Karl Rove

Our Political Prisoners

davidswanson — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:58:27 -0400

By David Swanson

Did you know the United States has in recent years prosecuted hundreds of people for political reasons? This is a crime, or rather a crime wave, that has thus far been addressed primarily by ignoring it. You can read a lot about it from bloggers like Larisa Alexandrovna or Scott Horton. But you won't hear the president mention it on TV.

In an attempt to convince the corporate media that this issue ranked right up there with governors' sex lives and celebrities' deaths, a group of notable speakers, judges, attorneys, victims, and witnesses, gathered and spoke on Friday morning at the National Press Club. You can watch the whole forum on C-Span. You won't find it anywhere else. Below is what I blogged from the event:

8:00 a.m. Don Siegelman (former governor of Alabama and victim of a politically motivated prosecution) had to go back to Alabama and won't be here. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers may not make it either. But everybody else is milling and chatting. Some people, I'm not supposed to say are here. I spoke with Scott Horton about Spain. He thinks they're going to spend 1.5 years on the 6 lawyers and prosecute and convict 'em. He also thinks Italy will soon convict the CIA agents and report them to Interpol and end their traveling.

8:11 John Edward Hurley, President, Sarah McClendon Group, opening, welcoming.

8:31 Andrew Kreig, journalist, author & attorney, says Siegelman was here yesterday but had to get back to Alabama for a filing of new evidence with his attorney.

8:36 Kreig says the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined an invitation to participate in today's forum.

8:37 Scott Horton: prosecutorial misconduct is the topic. Prosecutors wield incredible powers. Abuse must be held in check by Justice Dept itself. [Isn't that a weakness?] Horton quotes Robert Jackson on danger of targeting people rather than taking up important cases, of picking individuals to find a crime for rather than picking crimes and finding the guilty parties.

8:42 Horton notes that as attorney general, Michael Mukasey gave one speech on corruption and claimed to know of none, at the same time that stories of former attorney general John Ashcroft's corruption were in the news. Mukasey claimed that for the 14 months he headed DOJ there was no evidence of politically motivated prosecutions. Yeah? What about Don Siegelman, Sen Walker, Paul Minor, and many others? And what about all of the cases of refusing to prosecute Republicans or sabotaging possible prosecutions of Republicans, like Renzi, as exemplified by yesterday's report by Murray Waas -- a story documenting sabotage of a case by a man then appointed as director of public affairs by Mukasey? Mukasey repeatedly promised in Congress to look into the Siegelman case but never did. The current DOJ says it has inherited a mess (detentions, torture, etc.) but there is another mess. Holder did the right thing in the Stevens case. But what about all of these other cases?

8:51 Nan Aron, President, Legal Director, Alliance for Justice, introduces Elliot Mincberg, Head Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, speaking in place of Chairman Conyers who has to stay on the hill and vote this morning. Mincberg refers to reports like this one and this one. Committee is still investigating 2006 firing of US attorneys and has already demonstrated clear political motivation in firings, based on which prosecutors were too aggressive or insufficiently aggressive in going after Republicans or Democrats respectively. Mincberg recounts holding Miers and Bolten in contempt, and says settlement has given the committee more White House documents and that the terms of the settlement will be revealed after interviews, and there may be hearings. Second, the political hiring and firing, the testimony of Monica Goodling ... but we now have a new AG. [So what?] Holder might reconsider prosecuting Brad Schlossman. Third, the torture [he doesn't use the word]. Mincberg stresses the importance of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, and says Conyers will hold hearings with Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, and "hopefully a representative of the DOJ" after that report is released? [Why must this town shut down until that report is released? Who will enforce the subpoenas? Will Conyers use the Capitol Police? Why can they not subpoena a representative from DOJ?] Fourth, the warrantless spying (also waiting for a report). Fifth, today's topic: selective prosecution. We held LOTS of hearings, claims Mincberg and found extensive evidence of political prosecutions. Just the percentage of prosecutions of elected officials that were against Democrats had a 1 in 10,000 chance of being coincidence. A couple of cases in WI and PA have now been thrown out. But what about all the troubling activity by Republicans not prosecuted, such as the Republican voter registration firm in Nevada tearing up registrations of Democrats. See report on HJC website. Sixth, deferred prosecutions - Ashcroft. Seventh, abuse by FBI of Natl Security Letters (warrantless search warrants). Eighth, state secrets abuse. This is area where Mincberg admits great disappointment with the current DOJ and cites its sovereign immunity claim. Says committees in House and Senate are waiting [absurdly] for the DOJ's statement prior to marking up the State Secrets Protection Act. Ninth, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had been turned into an office that told the White House what it wanted to hear. Tenth and final, voting rights was dealt with politically -- we held hearings, John Tanner - chief of civil rights division - resigned. [To Mincberg's credit he says a lot more a lot faster than Conyers would have.]

