White House Confirms: Rove’s “Official Duties” Included Witchhunts of Democrats

Surprise surprise. Rove was too chicken to give testimony under oath to show up before HJC today. That’s not surprising. What I find surprising (well, not really) are the thin excuses that Republicans are coming up with to excuse Turdblossom from obeying a subpoena.

First, according to the statement Sanchez put out, Fred Fielding did intervene to give a last minute reprieve to Karl–though still without invoking executive privilege.

First, the claims have not been properly asserted here. The Subcommittee has not received a written statement directly from the President, let alone anyone at the White House on the President’s behalf, asserting Executive Privilege, or claiming that Mr. Rove is immune in this instance from testifying before us. Nor is any member of the White House here today to raise those claims on behalf of the President. The most recent letter from Mr. Rove’s lawyer simply relies on a July 9, 2008 letter to him from the current White House counsel directing that Mr. Rove should disobey the subpoena and refuse to appear at this hearing.

The July 9, 2008 letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding claims that Mr. Rove “is constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his or her tenure as a presidential aide and that relate to his or her official duties.”2

I’ll take that as confirmation from Nixon’s former lawyer that Karl Rove’s official duties included intervening in criminal investigations and trials to make sure popular Democrats’ careers were ruined.

Frankly, I think that letter, dated July 9, may have arrived very late on yesterday. Sanchez did not mention it in her spoken statement today, nor did Ranking Subcommittee Member Chris Cannon.

Instead of referring to Fielding’s invocation of absolute immunity (but not, apparently, executive privilege itself), Cannon invoked Rove’s busy summer travel schedule. He asked Sanchez whether she knew that Rove had a long-scheduled overseas trip scheduled for today, and complained that Congress had scheduled the hearing to be convenient to the Subcommittee, not to Rove.

So apparently, it’s going to be absolute immunity and the summer vacation privilege that saves poor cowardly Karl from having to testify, under oath, about things he’s all-too-happy to talk about on TV.

No word, thus far, on how this all jibes with the Attorney General’s assertion yesterday that one avenue to find out about Karl’s involvement in the Siegelman prosecution would be to hold a hearing.

Update: As I suspected, Nixon’s former lawyer is, in fact, asserting that politicized prosecutions of Democrats are part of the "official duties" of the President’s Senior Advisor.

We have been further advised that because Mr. Rove was an immediate presidential adviser and because the Committee seeks to question him regarding matters that arose during his tenure and relate to his official duties in that capacity, Mr. Rove is not required to appear in response to the Committee’s subpoena. Accordingly, the President has directed him not to do so.

You know, there’s something funny about this letter. Being filled with a bunch of lawyers, usually when DOJ "advises" the President’s former Nixon lawyer about legal issues, they do so in writing. Fielding clearly suggests the White House has gotten recent advice–including, apparently, the advice that witchhunts are now among the "official duties" of White House aides. But I don’t see that written advice from DOJ, do you? In fact, if you look at the attachments, Fielding is recycling a letter from Bradbury from last year–on a different issue–to make his argument.

So if I were Congresswoman Sanchez, I would tell Fielding: "Show me the proof."

image_print
  1. AZ Matt says:

    Yes, to make that EP claim they have to admit that KKKarl was was doing stuff with Bush’s knowledge. Interferring with investigations is probably a big no-no.

  2. AZ Matt says:

    EW,

    Sanchez does mention the July 9th letter, from the first paragraph:

    According to letters we have received from Mr. Karl Rove’s counsel, particularly his letters of July 1 and July 9, 2008, Mr. Rove has refused to appear today to answer questions in accordance with his obligations under the subpoena served on him on May 22, 2008, based on claims that “Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity” from even appearing to testify, and that “as a [former] close advisor to the President, whose testimony is sought in connection with his official duties in that capacity, he is immune from compelled Congressional testimony.”1

    • emptywheel says:

      Not in her spoken statement. I watched the business meeting.

      And if they had known about it, don’t you think Cannon or Smith would have mentioned it?

      • AZ Matt says:

        OK, I didn’t the hearing so didn’t realize that. My oops.

        They didn’t waste much time in responding.

  3. LS says:

    Sounds like they are saying he was just doing what Bush told him to do…quite an admission of Bush directing his aide to f’up Siegelman….not surprising…W is a frikkin’ maniac.

