Posts

Yup, Novak’s Still Up to His Old Ways

/in /by

That is, doing Rove’s dirty work for him.

When you put Novak’s anti-Lieberman colum…

McCain backers, plus McCain himself, would pick the pro-choice liberal from Connecticut if they thought they could get away with it.

But they can’t get away with it — and this has been made clear to McCain by none other than Joe Lieberman himself.

Lieberman surely doesn’t know that much about Republican politics, but he has close Republican friends. One of them prevailed on Lieberman to tell McCain that a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be a disaster for all concerned, and especially for the GOP.

…Together with the Politico story on Rove’s involvement in the anti-Lieberman campaign…

Republican strategist Karl Rove called Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) late last week and urged him to contact John McCain to withdraw his name from vice presidential consideration, according to three sources familiar with the conversation.

Lieberman dismissed the request, these sources agreed.

Lieberman "laughed at the suggestion and certainly did not call [McCain] on it," said one source familiar with the details.

"Rove called Lieberman," recounted a second source. "Lieberman told him he would not make that call."

[snip]

The column said Lieberman had made that clear to McCain personally at the behest of a "close friend," but a Lieberman source called that "totally and absolutely false."

Reached by phone, Novak would say only: "I don’t talk about my sources."

…It becomes pretty clear that Rove’s the guy who told Novak Lieberman was told to tell McCain not to select him.

Or, in other words, Lieberman refused to do as Rove wanted (after all that help beating Ned Lamont, Joe? Where’s your gratitude?), so Rove just told Novak Lieberman had done so anyway.

Man, Novak’s getting abused by his sources over and over these days. Again, where’s the gratitude?

Denied! Bates Refuses to Stay Order in Miers/Bolten Suit

/in /by

Judge Bates isn’t helping BushCo sustain their USA purge cover-up and stall. Today, he denied the White House’s motion for a stay of his earlier order pending appeal. He got a bit snarky in his opinion denying the stay–I imagine David Addington is having fits right now.

The Executive has failed to demonstrate that it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the absolute immunity issue or that it has even raised a question “so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful,” id., as to warrant suspending the effect of the July 31st Order pending appeal. To begin with, the Executive devotes almost the entirety of its briefing on this prong to arguing that the Court’s Order is “susceptible to serious debate” concerning the threshold decisions relating to the Committee’s standing and cause of action. See Defs.’ Mot. at 5-6. But even assuming that the Executive’s proposition were correct — which it is not — its reliance upon that point is misplaced. The D.C. Circuit has explained that the stay pending appeal inquiry looks to the likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal itself, see Philip Morris, 314 F.3d at 617. Here, however, the denial of the Executive’s motion to dismiss is not presently subject to appeal because it is not a final order.

[snip]

The Executive’s argument boils down to a claim that a stay is appropriate because the underlying issue is important. But that is beside the point and does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Simply calling an issue important — primarily because it involves the relationship of the political branches — does not transform the Executive’s weak arguments into a likelihood of success or a substantial appellate issue. Hence, the Court concludes that this prong of the stay pending appeal analysis cuts strongly in favor of the Committee. [my emphasis]

Bates goes on at some length, calling out the transparent BS in BushCo’s arguments.

Kagro X and I chatted briefly about what this means–I expect him to do a post on how, absent some enforcement mechanism, this doesn’t exactly guarantee that Miers will show before HJC anytime soon. (Gosh, I’ve never heard him make that argument before.)

Read more →

Did Karl Rove Chat to Saakashvili about South Ossetia Too?

/in /by

The White House has started to panic over a July 9 meeting between Condi Rice and Mikheil Saakashvili, desperate to suggest they didn’t encourage Georgia’s crack-down in South Ossetia. Given that panic, I wonder whether Karl Rove had any similar chats with Saakashvili when they were in Yalta together just days later?

Now, there’s been a lot of justified chatter about the role of Randy Scheunemann, who appears to be advising the Republic of Georgia at the same time as he provides campaign advice to John McCain.

Sen. John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.

