Posts

Bush’s DOJ: Okay, Maybe We Won’t Imprison Siegelman for 30 Years

/23 Comments/in /by

Isn’t that nice? The Siegelman prosecutors have decided maybe it isn’t so important to jail Don Siegelman for 30 years after all.

Federal prosecutors are no longer seeking stiffer prison sentences for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. 

Prosecutors filed a motion this week with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that their appeals of the sentences be dropped. Their appeal had called for a longer prison term than Siegelman’s more than seven-year sentence and Scrushy’s almost seven-year sentence.

The latest filing does not say why prosecutors want to drop their appeal.

I can’t imagine why, when everyone in the country is close to concluding that the entire prosecution was a big political witch hunt, they don’t want to go argue for more prison time for Siegelman. Can you?

Perhaps this means we’ll see prosecutors making a motion in a few weeks saying, "golly, maybe we didn’t really want to prosecute Siegelman after all."

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

/88 Comments/in , /by

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. Read more →

Rove’s Subpoena

/192 Comments/in /by

Apparently, Chairman Conyers received yet another letter from Robert Luskin claiming that Rove can spout off all he wants about his involvement (or not) in Governor Siegelman’s prosecution, but he can’t or won’t do so before the House Judiciary.

Conyers isn’t going to wait around for more of the same.

We were disappointed to receive your May 21 letter, which fails to explain why Mr. Rove is willing to answer questions in writing for the House Judiciary Committee, and has spoken on the record to the media, but continues to refuse to testify voluntarily before the Committee on the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Because of that continuing refusal, we enclose with this letter a subpoena for Mr. Rove’s appearance before the Committee’s Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee at 10:00 a.m. on July 10, 2008.

(Nice touch, Chairman Conyers, having the Subcommittee vote on it without, as far as I’ve heard, the news getting word.)

Now, as Conyers points out, this subpoena is a bit different than the subpoena that Harriet Miers blew off. For starters, Rove has been completely willing to answer questions in writing–and at least until now, he hasn’t asked Bush whether Bush wanted to protect the alleged conversations between Rob Riley and Rove and the Public Integrity Division of DOJ. And, as Conyers reiterates, Rove has been blabbing and blabbing and blabbing about this to the press, so it’ll be tough to argue that he can’t continue to blab under oath.

One more difference. I wonder how the Courts will feel about enforcing a subpoena issued by someone who said "Someone’s got to kick his ass"?

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: “We’re closing in on Rove. Someone’s got to kick his ass.”

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn’t, said Conyers, “We’ll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We’d hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested.”

Read more →

Conyers to Rove: No, It’s Not an Open Book Test…

/27 Comments/in /by

(Updated with Conyers video–did I mention he seems cranky of late?) 

…And, besides, we want to see you sweat.

Karl Rove, still trying to back out of Robert Luskin’s taunt that Rove would be happy to testify, tried to get John Conyers to settle on written responses to questions. Conyers, who’s finally beginning to lose his temper, said no.

Our position remains, however, that since your client has made a number of on-the-record comments on these subjects to the media, and in light of your (now modified) statement that Mr. Rove would be willing to testify, we can see no justification for his refusal to speak on the record to the Committee. Please contact Committee counsel or respond in writing no later than May 21 as to whether your client will make himself available to the Committee for questioning.

[snip]

Your letter also suggests that we address written questions to Mr. Rove, which may reflect a misunderstanding of Committee procedure. Although we do often address written questions to witnesses, that occurs after live testimony, which is critical in order to allow the follow up and give-and-take that is necessary to inquiries of this nature. Since you indicate Mr. Rove is now willing to submit written answers to questions, which by definition would be recorded in a manner similar to a transcript, we do not understand why he would not submit to providing transcribed answers to live questions, as he has done in media interviews. [my emphasis]

Actually, Conyers would even agree to an almost-open-book test, providing Rove the questions before he testified.

We are willing to consider other possible accommodations, such as providing a list of initial questions that may be asked.

I thought Turdblossom was smarter than this–why does he need so much help to pass a simple little test?

One answer may have to do with scope. Rove is on the hook, of course, for all his blabbing about the Siegelman affair. But he appears to want to limit all questions to that narrow subject, something Conyers is unwilling to let him do.

