Ironically, the Bush Administration, which may have entered the White House in the first place because of Republican-led , wanted to fire five U.S. Attorneys for not launching an investigation during the 2006 campaign season into allegations of Democratic voter fraud.
The has obtained documents that show Karl Rove may have played an instrumental role in the firing of four of the attorneys:
Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered forremoval last year, five were identified by Rove or other administrationofficials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voterfraud -- Kansas City, Mo; Milwaukee; New Mexico; Nevada; and Washington state. Four of the five prosecutors in those districts were dismissed.
All of these prosecutors were appointed by Republicans.
According to the , yet another Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney may have been fired for not finding evidence of Democratic voting fraud. The former U.S. Attorney, Karl "Kasey" Warner of West Virginia, admitted last week that he was given the boot for that reason. No word on whether Rove was behind this one as well.
Gonzales is definitely not off the hook! While they are at it, how about throwing a subpoena at Karl Rove?
Two weeks ago, associate deputy attorney general William Moscella and deputy attorney general Paul McNulty were interviewed by congressional investigators behind closed doors. Word leaked out to that Moscella was coached by Karl Rove on March 5th, one day before testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee about the :
Although the existence of the White Housemeeting had been previously disclosed by the Justice Department, Rove’sattendance at the strategy session was not—until both Moscella anddeputy attorney general Paul McNulty talked about it in confidentialtestimony with congressional investigators last week. Portions of theirtestimony were read to Newsweek by a Democratic aide who asked not tobe identified talking about private matters.
Accordingto McNulty’s account, Rove came late to the meeting and left early. Butwhile he was there he spoke up and echoed a point that was made by theother White House aides: The Justice Department needed to providespecific reasons why it terminated the eight prosecutors in order torebut Democratic charges that the firings were politically motivated.The point Rove and other White House officials made is “you all need toexplain what you did and why you did it,†McNulty told theinvestigators.
Theproblem, according to the Democratic aide, is that Rove and Kelleynever told Moscella about the White House’s own role in pushing to havesome U.S. attorneys fired in the first place. Moscella followed thecoaching by Rove and others—and made no mention of White Houseinvolvement in the firings during his March 6, 2007 testimony to HouseJudiciary. “They let Moscella come up here without telling him the fullstory,†said the Democratic staffer.
All of this is fairly complicating, so let me break it down a bit.
Moscelle and McNulty, the two Justice Department deputies, were coached by Karl Rove. The problem was that in the meeting Karl Rove selectively decided not to inform these deputies about the White House's involvement in the firings. In other words, these officials were hung out to dry by Mr. Rove. The White House made sure they were unprepared for their testimony.
It is the White House's job to brief other executive officials about its own role in policy before testimony is given to Congress. Unfortunately, these deputies were coached into covering Karl Rove's tracks by telling Congress that the Justice Department, not the White House, was responsible for the firings. Deceptively clever on the part of Karl Rove, if you ask me!
This is PRECISELY why the judiciary committees in both chambers of Congress want those emails from Karl Rove. Not only will the revelation of those emails force Rove to testify under oath, but they might point to Mr. Rove's involvement in the firings, which would force him to resign.
This political gossip story has been flying around under the radar for the last two weeks, so I thought it would be nice to at least post about it.
At the White House Correspondents Dinner a few weeks ago, global warming activists Sheryl Crow and Laurie David were introduced to Karl Rove. To put it bluntly, the conversation did not go well. There are several accounts of what happened.
So let's start with what Crow and David wrote in the about their not-so-pleasant exchange with the White House Adviser:
We asked Mr. Rove if he would consider taking a fresh look at thescience of global warming. Much to our dismay, he immediately gotcombative. And it went downhill from there.
We reminded the senior White House advisor that the US leads the worldin global warming pollution and we are doing the least about it. Angerflaring, Mr. Rove immediately regurgitated the official Administrationposition on global warming which is that the US spends more onresearching the causes than any other country.
We felt compelled to remind him that the research is done and the results are in ().Mr. Rove exploded with even more venom. Like a spoiled child throwing atantrum, Mr. Rove launched into a series of illogical argumentsregarding China not doing enough thus neither should we. (Since when dowe follow China's lead?)
In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table,but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karlswung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed fromreality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?Unfazed, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that,you work for us." Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work forthe American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We arethe American people."
Of course, that was their account of what happened. Robert Kennedy Jr, who saw the altercation, said when Rove got upset he "." Kennedy continued:
“in a very civil and gentle and friendly and charming way, and he wasas rude and arrogant as a person could be, and turned his back on themand walked away,†Kennedy said. “It was a very strange thing to watch,and a sad thing to think the government is being run by, you know,somebody like that.â€
, an online journal that covers the newspaper industry, said Rove was approached later in the night about the altercation:
Approached afterward about the exchange, Rove said he was enjoying it all, “if I can get to my meal.â€
For anyone that didn't get a chance to see Bill Moyer's Documentary "Buying The War", you can view it online . It's a "Two Thumbs Up" (the admins. thumbs up America's ass).
You can go to and scroll to see the Fox nut jobs wrongly "bash" (and lie about) Moyers.
Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincolnwearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant"Mission Accomplished" banner. He was hailed by media stars as a"breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling SaddamHussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weaponsof mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in thepress confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won. MSNBC'sChris Matthews declared, "We're all neo-cons now;" NPR's Bob Edwardssaid, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and Fortune magazine'sJeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraqreally was in the broadest context."
Luskin (Rove's lawyer) said "Rove didn't know that deleting e-mailsfrom his RNC inbox also deleted them from the RNC's server. That system waschanged in 2005."