9:14 Q&A: Scott Horton asks Mincberg about settlement but he says he can't give details but that they have received new documents and that the White House continues to claim privilege to withhold other documents.

Go to 1:06:12 in the C-Span video, and watch what I ask Mincberg and how he answers. The camera is on me when I'm asking the question, and I wish it had been on him. Another camera in the room may have been on him. You'll notice that partway through my question I stop and ask him what he thinks is funny. What had happened was that I had asked whether the House Judiciary Committee would ever use the Capitol Police to enforce its subpoenas. The very idea of thus defending the powers of the first branch of our government made Mincberg giggle nervously. The notion that one might assert such power completely apart from the decrees of the emperor always disturbs congress members and their staffers.

9:20 I asked Mincberg why in the world his committee would delay subpoenaing Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury until the OPR report and whether they would use inherent contempt if subpoenas are violated, and why in the world not impeach Bybee. He said he really does believe that the OPR report will be out soon, although Holder recently said otherwise if you use the word "soon" the way I do. Mincberg also said that every subject of every OPR report is permitted to submit comments, even though Senator Whitehouse has said this is unprecedented - allowing Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury to submit edits. Mincberg thought that inherent contempt was funny and claimed that they had done better going through the courts, a claim that the public cannot judge except by saying there have been no hearings and no public satisfaction, and it's hard to imagine what secret outcome could have been BETTER than compelling all the recalcitrant witnesses to appear and testify. Mincberg said the House had just impeached Kent and probably would impeach another judge soon, and so was very busy, apparently too busy to impeach Bybee.

9:21 Mincberg says an interview with Rove has been scheduled but not occurred. No straight answer as to whether Rove will be put under oath. But every word will be transcribed and made public and under 18 US Code Section 1001 Rove cannot legally lie. In other words, the BETTER outcome than locking Rove up until he testified is this: he will testify in secret and not under oath, and he has still, years later, not yet done so.

9:28 End of Q&A. And speaking of abuses of justice, check this out: Proposal Offers Specifics On Preventive Detention.

9:30 We're running 30 mins behind schedule. Kreig introduces Hon. U.W. Clemon, Shareholder, White, Arnold & Dowd, former Chief U.S. District Judge, Alabama’s Northern District (1981-2009). He says Siegelman case in May of 2004 didn't just spring up, but like a phoenix rising from the ashes it had an earlier existence. Two years earlier Dr Phillip Bobo convicted of Medicaid fraud and narrowly defeated in reelection. Siegelman was leading in polls for his reelection. 11th Circuit Appeals reversed conviction of Bobo. But Bobo was reindicted with Siegelman and an aide to him added as part of a conspiracy. And prosecutors were already shopping for a Republican judge and had requested a Judge Johnson to recuse herself. Then a Bush Sr.-appointed judge recused himself. Then a Clinton-appointed judge Smith was lobbied to recuse himself although Siegelman had no complaint and he saw no reason to recuse himself - but he did so. Then a Bush Jr.-appointed judge got the case and Bobo was doctor to this judge's children. Siegelman objected. So then the case came to Judge U.W. Clemon. A dishonest campaign in the media sought to disqualify Clemon. Clemon denied double jeopardy claim by Bobo but granted motion to disqualify Siegelman's lawyers. Justice Dept still sought to have Clemon removed and sought to poison the jury pool through the media. Clemon found no conspiracy. Government moved to dismiss and Clemon granted. Prosecutor said she was untroubled because a new indictment of Siegelman would come in a different district. DOJ was focused on the man, not the crime. It was the most unfounded case Clemon ever saw. (Of course, that new indictment did come.)

