Comments (36)

Carl wrote on March 20, 2007 5:19 PM:

"If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”

Shouldn't that be, "If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, and he has done nothing wrong or embarassing, and he is not a witness to illegal or embarrasing acts by other members of the Administration, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness”?

thnerkie wrote on March 20, 2007 5:20 PM:

hey bush? can we get just a little more arrogant and insulting please? thanks.

CarolSoprano wrote on March 20, 2007 5:27 PM:

Just saw on CNN that Leahy issued a statement rejecting Fielding's offer. Good for him! I posted before that I was worried that the Dems would cave but I'm cautiously optimistic that they're actually going to show some spine and force the WH into a showdown (which they will lose!)

Bravo for Sen. Leahy and Schumer!

bfr wrote on March 20, 2007 5:34 PM:

"BUSH WANTS KARL ROVE TO AVOID COMMITTING PERJURY": The White House wants Karl Rove to testify before Congress without being under oath. What are they hiding?

DTK wrote on March 20, 2007 5:35 PM:

I can't understand why the Patriot Act change isn't the center piece of the rebuttal that this is all just normal practice. If replacing AGs was such a matter of fact occurrence, why did they need to change the law in order to sneak this maneuver in. If Bush did this in the normal way, the Senate would have to confirm his selections. Every rebuttal should include that point. They knew they were going to do something sneaky and actually got the law changed in advance to make it possible. That clearly shows some serious intent.

Bearpaw wrote on March 20, 2007 5:36 PM:

I get the impression that Leahy's in full bulldog mode. I could be wrong, but I don't think he'll back down.

Litz wrote on March 20, 2007 5:37 PM:

That's exactly right .. and that's exactly what the GOP is always telling liberals alarmed at things like warrantless wiretaps. "If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear." Ergo, if Rove and Miers didn't do anything wrong, why won't they testify under oath?

bob wrote on March 20, 2007 5:44 PM:

Subpoena Rove. Let him ignore the subpoena. Take criominal or other action. Let him fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The risk (and blowback) is all on the Rove side.

joel wrote on March 20, 2007 5:55 PM:

bob: the only potential drawback to your plan is that Congressional subpoenas are, if I'm not mistaken, prosecuted by the Attorney General's office.

Although it would be very 1974 of the Attorney General to sit on such a subpoena. Does the 5th apply here? "Upon the advice of my attorney, I decline to serve this subpoena on the grounds that testimony obtained persuant thereto might serve to incriminate me."

mbbsdphil wrote on March 20, 2007 6:18 PM:

Mr. Bush has decided he likes to play Texas poker. He's thrown down the gauntlet, shouting expletives like "show trials", "fishing expeditions", "partisan politics". His man on the News Hour repeats the claim about firing all 93, "Much ado about little", "merely a PR problem". Sadly uncreative.

Mr. Bush must think that Karl has so much to hide that he'll fight repeatedly to the Supreme Court.

Who has a site for Nixon vs. US that doesn't require paid or membership access?

Tennessean wrote on March 20, 2007 6:20 PM:

Patrick Fitzgerald for SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!

poliwog wrote on March 20, 2007 6:40 PM:

*** BREAKING ***

Harry Reid, educated at a radical Islamic madrassa?

devaflowers wrote on March 20, 2007 6:42 PM:

Great! Let the American people watch Herr Rove taking the 5th like all the other Mafioso. Harriet
is so dumb she'll probably let something stupid (and important) slip,like she did when she was she was nominated for the Supreme Court. Don't think that hasn't been considered,also.
BTW,I second the nomination for Patrick Fitzgerald. He's already grilled Rove in secret,and squeezed the truth out of him(in multiple attempts). He's probably one of the few who could rattle this guy,especially under oath.
Security code:horse-let's ride this one til it drops...

Dennis wrote on March 20, 2007 7:14 PM:

Let's see how quickly Arlen Specter will try to derail these hearings.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Books Alive wrote on March 20, 2007 7:28 PM:

mbbsdphil:

You asked for US v Nixon.