  4. AZ Matt says:

    Ya, she read the July 9th and isn’t impressed:

    First, the claims have not been properly asserted here. The Subcommittee has not received a written statement directly from the President, let alone anyone at the White House on the President’s behalf, asserting Executive Privilege, or claiming that Mr. Rove is immune in this instance from testifying before us. Nor is any member of the White House here today to raise those claims on behalf of the President. The most recent letter from Mr. Rove’s lawyer simply relies on a July 9, 2008 letter to him from the current White House counsel directing that Mr. Rove should disobey the subpoena and refuse to appear at this hearing.

    The July 9, 2008 letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding claims that Mr. Rove “is constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his or her tenure as a presidential aide and that relate to his or her official duties.”2 As discussed in greater detail below, no general freestanding immunity exists for former presidential advisers – indeed, no credible source has even remotely suggested this is the case – and thus the proper course is to recognize claims of privilege only when properly asserted in response to specific questions during a particular hearing.

  5. ThadBeier says:

    So — What happens on January 20th? Is there any kind of former-executive privelege that applies?

    Because just because Bush isn’t in the White House anymore, doesn’t mean that these investigations are any less interesting.

    Historically, does the previous administration get a general amnesty upon the arrival of the next one?

    This isn’t a rhetorical question — I really don’t have any idea what will, or should, happen after the inauguration.

  6. AZ Matt says:

    Luskin did fax it. Was that yesterday or today, it is not indicated.

    Where there general comments from Cannon or Smith?

    • emptywheel says:

      Right–it’s rather similar to what they did with Miers–a last minute reprieve. I think she told them she’d tell the truth if she showed up and they got this last minute “absolute immunity” shit pulled. Which is what I suspect happened here. I also half wonder whether it wasn’t a response to Mukasey’s statement about holding a hearing yesterday. There has been NO support from DOJ for ROve to blow off this particular subpoena. So I rather suspect they actually DON’T want to be asked to support it. Thus the recycled letter from Bradbury, from last year.

  7. Mary says:

    Hmmm – so if Congress votes to hold Rove in contempt while he is out of country, could they ask that law enforcement in the country where he is travelling pick Rove up and hold him I wonder. Not that it would happen, but interesting issue. If you had a fleeing Congressman and the Executive trying to have him held, you’d get it. Vice versa?

    • JTMinIA says:

      If you’d like an example on a smaller, but closer scale: imagine that the representatives from a state tried to flee to, oh, I don’t know, how about Oklahoma, to avoid being party to something the executive wanted. Would they ask the state police to get involved? tee hee

    • emptywheel says:

      Superb suggestion, Mary!! We’re much likely to get, say, Spanish authorities to arrest Rove and extradite him to Congress than get anyone controlled by Mukasey.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Perhaps the Italians or Brits would return the favor and render Mr. Rove so that he could be dressed in homespun and kept in solitary confinement in a vegetarian hovel in Berkeley or Boulder, where he would be forced to listen 24/7 to exuberant readings of Beat poetry, and given nothing but humus, rice and a delectable green salad to eat. In less time than it takes to say Christopher Hitchens, he’d lose fifty pounds and spill the beans on his many dirty tricks. *Snark*

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Touche; yours is funnier. But “humus” is also an acceptable romanization of the Arabic, as are “hamos, houmous, hommos, hommus, hummos, hummous”, for the chickpea-based dish.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I like the conflation that because part of what Mr. Rove does is to advise the President, then anything else he does — for the national or Alabama state GOP, for example — is covered by some vague, novel, one-off extension of executive privilege.

    Ms. Sanchez’s talented staff, no doubt, will help her remind the President and Mr. Fielding that the President’s privilege against disclosing his private conversations with advisers relates exclusively to running the government of the United States. Partisan political activity, or moonlighting by Mr. Rove, isn’t protected from disclosure by that privilege.

    • emptywheel says:

      Which is an example Mukasey has just availed himself of, when trying to explain why it was okay to release FBI reports from Clinton and GOre to Congress, but not Bush and Barnacle. He claimed (well, the AAG for legislative affairs) that bc it was related to political issues and elections, the Clinton and Gore interviews weren’t protected by confidentiality.