Q&A: Clemon answered a question by saying that Holder last week told him the DOJ was looking into Siegelman case. [Believable?]

9:59 Charles “Champ” Walker, Jr., business executive and son of imprisoned former George State Sen. Majority Leader Charles Walker, Sr., owner of the Walker Group and Augusta Focus newspaper. Describes a "war against Democrats," hundreds of cases around the country of local prosecutions of Democrats, people like Paul Minor. Prosecutor Richard Thompson investigated on behalf of a Republican politician (who has since made him a judge) four top Democrats in Georgia, including Walker Sr. Numerous attempts to charge Walker Sr. with made-up crimes failed. Judge with conflicts of interest refused to allow defense to raise prosecutorial misconduct, and removed black jurors, changed jury from 65% urban black to 65% rural white with jurors from outside district. Walker had led the fight to take Confederate flag out of state flag. See: http://politicalprosecutions.org

10:22 Bruce Fein, author of “Constitutional Peril,” and former Reagan Administration Associate General Counsel of the Justice Department and General Counsel of Federal Communications Commission: Fein denounces corruption of our system in recent years. No principles. Partisan loyalty. Assumption of guilt. Destruction of lives with baseless public accusation. Complete immunity for prosecutors. Culture must change. Education must change. And Congress must step up and create statutes.

10:31 Bill Yeomans, Legal Director, Alliance for Justice, worked 26 years at DOJ and 3 years at Senate Judiciary Committee for Kennedy. He notes accurately that we seem to be concluding each discussion by deferring to a pending report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). This is the office through with the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigates itself. Alberto Gonzales began the practice of sending really big projects to OPR, knowing it did not have the resources. The OPR investigation of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos on torture is five years old. The OPR shared responsibility with Inspector General (IG) for report on US Attorney firings, and that report got done. OPR is overtaxed and also NOT independent. OPR answers to attorney general who can approve an investigation or its results, or not. So we should stop accepting that sending a problem to OPR takes care of it. We should question how and whether OPR should exist. -- Then Horton said that on April 21 Holder met with chief judges from around the country who all raised impassioned complaints about failures of OPR.

10:36 Cliff Arnebeck, Chair, Legal Affairs Committee, Common Cause Ohio, National Co-Chair, Alliance for Democracy and 2004 Ohio election voting litigation expert: Ohio was ground zero in 2000 for judicial independence on state supreme court. $7 million of illegal corporate money ran ads attacking Justice Alice Robie Resnick. Whole court now Republican. Arnebeck and others litigated successfully. FBI investigated, but in 2004 DOJ dropped prosecution just before election -- did not want to prosecute Republicans, a nationwide pattern. Arnebeck also recounted election fraud investigations closed down. These investigations should be reopened.

10:44 Former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver E. Diaz, Jr., acquitted, had -- according to Horton -- been prosecuted for purely political reasons. There are many hundreds of these cases around the country, Diaz says, and people falsely convicted. Project Save Justice took report by U of Missouri on prosecutions of Democrats. Gail Sistrunk, Executive Director, Project Save Justice (Producers of the video, “Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove”) has interviewed these people who have never heard of each other all tell the exact same story, and the video is stunning, Diaz says rightly.

Sistrunk described the video and hands them out. See: http://www.politicalprosecutions.org

She describes prosecuting grown children and elderly parents, investigating clients to destroy businesses, and other abuses used rampantly. She calls OPR the Bates Motel: cases go in and never come out. And the statistics show improbably high rates of prosecution for moderate Republicans as well as Democrats. This is not a Republican crime wave but a Federalist Society crime wave.

Diaz points out Paul Minor's daughter here, Kathryn. He also credits Harper's and Raw Story (Scott Horton and Larisa Alexandrovna) for their reporting on these stories.

