Conyers to Turdblossom: "Time's Up!!"

/in /by

Via email:

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." 

Tee hee hee! Here’s the subpoena.

February 2. You think maybe we’ll have an Attorney General by then?

image_print
  3. Hmmm says:

    So… now Rover appeals, right? Who’s he got for iron now that he’s not under Freddy F’s umbrella any more?

  7. scribe says:

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Oooh, this might be worth taking a day off work for a trip to D.C. were this a public hearing and not a deposition.

    Here’s to hoping it’s on CSPAN (not likely, either, to my eyes).

    • MartyDidier says:

      Thanks for the information Plunger. Are you aware of what is happening here?

      I visited your website and couldn’t find a way to write to you.

      Marty Didier
      Northbrook, IL

      • plunger says:

        Actually, Marty, strange as this may sound, it’s not technically my web site. That is a compilation of some postings I had made about three years ago that was posted without my prior knowledge by a blogger named WinterPatriot…who obviously appreciated my efforts and thoughts. I have no control over it. It’s more or less a time capsule of my thoughts in that timeframe, as selected and posted by him. Many of the links have since been disabled by those who don’t want others to see the truth that once existed online.

    • LabDancer says:

      This is a fresh subpoena, no?

      Fresh subpoena – fresh no show – fresh recommendation for holding him in contempt of Congress – fresh vote in the HJC – fresh referral to & hearing & vote in the full House – fresh request to the DoJ – fresh court process – fresh argument – fresh appeal process.

  10. emptywheel says:

    He can, but he’s got much less protection than even Harriet does. She has an EP claim ruled valid by an AG (though not the incumbent AG). He doesn’t even have that. If Holder is in place by the time this happens, he may have little to no option.

    Of course, since he’s really the one driving the Holder opposition, this might just mean we never get an AG.

    • LabDancer says:

      I’m not up on who all can put a hold on Holder. So far we’ve had Specter’s out of the SJC – can other GOOPers on the SJC follow suit? And in sequence?

      • MadDog says:

        Ummm…sort of not really as I found out to my chagrin.

        1. Appointment of a different acting AG – Can’t because of the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998:

        …Generally, the Vacancies Reform Act applies to any office within an Executive agency to which appointment is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (a “PAS position”)…

        2. Recess appointment – Have to have a Senate recess in order to be able to do that. If the Repug strategy is to delay Holder’s appointment, then waiting until a Senate Recess would be considered a plus by the Repugs.

        • emptywheel says:

          Shit.

          I am NOT in favor of Fitz serving as AG.

          But if we need someone who is a DOJ employee to serve as acting, put him in charge until they get Holder. That oughta accelerate the Holder approval.

          • MadDog says:

            Ummm…Fitz? I’m missing something here.

            The current Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip (a Bush appointee and former SCOTUS Scalia clerk) is serving as Acting Attorney General right at the moment.

            How does Fitz play into this?

            • bmaz says:

              Convoluted; you would have to sack Filip and shift Fitz to that position and then make him Acting AG. As far as I can figure.

              • MadDog says:

                I’m not sure they could even do that.

                That Vacancies Reform Act leads me to believe that even if Filip were removed, the next “Acting” Attorney General would be the next current DOJ critter in line, and that wouldn’t be a US Attorney like Fitz.

        • TarheelDem says:

          Thanks for the info. As the first grade teacher with a flat tire said, “Oh, Oh, Oh. Look. Look. Look. Damn! Damn! Damn!”

        • BillE says:

          If the Rethugs are so against Holder and the rest of the Obama DOJ people can’t Harry Reid and Nancy do a quicky thing of going into Recess for whatever the minimum is and let BO do a recess appointment. At the same time some classic bomb throwers from congress blame the Rethugs for obstructing justice etc as cover.

          • MadDog says:

            I suspect that Harry Reid is waiting until the Repugs formally make their move on Holder before he gets his marching orders from the Democratic Senate caucus on counter-moves.

            For example, the Holder nomination will get voted out of the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday, and at that point the Repugs are left with “holds” or “filibuster” on a full Senate vote.