Checking around a bit at findlaw.com, I find

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/72.htm

I got to a neat place that has a drop-down menu that allows searches of different sites. Findlaw itself didn't turn up what I think you're looking for. If this isn't it, give it a try yourself.

Books Alive wrote on March 20, 2007 7:35 PM:

Also, Wikipedia has a great collection of info. I forgot about that until I searched findlaw again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

Cheryl wrote on March 20, 2007 8:01 PM:

Aw gee, wasn't Karl Rove already subpoenaed once by Patrick Fitzgerald, (almost charged with perjury there too except for some fancy last minute footwork- mostly likely coach by his attorney).

I want to know why Carol Lam wanted with that search warrant of CIA official and if such a search warrant and if such a warrant will still proceed forthwith?

Congress has a right to know what is going on, Bush can belly ache all he wants too but I bet, in the end, if the decider doesn't like it, he'll have the option of resigning.

psyopswatcher wrote on March 20, 2007 9:14 PM:

Here's his story from five days ago, polishing his act in front of a bunch of college kids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nccAXCLomE

CSpan showed the full 55 minutes and the last five are the best, truly machiavellian. Two obviously stage questions from the back of the crowd after he's wrapped up. The first reader didn't quite pull it off, but it led him into a speech worth of Goebels.

CSpan's 55 minute link in Real Video:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/atty/atty031507_rove.rm

If you can open that, skip thru to the questions at the very end, absolutely chilling that he's telling that to college kids and how he manipulated the ending, a la Jeff Gannon style.

FatKat wrote on March 20, 2007 11:36 PM:

this fact sheet comes from yahoo news..but put out by Majority Leader Reid, very clear cut!

WASHINGTON, March 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement on the Bush administration's efforts to prevent White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove from testifying under oath on the partisan firing of U.S. Attorneys.

"After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness."

A fact sheet follows.

The Bush administration on the U.S. Attorneys Case: Fact vs. Fiction

Time and again, members of the Bush administration have failed to level with the American people on the events surrounding the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys. Here are the facts.

---

FICTION ON "PERFORMANCE"

FICTION: The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General both claimed that the eight United States Attorneys were dismissed for "performance" related reasons.

Attorney General Gonzales made that claim under oath. "What we do is we make an evaluation about the performance of individuals, and I have a responsibility to the people in your district that we have the best possible people in these positions. And that's the reason why changes sometimes have to be made, although there are a number of reasons why changes get made and why people leave on their own." (Testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/18/07)

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty repeated that claim under oath. "As the attorney general said at his oversight hearing last month, the phone calls that were made back in December were performance related." (Testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/6/07)

FACT: Justice Department performance evaluations of these U.S. Attorneys were overwhelmingly positive.

FACT: Attorneys fired not for bad performance but for political differences. "All but one of the U.S. attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department had positive job reviews before they were dismissed, but many ran into political trouble with Washington over issues ranging from immigration to the death penalty, according to prosecutors, congressional aides and others familiar with the cases." [Washington Post, 2/18/07]

FACT: Daniel Bodgen, U.S. Attorney for Nevada, received a "very positive" evaluation. "For instance, Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a 'capable' leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators. 'He didn't get any dings,' said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. 'The overall evaluation was very positive.' Bogden was told to step down in December." (McClatchy, 2/12/07)

FACT: Deputy Attorney General McNulty admitted to never having seen Bogden's performance records. "I'm still a little skittish about Bogden ... I'll admit have not looked at his district's performance. Sorry to be raising this again/now; it was just on my mind last night and evening." Email from Deputy AG Paul McNulty to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/5/06)

FACT: John McKay, U.S. Attorney for Seattle, was "effective, well- regarded, and [a] capable leader." "McKay, who stepped down recently, said in an interview that his positive review in May 2006 didn't explain his ouster, nor did the phone call he received in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign. The 65-page evaluation described McKay's relationship with most of the federal judges in his area as 'excellent' and praised the quality of his office's work. McKay 'is an effective, well- regarded and capable leader,' the evaluation stated. 'I understand that the recent evaluation of your office went well,' director Michael Battle told McKay in a letter dated April 7, 2006." (McClatchy, 2/12/07)