10:58 Diaz describes Paul Minor's father Bill Minor a newspaper man who spoke up for civil rights in Mississippi in the 1950s. As a child, Paul Minor saw crosses burned on his lawn. He went and killed Asians in Vietnam. He came back and took an interest in politics. (All of this is told as if it's good, including the fighting in Vietnam.) Paul Minor gave money to candidates. He was the single largest contributor to Democrats in Mississippi and one of the biggest nationally. Diaz served in the Mississippi legislature as a Republican and knew Minor as a friend and ally. Minor supported Diaz in campaigns for judgeships including for the Mississippi Supreme Court. The US Chamber of Commerce spent millions against Diaz. So, Minor contributed and raised contributions from others for Diaz. A US attorney indicted Minor and Diaz for bribery. But Diaz had refused to vote on a single case brought by Minor. That, he says, is why he's free to stand here today. Yet, there is almost always a conflict in every case and he could very well have voted on some of those cases. Diaz was dragged through a 3-month prosecution. His wife Jennifer who is here was indicted too. For what, it was not clear. They faced over 30 years in prison. DOJ told wife she could plead guilty to an unrelated tax charge and stay home with her children if she turned evidence against her husband. He told her she had to do it and should give them every scrap of info. But there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. So she was not called as a witness.

Diaz refers to Paul Minor's case as the Ted Stevens case on steroids. Prosecutor Welch is now appropriately the target of a criminal investigation at the instigation of a federal judge. He withheld evidence from the defendants, known as Brady violations. Diaz was acquitted. Others got hung juries. Minor was re-indicted. Diaz points out that everyone accepts that prosecutors were fired for not bringing political prosecutions, but not enough attention is paid to the fact that some prosecutors were not fired, because they DID bring political prosecutions. Paul Minor has been in prison these past 3 years. He was denied the right to visit his wife as she fought cancer and died a couple of months ago. He is a political prisoner. DOJ refused to allow him to attend his wife's funeral. We need investigations and we need them now. Very well said.

11:12 Puerto Rico State Senator & Minority Whip Eduardo Bhatia (D), representing former Gov. Anibal Acivedo, acquitted. Another similar story of abuses, bogus charges, leaks manipulating the press to damage a public figure, a trial with no evidence, immediate acquittal, and $3 million in legal fees still unpaid by innocent defendant.

If any of this disturbs you, please click the links in this blog, learn more, and make your opinions known to Attorney General Eric Holder 202-514-2001, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers 202-225-5126, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy 202-224-4242.

Karl Rove Still Practices Blackmail

Bob Fertik — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:51:34 -0400

The secret to the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration was simple, but never reported. Karl Rove kept a file on everyone, and used it with quiet but deadly efficiency for one purpose: blackmail.

If you defied Bush or Cheney or Rove in any way, Rove leaked the contents of the file to his favorite journalists to splash all over the news. Just ask Joe Wilson how his wife Valerie Plame was outed after Wilson published his NY Times op-ed about Bush's Iraq-Niger lie entitled, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Rove and his White House cronies told every reporter they knew that Wilson was sent to Niger not by Cheney, but by an anti-Bush CIA cabal led by his wife who wanted to sabotage Bush's Iraq policy. As Karl Rove told Chris Matthews at the time, she was "fair game."

I'm sure there are a thousand stories just like it. Remember when former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill publicly criticized Bush in Ron Suskind's book "The Price of Loyalty"? O'Neill did one TV interview and said he had absolutely nothing to fear from criticizing Bush. The next day, he clammed up completely. Did Rove get to him? I have no doubt, but the story was never told.

I also believe the whole NSA wiretap program was designed to let Rove "investigate" perceived enemies to find blackmail material he could put in "his file." And I believe the purpose of the Abu Ghraib photos was to let CIA operatives blackmail the Iraqi prisoners after they left prison.

If I ever write a book about the Bush Administration, it will be called "Blackmail: How George Bush Terrorized the World and Silenced His Critics."

Today we get fresh evidence of Rove's blackmail M.O., courtesy of Politico's Anne Schroeder Mullins. Even now, if you dare to challenge Rove, the first words out of his mouth are: "I Have A File."

Roe walked over to the table, "I'm Jason Roe."

Rove: "Oh, the famous Jason Roe."

