopes on confusing people by making these seem to be ‘duplicates’. In fact, that’s precisely the way he describes them in his “This Week” interview, scoffing that they are ‘duplicates’.

    Let’s hope the media figures out the difference and explains it.
    There’s no executive privilege for obstructing justice.
    As someone earlier pointed out, plenty of people must have daggers unsheathed for Rove.

    • KayInMaine says:

      Here’s the suggestion I just left there:

      “Fire Liz Trotta for suggesting Barack Obama be assassinated while grouping him in with Osama bin Laden. Shame on her! Send the SS out to arrest her for even making such a threat too!”

  27. FrankProbst says:

    The one really good thing about Rove right now is that he’s actively advising the McCain campaign. And he seems to be telling them that they need to wrap themselves around George W Bush as tightly as possible.

    What no one seems to have grasped is that Karl Rove isn’t looking out for McCain, or even for Republicans in general. He’s looking out for Karl Rove. And Rove knows that he’s wholly dependent on the goodwill (what little there is) of George W Bush right now. That’s the only thing that’s protecting him from multiple subpoenas, and it’s the only thing that’s going to save him if/when the indictments come down. Rove knows–probably better than anyone else–how vindictive President Pissypants can be when people “betray” him by pointing out what a failure he’s been. That’s not someone I’d want to get “sincere” advice from.

    • bmaz says:

      Rover is certainly not dependent entirely on Bush’s goodwill. Unca Karl knows where a ton of bodies are buried; he holds plenty of protection cards.

      • FrankProbst says:

        Rover is certainly not dependent entirely on Bush’s goodwill. Unca Karl knows where a ton of bodies are buried; he holds plenty of protection cards.

        Yes, but I don’t think that he holds any cards that matter. The only person who has much real pull with Bush is Cheney. Rove is a has-been to him. Bush can always claim that Rove acted on his own. It’s the Reagan defense all over again.

      • Hmmm says:

        But how many of them hold the power of the pardon? On the other hand, how likely is it that there is any conceivable circumstance under which W would not pardon Rove? C’est impossible.

    • Leen says:

      Sounds like you are describing an individual with a “psychopathic personality disorder”?

      • FrankProbst says:

        Sounds like you are describing an individual with a “psychopathic personality disorder”?

        Paging Dr Frist!

  28. bmaz says:

    Right, my point is that it is not simply that Rove is beholden to Bush. It’s a two way street, they are in it together, mutually beholden to each other, and both holding trump cards.

    • Hmmm says:

      Ah, gotcha. Thought you meant The Son Of The Man With The Golden… er… Jewelry had dirt on other folks, not W.

      Thx, “Clarity is pleasurable.”

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Totally agree.
      But an important point has not been made in this thread, which helps explain why Rove is in such deep trouble. He blurred roles in the first place, by merging campaign and ‘Policy’ roles in the WH. But now he’s bleating that because he blurred roles, no one can make him accountable for anything?

      Give me strength…!

      I hope Conyers and Leahy have some good bellylaughs watching Rove frantically lurch at any straw he can; no such straws exist, despite the fact that he’ll spend the next six weeks trying to puff them out of thin air.

      Poor Karl; outsmarted by his own brilliance.
      He’s a veritable Vizzini.
      Too much iocane powder in too many goblets, k-k-k-Karl…..

      Feingold and Whitehouse are my two main hopes for: Dread (Judiciary) Pirate Roberts’s… ;-))

Comments are closed.