Karl Rove, The White House And The Rule of Law
Cross posted at Huffington Post here.
Today was the deadline for a Judiciary Committee subpoena issued to Karl Rove, demanding his appearance before the Committee to testify on his role in the politicization of the Department of Justice and the politically selective prosecutions of Democrats. Unfortunately, Mr. Rove chose not to show up.
The claim that Mr. Rove and the White House make is that high-level aides to the president are totally immune from compelled congressional testimony. Not that there are certain subjects they cannot discuss in a public hearing, nor that the White House has a right to review questions that are asked, but that they are in a class entirely by themselves -- a separate group that is above the reach of a subpoena and, consequently, above the law.
Over the past 18 months, congressional inquiries have uncovered a level of politicization that runs the breadth of the administration and profoundly threatens one of the core elements of our democracy -- equal justice under law. We have seen it in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys for partisan political purposes, in the hiring practices at the Justice Department, and apparently in the politically selective prosecution of Democrats like Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Thorough investigation of these abuses of power requires that Congress get answers from the Executive Branch. By ignoring the Judiciary Committee subpoena, Karl Rove and the White House once again showed their utter disregard for our system of checks and balances, for Congress as a co-equal branch of government, and ultimately for the American people.
The question that now confronts the Judiciary Committee and, ultimately, the full House of Representatives, is what action to take in the face of such blatant defiance of the rule of law. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am considering all options. Regardless of the path we take, the end result must be the same: the full restoration of our Constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no one -- not Karl Rove and not the president -- is above the law.
Certian folks doubt. Guess who?
Actually, it's Bi-Partisan.
The consensus seems against supposing Congress will act. Though the reasons differ.
The rightwing believes the Democrats too weak to fight their way out of this paper bag, while the leftwing believes the Democrats too weak to fight their way out of this paper bag. The center, as always, vacillates between these extremes. Except for Joe, who isn't really (Wink-wink) in the center at all.
Conveniently, the only folks who stand to be disappointed, are those that love their country.
Frosted Flake
I Suggest a Dual Approach
Karl Rove’s contempt of Congress is merely a symptom of a rot that is eating away at the tripartite government and the system of checks and balances that the Founders put in place to prevent this very scenario.
This arrogant hubris by the Executive Branch and its employees did not happen overnight. It happened in slow steps, reinforced by the Congress’s apparent lack of courage and seemingly without even their basic understanding of the deleterious impact of such subservience by one supposedly co-equal branch of government to another co-equal branch.
What were you thinking? What did you expect the ultimate outcome of Congress’s repeated submissiveness and subservience to an Executive that repeatedly overstepped the boundaries of it’s Constitutional authority, while concurrently encroaching upon your own authority?
Bush didn’t take away your authority—you willingly gave it away, piece by piece—starting with “Impeachment is off the table” by the newly elected Speaker of the House—who was elected Speaker only because of a mandate given her and her majority by the American people to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their multiple violations of the Constitution. The American people told you in 2006 they wanted you to restore the balance of powers, and reassert your authority as a co-equal branch.
At this point what can be done? Only strong and decisive actions will halt the hemorrhaging of the co-equal powers that Congress once jealously guarded as part of their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US.
I believe that only a dual pronged reassertion of Congressional authority will succeed in beginning the slow process of regaining any semblance of co-equal status of Congress with the Executive:
1. Using the Inherent Contempt authority given to you by the Constitution: Seize, and imprison Mr. Rove and any other official of the Executive Branch who refuses to obey the law. This is what would happen to any of us “little people” if we dared to ignore a subpoena. Why is it such a big deal for you to apply the same standards to people whose salaries were paid by our tax dollars?
2. Begin Impeachment Hearings for Bush, Cheney, and any other member of the Executive Branch who is currently actively obstructing justice—i.e., AG Mukasey. Represenative Kucinich has given the Judiciary Committee far more reasons to hold hearings than there ever were for the impeachment proceedings launched against the previous President. Now Congress seeks to rectify that partisan display of miscarriage of justice by failing to hold the current President accountable for repeated willful violations of the Constitution. It is time for Congress to fulfill it’s oath of office and Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States.
