« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
BREAKING: Senate Committee Issues Subpoenas to Rove and Deputy
Finally, the big one.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued two more subpoenas as part of the U.S. attorney firings investigation today: one for Karl Rove and the other for his deputy, Scott Jennings. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced the subpoenas on the Senate floor.
The question for Rove and Jennings, of course, is whether to take the same course taken by Rove's former aide, Sara Taylor, who appeared before the committee to answer questions that were not covered by executive privilege -- or to take the approach taken by Harriet Miers, who refused to show up at all.
The subpoenas call for Rove and Jennings to show up on August 2nd and also produce documents by that date.
Update: Leahy's statement is below.
Leahy's statement:
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee is issuing subpoenas to political operatives at the White House for documents and testimony related to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and politicization of hiring and firing within the Department of Justice. This is not a step I take lightly. For over four months, I have exhausted every avenue seeking the voluntary cooperation of Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings, but to no avail. They and the White House have stonewalled every request. Indeed, the White House is choosing to withhold documents and is instructing witnesses who are former officials to refuse to answer questions and provide relevant information and documents.
We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, including Mr. Rove and Mr. Jennings. The evidence shows that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases. It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort. Just yesterday during his sworn testimony, Mr. Gonzales contrasted these firings with the replacement of other United States Attorneys for “legitimate cause.”
The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege, despite testimony under oath and on the record that the President was not involved. The White House refuses to provide a factual basis for its blanket claims. The White House has instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know and instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. The White House has withheld relevant documents and instructed other witnesses not to produce relevant documents to the Congress but only to the White House.
Last week, the White House did much to substantiate the evidence that it is intent on reducing United States Attorneys and federal law enforcement to merely another partisan political aspect of its efforts when it dispatched an anonymous senior official to take the position that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia would not be permitted to follow the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of Executive privilege by prosecuting contempt of Congress. In essence this White House asserts that its claim of privilege is the final word, that Congress may not review it, and that no court can review it.
Yesterday, during an oversight hearing with Mr. Gonzales, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee rightly asked:
“Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional government in the United States can survive if the president has the unilateral authority to reject congressional inquiries on grounds of executive privilege and the president then acts to bar the Congress from getting a judicial determination as to whether that executive privilege is properly invoked?”
There can be no more conclusive demonstration of this Administration’s partisan intervention of federal law enforcement than if this Administration were to instruct the Justice Department not to pursue congressional contempt citations and intervene to prevent a United States Attorney from fulfilling his sworn constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and proceed pursuant to section 194 of title 2 of the United States Code. The President recently abused the pardon power to forestall Scooter Libby from ever serving a single day of his 30-month sentence for conviction before a jury on multiple counts of perjury, lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Stonewalling this congressional investigation is further demonstration that this Administration refuses to abide by the rule of law.
This stonewalling is a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional oversight. In that time, presidential advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas. During the Clinton Administration, White House and Administration advisors were routinely subpoenaed for documents or to appear before Congress. For example, in 1996 alone, the House Government Reform Committee issued at least 27 subpoenas to White House advisors. The veil of secrecy this Administration has pulled over the White House is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic.
The investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States Attorneys, who had been appointed by this President, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an Administration driven by a vision of an all-power Executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence.
What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who has testified said has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House.
A former political director at the White House made a revealing admission in her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee when she refused to answer questions citing the oath she took to the President. In this constitutional democracy, the oath taken by public officials is to the Constitution, not any particular President of any particular party. The Constitution itself provides the oath of office of the President. Every President since George Washington has shown to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The oath for other federal official is prescribed by Congress through statute and provides that every federal officer’s duty is not to support and defend any particular President or Administration but “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and “to bear true faith and allegiance” to our founding principles and law.
I pointed out to Ms. Taylor that the oath I have been privileged to take as a United States Senator is likewise to the Constitution. I proudly represent the people of Vermont. I know it is a privilege to serve as a temporary steward of the Constitution and the values and protections for the rights and liberties of the American people that it embodies. My oath is not to a political party and not even to the great institution of the United States Senate, but to the Constitution and the rule of law. As a former prosecutor, I feel strongly that independent law enforcement is an essential component of our democratic government, and that no one is above the law.
Despite the constitutional duty of all members of the Executive branch to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” the message from this White House is that the President, Vice President, and their loyal aides are above the law. No check. No balance. No accountability.
The law says otherwise. The criminal contempt statute, 2 U.S.C. § 194, provides that if a House of Congress certifies a contempt citation, the United States Attorney to whom it is sent has a “duty” and “shall” “bring it before the grand jury for its action.” For this White House to threaten to intervene in an effort to preempt further investigation, cover up the truth and avoid accountability is an insult to the rule of law. This law was duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by a duly elected President of the United States. It is derived from law that has been on the books since 1857, for 150 years.
The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances. Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability.
Given the stonewalling by this White House, the American people are left to wonder: What is it that the White House is so desperate to hide? As more and more stories leak out about the involvement of Karl Rove and his political team in political briefings of what should be nonpartisan government offices, I think we have a better sense of what they are trying to hide. We have learned of political briefings at over 20 government agencies, including briefings attended by Justice Department officials. This week, the news was that Mr. Rove briefed diplomats on vulnerable Democratic districts before mid-term elections. Why, Senator Whitehouse properly asked at our hearing yesterday, were members of our foreign service being briefed on domestic political contests? Mr. Gonzales had no answer. Similarly, why were political operatives giving such briefings to the Government Services Administration, which rents government property and buys supplies? In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the former political director at the White House ultimately had to concede that her briefings included specific political races and particular candidates being targeted.
In this context, is anyone surprised that the evidence in our investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys for political purposes points to Mr. Rove and his political operations in the White House? Despite the initial White House denials, Mr. Rove’s involvement in these firings is indicated by the Department of Justice documents we have obtained and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials. This evidence shows that he was involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S. Attorneys. E-mails show that Mr. Rove initiated inquires at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys. The evidence also shows that he raised political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal. He was fired a few weeks after Mr. Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported “voter fraud” enforcement cases in his jurisdiction.
We have learned that Mr. Rove raised similar concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term election he sent the Attorney General’s chief of staff a packet of information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004. This evidence points to his role and the role of those in his office in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects. Such manipulation shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes.