The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.

Given the way McCain has boasted of his frequent calls to Saakashvili in attempts to reclaim the mantle of the best international leader, it raises questions of whether the Administration’s "see no evil" approach to Georgia was part of a deliberate campaign strategy.

Particularly when you consider the fact that Karl Rove may have met with Saakashvili just days after the July 9 private dinner between Condi and Saakashvili that the White House, State, and DOD are now panicking about. Rove was in the neighborhood, in Yalta, at a conference with Saakashvili three days after the meeting (h/t brendanx).

09:30 – 11:00 – Plenary session: Elections in Russia and the USA: impact on Ukraine and Europe

What will be the foreign policy of the new Russian and American leadership over the coming years? How will it impact their relationship with the European Union and Ukraine, and EU’s further enlargement?

Moderator: Richard Haass
Panel: Sergey Glaziev, Director, Institute for New Economy, member of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Russian State Duma
Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, Ambassador to the Russian Federation and First Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine
Alexander Rahr, Programme Director, German Council on Foreign Relations, member of the Board of YES
Karl Rove, Former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush and Chief Strategist for Bush’s Presidential Campaigns
Bob Shrum, political consultant and Senior Fellow, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University

I mean, given that Rove was talking about the upcoming election as Saakashvili was walking in the room, it sure does make you wonder whether Rove said anything to Saakashvili about how a firmer hand in South Ossetia might help Georgia ensure its strong relationship with the US going forward. Read more →

Once Again, the Federal Government Uses Valerie to Screw Joe

/in /by

I’m not so much surprised that Judges Sentelle and Henderson dismissed the Wilsons’ appeal yesterday–I’m more surprised by the false ignorance through which they dismiss the Wilsons’ Bivens complaint (a Bivens claim allows a person to sue federal agents when they violate that person’s constitutional rights).

At the rhetorical foundation of Sentelle’s opinion lies the repetition of one of the biggest myths about the Plame leak–that Rove (and for that matter, Libby and his secret July 9 conversation with Novak) had nothing to do with Robert Novak’s article outing Plame, that Armitage acted alone.

In July, Libby talked to Judith Miller of The New York Times and to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine; Karl Rove talked to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and to Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball;” and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with reporter Robert Novak. Armitage, who had learned of Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment from a State Department memo, told Novak that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA on issues relating to weapons of mass destruction. Novak then wrote an article that was published in several newspapers, including The Washington Post and the Chicago Sun Times, on July 14, 2003.

[snip]

The publication was the result of a disclosure by Deputy Secretary of State Armitage of information about an individual contained in State Department records.

Um, sure, the publication was the result of a disclosure by Blabby Armitage. But then, that State Department memo was written as a direct result of Libby’s own oppo research, so it was also the result of Libby’s attempt to gather dirt on Joe Wilson. And of course, Novak wouldn’t have written his column without the "confirmation" from Rove, who got his information from some other source; he has always denied seeing the INR memo. So it is likely that that letter also was the result of Dick Cheney’s own efforts to collect information with which to embarrass Wilson. (Novak’s column was also the result of the Off the Record club brokering the leak, too–private citizens who could have much more easily been sued, but that’s a weakness in the Wilsons’ suit, not the Court’s opinion.)

I suspect there’s a reason for the Court’s feigned ignorance here. Read more →

Bush’s Cover-Up

/in /by

Murray Waas argues that George Bush–and the Republican party–will regret Bush’s efforts to claim absolute immunity to prevent Congress from getting testimony and documents pertaining to the US Attorney purge.

The continuous claims of executive privilege– whatever the motive for them being invoked– are going to appear more and more to the pub[l]ic part and parcel of a cover up. That is inevitable as the U.S. attorney report becomes public, and the report on the politicization of the Civil Rights Division is made public, as well as whatever else the public learns about these issues through leaks from the federal grand jury, the House Judiciary Committee’s ongoing probe, and sleuthing by folks like Josh Marshall.