I find this hard to believe, unless someone "knew" some deletionsneeded to be permanent. Any time you hear of a corporate investigation and the need to recover old emails, they always seem to be recovered. Why on earth would governmentemployees be able to permanently delete their emails with a keystroke? I say itB.S.
His understanding starting very, very early in the administration was thatthose e-mails were being archived," Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said.
Any e-mails Rove deleted were the type of routine deletions people make tokeep their inboxes orderly, Luskin said. He said Rove had no idea the e-mailswere being deleted from the server, a central computer that managed the e-mail.
Andwhat? Rove didn't get the memo? or the IT guys didn't send the President's topaide the memo they changed the protocol?
I have been watching this story off and on for days -- but today it took a strange turn. For some time, the Democrats have been requesting White House emails that pertained to the Justice Department firings. Administration that some of the lost emails may have been ones sent by White House Adviser Karl Rove (of course!).
This morning, Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, how emails can just disappear?:
"They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!" Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy shouted from the Senate floor.
"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too manyservers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don'twant to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."
There is even more to this story. Some of the emails were sent through Republican National Committee accounts. From the very beginning, the White House has threatened to claim Executive privilege and not release the email information. But because these emails came from the RNC and not the White House, Bush has no constitutional basis for declaring Executive privilege.
On the other hand, the White House may have used the RNC accounts because they are not bound by presidential record-keeping requirements, according to :
Waxman’s staff are supposed to meet with RNC officials on Thursdayabout the “rnchq†and “gwb.43″ e-mail accounts, which some White Houseofficials, like Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, use for authorizedpolitical work. Waxman suspects that White House aides were using theaccounts to evade presidential record-keeping requirements.
This email mess is on the verge of exploding into an even larger story.
There is a new twist in Bush's battle with Congress over Executive privilege.
Even though Patrick Leahy and the Democrats run the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Arlen Specter is trying to broker his own deal with the White House in order to avert a constitutional showdown. and other White House aides to testify, but not under oath.
However, with the political momentum on their side, it is unlikely that Leahy and Democrats will budge on their position that Rove should testify in person and under oath.
As tensions heat up, Republican Tom Coburn isn't giving up hope -- and offered one of the most :
"A no is not always a no. My wife said no the first four times I asked her on a date," Coburn said.
Actually, it would be nice if this went to court. The Judicial Branch tends to have an unfavorable view of Executive privilege, for many reasons of course. In the end, you would have both the Judicial and Legislative branches backing Bush into a corner, and he would be forced to give up the fight. What Bush is trying to do is political suicide. Bush will ultimately have to let Rove testify in person and under oath, unless Democrats wimp out (we've seen that happen before).
What is stopping Democrats from subpoenaing the following Administration officials?
Karl Rove
Harriet Miers
Alberto Gonzales
All of them played a role in the sudden firing of eight federal prosecutors, according to this morning's :
Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici,Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complaineddirectly to the president, according to an administration official.
... In early 2005, Harriet E. Miers,then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department officialwhether it would be feasible to replace all United States attorneyswhen their four-year terms expired, according to the Justice Department.
The story this morning follows the White House's admission yesterday that as well.
This is outrageous. Why? The careers of eight federal prosecutors were ruined simply because they were not partisan enough for the Bush Administration -- even though at least six of the eight prosecutors received .
It is unprecedented. Think what would have happened if President Johnson had pulled this same stunt on U.S. Attorney Jim Garrison. Mr. Garrison took for his involvement in the JFK assassination.
So what's the point?
Federal prosecutors are important because they are supposed to be independent of the Oval Office. And at times, like in the case of Jim Garrison, they are even allowed to oppose a sitting president.
Many of us had the suspicion that this saga would eventually work its way up the ladder of power. is now in the middle of it:
The White House acknowledged on Sunday that presidential adviserKarl Rove served as a conduit for complaints to the Justice Departmentabout federal prosecutors who were later fired for what critics chargewere partisan political reasons.
House investigators on Sunday declared their intention to question Rove about any role he may have played in the firings.
Political translation: so not only do you have the Legislative Branch interfering with federal prosecutors, but you have a White House adviser, whose expertise is political strategy not policy, personally micromanaging the affairs of the Justice Department. This yet another example of big government conservatism at its most extreme.
Again, this should not surprise us one bit. Last month, a former aide to Karl Rove was to one of the eight federal prosecutors that were fired. Just weeks later, once the firestorm over this issue began, that individual after all.
Remember, all these newly appointed prosecutors will not need Senate confirmation because of a secret .
If the Democrats have any credibility, they will subpoena Karl Rove and force him to testify.
Two days after the conviction of Scooter Libby on four of the five criminal charges, Karl Rove spoke at the Bill Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas. As pointed out, Rove took aim at Hillary, even bragging that he took her office in the West Wing:
"She's a formidable candidate. I inherited her office in the WestWing of the White House which irritated her because I went out and saidonce that I really am glad to have Hillary Clinton's office in the WestWing of the White House. Second floor, really nice office space. It'sreally good 'cause it has a full-length vanity mirror hidden behind afile cabinet...
A few days later I saw her and she said, 'I didn't put that mirrorthere.' So I went out and said it again. I never said she put themirror there. I just said, I got Hillary Clinton's office and I'mreally happy 'cause it's got the only full-length vanity mirror in theWest Wing... I saw her a couple days later riding on the Senate tramand she said, 'I said I didn't put that mirror there!' [laughs] I'm gonna tell the story again."
How about telling us the story of how you got off the hook on the Plame case?
I encourage all of you to read Machiavelli's book "." It tells you everything you need to know about Karl Rove's motives.
Recent Comments