  9. JTMinIA says:

    (Note to self: write shorter posts if you want to be first with a cute idea. The people on this site are a lot faster than most.)

    • skdadl says:

      skdadl copies.

      Do we know where Mr Rove might be travelling, btw? If not Dubai or Paraguay, I’d say that’s pretty nervy of him.

      • bmaz says:

        I am one that doesn’t think there will be any war crimes issues in any significant country in the foreseeable future for any of the Bushies; but even if there were, I, regrettably, don’t think Rover would be one that had an issue.

        • skdadl says:

          You mean that you don’t think that Rove was involved with anything international, anything beyond domestic crimes in the U.S.?

          In a narrow sense, I see that. But I still think it’s narrow.

          • bmaz says:

            Essentially, yes; I just don’t see him in the chain of overt acts sufficiently to be one that would get charged. And I still thinks the odds of anyone being so charges are 1-2% at best.

          • emptywheel says:

            I agree with bmaz.

            Addington, Cheney, Yoo, Bush, Haynes. They’re the ones liable for international war crimes.

            Karl has committed a slew of crimes, but they’re all US based and, frankly, par for the course in many of our allies’ legal culture as well.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              House of Cards! You don’t mean that our great good friends adjacent to the Sceptered Isle occasionally engage in political dirty tricks or contort the power of government to aid and BAE abet their corporate benefactors? Next, you’ll tell me there are no such things as leprechauns.

            • skdadl says:

              and, frankly, par for the course in many of our allies’ legal culture as well

              No question. That’s one of the reasons I’m here (apart from the fact that you all are so fascinating and such good company). I want to learn how to catch our very own thieves.

              PS: Can’t you add Rumsfeld to that list?

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Agreed, for War Crimes Rove would certainly get a pass. He was strictly political.

          I still have hope that Bush & Rummy will stand trial at The Hague. I suspect Cheney will wiggle out on the grounds that technically the VP has no power at all, so how can it be his fault?

          Boxturtle (If there is a God, Cheney will be smote if he makes that argument)

  10. AZ Matt says:

    Fielding to Luskin: We are admitting to the charge that Rove did this on official time:

    We have been further advised that because Mr. Rove was an immediate presidential adviser and because the Committee seeks to question him regarding matters that arose during his tenure and relate to his official duties in that capacity, Mr. Rove is not required to appear in response to the Committee’s subpoena. Accordingly, the President has directed him not to do so. I respectfully request that you communicate this information to Mr. Rove.

  11. bmaz says:

    I’ll take that as confirmation from Nixon’s former lawyer that Karl Rove’s official duties included intervening in criminal investigations and trials to make sure popular Democrats’ careers were ruined.

    I think the Committee should putatively assert that as an admission against interest from the White House, and make them squirm to refute it.

    Cannon invoked Rove’s busy summer travel schedule

    He asked Sanchez whether she knew that Rove had a long-scheduled overseas trip scheduled for today, and complained that Congress had scheduled the hearing to be convenient to the Subcommittee, not to Rove

    Travel schedule or no, I was not aware you could simply blow off a lawful and duly issued subpoena and leave the country. Last I heard, you either had to negotiate alternative dates and times or move to quash.

    No word, thus far, on how this all jibes with the Attorney General’s assertion yesterday that one avenue to find out about Karl’s involvement in the Siegelman prosecution would be to hold a hearing

    .
    Um, isn’t that what they were doing today?

    • RickMassimo says:

      I’ll take that as confirmation from Nixon’s former lawyer that Karl Rove’s official duties included intervening in criminal investigations and trials to make sure popular Democrats’ careers were ruined.

      I think the Committee should putatively assert that as an admission against interest from the White House, and make them squirm to refute it.

      Hell, you’re soft-pedaling it. This bunch, Rove especially, has forfeited the entire presumption of innocence if you ask me.
      I know that can’t be taken away from you in a criminial court. Congress isn’t one.

  12. BoxTurtle says:

    Sorry to disappoint you folks, but Rove travels on a diplomatic passport. The worst they can do is deport him.

    Boxturtle (Them X code passports are nice)

    • BoxTurtle says:

      I gonna qualify what I said: Rove used to travel on a diplomatic passport. I don’t know if he still is, since he’s no longer WH staff. They SHOULD have changed his passport number, but I’d bet that could get stuck in a crack somewhere if Karl wanted it to.