Documents and testimony also show that Mr. Rove had a role in the shaping the Administration’s response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public. This response included an attempt to cover up the role that he and other White House officials played in the firings.
Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we have learned that Todd Graves, U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. When the Attorney General replaced Mr. Graves with Bradley Schlozman, the person pushing the lawsuit, that case was filed and ultimately thrown out of court. Once in place in Missouri though, Mr. Schlozman also brought indictments on the eve of a closely contested election, despite the Justice Department policy not to do so. This is what happens when a responsible prosecutor is replaced by a “loyal Bushie” for partisan, political purposes.
Mr. Schlozman also bragged about hiring ideological soulmates. Monica Goodling likewise admitted “crossing the line” when she used a political litmus test for career prosecutors and immigration judges. Rather than keep federal law enforcement above politics, this Administration is more intent on placing its actions above the law.
With our service of these subpoenas, I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys. I hope that the White House steps back from this constitutional crisis of its own making so that we can begin to repair the damage done by its untoward interference with federal law enforcement. That interference has threatened our elections and seriously undercut the American people’s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement. Mr. Rove and the White House must not be allowed to continue manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. Apparently, this White House would rather precipitate an unnecessary constitutional confrontation than do what every other Administration has done and find and accommodation with the Congress. If there are any cooler or wiser heads at the White House, I urge them to reconsider the course they have chosen.
There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm. I hope they will reconsider their course and end their cover up so that we can move forward together to repair the damage done to the Department of Justice and the American people’s trust and confidence in federal law enforcement.
Comments (98)
Anna S. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:07 PM:The problem is that if they do show, they're learning from their mistakes. Good for Rove and Jennings, but makes Harriet look weaker than she already does. Rove showing up undermines her position, and we all know that Bush is unwilling to throw his underlings to the dogs, so I'm guessing he won't like it if Rove decides to appear. My guess is that Rove won't show. Jennings I'm less sure of -- he's not as important.
Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:10 PM:According to Leahy, it is "unprecedented" to fire nine U.S. Attorneys based on political considerations. However, Clinton may have fired more than nine U.S. Attorneys during his second term too -- political considerations factored into those replacements even if they were voluntary -- why didn't Leaky Leahy subpoena and investigate back then?
paul c wrote on July 26, 2007 1:11 PM:There is no chance these guys are going to show. I think they are done responding to any supoenas.
Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 1:15 PM:It might be time to jettison Gonzo and blame everything on him. LOL
benjoya wrote on July 26, 2007 1:20 PM:newsflash to all monarchists: clinton isn't president. when he was, leahy wasn't chairman and USAs weren't in the process of busting congressmen when they were fired. ok, now back to your bootlicking!
TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 1:20 PM:Following on your comments, Anna, if they don't show, then we've got the same pattern appearing in the Senate Committee. Harriet didn't show for the House. So, to me, this just ups the ante.
It's a poker game for them. And all they've got left is bluffing.
eric wrote on July 26, 2007 1:22 PM:Rove cannot appear because there are too many questions they can ask him related to the Fitzgerald/Plame Grand Jury appearances for which any privilege has been waived. Once those questions get asked, he has to answer truthfully because Fitzgerld can be called and asked if Rove testified truthfully. If not, perjury. If he answers truthfully, I think he will have to admit to some fairly "bad" actions (though not at the Libby level or he would have been indicted).
This is all about (or should be about) creating the most compelling public narrative for explaining the fight over contempt. It is no longer about getting specific answers to important questions, but reestablishing the proper constitutional balance between and among the three branches of government. Rove is (the) one that has sought to overthrow meaningful congressional oversight.
That general message is too esoteric to put on a bumper sticker in repsonse to the "president must have candid advice", "we have provided tons of documents", "just partisan wrangling."
The response has to paint the larger picture of rogue indiviudals that have run rough shod over our most cherished consitutional principles. They are not Republcians (though they serve a Republican administration and have that party affiliation). They are usurpers; they are making themselves unaccountable in a way that would frighten George Washington, who gave up a third term because it was too much power, would frighten Madison and Jefferson because it would crash the balance necessary for a working democracy and it would frighten Lincoln who in the darkest days of the Civil War never sought to bar Congress from knowing the workings of the government of which it is an integral part.
For too long, Democrats have never understood that narrative matters. In part, they have not wanted to offend the dominant insider narratives, but with the Post wandering so far off the reservation, there is an opportunity to recast a "washington consensus." YOu see this happening with Reid's letter.
eric
Douglas Watts wrote on July 26, 2007 1:23 PM:Gonzo is going nowhere. Neither Rove nor Jennings will show up. The troll will not be fed.
Matt wrote on July 26, 2007 1:25 PM:Jake D., you're confusing firings based on differences of political view (Clinton's firings) with firings based on unwillingness to use government resources to promote political party interests (Bush's firings). It's a subtle but important difference.
Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:25 PM:benjoya:
How do you KNOW that if their was no investigation (Leahy WAS the ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and could certainly have convinced the GOP to look into these troubling "political considerations" had he wanted to)?
Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 1:28 PM:>However, Clinton may have fired
>more than nine U.S. Attorneys
>during his second term too...
Jake,
Is this information available anywhere? I scoured the internet and came up with nothing. Can you please provide a reference.
Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:30 PM:Here are just a few of those Clinton replacements (subtle or not):
1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey.
1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.
1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.
2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.
BG wrote on July 26, 2007 1:33 PM:Jake D.
I thought that you would resign from this board if a contempt citation was issued to Meiers? Why are you still clouding the issues?
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 1:34 PM:Wow, news reports against the conspirators are coming fast and furious!
Maybe it's time for THEM to get paranoid!
Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:39 PM:BG:
#1 -- Miers has not been held in contempt of Congress (one Committee referred the citation to the full House on a straight party-line vote);
#2 -- What I think I said was "Wake me up if Congress ever DOES something."
#3 -- I think finding out whether the U.S. Attorney firings are "unprecedented" is pretty relevant to the topic, don't you?
JEP wrote on July 26, 2007 1:39 PM:Now would be a good time to weigh the questionability very existence of a "White House Political Office" at taxpayer's expense.