            Will Harry ignore Senate precedent on a “hold” (as he did with Dodd on Telco Retroactive Immunity)? I suspect Harry would allow a Repug “hold” for a day or two, but not much longer.

            As to a Repug “filibuster” option, I don’t think they have the votes, and lest I’m mistaken, the motivation to pick this battle now.

            I may be wrong here, so I ain’t placing no bets. *g*

            • bmaz says:

              Naw, they are about done. My prediction is a full Senate vote on next Monday.

              As to your question @101 Don’t sell the Circuit Court of Appeals short, this is the 9th Circuit baby. This ain’t your grandfather’s Buick like those frumpy circuits back east. SCOTUS may be a different matter, but I am not so sure. If Walker and the 9th both side with the Plaintiffs, I am not so sure that the Supremes won’t also. I just don’t think even the Roberts Court is all that keen about forfeiting that much power to the Executive Branch, especiall with a nascent Obama Administration just in power. The key is Walker setting it up right; so far he has kicked ass and taken names in that department. We shall see after Walker has ruled.

              • MadDog says:

                Yeah, I was thinking that if any circuit would do it, it would be the 9th.

                But, I’m relying on my cynical nature to think that not even they are going to jump overboard on this one.

                • bmaz says:

                  You got to keep in mind the bit about ceding a lot of power. That is the key. It is not just siding with the Goopers, it is giving up a significant chunk of judicial authority. That is why they may give pause.

                  • emptywheel says:

                    See, I’m voting their corporatists selves will win out (because even a few of the Dems are corporatists at heart).

                    That said, Walker is pitching this as AG taking over the power of the judge to ajudicate. And that probably won’t fly, if he writes it up all pretty like.

                    So maybe you’re right and the fucking greedy telecoms will all be wishing they had agreed to a FISA court review rather than AG certification.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Well, I may be nuts, but i still don’t think that the telcos care nearly as much as the old administration and the new one. I still think they are indemnified. And I think that Obama knows it and that, plus just not wanting to expend the capital and effort (nor likely wanting to relinquish the surveillance ability either for that matter) is going to motivate him to back up the Bush position and the Obama FAA position on the wiretapping and al Haramain cases. If I am right, it means huge liability financial exposure for an already strapped government. They do not want the specter of that.

                      As a side note though, talk about your quick stimulus infusion of cash into the public’s hands, paying out a chunk o change to every phone customer in the country would be a fast way to do it!! Kind of like that Magic Jack dude’s stimulus plan!

  11. pdaly says:

    Note that Conyers picked a Monday to drop the news, not a Bush Friday news dump (and fwiw, Mondays were used by the second term to announce Bush administration step downs).

    Conyers has picked the tone of this news cycle: we’re now on a law and order footing.

  12. twobeers says:

    Hey congressdems, repeat after me: ”UP OR DOWN VOTE! UP OR DOWN VOTE! UP OR DOWN VOTE!”

    now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

  15. BlueStateRedHead says:

    From roll call via TPM (which does not have the turdy news yet), holder vote tmr. however,….

    The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to approve President Barack Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder for attorney general on Wednesday, but it remains unclear when the full Senate will vote as Republicans hold onto the possibility of stalling the appointment, GOP aides said today.

    Although Holder’s ultimate confirmation is not in doubt, one senior GOP aide said on Monday that Judiciary Committee Republicans remain dissatisfied with the amount of time they have had to probe Holder’s past and his character. That sentiment is unlikely to derail Holder’s committee vote on Wednesday, but it could prompt one or two Senators to put a temporary hold on the nomination, the aide said.
    snip

    • LabDancer says:

      tick … tick … tick … tick … [probe] … tick … tick … tick … tick … [check watch] … tick … tick … tick … tick …[probe] … tick … tick … tick … tick …Hold! … tick … tick … tick … tick … [probe] … tick … tick … tick … tick … [check watch] … tick … tick … tick … tick …[probe] … tick … tick … tick … tick …

      [repeat as needed]

  19. foothillsmike says:

    Will KKKarl see his shadow on Feb 2 or wish he was a shadow. Good news for Gonzalez though. He’s got a tutoring job for the next couple of weeks.

