Comments (29)

FMArouet wrote on March 19, 2007 11:53 AM:

Note Adam Cohen's excellent summary in today's NYT regarding statutes that may have been violated. The USA firings may well represent multiple instances of outright obstruction of justice. Here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 11:54 AM:

This is the RNC echo chamber again. It's murky only because they're saying it's murky. I don't think it would be a fair characterization that Bruce Lindsey "voluntarily" testified in the various Clinton cases.

I predict the following. Congressional subpoenas for Rove. Rove refuses to appear. Congress orders Rove's detention for contempt of Congress. DOJ refuses to send US Marshalls to detain Rove (on Gonzales' orders). It's going to come to that. The grown ups are not in charge of the White House.

j swift wrote on March 19, 2007 12:03 PM:

One of these eons the human race might figure out that giving deference to the powerful is assinine. If something smells, the first f**ker to be brought to account should be the most powerful person connected with the problem. If he has to bring an entourage of bootlicking toadies to address the problem so be it.

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 12:07 PM:

Speaking of subpoenas, on 1/16/06 Senator Feinstein said:

"As a matter of fact, the rumor has it -- and this is only rumor -- that U.S. Attorney Lam, who carried out the prosecution of the Duke Cunningham case, has other cases pending whereby, rumor has it, Members of Congress have been subpoenaed..."

If Feinstein's rumor is true, aren't members of Congress supposed to report being subpoenaed to Congress?

We already know Curt Weldon failed to report to Congress that he was subpoenaed before the election and, in fact, no one knew he was subpoenaed until after the 109th Congress recessed and he was out of office.

anon wrote on March 19, 2007 12:16 PM:

That Feinstein rumor--"As a matter of fact, the rumor has it -- and this is only rumor -- that U.S. Attorney Lam, who carried out the prosecution of the Duke Cunningham case, has other cases pending whereby, rumor has it, Members of Congress have been subpoenaed..."--seems worth tracking down.

I wonder if Lam subpoenaed paperwork from the Defense Appropriations Committee and--since that's not an individual, the individuals involved didn't feel they had to report it.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 12:21 PM:

Maybe this is what the WH doesn't want Karl Rove testifying to Congress about.

Senator Feinstein on 3/13/07:

"I think what the recent press has said is that this is now a much bigger issue than any of us ever believed it to be, and that it was strategized, that it was put together, that a number of people participated, and that, really, the first group to go was this group."

Feinstein has been around long enough to know to not to make statements that she can't back up.

Pinson wrote on March 19, 2007 12:22 PM:

Since Democrats now control the committees, one would have to assume that any subpoenas from the last congress would have come to light by now. But then again, who knows.

Crust wrote on March 19, 2007 12:41 PM:

Pinson, note that the subpoenas against other Congressmen that anon mentioned at 12:16 were rumored to have been issued by Lam not by Congress. So committee control is probably not that relevant here.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 12:43 PM:

anon, I remember reading that the Dems are going to provide Congressional documents requested by Lam's office last year. I don't think Lam's request nor the fact that it was ignored by the Republicans was a big secret.

Feinstein specifically referred to "members of Congress" being subpoenaed, not documentation.

Again, Senator Feinstein has been around long enough to know bringing up issues she can't substantiate is a big no-no. By referring to "rumors', Feinstein skirted the leak issue but I think she must have had a basis for passing on "rumors".

Notice the Republicans have not gone after Feinstein for passing along defamatory and unfounded "rumors" about Republican members of Congress.

PaulD wrote on March 19, 2007 12:51 PM:

Given Rove's status within the Fitzgerald inquiry into the Plame leak case, I think there might well be some concerns about Rove's testimony, especially since Patrick Fitzgerald is one of the U.S. Attorney's.
Wasn't Rove still something of an object of investigation in January 2005 when he inquired about the status of the dismissals, replacements, etc.?
Isn't there something of a conflict of interest going on with Rove's involvement in a decision that may result in the dismissal of Fitzgerald from his day job (which may or may not have implications for his actions on his second or night job)?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 19, 2007 1:04 PM:

In true chickenhawk fashion, the facsist plutocrats that make up the current Executive Office will be all sound and bluster then ultimately cave.