And in the same line of reasoning, "The Law" as it already stands might be read, from a very justifiable perspective, in such a way as to assure that ANY political office (usally intended for "candidates" not "office-holders") created for ANY office-holder, would not be included under the Executive Privelege prerogative simply in its definition...
It is bad enough we pay for partisanship that flouts the Hatch Amendment, but to not only finance, but provide executive immunity, flies in the face of Hatch Act principles.
But that may be the reason Rove also holds a title as "Deputy Chief of Staff" above his political office creds.
Still, that limb of Rpove's multi-tentacled creature being under executive protection, does not allow him to legally promote a partisan agenda, using public tools, with that other slimy political limb.
Apparently, they want every degree of separation to evaporate, so no matter how profane their acts, they are coverd by Bush's protective unbrella.
bill175 wrote on July 26, 2007 1:41 PM:People need to stop phrasing the question as whether USAs were fired for "political considerations." It doesn't convey the point and invites Republican doublespeak. The question is whether USAs were fired because they refused to commit illegal acts at the behest of the White House.
Jake D. wrote on July 26, 2007 1:44 PM:Fine, bill175, did Clinton fire any USAs because they refused to commit illegal acts then?
tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 1:44 PM:This is such an exercise in futility. Rove will not show asserting executive privilege. Congress will issue a contempt citation seeking enforcement in the courts from the US Atty. The US Atty will not, as they have already made clear in writing and upon order of the prez, will not prosecute. End or story.
To borrow on the end of a TS Elliot poem:
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
JEP wrote on July 26, 2007 1:53 PM:This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Yet, the more we follow the bread crumbs, the more it looks like the buck stops at Rove, in terms of where the firing process really began.
Bill, you may be right, but the more we watch, the more I'm inclined to think that "Political considerations" may very well be the achilles heel that crippled this administration.
And it may be the key to uncovering the whole sordid story.
Which goes with my previous post, if there was ALWAYS political motivation for Bush's strategies, with DOJ firings in particular, then they all fall under THE Hatch Act umbrella that attempts to keep partisaneering out of the administration.
SO, POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED, IT MAY BE THE ISSUE THAT UNZIPS THE WHOLE STORY!
bill175 wrote on July 26, 2007 1:58 PM:Jake, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Clinton fired USAs because they refused to commit illegal acts. Republicans are trying to confuse the issue by suggesting that Clinton fired people because he wanted Democrats in the position, or because he wanted to install someone he had a relationship with, or some other (valid) reason - and the Republicans are trying to compare that to Bush.
The comparison fails, but it is a quintessentially Republican tactic: the issue becomes clouded, it all appears to be just "political wrangling." And that is why Republicans are going to hell.
JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 2:00 PM:"According to Leahy, it is "unprecedented" to fire nine U.S. Attorneys based on political considerations."
As a former prosecutor, and as a Senator with extensive professional research staff, that statement is based upon fact, not specuulation or politics, "Jake"ass.
"However, Clinton may have . . . " -- or may not have, there being no evidence on which to base your unfounded smear against him.
". . . political considerations factored into those replacements even if they were voluntary -- . . . ."
Substantiate, desparate liar. Or STFU, anti-American hack.
Posted by: Jake D.
Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 2:02 PM:Date: July 26, 2007 1:10 PM
Yeah listen to Jake. Clinton did it so it's ok!
Remember that you librul idjits. Me and Jake we thinks alike!
What?! wrote on July 26, 2007 2:02 PM:...gonna be a lot of people locked up in the Capital jail!
JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 2:04 PM:Fine, bill175, did Clinton fire any USAs because they refused to commit illegal acts then?
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 1:44 PM
No, he didn't. And we know that because, despite the fact he was the most investigated president in history, the only thing found was a non-illegal consensual heterosexual affair.
But we do have evidence that Bushit-Rove fired AGs who wouldn't commit illegal acts.
Your desparation is showing, thug. Find your courage, hack, and cease your jealous smearings of Clinton.
Douglas Watts wrote on July 26, 2007 2:05 PM:Leahy's statement lays out the turf very well and comprehensively.
EH wrote on July 26, 2007 2:06 PM:#3 -- I think finding out whether the U.S. Attorney firings are "unprecedented" is pretty relevant to the topic, don't you?
You can't keep people with lower standards of "relevant" from posting. That doesn't mean it should be exploited. "Unprecedented" is a red herring and minor aspect of Rove being subpoenaed, unless you know something we don't about Rove's role in the firings.
Jake D wrote on July 26, 2007 2:06 PM:No Clinton did fire USA's and was politically motivated. Distract? Hardly, Clinton was the most criminal peesident in US history. Continually attacking Bush does not change this fact.
Lucy wrote on July 26, 2007 2:07 PM:Can't believe I'm bothering to answer the troll, but ...
Jake,
What were the political considerations involved in the firings during the Clinton administration? Other than the allegations that one USA choked a reporter and one bit a stripper, that is. I can see why that behavior might have been embarrassing politically.
JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 2:12 PM:How do you KNOW that if their was no investigation (Leahy WAS the ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee and could certainly have convinced the GOP to look into these troubling "political considerations" had he wanted to)?
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 1:25 PM
Congress, under the Republicans, served about 1,000 subpoenas on the Clinton administration. None of them were ignored -- it is a felony to ignore them. Very few subpoenas have so far been served on the Bushit criminal enterprise -- and several are being ignored -- each a felony -- and Bushit has instructed former officials to ignore the subpoenas they received -- which instruction is a felony.
Tell us, "Jake," how a non-illegal consensual heterosexual affair is worse than serial felonies.
BS wrote on July 26, 2007 2:12 PM:Jake,
You really do sound like one of my kids. "He did it first! No, She did it first!"
And, Clinton a more criminal "peesident" than Nixon? I think you have listened to a bit too much "Clinton Chronicles".
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote on July 26, 2007 2:12 PM:The suggestion that Clinton fired USA's selectively is based on the assumption that some USAs who were replaced were fired for improper reasons. But none of the USAs said this.
Unlike this situation, where some of the fired USAs have stated what happened to them. So it is unprecedented. Not to mention, the stonewalling, lying, forgetfulness, and not one person who will own up to putting names on the list.