      Boxturtle (He’d be safe in Israel as well)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Ah, but Mr. Rove is no longer a public employee; he is a lowly private citizen, albeit mysteriously (for a man prone to so many leaks) with a top-level security clearance still intact.

      • BoxTurtle says:

        The requirements for a ddiplomatic passport are suprisingly few. You must be a US citizen (can be waived), you must qualify for a normal passport (can be waived), the Dept of State must want you to have one (absolute requirement), and the other country must approve it. Karl could easily still have one.

        Boxturtle (Condi? W here. Need a dipplmatic or whatever it is passport for Karl)

        • Citizen92 says:

          Possessing a (US) Diplomatic passport does not automatically confer any sort of diplomatic or immunity status.

          In most countries, one must also be listed on the requisite country’s ministry of foreign affairs (or equivalent) diplomatic list.

          So if the Swedes want to arrest him for war crimes (or any civil/criminal matters that arise in the kingdom) then they are fully able to do so.

          But that raises a bigger point. Does Karl still have an active security clearance? Does Karl still have a White House pass? My guess is yes.

          • BoxTurtle says:

            Like I said, the other country must approve. They way it normally works is for State to send advance notification that so-and-so want to come there on diplomatic status. The other country will approve before the passport holder arrives. The days of turning a diplomat arounf at the gate are (mostly) over.

            If the other country DOESN’T approve, then there’s no immunity should the person come.

            Boxturtle (Would LOVE to see him held at The Hague as a material witness)

            • perris says:

              Boxturtle (Would LOVE to see him held at The Hague as a material witness)

              I would LOVE to see the free world declare bush “persona non grata” for their war crimes and serve notice, they can only expect protection while on american soil

              I really don’t care if rove gets his “executive priviledge’, that priviledge MUST be laughed at and denied, I want these guys held in frigging contempt already with or without their novel claim of “priviledge”

              • Citizen92 says:

                Here’s hoping that Karl can eventually chalk up a felony (like Scooter Libby). And incresing number of countries (like Canada) now refuse to admit convicted felon foreigners.

  13. brendanx says:

    I’ve finally understood what the Unitary Executive is. Everything comprised by the executive branch is an emanation of the will and whim of the Chief Executive (and things attached). Nothing of the executive — whether it be a person, such as an “immediate adviser”, or a thing, like an executive order — has any autonomy or force outside of that will.

    • behindthefall says:

      Been sayin’ it for some time: ‘unitary executive’ == ‘absolutist monarchy’ Yep; there’s a term for it. Might as well use it.

  14. Mary says:

    Since Rove has left the WH, how is it that he travels on a diplomatic passport? I believe you (turtles are just believable) but I’m wondering.

    In any event, at least his port of entry should be trackable for anyone like a Sgt at Arms. Does Rove have Sec Serv?

    Oh well, no need to ponder. We are talking about Democrats after all- their ability to do nothing or do the opposite of what they said they would do is surpassed only by … heck, I can’t really think of what surpasses it.

  15. greenbird4751 says:

    OK, the headline says “refused to obey an order” or in other words…he was ordered under penalty…which means…he has to eat hummus?
    aw, now hummus AND falafel are spoilt for me!

  16. Mary says:

    35/27 – need to hit that refresh – sorry I’m a slow typist (partly why I never bother to proof for blog comments)

    29 “Perhaps the Italians …”

    YOu must have missed Bush’s shoutout to his “amigo” Berlusconi:

    (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/10/bush-addresses-the-italian-prime-minister-in-spanish-amigo-amigo/)

    Bush has just never seen anything like the way the Italian courts are pestering Berlusconi. FIGHT COMMENT, BITE TONGUE HARD, TAP OUT BASS THREAD FROM WIPEOUT, COUNT BACKWARDS FROM 3829 ALTERNATING BY 3s and 4s…

    • JTMinIA says:

      x2 on Berlusconi. Remember that all of the indictments of CIA agents came during what I call the Right-wing Italian Interregnum.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        True. Now that billionaire Rupert Murdoch impersonator Berlusconi is back in power, at least for a few weeks, given the revolving door that is Italian politics, Bush and his cronies are safe in Roma.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The neocons may have just blasted Obama for advocating that Americans learn to speechify in more than one tongue, but Mr. Bush is way ahead of them. He can’t do it in any language. Ciao.