I believe there will be testimony and it will all be revisionist recessivist crap. Look for no facts and a crap load of 'I believes'. Only if someone gets stuck into lock-up will there be movement. The staffers have already seen that Bush is all to happy to let them do jail time for his pointy little arse ala the Libster.

Unfortunaltey, this all relies on the Democrats doing something impolite like their jobs . . . So . . . Here's hoping that blood in the water will stimulate their primal urges.

Observor wrote on March 19, 2007 1:11 PM:

If the DOJ was looking for documents from congress, it could have been Deb Wong's office in LA, which is handling the Lewis investigation. But of course Wong conveniently quit as the White House was drawng up its list to join the law firm handling Lewis' defense.

anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 1:50 PM:

IIRC, back when Dan Burton was running rampant subpoenaing every Clinton-era issue and person in sight, he used to threaten to roll out the US Capitol Police to have them take the recipient into custody, or haul them before his committee, in the event they chose to oppose his "requests" for information.

Just sayin'....

Dan D wrote on March 19, 2007 2:10 PM:

Executive Privilege is legal fiction.

When Archibald Cox subpoenaed the Nixon Tapes during watergate, he was fully prepared to enforce the subpoena. Nixon refused, and Cox took it the courts. Eventually (after Cox himself was fired in the Saturday Night Massacre), the Supremes ruled the tapes must be surrendered. The "compromise" was unnecessary from any legal standpoint.

There are no solid legal grounds for Rove refusing a subpoena. Only the principle of "Might Makes Right" will allow Bush to get away with it, which is why past congresses have tended to chicken out. They know they ultimately do not control the people who enforce Subpoenas.

It's a terrible flaw in the system.

syvanen wrote on March 19, 2007 2:25 PM:

During Watergate didn't Nixon's aides testify under subpoena? Mitchell? Haldeman? Ehlichman?

pj wrote on March 19, 2007 2:34 PM:

Bushco has nothing to lose from invoking executive privilege and nothing to gain from allowing anyone in the WH to testify. It's like the old adage about never apologizing. Your friends don't need one and your enemies won't believe it in the first place. Bushco will always have the 30 percent support of their fans and know they are never, in the last year-and-a half going to get anyone else on their side. And even if their fan support goes to 10 percent. Who's going to stop them? The SCOTUS they just packed?

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 2:49 PM:

Dan D

Exactly. Show me the part of the Constitution that deals with "executive privilege" and then I'll begin listening to these claims.

The Bushies are supposed to be strict constructionist, but this whole "executive privilege" canard obliterates that.

Can't have it both ways.

Can't oppose a voting Member of Congress for DC one day because the Constitution allows only "states" that privilege -- and then claim some extra-Constitutional power the next day.

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 3:14 PM:

The standrad GOP excuse for why Presidential advisors should not testify before Congress is that they won't be able to give candid advice if they know they might be asked to testify. But in this case that hardly fits.

Rove will be asked to testify about what he advised the Justice Department about with respect to the US Attorney firings, not the President. Unless the President wants to claim the Rove advised *him*, too, about the firings. Now that would be an interesting tack for them to take.

lip11 wrote on March 19, 2007 3:23 PM:

What's next, you ask?

How about impeachment?

pj wrote on March 19, 2007 5:25 PM:

Can't have it both ways.

Can't oppose a voting Member of Congress for DC one day because the Constitution allows only "states" that privilege -- and then claim some extra-Constitutional power the next day.

Wanna bet? They can have it seven different ways before lunch. You are asking them to have a consistent rationale for their behavior. They do have one. Just not the one you insist they have. The consistent rationale is simple...whatever rationale serves their political ends...regardless of inconsistencies anywhere else.

And of course Dubya will claim his advisor's advice comes under executive privilege, regardless of who else turd blossom talked to about it.

James wrote on March 19, 2007 6:00 PM:

I see no real confusion here. The remedy for Congress is impeachment; of Gonzales if he stonewalls, of Bush if he plays "hide the Rover."

Amos Anan wrote on March 19, 2007 6:02 PM:

I thought this issue had been determined by the "Supreme Court" when Clinton's White House attorney was required to testify on some Clinton matter. I don't remember the particulars on that but it was the basis for Bush getting an outside attorney for advice a few years ago. If the adviser is on the government payroll then they can be required to testify. Of course there is no such thing as legal precedent with conservative courts. Oh check that. The precedents are always long standing each time they are changed.