'Clinton did it too' is a typically dishonest distraction from our 'independent' troll. The real question is what does he think he is accomplishing?
paul lukasiak wrote on July 26, 2007 2:13 PM:Leahy needs to take advantage of the fact that Jeffrey A. Taylor (who is serving as acting USA for DC, and is the USA who will get the contempt citations from the House) was nominated to be the permanent USA for DC (on Feb 22) but has not yet been confirmed.
Leahy needs to schedule a hearing on Taylors nomination, and subpoena him to appear --- then ask Taylor if his interpretation of "upholding the Constitution" means following the law as written, or taking direction from the President even when it contradicts the law.
JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 2:17 PM:Here are just a few of those Clinton replacements (subtle or not):
1997: Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey.
1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.
1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.
2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.
Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 26, 2007 1:30 PM
You provide no evidence of impropriety or illegality. All you're doing, hateful anti-American scum, is smearing Clinton without any evidence whatsoever, and endeavoring to argue that two wrongs make a right. Two wrongs make a right in Republican irrationality -- but not in morality or ethics or law.
Go back to your circle-jerk at Free Republic, punk.
wilderwood wrote on July 26, 2007 2:20 PM:Is a motion that the Senate hold someone in contempt subject to filibuster?
JNagarya wrote on July 26, 2007 2:22 PM:"No Clinton did fire USA's and was politically motivated."
Substantiate, lying slime.
"Clinton was the most criminal peesident in US history."
Republican political hack Ken Starr would have given both testicles to find anything criminal against Clinton, and he made every effort -- even repeatedly -- to do so. He found nothing except the non-illegal consensual heterosexual affair.
"Continually attacking Bush does not change this fact."
This thread's topic is Rove, and Bushit -- not Clinton, you intellectually swill-mouthed twit. "Attacking" Bushit is based solely and wholly upon his violations of law -- which assholes like you are too cowardly -- and anti-American -- to admit, even as they are committed brazenly, publicly, in broad daylight.
Posted by: Jake D
Date: July 26, 2007 2:06 PM
Do us all a favor: learn how to go away, and then put that new learning into practice.
Terminus Est wrote on July 26, 2007 2:24 PM:JakeD...The "unprecedented" nature of the firings is that 1) it happened well into the middle of a term. ALL Presidents change out their DAs when they first enter office. That is par for the course. What has NOT happened (since Nixon and Cox) is 2) the firing of a bunch of DAs for doing their job when that job happened to be politically inconvenient. You know, actually prosecuting corrupt and dirty politicians that happened to be GOPers and NOT bringing simply unsupportable charges (based on ALL the evidence) against Dems, in particular, just before an election. Then there is the other thing...all the moves to force indictments against guiltless Dem politicians just before an election in direct contravention of the rules of the DOJ! Do you get it now?
RBS wrote on July 26, 2007 2:25 PM:I've posted this on another thread, but it applies to almost any given TPM Comments section at any given time:
Jake D's unrelenting attempts at hijacking the discussion are, unfortunately, successful--the thread always ends up being about him and his inane diversions (which is exactly what he wants) rather than about the subject matter at issue--and I, for one (or two or three), am ready to forego TPM's comments entirely rather than having to slog through such massive amounts of troll shit.
Legitimate expressions of "other" viewpoints are fine, but when Jake's "expressions" disproportionately and egregiously hog the bandwidth, with the intent to disrupt the actual thread of the conversation and prevent real discussion of the issues, there's no reason for TPM to put up with it (the First Amendment only restricts the government from censoring expression, Jake) and legitimate reasons not to put up with it (losing readership).
Enough is enough.
If there's a TPM moderator, please get rid of this guy; he adds nothing and only disrupts the true flow of the commentary. Too many people "bite" and feed this guy, which is understandable, but the tipping point has been reached.
Could others who feel the same way pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease let TPM know how you feel?
Thanks.
(We now resume our regularly hijacked programming . . . )
RBS
busboy33 wrote on July 26, 2007 2:27 PM:@ Jake D:
For the sake of this post, I'll assume you are correct, and Herr Clinton fired those Prosecutors for nefarious reasons.
If I understand your position, this would have been a bad thing. Your tone suggests Clinton would properly be condemned for these actions.
How does that argument make W look better?
"Mike Vick, you slaughtered 20 dogs in your pit."
"Oh, yeah, well, my friend Eddie killed way more!"
"????"
You post in a thread implying this Administration is corrupt, and if I understand the thrust of your argument its essentially "the last prez was a bastard." I have to say, from a purely philosophical position, that argument not only refuses to address the issure of Is This Administration Corrupt, but seems like a blatant attempt to dodge the glare of the spotlight ("look! over there!").
fresh wrote on July 26, 2007 2:29 PM:I'm not trying to be mouthy -- I'm honestly wondering what The Evils Of Clinton have to do with the Evils Of Bush. If the idea is, since the last bastard got away with it, the current bastard should as well, I gotta say I disagree with your position.
Since we are clouding things up -
Imagine this: The republican-led congress during the Clinton administration finds out that Clinton appointees in DOJ were basing career atty hirings on political affiliation, a clear violation of the law. Said appointee admits as much under oath. Would the republicans back then have just let that be, or would they have wanted to find out where the orders came from?
jJane wrote on July 26, 2007 2:31 PM:Neither Rove nor Cheney nor Bush are lawyers and whether Addington is, is debatable. Once appointed to a position as a lawyer the obligation is to follow the law, not the politics.
When the Rethugs fired several AG including Carol Lam who was investigating Rethug corruption and rewarded those bringing unfounded and/or minor voter fraud charges while ignoring massive, corrupt vote suppression Congress had a consitutional duty to investigate. The bumper sticker version is Checks and Balances. The accusations that this was a fishing expedition began to founder when the repeated phony explanations of the firings produced a strong fishy smell. If they have nothing to hide, they should stop trying to hide it.
If Congress has the oversight responsibility to rein in an out of control would be imperial Presidency, what good is it if they don't use it?
Steve5117 wrote on July 26, 2007 2:32 PM:I wonder if Karl will let me drive his Jaguar when he goes away?
Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 2:32 PM:Please, PLEASE heed RBS. Feeding trolls just encourages them.