Roe: "I don't know that I'm famous, but I'm Tom Feeney's former chief of staff, and I'm offended by your comments on Fox about Tom. You guys wouldn't be in the White House without Tom. And you made these really degrading comments about him that offended a lot of people."

(Sidenote: Tom Feeney was the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives during the whole Bush/Gore 2000 recount.)

Rove: "Well, I have a file on the things Tom Feeney said about George Bush."

Roe: "That says more about you than me that you kept a file on Tom Feeney. This guy was so restrained in his desire to criticize the president — even against this staff's advice."

Rove: "I have a file."

Roe: "I'm right here. Tell me to my face what's in that file."

Rove: "I'll send you the file."

Roe: "Well, I hope the file is the beginning of the conversation and not the end. I would love to disabuse you of whatever you think of Tom Feeney's loyalty from this file."

Rove: "If you keep talking over me, this conversation's going to end right now."

Then a lady came over to fill up Rove's water glass, breaking up Roe and Rove, and Roe returned to the bar. Rumor has it Rove was waiting to have dinner with former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.

No surprise there - Mehlman is another blackmail expert.

Update 1: Marcy Wheeler wonders whether Rove will "Do Dallas" with George Bush and his dead-enders. Clearly there's a split between Bush and Cheney and their respective consiglieri - but which one is Rove's daddy?

Will Karl Rove Still be Above the Law?

RDillon — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:08:19 -0500

I know I am a little late to this story, but I was really busy yesterday. We all remember the U.S. Attorney firings, and the firestorm it justifyably created. Of course, nobody ever had to answer for it under the previous administration because it seems nobody in that administration ever paid for anything.

But now that adminisration has ended. Executive priviledge no longer applies. However, despite the change brought about by the last election one thing hasn't changed. Karl Rove still thinks he is above the law. He thinks that the laws that apply to us don't apply to him:

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove was a no-show today at his scheduled deposition deadline for the House Judiciary Committee's ongoing probe into the U.S. attorney firings -- setting up a major decision for President Obama on how to respond to congressional subpoenas.

Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) subpeonaed Rove to find out what he knows about the Dec. 2006 firings which eventually toppled former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/Rove_skips_House_Judiciar...

If you recieve a subpoena you are expected to go to court. I had a friend whose truck was stolen and was subpoenaed to go to court and testify. On the day of the trial, my friend went but did not stay until his case was called. Two days later a Policeman was at his door taking him to jail for a bench warrant although unlike Karl Rove he had not initially broken any law. In fact, he was a victim of a crime. Sort of like Valerie Plame.

The culture of criminality of the last administration made men like Karl Rove feel they are better than the rest of us, and indeed above the law:

When Rove was subpoenaed in 2007, President Bush asserted "absolute immunity" for his top aides, refusing to allow them even to appear before a congressional panel. House Democrats eventually sued, and won an initial legal victory. The Bush White House, through the Justice Dept., appealed the ruling, and when Bush left office in January 2009, the case was still undecided.

Just as in the case of Scooter Libby, Rove, Cheney and the rest of the neo-facist wing of the Republican Party believe that their crimes should remain unpunished. Now, they are actually appealling to Obama to make sure that they continue to be:

White House Counsel Greg Craig has urged the two sides to cut a deal, but Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, have kicked it back to the White House, saying it is up to them to assert executive privilege or not.

So the next big development will occur on March 4, when the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion in federal appeals court laying out its position on the issue.

To me, this is a HUGE decision for President Obama. Nobody should be above the law for any reason, and I hope President Obama will do the right thing. It will go a long way in restoring the American people's confidence in their government if our new President makes it clear that everyone is subject to the same laws, and that nobody in this country is bigger than the law, or better than someone else. I beg President Obama to do the right thing and hold Karl Rove accountable just like the rest of us are every day. If not, Democracy in this country has truly become a farce.

