Posts

HJC Testimony: Michael Mukasey

/in /by

Today’s hearing should be contentious. I expect Dems will want to talk about why Karl Rove feels he can blow of Congress, why Michael Mukasey begged Bush to invoke Executive Privilege to protect Cheney’s FBI interview reports, torture, and voting rights. Mukasey, undoubtedly, is going to want to talk about how HJC should drop all of those issues and instead focus on his call for Congress to redeclare war against Al Qaeda and to legalize keeping detainees indefinitely even if their habeas petitions say there’s no reason to hold them. I’m sure the Republicans on the Committee will alternate between supporting Mukasey’s call to redeclare war and interfering with the hearing generally, as they did with the Dougie Feith hearing last week.

As scheduled, the only place to watch the hearing live is the HJC feed. CSPAN will be showing it on tape delay later in the day.

One more relevant announcement: Governor Don Siegelman will be joining us at FDL tomorrow at 12 ET/9 PT for a live chat–we expect to talk about contempt for Karl Rove, as well as anything that comes up in today’s HJC hearing.

Conyers: Not seen enough cooperation on voting rights. Regular meetings on voting rights have not happened and have not been effective. Probably 100 days before the election, we don’t know specifically how govt will respond to practices that made elections of 2000 and 2004 so controversial. Highest order of responsible, because we’re going to be held responsible. In addition to serious problems in 2000 and 2004, numerous other problems, troubling redistricting plans. Hearing tomorrow and DOJ to this moment doesn’t have anybody committed to coming to that hearing. Head of voting section hasn’t agreed to come before us.

Conyers: Trying to get key members of Bush Administration before us: Miers and Bolten refused to cooperate in contempt proceedings bc DOJ has said they’re not going to enforce this subpoena. This Department continues to validate unprecedented concept of total immunity for high ranking officials. Last week, they oddly argued that non-grand jury statements somehow privileged. Waiting months and months for critical documents relating to obstruction of justice, secret OLC opinions, strike at core of Constitutional freedom. With less than 100 days remaining before election, this delay is unacceptable. AG has continued unfortunate tradition of refusing to appoint special prosecutor for evidence of misconduct that would require DOJ to bring in outside counsel. Read more →

Why Absolute Immunity Is So Audacious

/in /by

Apologies in advance–but I’m going to be harping on Rove’s non-appearance before HJC for a couple more posts today (if you’re bored with that, don’t miss bmaz’ update on FISA).

I still seem to be one of the only people–aside from John Conyers–who gets that Karl Rove did not claim executive privilege yesterday, but instead claimed something much more audacious–absolute immunity from being forced to testify before Congress.

The claim that Mr. Rove and the White House make is that high-level aides to the president are totally immune from compelled congressional testimony. Not that there are certain subjects they cannot discuss in a public hearing, nor that the White House has a right to review questions that are asked, but that they are in a class entirely by themselves — a separate group that is above the reach of a subpoena and, consequently, above the law.

Heck, even law professor Jonathan Turley has been repeating that executive privilege line.

A reader sent a link to an ACS blog post on what the difference is (h/t Tanya; and if anyone wants to liberate the full NLJ article on this and email it to you, I’d be grateful). 

The U.S. Supreme Court explained the nature and limits of executive privilege in the Nixon tapes case during Watergate. It said that executive privilege protects "the confidentiality of Presidential communications." And it made clear that the privilege is not absolute. The court balanced the competing interests at stake, the president’s need for confidentiality against the needs of the criminal justice system in finding the truth. Here, by contrast, the president seeks not merely to bar testimony about specific conversations or documents. He claims the right to block any sworn public testimony by his advisers, period. Thus, the claim of confidentiality is based on who the witnesses are rather than what they have to say. And the president is suggesting that this immunity, unlike executive privilege, is absolute. There is no balancing of interests.

This claim of immunity is not only broader than executive privilege, it also stands on weaker ground. No court has ever ruled on the issue. To be sure, although officials have testified on occasion, both Republican and Democratic administrations have long insisted that Congress cannot compel testimony by the president’s closest advisers. The claim of immunity, however, rests on legal opinions written by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Attorney General Janet Reno issued Read more →

Those Democratic Committee Chairs Aren’t COORDINATING, Are They?

/35 Comments/in /by

Here’s a little timeline, just for fun.