FACT: Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, was "well-respected." "Lam, another U.S. attorney who was told to resign, was described in her 2005 evaluation as 'well respected' by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff. Overall, the review was positive, according to another Justice Department official who has seen the evaluation. 'We're not aware of any significant issues,' said the official, who also asked not to be identified. Lam is leaving office Feb 15." (McClatchy, 2/12/07)

FACT: Even the Justice Department now admits performance wasn't the issue. "Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' 'performance-related' problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter." (WashingtonPost, 3/3/07)

FICTION: Karl Rove claimed that Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for San Diego, was dismissed because she did not focus on immigration cases. "Another United States attorney was doing an otherwise excellent job in the San Diego district. [She] refused to file immigration cases ... at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don't want to make that a priority in my office." (Karl Rove Remarks at the Statehouse Convention Center in Littlerock, AK, 3/8/07)

FACT: The Justice Department wrote to Senator Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) three months before the firing, vouching for Lam's handling of immigration cases. "Please know that immigration enforcement is critically important to the Department and to the United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of California. That office is presently committing fully half of its Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute criminal immigration cases. The immigration prosecution philosophy of the Southern District focuses on deterrence by directing its resources and efforts against the worst immigration offenders and by bringing felony cases against such defendant that will result in longer sentences." (Letter from William E. Moschella, Asst. Attorney General, to the Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, 8/23/06)

FACT: Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, looked to immigration as an excuse to fire Carol Lam. "Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re: immigration enforcement? Has anyone? If the AG ordered 20 more prosecutors to the S.D. Cal. To do immigration enforcement only where would we get them from (remember the premise: AG has ordered it)? Please advise?" (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Bill Mercer, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 5/31/06)

FACT: Disgraced former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham signed a letter expressing frustration with Carol Lam four months after she began prosecuting him - and one month before he pled guilty. "Again, we would like to meet to discuss the disparity between crimes committed and prosecutions conducted at your earliest convenience ... Sincerely ... Randy 'Duke' Cunningham." (Letter to Attorney General Gonzales, 10/20/05)

FICTION: The Bush Administration told Sen. John Ensign (news, bio, voting record) (R-NV) that Daniel Bogden was fired because he did not prosecute enough "adult obscenity" cases. "One is that I was trying to get the specifics of why he was let go. And to be honest with you, this is what I was told. I was told that there were two areas that they didn't feel that Dan was being aggressive enough. One was on obscenity cases -- adult obscenity cases." Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV.), 3/13/07)

FACT: Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella said that Daniel Bogden actually had no significant deficiencies. "The general sense in the department about Mr. Bogden is that given the importance of the district in Las Vegas, there was no particular deficiency. There was an interest in seeing new energy and renewed vigor in that office, really taking it to the next level." Testimony of William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, to the
House Judiciary Committee, 3/6/07)

FACT: Daniel Bogden moved forward on adult obscenity cases - even when the Justice Department gave him little to work with. "A former senior law enforcement official knowledgeable about the work of the Nevada U.S. attorney's office said he was shocked to see the criticism of Bogden ... The case in question, involving adult obscenity on the Internet, was 'woefully deficient' of details according to the official, who confirmed that Ward had gone to Nevada in early September 2006 to present it. 'All they had was a Web site,' he said. 'They didn't have a target fully identified, they had no assets -- they didn't even know where the guy was managing his server.' Nevertheless ... Bogden's office agreed to put together a proposal for pursuing the case, outlining the additional work and resources needed to build it, the official said. The implication that Bogden was refusing to take on a 'good case' in that instance, the official said, 'is totally absurd.'" (Salon.com, 3/19/07)

FACT: Senator Ensign may have been "intentionally mislead." "I said it before: I was either intentionally misled or somebody was misinformed and unaware of the complete process." (Press Conference by Senator John Ensign (R-NV.), 3/13/07)

FICTION: White House Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that David Iglesias was fired because of complaints on his handling of voter-fraud cases. "That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases -- not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ... "(Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07)

FACT: David Iglesias was asked by the
Department of Justice to lead a voter fraud seminar for more than 100 prosecutors across the country. "David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a 'voting integrity symposium' in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed." (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07)

FACT: Republican lawmakers pressured U.S.Attorneys to bring indictments against Democrats - and then fired them when they refused.