We are writing in response to your May 9 letter with respect to the invitation to Karl Rove to testify before the House Judiciary Committee concerning the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Because your letter appears to reflect several misunderstandings concerning the subjects we wish to question Mr. Rove about…

Read more →

Bloch: Stop Making Sense

/79 Comments/in /by

I am still catching up on events of the last week and so I don’t have a really good sense of WTF is going on with the FBI raid of Scott Bloch’s house and–according to NPR, via Sara–body cavities. But I wanted to point you to this analysis of a document drafted by a bunch of Office of Special Counsel investigators, listing their complaints about Bloch’s intervention into their investigations. I hoped that, by reading the analysis, I could figure out whether Bloch was in the bag for the Administration or opposed to the Administration. And, for the life of me, I can’t really discern any logic to Bloch’s action.

Go read the analysis. But here’s a scorecard of what the analysis seems to suggest:

Office of Political Affairs (Karl Rove’s shop at the White House)

Bloch consistently forced the task force conducting the omnibus investigation into whether the White House illegally used agency resources to help Republicans to expand its scope, even beyond the mandate of OSC.

Score: Anti-Bush

US Attorney Firing

Bloch refused repeated DOJ Inspector General demands that he drop his investigation into whether the Administration fired David Iglesias for political reasons, even while he insisted that the Iglesias firing was not a Hatch Act violation. Bloch seems to have insisted on keeping the case either because it was so high profile or to stymie DOJ IG’s investigation.

Score: Pro-Bush if done to stymie DOJ IG’s investigation

Monica Goodling’s Use of Political Tests in DOJ’s Hiring Practices

Bloch repeatedly refused to allow investigators to open an investigation into Goodling’s admitted Hatch Act violations. When he finally allowed investigators to open such an investigation, he allocated no resources to that investigation.

Score: Pro-Bush

Don Siegelman Prosecution

Bloch ordered investigators to close their investigation into the politicized prosecution of Don Siegelman.

Score: Pro-Bush

Politicized Prosecution of ACORN for Voting Fraud

Bloch refused to allow investigators to open an investigation into whether the timing of Missouri US Attorney Office indictments of ACORN voter registration employees was politically motivated.

Score: Pro-Bush

Lurita Doan

After completing an investigation into Lurita Doan which concluded that she had violated the Hatch Act, Bloch ordered investigators to open a second investigation into Doan, from a time before she worked in the Administration involving her husband. This second investigation sounds like a personal witch hunt against Doan.

Score: Anti-Bush

Read more →

DanA to TurdB: Yes, I Recognize Cheap Parsing When I See It

/36 Comments/in /by

So Dan Abrams took none too kindly to being accused of constructing fables by the Walt Disney of the Conservative Movement. In a response that is about twice as long as the Turdblossom’s tome, Abrams provides quote after quote to demonstrate that he had done the work Rove accused him of shirking. Abrams repeatedly pointed to the parts of his interviews where he challenged Don Siegelman and Dana Jill Simpson. Most of all, I like where Abrams provided a set of questions designed to expose Rove’s cheap parsing for what it is.

1) You say you "certainly didn’t meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two US attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman." Did you talk to, or otherwise communicate with, any of them about it even if you did not meet? Did you have any discussions with any of them about this topic?

2) What about your old friend Bill Canary, whose wife initially led the prosecution? Are you denying that you spoke with him about anything related to the case?

3) You worked for former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Did you ever talk to him about anything related to the Siegelman matter?

4) Did you ever ask anyone else to communicate with any official in the Justice Department about the Siegelman investigation or case?

5) Do you know why your lawyer told us that you would testify about this case if you were subpoenaed but now, after you have been invited to do so, he states that there are issues of executive privilege: "Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify … is not for me or my client to decide" he said.

6) You have said you never spoke with the White House about the case. If true, what is the possible "executive privilege?"

7) You ask why I did not further question one of my guests when he discussed your effort to help now Governor Riley in his campaign. Did you consult in any way with Riley or anyone else working with him on the campaign?

8) Did you ever discuss, with anyone, the possibility of media leaks about the Siegelman case? Did you speak with any members of the media about Siegelman during his campaign? [my emphasis]

Read more →

Turdblossom Writes Letters

/74 Comments/in , /by

Dear Bob Novak:

It boils down to this: as a journalist, do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your sources, seek out evidence and come to a professional judgment as to the real facts? Or do you feel if a charge is breathtaking enough, thoroughly checking it out isn’t a necessity?

I know you might be concerned that asking these questions could restrict your ability to make sensational charges in your column, but don’t you think you have a responsibility to provide even a shred of supporting evidence before sullying the journalistic reputations of the Washington Post?

People used to believe journalists were searching for the truth. But your column increasingly seems to be focused on wishful thinking, hoping something is one way and diminishing the search for facts and evidence in favor of repeating your fondest desires. For example, while you do ask the CIA whether Ms. Plame sent her husband, you did not press Armitage and Libby when they said "Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger."