Karl Rove Deposition Still On for Monday, Feb. 23

fast2write — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:38:36 -0500

A staff member for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said today that the deposition hearing scheduled for Monday, Feb. 23, for Karl Rove, the infamous former political adviser to President George W. Bush, “is still on at this point.” The Obama administration had sought a two week delay to weigh in on whether former Bush White House officials must testify before Congress about the politics involved in the firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys across the country, as well as the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. For more, including the details of an investigative reporter's allegations of a cover-up by the Obama White House in seeking a delay, read the full story in the progressive Locust Fork News-Journal run by investigative reporter and former New York Times free-lancer Glynn Wilson. Permalink: Karl Rove Deposition Still On for Monday

Smoking Guns in the Bushes of Justice

fast2write — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:06:03 -0500

We have known all along that the smoking gun was hiding somewhere, nestled down in between the cracks of all the ongoing probes of the Bush Justice Department. In fact we have known that there are way more than one smoking gun hiding in the bushes behind the misdeeds of George W. Bush’s White House — and that Karl Rove’s fingerprints are, without a doubt, all over them.
There are a few more smoking guns to chase down before we are through. But if you look closely at a couple of largely ignored reports from two of the hardest working investigative reporters digging into these stories, one of the smoking guns is right in front of our faces.
Read More from The Locust Fork News-Journal

Rove Escapes Testimony, For Now...

fast2write — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:59:21 -0500

Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration, according to a story just out on Newsweek's Website [link below].. His lawyer, Robert Luskin, says he has asked the House Judiciary Committee to postpone its deposition of Rove until he hears back from the White House. The committee has agreed to put off the deposition -- but only for a few weeks. So far new White House counsel Greg Craig hasn't responded. He could have a conflict of interest on his hands due his friendship with former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, and his past representation of Karl Rove, which is not dealt with in the Newsweek article. In fact, it's pretty much just reported briefly here:

http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/01/29/rove-escapes-testimony-for-now/

The video's there too, with O'Reilly offering Rove a tunnel to hide in. Stay tuned...

Monday House Judiciary Committee Hearing Delayed

http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/01/26/house-judiciary-committee-subpoena...

Bush Cannot Protect Rove From New Subpoenas

Bob Fertik — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:55:57 -0500

When Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and subpoenaed Karl Rove, he refused to appear by claiming "absolute immunity." This claim was always without basis in law, but it became ludicrous after Rove left the White House. Still, Rove stuck to it because George Bush was still the Unitary Executive until January 20, 2009.

One of the first acts of the new Congress was to renew its old subpoenas to Rove, Harriet Miers, and John Bolten. Today John Conyers sent another subpoena, but this time he won't have the White House protecting him. Could a frogmarch be in Rove's future?

Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. issued a subpoena to Karl Rove requiring him to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The subpoena was issued pursuant to authority granted in H.R. 5 (111th Congress), and calls for Mr. Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009. Mr. Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. That “absolute immunity” position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as “completely misguided.”

"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” said Mr. Conyers. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk."

It sure is.

Update 1: From David Swanson: Here's an updated chart of outstanding subpoenas from the last Congress. There's a new column on the right for actions taken in the new Congress. Thus far there's only one update, thanks to Conyers subpoenaing Rove.

Update 2: What if Rove refuses the new subpoena? Jason Leopold writes,

While historically Congress has ordered people detained for refusing to comply with subpoenas, the power has not been used in modern times.

But on Monday, several members of the Judiciary Committee said if Rove refuses to comply with the subpoena they will act on Bates's advice and have him arrested.

This could get interesting...

Update 3: Jason Leopold says Bush is trying to protect Rove from his political grave:

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, told the Washington Post Monday that George W. Bush recently sent a letter to Rove and reasserted executive privilege claims in blocking him from appearing before Congress to testify...

"It's generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege as to matters occurring during their term," Luskin said. "We'll solicit the views of the new White House counsel and, if there is a disagreement, assume that the matter will be resolved among the courts, the president and the former president."

Luskin's legal argument may be off base.

Yeah - way off base.

Update 4: On Tuesday, John Dean got into the weeds with Keith Olbermann. The bottom line is: when Obama's legal team responds in February, will they uphold Bush's absurd claims of executive privilege or not?

Defeat the Wiretap Bill, Arrest Karl Rove

Bob Fertik — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:46:30 -0400

The Senate will cast its final vote on warrantless wiretapping late Tuesday or Wednesday, so we need to flood Congress with petitions and calls demanding a no vote on the FISA bill.