BTW, if you haven’t been paying attention, the latest polls show republican John McCain and Democrat Barak Obama in a virtual tie. The Democrats have been afraid to assert themselves, trying to just postpone accountability until after the election, when they believe they will have a Democratic President to “save” them. Well, apparently it’s not a sure thing. If you do not stand up for the system of checks and balances now, you may never get another chance.
You've made excellent points, unspun
Apparently, the mentality of the Democratic Leadership has been to continue to allow the abuses of the Executive office by its current occupants in order to prime citizens to vote for Democrats in November. This makes as much sense as one parent allowing another to abuse a child during a custody battle, to engender preference for the (supposed) non-abusive parent. It's the most sick and twisted approach running up to an election imaginable. And, as you pointed out, the end result could be that McCain is elected, and voter resentment punishes the enablers in Congress. Prolonging the disregard for the law and lack of constitutional integrity is not only unethical and illegal, it's just plain bad political strategy. Nothing about it makes sense.
There is still time for Congress to implement inherent contempt and impeachment. It's the only thing that does make sense.
I want to add a couple of links to this post:
Skating Scot-Free
and a link from a comment in the above essay:
Torture and the rule of law
What horrors bush hath wrought...
But even worse than the criminal behavior of sociopaths who were put in positions of power over the weak--is the continued enabling of the crimes by the Congress charged with accountability and exacting consequences for those criminal acts.
For too long "good men and women" who had the power to put a stop to the atrocities and hold the criminals accountable have chosen to take the easy road of looking the other way. Their actions to date have been "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
There is a difference between making efforts to appear to be taking action and actually taking action. We out here in the hinterlands do know the difference. We will soon see whether talk and showmanship by the Congress will finally, at long last give way to their actually acting in a courageous, ethical, and responsible manner. They have sadly shirked their responsibility up to this point, and as a consequence people have continued to suffer and even to die needlessly.
History will not judge the bush administration kindly--and it most certainly won't judge kindly those that had the power to intervene and stop the criminality, yet chose instead to stand passively by and allow the criminality, corruption and malfesance--when they had the Constitutionally granted tools to put an end to it.
WAR CRIMES...
Bugliosi on MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYotUN0VBk
(sorry, embed is not active)
AMERICA's OWN MILOSEVIC...
==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!!!
Main Stream Entertainment...
The sin that THEY(sic), who hate us for our FREEDOMS, have bestowed upon the REPUBLIC is more than just a serious joke...
... It's even on MTV!
Shall we pitch in and buy a shovel so that you can bury your head deeper?
THE REPUBLIC SHALL NEVER, EVER FORGET THIS TREASON!
==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!!!
The question remaining is
Does the Congress have any guts left? If so, Federal Marshals will be sent to arrest the bastrich and drag his unwilling butt in front of the Committee. Also, it looks as though Kucinich's latest article might even rate a hearing. Have you ben so cowed by Nancy's dancing to Felix's tune that you have forgotten that you are STILL bound by the oath you swore, if she lets up? Or could it be that Cindy has her scared now, so that her slavery to Rohatyn no longer prevents her from obeying her own oath? Time's a-wastin'. a month of rubbing the Downing Street minutes into public awareness might be very useful at this point.
If you need yet more convincing, Mr. Chairman,
...yet more documentation of the continuing criminality of the bush administration, teacherken says: "If you read Frank Rich, you should demand impeachment. Rich's NYT Op-Ed "The Real Life '24' Summer of 2008" Compares the crimes of the Nixon administration with the crimes of the Bush Administration:
That, plus all the other well-documented past Constitutional, moral and criminal violations of the Bush Administration have been documented by many, including, as we all well know, you, Mr. Chairman.