In New Mexico: "Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record) and Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record) of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts. The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract." (McClatchy, 3/1/07)

And in Seattle: "Another fired prosecutor, John McKay, of Seattle, tells NEWSWEEK that local Republicans pressured him to launch a criminal probe of voting fraud that would tilt a deadlocked Washington governor's race. 'They wanted me to go out and start arresting people,' he says, adding that he refused to do so because there was 'no evidence.' After McKay was fired in December, he says he also got a phone call from a 'clearly nervous' Elston asking if he intended to go public: 'He was offering me a deal: you stay silent and the attorney general won't say anything bad about you.'" (Newsweek, 3/19/07)

---

FICTION ON "POLITICAL REASONS"

FICTION: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that no United States Attorney would be replaced for political reasons - or to stop a growing corruption probe. "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it." (Testimony of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/18/07)

FACT: The Justice Department graded prosecutors on whether they were "loyal bushies". "As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys ... The vast majority of US Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal bushies, etc." (Email from Kyl Sampson, Dept. of Justice, to Deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)

FACT: Rove was asked to fire one of the U.S. Attorneys by the New Mexico Republican Party Chairman. "Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state's U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state. 'Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?' Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month. 'He's gone,' Rove said, according to Weh. 'I probably said something close to Hallelujah,' said Weh." (McClatchy, 3/10/07)

FACT: Carol Lam served a search warrant on Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, fmr. Executive Director of the
CIA, and then became targeted for firing. "The U.S. attorney in San Diego notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal last May 10, one day before the attorney general's chief of staff warned the White House of a 'real problem' with her, a Democratic senator said yesterday. The prosecutor, Carol S. Lam, was dismissed seven months later as part of an effort by the Justice Department and the White House to fire eight U.S. attorneys." (WashingtonPost, 3/19/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, wanted a nominee to replace Lam immediately upon the expiration of her term. "Sensitivity: Confidential ... Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following: ... The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to William Kelley, 5/11/06)

---

FICTION ON PATRIOT ACT PROCEDURES

FICTION: Attorney General Gonzales claimed the White House had no intention of subverting the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role. "Third, I believe fundamentally in the constitutional role of the Senate in advice and consent with respect to U.S. attorneys, and would in no way support an effort to circumvent that constitutional role." (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Gonzales's Chief of Staff, and Chris Oprison, of the Office of White House Counsel, openly talked about using their new authority to go around the Senate on the nomination of J. Timothy Griffin in Arkansas.

"(2) 'interim may be a source of confusion or, worse, a term that Pryor's and Lincoln's office can springboard from to press for their own nominee rather than rallying behind Tim. What are your thoughts? If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim can call himself 'US Attorney' rather than 'interim' or 'acting' and our talkers should avoid referring to him as 'interim.'" (Email from Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/19/06)

"I think we should gum this to death ... There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, 12/19/06)

---

FICTION ON ATTORNEY GENERAL'S KNOWLEDGE

FICTION: The Attorney General was unaware of the plan to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. "As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive." (Press Conference by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 3/13/07)

Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales decided that the U.S. Attorneys should go. "David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.' I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearings, and he said the matter was not urgent." (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Office of White House Counsel, as reported by ABC News, 3/15/07)

---

FICTION ON KARL ROVE'S INVOLVEMENT

FICTION: The White House claimed it had no involvement in the firing of these eight United States Attorneys. "'The White House did not play a role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,' said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor, referring to a roster of those who were fired." New York Times, 3/13/07)

FACT: Emails show the White House came up with the plan to dismiss the U.S. Attorneys. "The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today." (WashingtonPost, 3/13/07)

FACT: The idea to fire US Attorneys started in Karl Rove's office. "New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel -- weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general. The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter." (ABC News, 3/15/07)

FACT: Karl Rove served as a conduit to for political complaints about the U.S.Attorneys. "The White House acknowledged on Sunday that presidential adviser Karl Rove served as a conduit for complaints to the Justice Department about federal prosecutors who were later fired for what critics charge were partisan political reasons." (McClatchy, 3/11/07)