  21. Mary says:

    You think maybe we’ll have an Attorney General by then?

    Or a USA who will enforce Congressional subpoenas?

  23. BlueStateRedHead says:

    Good question. Bmaz has explained that all asst. deputy AGs confirmations follow that of the AG, but what about the USA.

    • emptywheel says:

      No.

      Not only that, but Buchanan and the FBI just raided a big Murtha pork recipient.

      Not that I’m suggesting Murtha isn’t corrupt, mind you. Just that the timing is suspect.

  27. reader says:

    ot: i gotta say this energy program announcement by obama (running on cnn right now) sounds really comprehensive and very good.

  29. reader says:

    ”rover has a 2-week-old letter from bush newly exerting exec priv” sez gloria borger on cnn.

    egads!

  34. MsAnnaNOLA says:

    Oh I am loving me some John Conyers!!! I want to adopt him as my foster Senator. I have blue dog Landrieu and perv Vitter.

    I denounce Vitter but it should be funny when he gets primaried by a female porn star!

    http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/…..__8254.asp

  35. Mary says:

    Just to confirm – this is a subpoena to appear for a deposition, right? Not to appear before a panel answering meandering questions, but to appear before committee counsel or whoever they have handling this and be deposed. That’s good.

    • emptywheel says:

      Correct.

      But as I understand it, details have not been worked out. And since Rove’s respnse to Conyers’ little present in the rules seems to have been getting a letter from Shrub invoking EP, I guess we get to wait for Holder.

      Which means we probably won’t get Holder any time soon.

      • MadDog says:

        Can anyone substantiate the Gloria Borger claim wrt a new last-minute Junya issuance of executive privilege for Turdblossom?

        I can’t find it on CNN’s site, nor any reference to it (yet) anywhere else.

  36. reader says:

    nice one, ew … yuppers guys: here’s your choice …. Fitz or Holder … Fitz or HOlder …. oh, I guess we’ll take Holder …. egads.

  37. behindthefall says:

    Please can we have somebody capable of questioning KKK when he appears. The last thing we need is to let this fish slip off the hook.

  38. pdaly says:

    Not want Fitz? Is there something about his abilities that would make him less than perfect? or the fact that wrt Rove, Fitz would have an apparent conflict of interest given Fitz was a target of Rove’s machinations?

    • LabDancer says:

      Hmmmm back at you: The CNN report describes as an “Outlook server”. Outlook – as in a Jerry Seinfeld soto voce while doing a double take, at the invocation of “Newman”.

      So, might it possible that what appears on the outside as “down down down”, is in fact “going going gone on to its reward” on the inside?

      • Hmmm says:

        One would think Team O would have preferred to order fresh machines from CDW or something, rather than rely on ANYTHING that touched Team W’s obviously compromised systems.

      • Hmmm says:

        I have no idea about that, actually I think it’s probably just coincidence. But it does seem irresponsible for the Obama IT team not to have done whatever they needed to do to have reliable infrastructure in place at this critical time.

  40. azportsider says:

    This makes no difference, IMO. Rove will just blow this subpoena off like all the others because he knows perfectly well that the House Dems don’t have the cojones to actually penalize him for not showing. It’s just going to be another flurry of strongly worded letters, followed by deafening silence.

    • MadDog says:

      I differ.

      As the DOJ now belongs to a Democratic Administration, and they own the US Marshalls, Turdblossom can easily be frogmarched in handcuffs to Conyers should he deign to blow this one off.

      • azportsider says:

        I sincerely hope you’re right, MadDog. It’d be a frabjous day indeed if the House Dems would suddenly and miraculously grow enough spines to actually set that process in motion. But I’m not holding my breath. They’ve let me down too many times.

    • emptywheel says:

      David Kurtz is apparently making the same mistake Gloria Berger may well be.

      Unless he did it two weeks ago, as Borger reported, Bush has never invoked executive privilege with Rove.

      Jeebus.

    • perris says:

      as I predicted, rove has said, “or what”, he defies subpeona;

      “It’s generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege as to matters occurring during their term. 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.”