JakeD wrote on July 26, 2007 2:32 PM:Please ignore me I am an idiot. I am paid by BushCo to be in here and confuse the issues. Trolling is just a beginning to my new postion at Regent.
busboy33 wrote on July 26, 2007 2:34 PM:Jake-
James' Conscience wrote on July 26, 2007 2:35 PM:C'mon. I posted a serious question. I honestly would love to hear your thoughts. I'm not flaming here, so I'll assume your post above is directed at others. Please answer.
Too bad the fat old troll Jakey is suffering from erectile dysfunction, otherwise he could spend time at XXX rated websites and less time here. Maybe that's why he is so envious of Clinton getting a bj.
Nash wrote on July 26, 2007 2:37 PM:Feeding trolls is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer: it feels great when you finally stop doing it.
thomas wrote on July 26, 2007 2:39 PM:In re: senior troll, starts with J
Replacing USAs at the start of an administration is an anticipated and excepted practice. Most, if not all, USAs assume a new administration will replace them sooner or later, and generally with a partisan.
During an administration some USAs leave office for personal (better job) reasons others are asked to leave for biting a strippers boobs. So be it.
Firinga USA din the middle of an investigation that will upset your apple cart (Lam - Dolittle/Duke) is obstruction of justice. Firing a USA because he will not bring phony voter fraud charges just before an election is electoral tampering. Apparently these are just fine with you. After all we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic and it is up to the philosopher king (SCOTUS) to determine what's best for us (US).
SC = fire, as in fire these bastards
TheraP wrote on July 26, 2007 2:43 PM:Reading Leahy's letter sent chills up my spine. It was a thrilling document to read.
And tbhulls' quotation from T.S. Eliot - was a fine companion piece.
Looks like we're seeing a piece of the end-game.
And let us never forget: Had it not been for tpm's early and frequent drum-beat on this story.... we might never have gotten to where we are now.
HATS OFF TO TPM! "keep" at it guys!
M. F. Abernathy wrote on July 26, 2007 2:44 PM:The "perfect storm" is about to hit this adminitration:
Between the "Attorneygate" scandal and the SCHLUND V. BUSH lawsuit, Bush and Cheney are finished!
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 9TH CIRCUIT DOCKET NO. 06-15017
IN THE UNITED STATED COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III
Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner
vs.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, A SOVERIGN NATION; GOERGE W. BUSH,
AN INDIVIDUAL,
Defendant/Appellee/Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA,
U.S.D.C. NO. CV-03-1590 PHX VAM
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. MATHIS
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING,
thomas wrote on July 26, 2007 2:47 PM:HEARING EN BANC AND/OR PANEL REHEARING
ooops, someday I'll learn to type. please read thru all my mistakes both above and here. I do.
Also, firing a USA for trying to complete the murder investigation of an assistant USA instead of pursuing phony voter fraud crap again just show where the priorities of this administration are. The murdered assistant attorney in Seattle is no different than the 3500+ dead soldiers. Just cannon fodder for the inrichment of the backers of the rethug party.
agentwu wrote on July 26, 2007 2:47 PM:My question is what happens if Rove does not show up, is a stronger case building or what?
Wisechick wrote on July 26, 2007 2:51 PM:RBS-
I'm with you. This troll has been hijacking the threads for some time now and reading through this thread I was thinking ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
I can't bother to read through the troll shit either. I'm outa here.
security code: PAIN
OhSnap! wrote on July 26, 2007 2:55 PM:Anyone else get the weird "first time poster...review your post" thing today?
I was posting some information USAs changes from administrations past and I got that weird message.
Curious,
Clayton wrote on July 26, 2007 2:57 PM:Snappers
Jake D,
I have an honest question for you. (Apologies to the rest of you for addressing him.) If Clinton had had done anything on the order of what Bush is accused of having done, what are the odds that there wouldn't have been the sort of investigations and hearings we're so thoroughly enjoying now when he was President? You're not seriously suggesting that Congress wasn't up for a good politicized witch hunt when Clinton was in office.
Suppose you're right and this is much ado about nothing. There wasn't a witch hunt when Clinton was in office, so now we're to think that Congress is worse now than it was then. That is, um, an 'interesting' view to hold. Or, you might think that Bush and Clinton were acting in the same way because both were in the wrong. But then you shouldn't be moaning now that Congress is investigating and holding hearings unless you're the sort of moral simpleton who thinks of justice as nothing more than tit for tat.
So, which is it? I can't see there are many views left for you to occupy apart from the ones I've mentioned.
1oldlady wrote on July 26, 2007 2:57 PM:Oh my Gosh.... you must watch this video!
This is from this morning hearing on over site with government contractors....!!!
http://thinkprogress.org/
is the web site its from!
RandyR wrote on July 26, 2007 2:59 PM:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evRPwwyno_c
Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 2:59 PM:I support slowing down the process. If this ends up in prosecution the verdict needs to come after the new president is in office, so no pardons. I also believe that it needs to be made clear that the Congress will continue to investigate the crimes of this administration and try to put them in jail. It must be clear that this isn't over in January of 09.
If Rove and Jennings do not show up at the instruction of Bush, that's two more counts of obstruction of justice - an impeachable offense. Remember, it wasn't Watergate that brought Nixon to the brink of impeachment, it was obstruction of justice.
Troll Patrol wrote on July 26, 2007 3:01 PM:For Troll Aid: try using your "find" function in the browser. It might be under "edit" or "tools." That should help locate the annoying posts - so that you can skip them. Just put the troll's name in and "find" it - and skip.
Be patient. Seek wisdom.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 26, 2007 3:02 PM:Wisechick
What planet do you come from, where the defense of freedom is supposed to be EASY?
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 26, 2007 3:03 PM:Wisechick
What planet do you come from, where the defense of freedom is supposed to be EASY?