But, the real issue, the real reason that Congress has a moral and legal obligation to act without further delay is that the criminality continues while you dawdle:
And, if that's still not enough, Rich poses the ultimate question that pulls away the pillars of lies that the bush administration uses to prop up their false justifications for the violations of the Constitution and international laws, the argument by the Cheneyites that all these actions are "keeping us safer":
Mr. Rich's column, which I recommend reading in it's entirety concludes, Mr. Chairman with this warning, which our leaders would do well to heed:
When...
Q U E S T I O N:
When the Rule of Law is forsaken for political expedience…
When the supreme leader does as he pleases and gets what he wants…
When legislation is passed that violates foundational values…
When the use of warrants is dismissed…
When the information society is left in the dark…
When the people are surveiled and monitored…
When the interests of other Nations out weigh one’s own…
When Human Rights are ignored for political pleasures…
When Communistic TORTURE is adopted as principle…
When one is held for life with no charges…
When a proper defense is withheld…
When one is refused to see the proof used against himself…
When people are denied a jury…
When “Papers PLEASE!” is your pass to VOTE…
When zones are mandated to control free speech…
When religion controls the political process and considerations…
When I can tell a court to F.O. and escape abroad for ‘vacation’…
When the cries of the people fall on deaf ears…
When an Oath of Office is just an inconvenient formality…
When the Governing Body ignores it’s Obligation and Sworn Duty…
When lies and promises can be overlooked for a quid pro quo…
Of an exchange to lie about secret promises that pad corporate intere$t$…
In all of that…
Where is America?
.
Oh, that IS America.
==============
I M P E A C H
Good money after bad, over and over again.
At what point does the constitutional left turn it's back on those with whom we've misplaced our faith?
We fell for the "for the good of our country crap" after Bobby Kennedy's assassination gave us the Nixon administration the first time. Then we elected a peanut farmer after the Watergate pardon, only to have Cheney, Rummy, and the same cult of right wing wingnuts drag us further down the road to Fascism. What did you do?
After the FDIC/SS scam, Iran/Contra, ABSCAM, fellatiogate, and Tom Delay's successful blackmailing of the entire house of representatives when he waved around evidence of Democrats who'd broken the same laws he was ousted for....you want us to assume that you'll break from tradition and attack these incorrigible criminals?
Yes, there are many roads to Rome. But your promises ring hollow. You're like the cab driver who picks someone up at a strange airport, only to drive in circles for hours thinking we don't know any better, then he wants a tip.
We paid the fare you requested even though you did nothing but drive around aimlessly for 2 years. That bill was paid in full in Nov. '06.
You want us to tip you with a veto proof majority in '08? Why? So you can rewrite the constitution in the Conyers/Pelosi image?
Personally, I wouldn't trust either one of you to write my will, let alone a document as important to the United States as the Constitution.
Speaking of the 4th Amendment...Who could have predicted that...
…the use of datamining and warrantless (or even some warranted) wiretaps could be misused by people in the top levels of the Bush Administration, or anyone in one of the “alphabet soup” swarm of agencies that have been authorized (or authorized themselves) to gather and/or have access to the information obtained? Who could have predicted? Well, only those paranoid left-wing, liberal types, right? (emphasis mine)
Well, not only those paranoid liberals were concerned that they could be spied on by fellow Americans for political reasons. Apparently two conservative Republican Justice Department officials (people who would be in a position to actually know how the Administration was using and misusing datamined/ wiretap-obtained information) were concerned about their own safety and privacy:
Hello? Mr. Chairman? Did you get the significance of that? If not, I’ll try to sort it out:
Members of the Administration who were in a position to know about how the Administration can intercept private, supposedly secure information on American citizens—and who know that “Congress has assured that there are safeguards in place to prevent the misuse and abuse of such information against American citizens for political reasons” were nonetheless, so concerned that:
1. Their own colleagues in the Administration could and would spy on them, despite, alleged “safeguards” being in place to prevent such an event…
2. They took extraordinary, almost cold-war spy era type precautions to prevent being spied upon, an activity, which according to Congress members who just blithely voted for FISA, is something Americans should not be concerned about.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here’s the “cut to the chase” part of my comment:
During the Impeachment Hearing process following the Watergate break-in, Congress agreed that spying upon Americans for political reasons and the ensuing cover-up were indeed impeachment worthy. The question becomes: Why isn’t Congress holding Impeachment hearings right now on the multiple abuses by the Bush Administration--Abuses ranging from starting an illegal war following a concerted effort by the Executive to obtain AUMF from Congress, to spying on Americans for purposes of politically-motivated persecution/prosecutions, to torture, to cover-ups of all of the above?