FACT: A capable United States Attorney was replaced with a former aide to Rove. "The Justice Department removed a prosecutor in Arkansas without cause to make room for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove, a senior Justice official conceded in testimony Tuesday ... former U.S. attorney Ed Cummins of Little Rock, has said that he was asked to leave last year to give the job to [J. Timothy] Griffin, who previously worked for Rove and for the
Republican National Committee." (The News-Observer, 2/7/07)

---

FICTION ON HARRIET MIERS'S INVOLVEMENT

FICTION: White House Senior Advisor Dan Bartlett claimed that the idea to fire U.S. Attorneys originated in the office of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. "And what Harriet floated was the idea of saying should we treat the fifth year as the first year -- give new blood -- an opportunity for new blood to come in. Kyle, to his credit, and others said, that would be highly disruptive to the process, there are a lot of good U.S. attorneys that are performing; some of them have not served full four-year terms because we hadn't removed them all in the first place. So it was appropriate for Harriet to raise the idea; it was quickly rejected." (Press Conference with White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, 3/13/07)

FACT: Kyle Sampson discussed the dismissals with Alberto Gonzales in 2004 - when Gonzales was still the White House Counsel. "Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago ... As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current US Attorneys - the underperforming ones." (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)

FACT: White House emails show idea was discussed by Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, neither dismissed it outright. "David - Karl Rove stopped by to ask you (roughly quoting) 'how we planned to proceed regarding US Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc.' I told him that you would be on the hill all day for the Judge's hearing, and he said the matter was not urgent." (Email from Colin Newman, Office of White House Counsel, to David Leitch, Deputy White House Counsel, 1/9/05)

CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rodell Mollineau, (202) 224-2939

SOURCE Senate Democratic Communications Center

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 20, 2007 11:47 PM:

When it comes to Rove(r) telling the truth, intentions have zero play in the situation. He is physically and genetically incapable of telling the truth. Lying sacks of crap are filled only with lies and crap.

Mr.Murder wrote on March 21, 2007 12:28 AM:

Harriet cannot advise him on Security matters. She has been witnessed mishandling military documents. Her privilege claim citing national security for that reason should be nullified.

She purged AWOL's file for TANG, she should have no clearance or authority re: national security for said reason.

psyopswatcher wrote on March 21, 2007 10:17 AM:

Karl's clearances should have been suspended years ago when he failed to disclose his discussions with the press in the Plame/Wilson Affair to the WH Security Office <as testified to Congress by Bodell? (I forget his name, but he came on after Valerie in the Waxman hearings.)

You remember, when/if any WH person found to be involved in outting a CIA agent would be fired. But no WH investigation was ever done because it was already the subject of an on-going investigation which no one would speak of it.

Waxman's committee should be hot on this breach of National Security. That should be his first step out the door--the Perp Walk.

What I don't understand about any of this is why they didn't just do the usual. Promote the ones they were disgruntled with to Outer Siberia--out of harms way. They were all lame ducks, it was just another two years. That's business as usual.

psyopswatcher wrote on March 21, 2007 11:05 AM:

CSpan is reporting that the House panel has voted to subpoena Rove and Meirs. Good. NO ONE should be above the law or protected from the American People. If there are things about their behaviour they are ashamed of, they shouldn't be serving at OUR pleasure in the first place.

Gonzo has proven himself a liar. Time to go.

Rove is an obfuscater, he lied to his boss. So when DOES the POTUS lose confidence in him?

rose@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 1:14 PM:

matador bulging penis

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 10:27 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 10:27 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 10:28 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

jessica@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:28 PM:

hello

jessica@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:11 AM:

hello

jessica@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:11 AM:

hello

jessica@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:12 AM:

hello

hillary@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 1:30 PM:

hello

catarina@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:48 PM:

hello

jennifire@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 10:50 AM:

free viagra

jennifire@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 10:51 AM:

free viagra

naoxjt kqnyc wrote on September 2, 2007 7:28 PM:

dcumrblso lgyx vizqu mwqzdnoy xjqvndwtp uctsy xwrd