May 30: Conyers troubled by McClellan’s revelations

June 3: Waxman writes to Mukasey, demanding Bush Cheney reports by June 10

June 9: Conyers schedules McClellan testimony for June 20

June 11: Mukasey has his underling reply to Waxman

June 16, 2008: Oversight subpoenas Mukasey for Bush Cheney reports

June 20, 2008: During McClellan hearing, Conyers announces he’s going to request the Bush Cheney reports

June 23, 2008: Due date on Oversight subpoena

June 24, 2008: DOJ tells Oversight to fuck off

June 26, 2008: HJC votes to subpoena Mukasey for a laundry list of documents

June 27, 2008: HJC delivers subpoena, including demand that Mukasey turn over the FBI reports on the Bush and Cheney interviews

June 27, 2008: Oversight requests documents from Fitzgerald

July 3, 2008: Due date for documents from Fitzgerald

July 7, 2008: Due date on HJC subpoena

Now, far be it for me to suggest that Henry Waxman and John Conyers–members of the same political party (!)–are in cahoots. In fact, all my experience with the Democrats since they’ve been in the majority makes me believe that the chances they’re working in tandem here are extremely small.

But still. Look at the dates. HJC only voted to subpoena Mukasey for the Bush and Cheney interview reports (and a laundry list of over materials) after Mukasey had already told Waxman to fuck off. And conveniently, Waxman has given Fitzgerald a deadline that comes before Mukasey’s deadline to hand over the reports to HJC.

You see, I can’t help but think that Oversight has a relatively weak claim to those interview reports. Ostensibly, they have asked for the reports to answer the following questions:

(l) How did such a serious violation of our national security occur? (2) Did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred? ‘ And (3) what changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of our national security from continuing?

In other words, Waxman has described the rationale of his request in terms of strict oversight roles–ostensibly to prevent someone else–besides the Barnacle, I guess–from outing CIA spy with impunity. DOJ has allowed Oversight to see (but not keep) interview reports showing clearly that Bush and Cheney not only didn’t launch an investigation into the leak. They obstructed justice, by exonerating Rove and Libby publicly. But if, given what Mukasey has seen and we haven’t seen, Bush and Cheney can claim they had declassified Plame’s identity before Libby and everyone else leaked it, well, then, the whole question of why they didn’t do an investigation is moot. Read more →

Mukasey’s Subpoena

/47 Comments/in /by

Is here.

I’m going to run out to do battle with Sears again (they’ve got a new dehumidifer for me, and boy is it muggy here in the Midwest), so I won’t get a chance to analyze the full–and long–laundry list till I win (!) my next battle with Sears.

But just as a teaser, here’s how Conyers worded the demand for the Bush and Cheney interviews.

All documents from the office of former Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald described below for which the former Special Counsel has not determined that disclosure would be barred by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) governing grand jury secrecy:

a) Complete and unredacted versions of transcripts, reports, notes, and other documents relating to any interviews outside the presence of the grand jury of President George W. Bush.

b) Complete and unredacted versions of transcripts, reports, notes, and other documents relating to any interviews outside the presence of the grand jury of Vice President Richard Cheney.

c) Complete and unredacted versions of 302 interview reports relating to interviews of the following witnesses in the investigation: Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett, and Andrew Card.

I wonder if Bush and Cheney are rethinking their decision not to appear before the grand jury yet?

Scott McClellan Testimony: Rove Is a Liar and Cheney an Oil-Hungry War-Monger

/30 Comments/in /by

picture-27.png

I confess to being underwhelmed with the work HJC did with Scott McClellan’s appearance before the committee today. I’ll do a post later (once I’ve recovered from a terrible day for Democracy) on what I think was missed. But I’ll start with the positive–what I consider the highlights of the hearing.

Conyers started the hearing right, IMO, by introducing the meat-grinder note, showing that as Cheney was pressuring Bush to have Libby exonerated, Cheney was thinking of Bush’s order that Libby "put his neck in the meat-grinder." Conyers also made the case–which I made here–that Mukasey should turn over the reports from the Bush and Cheney interviews (doing anything else is really cooperating the ongoing attempts to cover-up the Libby case). Of course, HJC could have made a more compelling case that it needs the reports had they don’t a better job of explaining why the reports would be the only way to answer urgent questions about the leaks. But, aside from Chairman Conyers, no one on the committee made a concerted effort to present the abundant evidence that Cheney and Bush were involved in the leak of Plame’s identity. For example, when Jerrold Nadler asked McClellan whether Bush and Cheney had any knowledge of Libby’s involvement in the leak, he didn’t introduce that evidence that Cheney, at least, did, and Bush may have as well.

NADLER: Do you know when the president gave instruction to cover Libby’s rear end, did he know about Libby’s involvement? Scott didn’t know that.

Perhaps the best use of the hearing time came from (unsurprisingly–he usually excels in hearings) Artur Davis. Davis, who is from Don Siegelman’s state, got McClellan to admit that Rove not only would–but has–lied to protect himself from legal jeopardy and political embarrassment.

Artur Davis Let me circle around a person, Rove. You stated Rove encouraged you to repeat a lie. Indicated you’ve known him for some time. Committee extended invitation to Rove. I’m willing to talk, only if no oath, no cameras, no notes. Based on what you know does it surprise you that Rove wants limitations on circumstances.