M. F. Abernathy wrote on July 26, 2007 3:03 PM:U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 9TH CIRCUIT DOCKET NO. 06-15017
IN THE UNITED STATED COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III
Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner
vs.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, A SOVERIGN NATION; GEORGE W. BUSH,
AN INDIVIDUAL,
Defendant/Appellee/Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA,
U.S.D.C. NO. CV-03-1590 PHX VAM
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. MATHIS
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING,
HEARING EN BANC AND/OR PANEL REHEARING
Charles August Schlund, III
8520 N. 54th Drive
Glendale, Arizona 85302
(602) 670-2017
Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner
These proceedings involve one or more questions of exceptional importance raised
in the briefs, including but not limited to, issues which the Panel decision
conflicts with the authoritative decisions of the United States Supreme Court,
Ninth Circuit and other Courts of Appeal that have already addressed this same
or similar issues within the orbit of Constitutional violations supporting
Appellant Schlund’s petition as more-fully discussed below:
Appellant Schlund at the initial pleading stage in his First Verified Amended
Complaint, (“Complaint”) sued Defendant George W. Bush (“Defendant
Bush”) as an individual who later acquired the Executive Office of President
of the United States by fixing the Presidential election so the matter would
intentionally fall into the hands of the United States Supreme Court who would
then appoint him as the “President” of the United States.
The record is so blatantly clear with the stench of judicial
impropriety that it would take a serious panel of judges who had some serious
judicial balls to rectify and balance Appellant’s use of the system for which
it was meant against those who have abused the system and violated his rights
protected under the United States Constitution (with all due respect) which
Defendant publically declares is nothing more than a “piece of paper”.
Appellant Schlund’s action was brought on the basis of Deprivation of Civil
Rights which were properly pled as non-garden varieties racketeering activities.
B. APPELLANT SCHLUND’S CASE INVOLVES ONE OR MORE QUESTIONS OF EXCEPTIONAL
pacr wrote on July 26, 2007 3:06 PM:CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORTANCE. THE PANEL’S DECISION BLATANTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE
SUPREME COURT’S AUTHORITATIVE DECISION, NINTH CIRCUIT OTHER CIRCUIT CASE LAW
THAT HAVE ADDRESSED THE SAME OR SIMILAR ISSUE AS DENOTED ABOVE. WHAT THE COURT
IS DOING IN ITS RULING IS PROTECTING BUSH FROM PROSECUTION FOR HIS CRIMES AND
SUSPENDING THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. THEN NOT ORDERING
THE CASE PUBLISHED TO COVER UP THE COURTS CORRUPT RULING.
I agree TheraP: Leahy's note is perfect. All those who think this is a futile exercise misunderstand Leahy and the anger that is now palpable in the Senate. This business will carry on to a full and satisfactory conclusion. It takes time to build a solid case in what is a historic circumstance. I for one do not want the pace to pick up for fear that the ball would be fumbled and that the Bush regime gets away with their crimes. We need care. We need wise old heads. And we need a steady hand. Thus far Leahy has shown he has all three. This may be unfortunate for the zealots among us who want quick victories.
As Leahy himself points out: the constitution is too important a matter to rush into hot-headed partisan fights. That's what Bush has done. We need to take the often times frustrating high ground and argue a non-partisan case.
That's what Leahy is trying to do. All power to him.
Samsara wrote on July 26, 2007 3:07 PM:I love it. The "I'm no worse than Clnton" defense. I wonder if it would work with my wife.
I am perfectly happy with what the Congress has been doing the last few weeks. Brick by brick, a slim Democratic majority is tearing down a dangerous Republican ascendency and 911 fuled power grab. Once Republicans find that their bully boy tactics will not work anymore, they may return to the fact based debate that makes our nation stronger. On the otherhand, they may find living the lives of mere mortals intolerable now, and choose to go over the cliff with Bush.
Anonymous wrote on July 26, 2007 3:07 PM:Abandon all hope ye who think you can engage a troll in intelligent, logical conversation.
busboy33 wrote on July 26, 2007 3:11 PM:@ Jake:
sorry not to have heard back from you.
@ the troll-haters:
Brett wrote on July 26, 2007 3:14 PM:apparently, calmly speaking to trolls is a better repellant than calling them names. Want to get the thread back on topic? Don't go off.
tbhull writes: This is such an exercise in futility. Rove will not show asserting executive privilege. Congress will issue a contempt citation seeking enforcement in the courts from the US Atty. The US Atty will not, as they have already made clear in writing and upon order of the prez, will not prosecute. End or story.
Not quite end of story. There is precedent for congressional committees going to court themselves.
Not to mention that Republicans will probably start getting nervous if it looks like their party is blocking efforts to enforce the law.
slangist wrote on July 26, 2007 3:15 PM:For a dollop of hope, see the Congressional Research Service report Tuesday on Congress' contempt power, especially "inherent contempt" which does not require US Attorney enforcement but can be enforced by the Sgt. at Arms...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf
Paranoid yet? wrote on July 26, 2007 3:21 PM:Samsara:
I'm not sure the repubs will ever "return to the fact based debate" - since they seem to thrive on emotional issues and propaganda. But maybe they'll die off as a movement...
pissedoffinnc wrote on July 26, 2007 3:23 PM:To RBS and others -- well said. The best way to ignore Jake D. is to use the scroll wheel on your mouse and don't even begin to read his rants. This guy, as he suggests with or without guile, is probably paid by someone to smear his vile posts on this otherwise excellent and informative board.
Pay no attention, let him wonder what happened.
sponson wrote on July 26, 2007 3:25 PM:Jake D., those Clinton USAs were not actually fired, and you know it. Each of the 9 in the current scandal was directly told that they must leave their post, involuntarily. The number of US Attorneys directly fired not due to personal wrongdoing or change in President (at the beginning of the Presidential term) from 1981 to 2005 was three (3). Your arguments are bogus.
sponson wrote on July 26, 2007 3:33 PM:To all concerned - I, Sponson, convinced by RBS and others, hereby pledge never to feed the troll "Jake" again. Here or on thinkprogress for that matter, where I am pretty sure he is a regular troll. There, it's that easy, I'm done. That felt good!
P.S. I'm deadly serious, not making a joke here.
regular lurker wrote on July 26, 2007 3:35 PM:Chip chip chip. I don't expect miracles but I'm grateful for the recent arrival of much needed oversight. It certainly has come a long way since January.
NYFM wrote on July 26, 2007 3:47 PM:Actually, to nobody in particular: Since none of the attorneys complained that they were fired by Clinton for politcial reasons, then it's safe to assume they felt nothing was amiss in their dismissal.
Bob's not Right wrote on July 26, 2007 3:49 PM:This issue has been narrowed to one thing "Can a person defy a congressional subpoena?"