  43. reader says:

    surely obama can defend exec priv while saying karl does not have a legitimate claim in this case!!!!!

    this is another planted propaganda logic fake: ”oooooooooohhhhhhh {dear oh dear oh dear} obama will HAVE to defend karl to keep his powers as president. NOT NOT NOT.

    i hate gloria borger; i’m thinking of not watching her anymore: what stunned me was that she was there so quick saying it based on some phone call she made.

    you can track (based on the timestamp on my comment) it to a transcript they will eventually put up at the cnn website.

    • MadDog says:

      i hate gloria borger; i’m thinking of not watching her anymore: what stunned me was that she was there so quick saying it based on some phone call she made.

      you can track (based on the timestamp on my comment) it to a transcript they will eventually put up at the cnn website.

      I don’t doubt you saw and heard what you claim. It is Gloria that I doubt.

  44. reader says:

    no problem, MadDog, didn’t feel doubted on any account: it’ll be really funny and stupid if it’s the same non-existent letter he claimed to have before, huh. epic fail if she got it that wrong: looks to me like she’s chummy with karl to get that scoop so quick. perhaps they will fire her. oh please, oh please. she’s such a damn fixture since the election … i was hoping she would take a long vacation. can’t stand most of them anymore …. campbell brown sounds like she’s talking with a passle of eliza doolittle marbles in her mouth … blah.

  45. waynec says:

    Have I missed something?
    I thought Holder seemed reluctant to go after the criminals
    Educate me, please.

  46. reader says:

    it’s not Holder who’s the problem … it’s Blair who’s not DOJ anyway so i don’t see what the fuss is. Blair says no torture on his watch. so the rest is up to DOJ it would seem.

    apparently the r’s want Holder to say he won’t prosecute those who were ”following orders” backed up by ”legal opinions” from the wh.

    • emptywheel says:

      Or, it could mean that people have their heads up their asses and can’t tell the difference between the phrase “executive privilege” and “absolute immunity” even when they read it in the same sentence.

      Rove had claimed immunity from an earlier Conyers-issued subpoena, citing executive privilege. (The case is currently on appeal.) As a press release accompanying today’s subpoena points out, “[t]hat “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.’”

      Or, I could be crazy.

      But hell, given that 1) Rove wasn’t in that suit until added in through rules this month, 2) Rove didn’t cite executive privilege, he cited absolute immunity, and 3) that is made clear in the press release, I’m pretty sure I’m not the crazy one.

    • emptywheel says:

      Thank you so much, Muzzy.

      I should have done that from the start.

      My frustration is threefold:

      1) We continue to fall for Rove/Luskin’s tricks
      2) We try to apply stuff about Executive Privilege to this much more audacious thing, “absolute immunity”
      3) We continue to underestimate the ongoing necessity for the ongoing HJC suit (which litigates this “absolute immunity” stuff

  49. MadDog says:

    Totally OT – EW, I don’t know if you saw this, so pardon my interruption:

    Responses to Dennis C. Blair Post-hearing Questions (Nomination of Admiral Dennis Blair to be Director of National Intelligence)

    FISA Amendments Act

    Question: The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 included important civil liability protections for those providers who assisted the government with the Terrorist Surveillance Program in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. According to this Act, in order for the liability protections to apply, the Attorney General must first file a certification with the court. Last fall, Attorney General Mukasey filed the appropriate certifications.

    Do you believe that those private partners who assisted the government should be given civil liability protection?

    Answer: Yes. The terms and conditions of that civil liability protection are spelled out in the FISA Amendments Act.

    If confirmed as the DNI, will you recommend that the Attorney General honor the certifications submitted by Attorney General Mukasey?

    Answer: Yes.

  50. emptywheel says:

    argh grumble grumble

    yeah.

    Our best shot against immunity is to hope it is ruled unconstitutional. And even though SCOTUS has been diligent about separation of powers, I suspect their fondness for corporate bottom lines will win out.

    • MadDog says:

      I wasn’t sure which thread(s) you were hanging around on so I posted it on two.

      Yeah, grumble, grumble is right.