  17. tjbs says:

    Executive privilege doesn’t exist anywhere in the constitution because it is anathema to an informed citizenry making informed decisions in the voting booth.

  18. perris says:

    So if I were Congresswoman Sanchez, I would tell Fielding: “Show me the proof.”

    unless rove is on bush’s “throw him under the bus” list, bush will get that to him anytime he wants it

    since he doesn’t have it, me thinks there is some kind of bad blood brewing

    :popcorn:

  19. STTPinOhio says:

    OT, but has anyone reported on the condition of the donkeys Iran used to launch its mobile rockets this week?

    I would think PETA would be all over that.

    Hyperventilating over missile launches in Iran. A country with a return address. A country that would cease to exist in minutes should they actually attack Israel.

    We should be focused on other things, like the ongoing shredding of the Constitution that the Democratic congress is overseeing.

  20. Bluetoe2 says:

    Let’s admit it. The U.S. is the America’s newest banaba Republic. To think this Democratically controlled Congress is going to hold the Bush regime accountable has become laughable. One party rule by the oligarchs and a unitary executive=’s the triumph of fascism.

  21. LS says:

    Interesting that as soon as FISA passed, Pelosi is softening up on the “I” word…:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com…..y_but.html

    “”I’m grateful for the Speaker’s expression this morning of an interest in bringing this before the Judiciary Committee,” he said. “It’s a very positive expression. … I’ve been talking about this for quite some time, as many of you know. That we’re starting to see in Washington even the slightest perceptible shift, it’s worth looking at.”

    Kucinich said he expected to read his new, single article of impeachment on the House floor at approximately 4 p.m. EST.”

  22. bell says:

    ot for anyone paying attention to the market – fannie mae and freddie mac are going to make bear stearns look like a walk in the park…

    • emptywheel says:

      Yup. I expect they’ll be putting together the $200 billion bailout for Fannie and Freddie over the weekend.

      But they still won’t pass the housing bill. Because helping actual taxpayers is a moral hazard, dontcha know?

      • perris says:

        it seems to me, they way they “help” these industries is they just print more money, give them this paper at virtually no cost, which of course then makes it to the economy, the cost then is inflation

        I am amazed our inflation rate is so low, given we are doing nothing but print paper to pay for the war, to pay for these bailouts

        • GulfCoastPirate says:

          Why do you think it is so important for the Bushies to have oil priced in dollars and could you think of at least one reason for the increase in the price of oil as the printing of dollars has multiplied since 2001?

            • GulfCoastPirate says:

              The other way around. Having to acquire dollars to buy oil means there will alays be an elevated demand for dollars which keeps the dollar from falling further.

              I’m fixing to leave in a few minutes but there are some interesting charts available showing the relationship between the increase in the amount of dollars available and the increase in the price of oil. It seems as though lots of people (speculators??) are willing to trade dollars today for oil at some point in the future. It sounds to me like investors expect oil to hold its ‘real’ value more than the dollar.

  23. skdadl says:

    O/T: A couple of months ago, Mary explained a legal term to me that had to do with suspect defences becoming less believable, or wrongful behaviour becoming more criminal, as time passes. Can anyone tell me what that legal term is?

  24. MartyDidier says:

    It’s very obvious that what has been missing for decades are experiencing consequences for their questionable and crimnial behavior. Since this hasn’t happened, the problem has grown to an extreme as shown with this administration (and others). But what many don’t know is that we are in a White House Coup, supported by Black-Ops FUNDED in large part by wide distribution of Drugs. How I know this is because I was in a family for more than 26 years who is directly involved in the wide distribution of Cocaine. They bragged about being a CIA Asset when questioned why they weren’t worried about getting caught. They were caught in September ‘07 in Mexico flying a jet loaded with Ton’s of Cocaine and are still at large to this day.

    It’s obvious that reducing the effectivness of Law Enforcement is critical to slowing down and even stopping efforts with eliminating crime especially if you want a Coup to be successful. Also, much of this has been in the news but the main stream news goups won’t touch it and there is a reason for that as well.