The question also becomes: Why is Congress aiding and abetting crimes before and after the fact?
1 more Point: Red Cross Finds Bush Admin. Guilty of War Crimes
Mr. Chairman, what a bizarre country this has become, when even a non-profit, non-political agency like the Red Cross Finds the Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes but Congress still can't seem to find it's voice (or is it they can't find their courage?) to take the required action?
Food for Thought, Mr. Chairman: How do Congress members that sat through the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, (many of whom actively voted for impeachment) for the "crime" of having sex with a woman over the age of consent, justify their inaction re: A President who is responsible for death and torture? Clinton's behavior, while to many may find it to be immoral and reprehensible--what does it have to do with how the country was run? How did it harm the average American citizen--in fact, any American, other than the President, the young woman involved and their families?
Yet, these same Congress members who somehow manage to look themselves in the mirror evey day--refuse to Impeach a President that lied the country into war--resulting in the needless deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis; and who has violated two amendments--the 4th, and the 8th, with warrantless wiretaps and masterminding and ordering torture. Those are just the worst of a long list of Impeachable offenses. Yet the same people who allowed Impeachment of one President for consensual sex, refuses to impeach his successor for ordering torture and death.
Who are the immoral ones?
They've gotten the "goods" on them through FISA violations.
During the John Bolton confirmation hearings, the proceedings came to an abrupt halt after an honest judge upheld a request for information about Mr. Bolton's part in the information gathering phase of BushCo's campaign to discredit Joe Wilson.
He refused the court order, the Senate went into recess, BushCo gave him a temporary appointment, and the whole matter was dropped as moot point politics circumvented the system once again.
Today we know that this was a well orchestrated smear campaign that resulted in the illegal outing of a CIA operation that involved Joe Wilson, diplomat, and his wife Valerie Plame, CIA covert agent. We also know that certain Senators were privy to information regarding BushCo's FISA violations at the time.
During the time BushCo was demanding legislation that provided retroactive immunity the first time, pandering politicians assured us that these violations had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with protecting "we the children" from ter'rists.
It's too bad the Senate allowed Mr. Bolton's open defiance of a court order to stand as precedent. If they'd continued their quest for the court ordered information, they would probably have seen proof that BushCo's lawbreaking was not reserved for non-political purposes.
How many wire taps of Joe Wilson were ordered? If any at all were ordered, wouldn't this be considered using secret government programs for partisan political gain? How many Senators on the oversight committee, knew about the illegal FISA violations and didn't want it known that they turned a "blind eye"?
Mr. Conyers, I came here because I respected your defiance as you challenged egregious constitutional offenses. It would be stupid of me, or anyone else, to assume that people who would openly defy the law at every opportunity, would hesitate to blackmail you.
This isn't the first time in history that nefarious underworld figures have used blackmail to control the political process. When they buy enough politicians, they usually try to have the offending laws changed, so they can join the ranks of respectable businessmen.
In Pre-2K America, people who allowed this type of behavior even though it was their sworn duty to stop it, were called co-conspirators and prosecuted as criminals when the organized crime ring was broken up. Sometimes it took 10-20 years of dedicated hard work to "get the goods" on them.
With the new and improved FISA laws, Congress's constant contact with foreigners, and a belief in our constitution, we might see some of these people spend their final years in bright orange jumpsuits.