The difficulty with your approach is you reduced yourself to the guy in the bar who repeats what the fellow next to him says – “Wilson’s wife suggested sending him! Wilson’s wife suggested sending him!” – only louder, because it suits your pre-selected story line ("the CIA is attacking the Vice President") and you don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good fable. You have relinquished the central responsibility of an investigative reporter, namely to press everyone in order to get to the facts. You didn’t subject the statements of others to skeptical and independent review. You have chosen instead to simply repeat something someone else says because it agrees with the theme line your sources fed you, created the nifty counter-attack to shield the Vice President.

Oh I’m sorry. Did I say this was a letter to Novak criticizing him for his column outing Valerie Plame? I meant it was a letter to Dan Abrams to, once again, say things to the press Rove is unwilling to say under oath to HJC. (h/t TP)

Conyers to Turdblossom: If You’ll Talk to GQ and Fox, Why Not HJC?

/9 Comments/in /by

Conyers has issued another salvo in HJC’s investigation of politicized prosecution. Most notably, that includes an invitation to Karl Rove to come testify to HJC.

In any event, particularly since you have briefly commented on this matter in GQ and while serving as a commentator on Fox News, we believe the subject, like other seroius charges regarding the role of politics at the Department of Justice, should be addressed before a key investigating Committee of Congress.

Between Yoo and Rove, Solicitor Paul Clement is going to have to invent a whole new kind of privilege to protect those willing to blab to the press but not to Congressional committees.

Perhaps more interesting, HJC has released a report on politicized prosecutions, which includes some new information on the Siegelman affair. For example, it reveals that Scrushy’s lawyer Art Leach believed he had made a plea deal with the prosecutors, only to have that deal rejected by someone higher than Criminal Division head Alice Fischer.

Other evidence also supports the contention that senior officials at the Department or the White House pushed this prosecution. Mr. Leach described a notable conversation he had with the then-acting head of the Department’s Public Integrity Section, Andrew Lourie.83 According to Mr. Leach, he and Mr. Lourie met on April 6, 2006, to discuss the possibility of resolving the matter against Mr. Scrushy before trial. Mr. Leach states that he had worked out an arrangement that was acceptable to the line prosecutors working the case, and that the purpose of this meeting was to obtain approval for the deal. Mr. Leach recalls that the meeting went well, and he believed Mr. Lourie would approve the proposed resolution. A week later, however, the proposed deal was rejected. When Mr. Leach asked Mr. Lourie why he would not approve a deal that the local prosecutors had supported, “Lourie informed me that the decision was made over his head.”84 Mr. Leach asked if that meant the head of the Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, had made the decision, and was told “the decision had been made higher than the AAG for the Criminal Division.”85 Mr. Leach reports that he was “puzzled” by this response because he “could not imagine a decision like this rising to that level of the Department of Justice.”86 Read more →

Haul Karl’s Ass into Congress

/40 Comments/in /by

Karl says he’ll testify.

As Governor Siegelman states, bring him in, let him swear on a bible and either testify or lie under oath.

Rove has, of course, reportedly lied under oath on two other occasions, once in Texas and once in the CIA leak case. He’s probably thinking "three’s a charm."

But let’s do it, this time, in front of the teevee cameras. I’m sure Artur Davis–of Alabama–would welcome Karl’s testimony. And while he’s there, you might ask him all the questions about the USA purge he has refused to answer.

Rove Looking for an Underground Railroad, Again

/70 Comments/in /by

Scott Horton describes how the Alabama GOP has retracted their claims that Dana Jill Simpson never did anything for the state party.

What a difference 72 hours makes. Maybe they got around, in the three days after that “exhaustive search” to talking with Governor Bob Riley and Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh (the G.O.P. chair at the time of the events in question) about Jill Simpson? Maybe they recognized that it was going a bit far out on the ledge to deny that a former county co-chair was unknown to the party leadership? After all, an artful spinner of falsehoods knows that they must at least be somewhat plausible. Or maybe it was Simpson’s statement to NBC’s senior legal correspondent Dan Abrams, who has now adopted the Siegelman case as a staple of his “Bush League Justice” series, that she had confirming telephone records that gave Mr. Hubbard a bit of pause? In any event, what we see between these two statements looks remarkably close to a retraction. [my emphasis]

And then Hubbard turns around and asks for Simpson’s evidence.

Here’s what he says:

“Only the most committed anti-Rove/Bush activist could swallow such a tale,” party chairman Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, wrote in the letter to “60 Minutes. If you are unable to publicly produce hard and convincing evidence that backs the outrageous charges you aired to millions of viewers across the nation, I ask that you publicly retract the story on your next broadcast.”

Read more →