Sign our petition for impeachment, not immunity:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/141?ad=d1

Call your Senators through the switchboard at 202-224-3121 or dial direct
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
or let BlueAmerica connect you for free:
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/fisa

Join a Facebook group for your state to lobby your Senators:
http://get-fisa-right.wetpaint.com/page/List+of+Senator+Specific+Facebook+Groups

Last week, thousands of Barack Obama's supporters urged him to oppose the FISA bill. Obama finally responded with a blog post that was wrong on the key issues. In his post Obama wrote, "I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too." We're doing just that through our new Obama Progressive Escrow Fund, to which 550 of you have pledged $83,821 so far.

If you support Obama (as we do) and plan to contribute, consider an informal "pledge" to our escrow fund until Obama demonstrates leadership on the progressive issues you care about most:
http://www.democrats.com/obama-escrow-fund

__________________

Arrest Karl Rove

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify on July 10, but on July 1 Rove announced he would defy the subpoena.

Could you or I get away with defying a Congressional subpoena? Of course not. So why can Karl Rove? Like George Bush and Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, believes he is simply above the law.

It's time for Congress to prove them wrong by using its power of "inherent contempt" to send the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Karl Rove (as imagined in photoshop at left) and bring him before the full House to answer to the charge of Contempt of Congress, and to punish him to the maximum extent allowed by law, including prison.

Before Democrats won Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said the most important reason to put Democrats in control of Congress was "subpoena power." But now Pelosi is quietly blocking the use of inherent contempt.

Tell your Representatives to Arrest Karl Rove:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/106

Rove Gets Spitzer's Scalp

Bob Fertik — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:00:01 -0400

Karl Rove just added another Democratic scalp to his collection: Eliot Spitzer's.

Spitzer has not been charged with any crime. He was railroaded by the Corporate Media, led by Rupert Murdoch's NYPost and FOX News, with Karl Rove's "loyal Bushies" leaking furiously from Bush's InJustice Department.

So what's the standard here? If hiring prostitutes is a disqualification for office, then David Vitter must resign today too. In fact, a good chunk of the men in politics must also resign (and possibly a few women as well). And a bunch of reporters and editors must quit as well. And pundits too - yes I'm talking 'bout you, Dick Toesucker Morris.

If adultery is the standard, then Larry Craig must resign today, along with half the men in politics and the media.

If hypocrisy is the standard, then everyone in politics and the media must resign today, because there isn't one who isn't a hypocrite in some large or small way. Take Saint John McCain on torture, campaign finance, immigration, Iraq, global warming, lobbyists... you name it.

And if a criminal violation is the standard, then George Bush and Dick Cheney should not only resign immediately, they should go before a firing squad for war crimes (invading Iraq and torture) and treason (outing Valerie Plame).

McRove: McCain Embraces Rove

Bob Fertik — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 08:46:18 -0500

Next to Bush and Cheney, no one has poisoned American politics - and hurt America in every possible way - more than Karl Rove. So why has Saint John McCain embraced him?

Karl Rove, the president’s top political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.

It's easy to see Rove's evil handiwork on behalf of McCain, for example the Canadian story about alleged Obama-Clinton doubletalk on NAFTA.

It's also hysterical to see Rove on FOX TV praising McCain for adopting a starving Bangladeshi child - the same child Rove featured in a nasty South Carolina push poll that proved decisive in giving Bush the nomination:

Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.

If John McCain had any character, he'd never speak to the man who spread that lie. (If McCain were a Founding Father, he'd have challenged Rove to a duel.) But now he's hugging him, just as he's hugging Rove's boss, George Bush.

It wasn't always so. Here's what happened during the 2000 debate in South Carolina:

During a commercial break, Bush grasped McCain's hands and made a sugary plea for less acrimony in their campaign. When McCain pointed out that Bush's allies were savaging him in direct-mail and phone campaigns, Bush played the innocent. "Don't give me that shit," McCain growled, pulling away. "And take your hands off me."

I can't wait until a reporter asks him about that.

Update 1: Here's a fantastic cartoon video about McCain's "endorsement" of Bush in 2004.