      I don’t hold out much hope wrt an “unconstitutional” ruling. Walker might, but the appelate level and/or SCOTUS? Prolly not.

    • freepatriot says:

      you’re forgetting the magic insta-declassification wand

      to get his case before the SCOTUS, kkkarl has to file papers and make claims

      and Barack Obama can declassify ANYTHING HE WANTS, just by calling a press conference. Obama could use this to put all of kkkarl’s actions into the public domain before kkkarl makes his arguments

      then the SCOTUS can choose to side with kkkarl against America, if they want to (but the odds of having 67 votes in the US Senate is looking better and better)

      can you see Eric Holder at the press conference yet ???

      President Obama has authorized me to declassify the following materials …

      and if george wants to argue about Holder’s press conferences, President Obama can insta-pardon Holder, which would basically force george bush to shut his fucking pie hole

      don’t forget, the repuglitards are defending murderers, traitors, and torturers, not a bunch of people that America is gonna waste much sympathy on

      an off topic, if abu gonzo thinks the “I was following orders” defense works, he should wiki the name adolph eichmann. It didn’t work in Nurenberg for the nazi leadership, It didn’t work for eichmann in Israel, so why would it work for abu gonzo in America. It says something bad about a country if that country would accept that defense

  52. BillE says:

    MD and EW do you ever sleep? I was just finishing up protecting my job against likely layoffs and viola posts come a flying.

    I get the idea that basic premise is to delay this thing until a number of time sensitive events occur as EW has been posting. The thing is to get past them before the deadenders do much more damage. Like the malingering AUSAs etc.

    btw What ever happened to Fitz? I assume he resigned as AUSA but what did that do to the Blago investigation/prosecution and does that mean the Plame thing is so done now that the fork can be pulled out?

    • bmaz says:

      Fitz, as are many of the USAs are still in their offices until being asked to resign and replaced. Fitz is expected to remain permanently as Obama’s choice as USA for NDIL.

    • MadDog says:

      Going to count some sheep now. *g*

      btw What ever happened to Fitz? I assume he resigned as AUSA but what did that do to the Blago investigation/prosecution and does that mean the Plame thing is so done now that the fork can be pulled out?

      I don’t believe that Fitz has resigned as I’ve seen no news to this effect.

      I do understand there was a request by former COS Josh Bolton that all political appointees prepare and submit their resignations, but you’d think that in the case of Fitz and the ongoing Blago case, this would be reported news.

  53. MadDog says:

    From the NYT:

    …Former President George W. Bush upheld Rove and two other senior aides who asserted they did not have to testify before Congress about their actions in the White House.

    The legal dispute between the executive and legislative branches of government is before a federal appeals court.

    Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, said his client was only following Bush’s orders and never asserted a personal claim that he could disobey a congressional subpoena. Luskin added that if the Obama administration no longer asserts a legal claim against Rove testifying, “we will do our best to work it out with the new president”…

    • bmaz says:

      See, that article doesn’t mention a new letter, and sure doesn’t say that the claim is now EP as opposed to, or in addition to AI.

      • emptywheel says:

        Yeah, that article (hallelujah!!!!) gets it perfectly right: the issue before Bates was whether or not Turdblossoms could be immune to appear AT ALL–and only after that, a weighing of EP claims (which only exists for Miers’ testimony and Bolten’s documents).

        • MadDog says:

          This article from the WSJ (h/t Blue Texan) makes mention of a recent letter:

          …Robert Luskin, Mr. Rove’s attorney, said Mr. Rove recently received a renewed privilege assertion from President Bush, before the president left office. Mr. Luskin said he would consult with Mr. Obama’s White House counsel to determine the Obama administration’s stance…

          Don’t know the truth of what the WSJ wrote, or for that matter, Goldbars, but there it is.

  54. bobschacht says:

    Um, just a note to comment that EW’s had a pretty productive day, what with three posts each still with active threads after 9:00 pm being kept alive by people other than me (I’m the one who always arrives late for the party, after all the beer’s gone, and most people have gone elsewhere looking for the action.)

    You go, girl! I don’t know how you do it!