Assume that all of the administration witnessess are fully truthful and pure, they still have to answer the lawful subpoena.
There is no "executive privilege" in the constitution but it has been an honored privilege with but a few judicial tests.
The Constitution does say in Article I section 8[9] that the congress has power "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme court", and in section 8[15] "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, supress insurrections and repel invasions" note the comma between execute the laws and calling forth the militia.
I also note that in Article II section 4 that it states that " The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
I would like our current congress to look hard at the word "Shall". It implies to me that impeachment is not a political option but a sworn duty.
Also just curious to get some feedback about the "Inherent Contemp" does Congress have a holding facility to incarcerate someone that would meet federal standards?
Cal Damage wrote on July 26, 2007 3:53 PM:Read this whole thread. Leahy's lay-out of the reason why the subpoenas are needed is excellent, describing the crimes already uncovered and the further crimes they imply.
The troll disappoints, in that it is generic, ie., bad speller, repeats ReagaNazi talking points rather than demonstrate original thought, cuts-n-pastes lists from the RNC rather than do the research itself. And when all else fails, whines. I can get all that and better graphics from Bill Orally every night.
I will add my security word, becomes it seems so correct: "crime"
laura wrote on July 26, 2007 3:55 PM:Insert comment on its appropriateness here.
I think it's great that you're here Jake! You really do help us all to remember just what you represent.
You know what y'all? Jake here is the nerdy little kid who's parents didn't think enough to teach him any manners so he came to school. He got picked on everyday not because he was overweight or wore the wrong clothes, but because he was annoying. Don't you just see Karl Rove and this guy as kindred souls? We've all known, and know now, people just like you Jake. You are a little cowardly man. You never did respond to my request for your MOS and who you served with in Korea? When you were there and all that. I bet it's all made up. You are a middle aged, balding guy without any friends who has Faux news on one tv and Spike on the other. You are flabby around the middle and don't have any friends. Get a life Jake, or, if you want to play nice, you can stay. Just stop trying so hard for all of us to play with you. We are too cool. You want to be like us, you have to take some lessons.
sc: "part" as in, part the hair, shave it, but please no more comb over
Django wrote on July 26, 2007 3:58 PM:Not knowing what I was dealing with, I wasted about a half hour googling the names of the Clinton USAs supposedly fired for improper reasons according to Jake the Troll. All I came up with was identical messages posted on other threads and other sites. He's got nothing. End of story.
Molly Ivans wrote on July 26, 2007 4:35 PM:Raise Hell!!
tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 4:41 PM:Posted by: Brett
Date: July 26, 2007 3:14 PM
Not quite end of story. There is precedent for congressional committees going to court themselves.
Not to mention that Republicans will probably start getting nervous if it looks like their party is blocking efforts to enforce the law.
On the first [point, this is a civil remedy and it will take years to resolve. Second, Congress asking to the court to odecide an issue without the executive enforcing the law wreaks of seeking an "advisory opinion" or even asking the courts to address a "political question". Ubfortunately, Congress has no Constitutional ability (other than "inherent contemot" or impeachment) to exclude the enforcement arm of the executive branch and enforce the laws its passes. To argue otherwise is biting one's nose off to spite their face, given that the solution of Congress trying someone for something other than impeachment or "inherent contempt" is Congress violating the delicate balance of the three co-equal branches to preserve the Constitution. This approach is not sound historically or intellectually. The Constitution has a mechanism to deal with an executive that runs afoul of the Constitution and usurps extra-Constitutional powers in violation of the same and this remedy is impeachment. Congress MUST quit fucking around and employ its use.
spamonwry wrote on July 26, 2007 4:42 PM:That the White House is claiming "Executive Privilege" for Karl Rove implies that Rove has a critical position over Government Policy (does the bush white house have policies???). However, Karl Rove's title is is something like Asst Chief of Staff for Politics, how would he have any coverage by the nebulous term of "Executive Privilege?" He deals only in Republican political issues, which are outside the normal parameters of the President's duties of governance. From a strictly non-political point-of-view, why is Karl Rove even on the government payroll? He appears de facto to be the Republican party's representative in the White House. The RNC e-mailbox reinforces that. As a political advisor, he is not covered at all by executive privilege as it has previously been used.
What's most frightening is the high likelihood that the SCOTUS gang of Five will rule in favor of the Bushies, no matter what the issue. Certainly the rabid four (scalie, thomas, alito & roberts) will not rule against Bush.
So many of the scenarios lead to the end of the American Republic, it's difficult to see a good outcome of the current constitutional Crisis.
Ryan wrote on July 26, 2007 5:14 PM:RE: Clinton fired US Attorneys for Political Reasons
According to the Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (found at: http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/USAttorneys/ServingLessThan4Years.pdf), since 1981, 54 US Attorneys have left office before their statutory four year term expired. Only 8 of those 54 occurred during Clinton's terms in office. Of those 8, 2 became Federal Judges, 1 died, 2 entered the private sector, and 1 sought elective office. The other 2 resigned for the following reasons: Colleton was videotaped grabbing a reporter by the throat. Coffey allegedly bit a topless dancer.
rubberpants wrote on July 26, 2007 5:15 PM:Accordingly, pursuant to the Congressional report on the subject, none of the US Attorneys who failed to serve their statutory 4 year term limit were fired for political reasons while serving under the Clinton administration.
You know, I was just thinking that the troll on here has such an utterly ham-handed, unsubtle, and inelegant approach to trolling that his methods of discussion board disruption are the equivalent of a covert operative using those funny novelty glasses with the nose and mustache to try and infiltrate an enemy organization. What, aren't we important enough to get a few of the elite trolls? No, we get the dregs.
Brett wrote on July 26, 2007 5:23 PM:tbhull: I'm not sure why inherent contempt is any longer of a path than seeking enforcement through the US Atty, but I don't know how these things would work in practice.
Forcing Congress to whip out the impeachment tool whenever the President orders a subordinate to violate a congressional subpoena will predictably lead to underenforcement of congressional subpoenas and be a boon to the executive. It's not clear to me why that would be part of the constitutional design.
According to CRS, Congressional committees have given themselves the option of going to court directly. Seems like an interesting option to me.