    Marty Didier
    Northbrook, IL

  25. Citizen92 says:

    I referenced it earlier, but Karl was gone today because of his long planned trip to Sweden, as guest of Timbro, a think tank.

    If your Swedish is good, here’s an article on the visit.

    The article essentially says that Karl Rove is the reason for Obama’s successful campaigining – since Obama’s apparently using Karl’s microtargeting model.

    Some commenters on the newspaper aren’t buying it:

    Posted by Nils Bertil 73 on July 9, 2008 at 15:27
    A few simple questions.
    Why do we need to take after all “shit” from the U.S.? Why not assess policy, instead of politicians? Why just to denigrate others and never admit their own mistakes? Politicians should be judged by what they do, not by how the smiles or lying, barks, dress or hairstyles. It is no wonder that more and more refuse to get involved in politics. Honesty, where did you go?

  26. victoria says:

    Next thing you know, Nixon’s former lawyer will be asserting that Rove isn’t attached to the Executive branch, he is his own exclusive branch so he is not bound by any constraints whatsoever.

    What should Rove’s branch of government be called?

    • wkwf says:

      What should Rove’s branch of government be called?

      Turd? Too bad we already have 3+B branches. If there were just 2, ‘turd’ would sound perfect. One could argue that there are in fact only 2 branches now, what with Congress becoming part of the Exec branch.

  27. victoria says:

    Citizen92, are you Swedish? From what part of the country, if so?

    My family is from Sundsvall, up north. Mr. Victoria and I were married in Karlskrona, on the SE coast.

  28. randiego says:

    OT Alert:
    I just got an interesting email from “The Airlines” – yes all of them.

    Dear Mr. Randiego,

    Last week, crude oil hit an all-time high of $146, and the skyrocketing cost of fuel is impacting our customers, our employees, the communities we serve, and the economy as a whole. United, and the majority of other major U.S. airlines, are asking our most loyal customers to join us in pushing for legislation to add more transparency and disclosure in the oil markets. Please see the attached open letter from the leaders of the U.S. airline industry.

    The letter goes on to descibe how speculators purchase oil contracts and calls on Congress to introduce regulations in the oil markets.

    Am I the only one that thinks it’s ironic that the airlines are begging for regulations?

    Link:
    http://capwiz.com/sosnow/issue…..d=11571321

  29. BayStateLibrul says:

    According to the AP wire story, Bates decision may not be resolved until
    January 2009. Once again, through legal delays and bullshit, the WH has
    blocked justice. Can’t we put this on a “fast track”?

    “The House already has voted to hold two of President Bush’s confidants in contempt for failing to cooperate with its inquiry into whether the administration fired nine federal prosecutors in 2006 for political reasons.
    The case, involving White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, is in federal court and may not be resolved before Bush’s term ends in January.”

    • bmaz says:

      Got news for you, that is on the quick end of a normal Federal civil timeline for this type of decision. In the past I have waited 9-12 months before. When Bates said he would try to do it fast, that was encouraging.

      • darclay says:

        I understand where you are comming from but, dang if I would not be having a hissy fit if it took them that long. How much time does it take to make up your mind. I weigh the aspects and decide 2 days max. Its like having a pity party , you cry moan groan a day or so then get back on the hourse.

  30. Citizen92 says:

    Rove even lies in Sweden.

    A member of the Swedish press actually questioned him on this passage from Bob Woodward in his book “Plan of Attack” –

    Page 250: Karl Rove, a Norwegian-American, is obsessed with the “historical duplicity” of the Swedes, who seized Norway back in 1814. This nationalism manifests itself as hatred for Swedish weapons inspector Hans Blix.

    Rove’s response? Ha ha ha, Bob took me literally.

    Right.

  31. strider7 says:

    I’d like to say a few words
    In defense of our country
    Whose people aren’t bad nor are they mean
    Now the leaders we have
    While they’re the worst that we’ve had
    Are hardly the worst this poor world has seen

    Let’s turn history’s pages, shall we?

    Take the Caesars for example
    Why within the first few of them
    They were sleeping with their sister
    Stashing little boys in swimming pools
    And burning down the City
    And one of ‘em, one of ‘em
    Appointed his own horse Consul of the Empire
    That’s like vice president or something

    That’s not a very good example, is it?

    From randy newman
    A few words in defense of our country
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..#038;eurl=