Hell, throw in a little congressionally approved waterboarding and I bet we could do it in record time.
What they allow done to others, should be part of the program, otherwise there really is no equal justice. Without fear of being tortured, imprisoned, or drafted, where is educated America's incentive to find a moral center?
Maybe we're going about this all wrong. Anyone know how to bug an office? But then we'd have to find a DA to prosecute. Oh well...it looks like we'll only be able to waterboard Democrats. Half is better than nothing, isn't it?
Congress has set far too many Constitution gutting precedents
During the last seven years. That the 110th Congress has continued assisting bush in gutting the Constitution, when they were mandated by The People in 2006 to do just the opposite, is nothing short of criminal. They have only a short time to begin reversing the monumental consequences of their failures of leadership and moral courage.
Do they have what it takes to do what they require of our troops? Do they have the courage to "support and defend the Constitution"? They blithely gave authorization for the troops to go to war; they continue to allow these young men and women to die--yet the same Congress that sends people to die are themselves still unwilling to show the courage to stand up to a lame duck bully and do the job they solemnly swore--some of them have sworn repeated times--to do.
A Simple Question
Q U E S T I O N:
Congressman,
As you have already discovered, the president is not allowed to legally sign a bill into law that violates the Constitution, that it "Must pass the Muster".
When George W. Bush signed the FISA legislation as passed by the House and Senate, since it blatantly flies in the face of Article I, Sec. 9, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed", what was the president obligated to do versus what did he do?
WAS IT LEGAL?
If Bush intended to "GET THIS PASSED" isn't that intent?
And when it was handed to him, as he intended, was that collusion?
A Congressional Coup of the Republic's Constitution by insistence of the president?
HOW DID THE FOUNDERS GET IT ALL WRONG?
==============
I M P E A C H
Damage Caused By Bush
If it weren't so sad, it would be funny...
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...
Conyers's office did not return calls...
... In 2006, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table,” in part, to avoid alarming centrist voters. Now, House Speaker Pelosi is keeping the issue “off the table” as Democrats eye the possibility of larger majorities in November’s elections.
"Speaker Pelosi will continue to lead legislative efforts to find a new direction in Iraq but believes that impeachment would create a divisive battle, be a distraction from Congress's efforts to chart a new course for America's working families and would ultimately fail," Pelosi's spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, told the Cleveland Plain Dealer last month.
On Thursday, Pelosi shifted her stance somewhat by indicating that there is a strong possibility that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on impeachment, but indicated that it’s still unlikely that the full House would take action on impeachment.
"This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee," Pelosi told reporters. "Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment because that would have to be approved on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject."
Conyers's office did not return calls Thursday afternoon. In the past, the Michigan congressman said he did not support Democratic efforts to impeach President Bush. Last year, a resolution introduced by Kucinich to impeach Vice President Cheney died in Conyers's committee.
click here
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...
Courage. Those that don't seem to have it, still require it
of other people--people like: Sgt. Alex R. Jimenez and Pfc. Byron J. Fouty. and the
Nine (9) US Soldiers Killed and Fifteen (15) wounded yesterday in Afghanistan and the thousands that have already been killed, and those who will be killed or wounded today, and all the days yet to come. Those who will continue being killed: Americans, Iraqi's, Afghans... unless Congress can manage to summon it's so far missing courage to stop the criminals who keep making the carnage possible.
Karl Rove continues to spin...
Today Karl Rove continued to pose as an honest public servant:
"Former White House adviser Karl Rove on Monday defended his defiance of a congressional subpoena, saying he's offered lawmakers other ways to question him about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department.
In five letters to the House Judiciary Committee, "my lawyer has offered for me to go up to visit with members of Congress, visit with the staff or respond to written questions without foreclosing any future action by Congress," Rove said.
Rove, now a Fox News contributor, was responding to questions from Television Critics Association members during a Fox News panel session.