A quick google find - before the legal determination against Clinton and executive privilege.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whitehouse052898.htm

I guess this comes down to the "you and what army" section of law. But that would be fine. Let them hide behind their bullshite as long as people see the wall of bull they claim to need.

Michael wrote on March 19, 2007 6:59 PM:

Perhaps it's time to purge Congress?

Become a Purger; start your own Purge Team.

debunker wrote on March 19, 2007 11:57 PM:

Is it deja vu all over again? Nixon's spin was that executive privilege was a principled defense of the office of president. But revelation after revelation made it obvious it wasn't about priciple at all. It was about coverup. And survival. And once the public and press saw it that way, the executive privilege defense turned into a pr nightmare.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 5:49 AM:

The man who campaigned as the Great Uniter, and declared himself the Great Decider, will burn in history as the Great Divider with all of the catastrophic consequences that are escalating every hour, of every day.

How pathetic that as the sun begins to set on his failed Presidency, he blames the people of our Nation, saying we have some psychological trauma rather than learning the lessons of his enormous mistakes. He will never understand that a grateful nation would rise with relief, if he only had the wisdom to learn and change, and a grateful world will rise with relief, when his days in
office are done.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to create fear throughout the land, rather than bravery, courage and valor.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to launch partisan and dishonest attacks on genuine American war heroes because they happen to be members of the other political party.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 as a reason to become the only President in our history to become a world-wide advocate for torture and detention practices that every leader, of every democratic nation, everywhere in the world, has publicly or privately pleaded with
him to abandon.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for showing contempt for the advice of our military commanders by allowing the man he compares to Hitler, to escape from Tora Bora, to pursue an obsessive war in Iraq, that many of those same commanders warned him about, while he publicly claimed he always follows their advice.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for treating the Chief of Staff of the Army with ridicule and contempt, when General Shinseki so honorably tried to warn him.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history, for putting his hand on the Bible and pledging to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution while using 9-11 to claim the unilateral power to break it.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history by accepting the sacred duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land, while using 9-11 to create fears to claim the unilateral powers to violate them.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for dishonoring a spirit that had Democrats and Republicans singing God Bless America at the doors of our Capitol, to personally promote a politics so venomous, vile and vindictive that he fills the air with talk of treason and enemies lists compiled by hate filled supporters.

Even when one of his media partisans slanders the Army that landed at Normandy and the Marines who took Iwo Jima with preposterous falsehoods that they committed war crimes, the self-styled war president lacks the moral integrity to speak out, for fear of offending what he proudly regards as his base.

Even when the trailer park trash of American politics slanders and demeans some widows of 9-11, this partisan who promised to bring honor and integrity to Washington lacks the moral stature to speak out, even against that.

George W. Bush will be morally impeached by the court of history for trying to frighten our people into war with Iraq, with tall tales of Saddam Hussein working with Osama Bin Laden to create mushroom clouds of nuclear extermination that would kill the people of New York.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to fan the flames of fear so violently, that at one point, the Capital City of the land of the free and the home of the brave was turned into a panicked hutch of rabbits running to the stores for duct tape, gas masks, bottled water, and bullet proof vests while the Vice-President of the United States fled to hiding spots at undisclosed locations.

How ironic, how pathetic, and how fitting that as America prepares to honor the heroes of 9-11 the Senate Intelligence Committee issues a report detailing fraudulent exploitation of false intelligence, one of America's national networks exploits 9-11 with a docu-fraud of falsehoods, while our "wartime" President exploits 9-11 one more time, with one more taxpayer financed tour of fear, desperately trying to win one more national election.

Five years ago some of the finest Americans who God ever put on this earth gave their lives for their brothers and sisters, for their neighbors and families, for the country that they and we love so much, so deeply and so passionately.

No one ever took a poll to determine whether these American heroes were Democrats or Republicans, because it does not matter.

witney@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 7:30 AM:

largest 14 year old penis

suse@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 1:22 AM:

hello

clomid wrote on May 13, 2007 12:26 PM:

Very nice site!

clar@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 8:19 AM:

cialis forum