SM An effort to stonewall the whole process.

Davis Would you trust Rove to tell the truth if not under oath.

SM Can’t say I would

Davis Not under oath.

SM I would hope he would. I’d have concerns about that.

Davis Did testify before GJ under oath. You don’t believe he told the complete truth to the GJ.

SM I don’t know.

Davis Karl only concerned about protecting himself from possible legal action. Do you believe he is capable of lying to protect himself from legal jeopardy.

SM He certainly lied to me.

Davis Do you believe he is capable of lying to protect himself from political embarrassment.

SM he did in my situation, so the answer is yes. [my emphasis]

Read more →

Keith O and Scottie McC and Chairman John C

/97 Comments/in /by

In a continuation of our "All Things Scottie" this week, here’s Scottie McC’s appearance last night with Keith Olbermann. The whole thing is worth watching, but I wanted to capture what he said about the Plame Affair (starting at about 1:45).

SMc The House Judiciary Committee reached out to me. They invited me to come testify, and as I said before, I’m glad to share my views and as I told them I’m glad to share what I know about the Valerie Plame leak episode so I will be going before the Committee a week from Friday on the 20th of this month.

KO Do you have any doubt that key people in the Administration were willing to sacrifice a CIA asset like Valerie Plame just to punish her husband and stifle critics and will you testify to that before the Congressional Committee?

SMc I’ll tell them what I know. I’m not going to get into things that I don’t know about. But I think Patrick Fitzgerald had it about right when she, he said during the trial of Scooter Libby that she became just another talking point in this effort to discredit Joe Wilson. That’s unfortunate. Whether or not there was any criminal activity involved, I don’t know. But it was wrong to do that and I will speak to the questions that they ask me and share exactly what I know.

Keith and Scottie McC go onto discuss the scope of the testimony and Scottie McC points to the language in Conyers’ letter asking for testimony about,

… reported attempts to cover up the involvement of White House officials in the leak of the covert identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson and related matters…

Note the difference here. When Keith asks Scottie McC about whether he will testify to outing Plame, Scottie McC backs off that some–suggesting that he may not know whether people "we willing to sacrifice a CIA" operative. But he does seem to agree strongly with Fitzgerald that Plame was a talking point.

This is significant, in my opinion. Fitzgerald primarily offered evidence at trial that Cheney translated his question "Or did his wife send him on a junket?" into the talking point, "It’s not clear who authorized the travel."

Let’s go back. "Or did his wife send him on a junket?" Read more →

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 →

Is Isikoff Laundering Information for Karl Rove Again?

/70 Comments/in /by

As you’ll recall from the Plame case, Michael Isikoff helped Karl Rove stay out of jail in at least three ways:

  • After the WaPo published the damaging 1X2X6 article, Isikoff published an article appearing to–but not entirely–refuting it (Isikoff tried again in Hubris, claiming that the 1X2X6 story only got printed due to an editorial error, an attempt that Swopa quickly shredded).
  • When he called Luskin for comment on the fact that Rove was Matt Cooper’s source for Plame’s identity, Isikoff (by his own admission) read Luskin the entire email from Cooper to his editor, alerting Rove’s lawyer to everything that appeared in one of the main pieces of documentary evidence that incriminated Rove.
  • Just before the inquiry, Rove someone at the White House prodded Isikoff to ask Woodward about his "bombshell," probably forcing Woodward to come clean that Armitage had leaked Plame’s identity to him in June 2003, thereby ruining what little value Armitage would have had in a perjury case against Rove.

Laundering information through journalists is a common Rove tactic. For example, someone conveniently launched a false campaign insinuating Ari Fleischer was one of the Novak’s for Plame’s identity; by coincidence (ha!) that campaign was launched the day that Luskin attempted to manage the revelation that Rove was one of Novak’s sources. Even going way back to his days in Texas Rove laundered leaks through the press to attack Jim Hightower and Ronnie Earle.

But in recent years–certainly during the CIA Leak case–Isikoff has been one of Rove’s key information conduits.

In the last couple of months, Rove seems to have been attempting–with no apparent success–to goad reporters covering the Siegelman case to serve as similar information conduits. His surrogates in the AL GOP tried to demand information from CBS and MSNBC about what evidence there is implicating Karl, all while refusing to give up their own information. More recently, Rove has launched a pissing contest with Dan Abrams, attacking Abrams’ journalism, apparently in an attempt to force him to reveal information about evidence against him. Yet with Rove out of the White House, his ability to use journalists to his own ends seems to have diminished.

Except, perhaps, with Isikoff.

The other day, I noted that the news that the revelation of Bob Kjellander’s discussions about firing Patrick Fitzgerald with Rove was an unsurprising move from Fitzgerald. Read more →