    Bob in HI

  56. siri says:

    And ya know what makes this personally sweet for me?
    2/2 is my birthday!!!
    MUST TIVO AND INVITE FRIENDS OVER, WILL COOK AND STOCK THE BAR!

    Tee hee hee INDEED!

  57. Mary says:

    AI isn’t actually a different argument from Exec privilege, it’s an argument on how to define EP.

    Executive privilege was never created statutorily or by direct Constitutional reference, but has instead been created by application and case law. So there aren’t a lot of existing bright lines on what it means. When Rove said he had absolute immunity from having to appear, he was basing that on a “what does it encompass” posit of Executive privilege. The result of absolute immunity is based on the sourcing (the why) of a claim that EP encompasses AI for the Execs close advisors.

    EP is the theory under which the Exec can refuse to share certain things with the courts or with Congress and it is not a fully fleshed creature. There have been limited showdowns resulting in case law. For example, claims of “State Secrets” are really, at heart, claims of EP (and even there, the claims of national security v. diplomatic dealings are not equally fleshed out and are not fleshed out in numerous areas, as we are seeing from the pending litigation). This issue – that the Executive does have situations where, bc of separation of powers, the Exec can refuse to share, is at the heart of the “bad guys’ arguments on the FISA court being illegal – that if there are matters of national security that are wholly within the Exec parameter, Congress cannot by legislation, create a system that can be legally imposed on the President)

    Roves’s assertion that the Exec doesn’t have to share its personnel at all with Congress for testimony – i.e., that they have absolute immunity from having to respond to Congress – is pretty silly on its face, but it is an argument rooted in EP; the court was asked to determine wehther the privilege of Executive office extended so far as to allow the President to refuse to make his personnel available to Congress. The court pretty properly held no (and that’s up on appeal now), but the “superset” of argument Rove was trying to make (albeit one that had not been recognized before) was that AI was a subset of the EP superset. His argument was based on the power of the office. The court drew its doodles differently and said that AI wasn’t a valid subset of the privilege.

    The more typical EP arguments, such as deliberative privilege and state secrets, are also not well developed but they do have more to them. Still, the issues of things such as the extent to which privilege that once attached remains attached to the president leaving office v. the office and its current occupant; the ability of deliberative, diplomatic or national security aspects of the privilege allow for invocation when criminal activity is being kept from the courts and/or Congress (with the courts actually having a much stronger interest than Congress re: criminal activities of a prior admin over which Congress no longer has impeachment powers), etc. – those are all things that have been handled much more by sidestepping and abdication than by direct case law. So we may be getting ready to see some flesh going on the bones of the privilege skeleton.

    Or not.

    • emptywheel says:

      Agree with most of what you say.

      Except nothing in Rove’s case–as opposed to Miers’–has been litigated yet. He only became part of that suit when the House voted through its new rules. And Miers is in a different situation since there was a claim to garden variety EP (deliberative) reviewed by DOJ IN ADDITION to her claim of AI. Bush has said, you can’t have Harriet’s testimony bc it relates to advice I got in the course of hiring and firing USAs. He has made no such claim wrt Rove.

      Rove doesn’t have the garden variety EP–or at least he didn’t before this new letter, which no one has seen. Furthermore, his claim to AI, even as Bradbury expansively understood it, is tenuous on its face because he’d only be eligible if he were engaged in “official duties.” What he was doing in the Siegelman case could only be considered his official duty if he were breaking the Hatch Act. (THe same is true, to a lesser degree, of his actions in the US Attorney scandal.)

      Also, as far as I understand, there is nothing to prevent Congress from impeaching Bush now.

      And finally, the strongest claim to overcome Harriet’s EP claim is that Congress has a legislative interest through the Appointments Clause, which gives them the authority to legislate what happens when a USA resigns or is fired before a Senate-approved nominee replaces the USA. That remains true, irrespective of Bush’s departure.

  58. Nell says:

    Is the snuck-in provision allowing for Attorney General appointments to US Attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation still law? If so, has anyone introduced legislation to get rid of that?

    I seem to remember something about Feinstein, but there’s been a lot of water under the bridge since I followed the US Attorney scandal closely…