John Moody, Fox News executive vice president, was asked if it undercuts the channel's credibility to have someone with Rove's "political baggage" in its lineup.
"No," Moody replied, calling the former Bush adviser an authority on politics and adding that the current difference of opinion with Congress is between Rove and lawmakers.
But when a reporter tried to press the point with Moody, Rove jumped in to dispute characterization of the dispute as personal.
"It's not between me and Congress. I've not asserted any personal privilege. This is between the White House and Congress," Rove said."
Right, because either the President of the United States ordered Karl Rove to use the DOJ as his own private goon squad or Karl Rove did so of his own accord. Which is it Karl? If the White House won't let him testify, then Congress has to ask the obvious question: was Mr. Bush involved? Otherwise, Karl has to testify. It is really that simple. He cannot have it both ways. I might also add, if Mr. Bush was not involved and is using the power of his office to protect Rove, then that is obstruction of justice = impeachable offense.
I think it is also very nice of Fox to adopt Rove and protect him so vigerously. Murdoch's various corporations seem to really look for felons to hire: G. Gordon Liddy (burglar, and implicated in planning the assassination of at least one journalist); Oliver North (arms dealer, terrorist financier, drug smuggler); and now Karl Rove. Am I missing anyone?
by Larisa Alexandrovna
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...
Barney Fife, quivering chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
With John "Barney Fife" Conyers, quivering and quaking as he threatens dire consequences to the Bush gang of killers, bloodsuckers, and thieves, I'm left to wonder....
....what the hell are they putting in the drinking water in Michigan? Whatever it is, it seems to make unemployed ex-union autoworkers happy just to have a box to sleep in and a dumpster to provide breakfast.
You'd think by now, they'd be ready for change too.
Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side
Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side
By Scott Horton
In a series of gripping articles, Jane Mayer has chronicled the Bush Administration’s grim and furtive dealings with torture and has exposed both the individuals within the administration who “made it happen” (a group that starts with Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington), the team of psychologists who put together the palette of techniques, and the Fox television program “24,” which was developed to help sell it to the American public. In a new book, The Dark Side, Mayer puts together the major conclusions from her articles and fills in a number of important gaps. Most significantly, we learn the details on the torture techniques and the drama behind the fierce and lingering struggle within the administration over torture, and we learn that many within the administration recognized the potential criminal accountability they faced over these torture tactics and moved frantically to protect themselves from possible future prosecution. I put six questions to Jane Mayer on the subject of her book, The Dark Side.
1. Reports have circulated for some time that the Red Cross examination of the CIA’s highly coercive interrogation regime—what President Bush likes to call “The Program”—concluded that it was “tantamount to torture.” But you write that the Red Cross categorically described the program as “torture.” The Red Cross is notoriously tight-lipped about its reports, and you do not cite your source or even note that you examined the report. Do you believe that the threat of criminal prosecution drove the Bush Administration’s crafting of the Military Commissions Act?
Whether anyone involved in the Bush Administration’s interrogation and detention program will be prosecuted is as much a political question as a legal one. Right now in Italy the CIA agents involved in the rendition of Abu Omar are facing criminal charges, which is obviously an unmitigated nightmare for the Bush Administration.But to get that far it took an extraordinarily independent and politically fearless local prosecutor, Armando Spataro. I may be wrong, but I personally doubt there will be large-scale legal repercussions inside America for those who devised and implemented “The Program.” Activists will be angry at me for saying this, but as someone who has covered politics in Washington, D.C., for two decades, I would be surprised if there is the political appetite for going after public servants who convinced themselves that they were acting in the best interests of the country, and had legal authority to do so. An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised.
The rest here
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...
The last two sentences put it all in a nutshell, don't they?
The reasons why Congress won't act:
IMHO, those who are "compromised" should also be among those held accountable, both as an example, and as a warning.
...
Q U E S T I O N:
WHAT GOOD IS THIS RULE OF LAW IF THE CONgressman WON'T ENFORCE IT?
==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!!!