Barbara wrote on July 26, 2007 5:23 PM:Thanks busboy33.
tpm devotee wrote on July 26, 2007 5:36 PM:rubberpants:
dregs may be all they've got left...
We could hold a wake for .... one day.
Barbara wrote on July 26, 2007 5:41 PM:Thanks Ryan for the run down on the previous attorney generals and the reference to your source. I've really wanted to find out the true story, but haven't had time to track it down myself. We should cut and paste Ryan's research and use it whenever it is appropriate.
tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 6:53 PM:Posted by: Brett
Date: July 26, 2007 5:23 PM
Inherent contempt should not be taken off the table. It can proceed along with impeachment. The problem with inherent contempt is the president will toss a pardon the way of any member of his administration convicted under this concept. Any normal president would be embarrassed to issue such a pardon to an inherent contempt conviction, however, this president is no normal president, he has no shame, he does not respect Congress, the Constitution, or anything. With all that said, Congress must assume he will issue pardon(s) with any inherent contempt charge.
Uncle_Meat wrote on July 26, 2007 8:28 PM:@ Jake D:
For the sake of this post, I'll assume you are correct, and Herr Clinton fired those Prosecutors for nefarious reasons.
If I understand your position, this would have been a bad thing. Your tone suggests Clinton would properly be condemned for these actions.
How does that argument make W look better?
"Mike Vick, you slaughtered 20 dogs in your pit."
"Oh, yeah, well, my friend Eddie killed way more!"
"????"
You post in a thread implying this Administration is corrupt, and if I understand the thrust of your argument its essentially "the last prez was a bastard." I have to say, from a purely philosophical position, that argument not only refuses to address the issure of Is This Administration Corrupt, but seems like a blatant attempt to dodge the glare of the spotlight ("look! over there!").
I'm not trying to be mouthy -- I'm honestly wondering what The Evils Of Clinton have to do with the Evils Of Bush. If the idea is, since the last bastard got away with it, the current bastard should as well, I gotta say I disagree with your position.
Posted by: busboy33
Date: July 26, 2007 2:27 PM
@ Jake:
sorry not to have heard back from you.
@ the troll-haters:
apparently, calmly speaking to trolls is a better repellant than calling them names. Want to get the thread back on topic? Don't go off.
Posted by: busboy33
Date: July 26, 2007 3:11 PM
Good job buddy!!
Now back to the hard work of righting our listing ship of state...
Al in Austex wrote on July 26, 2007 9:53 PM:This is a shift in the Momementum .BuschCo will soon be hit by many ,many , recovered documents , sworn testimony , AND YES CAREER G12 THRU G14 ,spilling whole truth about the respective BushCo misdeeds from across the width & length of the Foggy Bottom federal structure . The outlines of this have been apparent for sometime , for example what exactly did the ex Chief of Station FBI San Diego say behind closed doors to the Hill Staffers , the Chief did say in public once that Lam's firing was political .
tbhull wrote on July 26, 2007 10:38 PM:Make no mistake the WhiteHouse is now on the defensive . I have total faith in Conyers , Leahey , Schumer , and the Sanchez sisters.WE THE PEOPLE have the last say so in this Bushco tragedy .I do believe that criminal charges will be brought against this guys & gals of this administration... we need to slow walk some of this if possible till 2009 so Dubya cannot pardon his minions. But I still believe Cheney should be Impeached & maybe as election time nears there will be enough votes in the Senate to the VEEP after all !!!
Posted by: Al in Austex
Date: July 26, 2007 9:53 PM
Excellent post. Start impeachment with the VP and/or the AG. No indictments though, as current DOJ/US Attorney will not bring the charges.
The best way to make GS-12 to GS-15 folks 9including many career DOJ Attoenrys) squeal like stuck pigs/unveil the truth is to cut off all DOJ funding. This will happen. As BushCo, with its incessant play of the "F^%#$%k You!" card to Congress has stripped Congress down to its essential power tools; namely, the purse and impeachment. I trust Congress will tke the necessary steps to impeach and cut funding to DOJ. If they do not then you know that this ia a multi-party power play on the Cionstituion and the American people.
By the way, Austin is a great town and clearly the best in Texas.
PJ White wrote on July 27, 2007 1:16 AM:I can't believe how much space is given on this thread to trying to refute (as though it's necessary) the mindless maundering of Troll critter Jake. IGNORE HIM. He just keeps saying the same crap, day after day after day. Are you trying to convert him? Give it up. He is an attention seeker. He has no argument. Let's move on.
jess wrote on July 27, 2007 3:04 AM:Jake D,
we've been thru this subject in another topic. You've repeatedly attempted to make people aware of past president actions.
To give you some excitement in life, how about abolishing statues of limitations and investigate past presidents?
However, for now, we have constitutional issues at hand and let's take care of that. What have you got to offer for these issues? What do you bring to the table?
I will use your own words now: How convenient it is for you to show up now and speak of past president actions now. Why didn't you bring this up when Clinton did fire those US attorneys?
Steve Pordon wrote on July 27, 2007 6:15 AM:-- Jess
If GWB had nothing to do with the firings, then the talking point "Serve at the pleasure of the president" is entirely moot.
Why haven't our representatives brought this up?
John wrote on July 27, 2007 8:17 AM:Jake D, the difference is that the Clinton (or other) US A changes ocurred at the beginning of an administration, when such changes should happen..the 2006 actions ocurred in sensitive areas, where voting rights (GOP supression) and investigation of fat white corrupt GOP congressmen (Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis) were underway...thats obstruction of justice.
moondancer wrote on July 27, 2007 5:20 PM:While I applaud the supoena, I want an indictment. That being said, he'll never show.
The best defense they have is 4 corner, run out the clock. While the bush barbarians are gutting the republic, their spokespeople are stalling until the buzzer. I fully expect the truth to come out eventually, but Roves life experience tells him thats way too late to lay a glove on him.
code: round, as in him up and frog march that turd to Leavenworth
dvyb cvagx wrote on August 28, 2007 5:07 PM:vfaw mdbhfoug fcnlkvwoy pqyrkcbv utohjx tuhvf blrsy
dvyb cvagx wrote on August 28, 2007 5:08 PM:vfaw mdbhfoug fcnlkvwoy pqyrkcbv utohjx tuhvf blrsy