[snip]

Even though the President might think otherwise, and he is being advised to stay his course, his best hope in assisting Republican congressional candidates in the fall would be to have Karl Rove and Harriett Miers testify before Congress– and the sooner the better. As for the public welfare, the testimony would help resolve many unknowns about the firings of the U.S. attorneys and other allegations of White House misuse of the Justice Department.

He bases that argument on the following logic:

  • Per Evan Perez of the WSJ, the two remaining DOJ IG reports on politicization will be released before the election.
  • The Civil Rights division IG report–that investigating Shorter Schloz and Hans von Spakovsky–may include criminal referrals.
  • The larger US Attorney purge IG report will show that the Kyle Sampson and Rove lackey Chris Oprision deliberately hid Rove’s role in the firings on at least two occasions.
  • As the Administration continues to stall on Miers and Rove testimony at the same time as these reports come out, it will be increasingly clear to the public that Bush is stalling precisely because he is trying to cover up the real White House involvement in the US Attorney purge.

I’d be happy if all this came to pass–but I’m a little skeptical, based on three things.

First, when asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee when his reports on the Civil Rights and US Attorney purge would be done, Glenn Fine said he didn’t know–he had to follow whereever the evidence led, and therefore couldn’t know how long it would take to finish up the reports. He specifically said he couldn’t guarantee they’d be done before the election. Read more →

If the Questions Are So “Novel” Then How Can You Argue the Privilege Exists?!?!?

/in /by

Someone really ought to call Fred Fielding on his bullshit. Today, perhaps because he reads Murray Waas (I promise, I will return to that post), Fred’s offering further negotiations in the matter of Harriet and Josh and Karl and a stack of documents. In his latest letter to Conyers, Fred says,

[A stay on Bates’ order pending appeal] will provide appellate consideration of the novel questions at stake in this matter [my emphasis]

Fred. I’m not a lawyer, so I could be wrong here. But if even you are admitting that these are "novel" questions, aren’t you, in fact, agreeing with what both John Bates and Linda Sanchez have said all along, that you’re just making this shit up!!! As Bates said,

Indeed, the aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that Ms. Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. The Supreme Court has reserved absolute immunity for very narrow circumstances, involving the President’s personal exposure to suits for money damages based on his official conduct or concerning matters of national security or foreign affairs. The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.

This absolute immunity shit doesn’t exist. Linda Sanchez knows it, John Bates knows it, and, apparently, you know it. So drop the pretense and send us Turdblossom to testify already, okay? 

Conyers to Luskin: We Told You So

/in /by

Today it’s Conyers’ turn to take a victory lap with Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove. This time, it’s the letter to Luskin that is the most enjoyable, particularly for the paragraph that basically says, "Remember when we said this absolute immunity stuff was bullshit? Well, Judge Bates agrees."

 As your July 29, 2008, letter points out, the "precise legal issue" raised by Mr. Rove’s claim of immunity from our subpoena as a former White House official was before Judge Bates in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers. Yesterday’s decision in that case provides an unequivocal answer. In accordance with the ruling by Chairwoman Sanchez rejecting your immunity assertion, the court found that the absolute immunity claim is "entirely unsupported by existing case law" and explicitly "reject[ed] the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides." Opinion at 78. 

Then, Conyers makes the most of Lamar Smith’s blabby mouth, reminding Luskin that Smith has promised Rove would abide by Bates’ decision.

In his letter to me of July 29, 2008, Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith also noted the pendency of the District Court case and stated that "Mr. Rove assuredly will abide by the court’s decision when it issues." 

Then again, long ago Luskin assured Dan Abrams that Rove would testify. And we see how that worked out.

“For your convenience, I attach a copy of the court’s opinion”

/in /by

You think Patrick Leahy enjoyed his afternoon, sending letters to Robert Luskin, Fred Fielding, and Michael Mukasey, giving them a week (until August 7) to respond to Judge Bates’ ruling today? (h/t BayStateLibrul).

All the letters are worthy of the guy whom Dick Cheney told to go fuck himself. But my favorite is the letter to Mukasey:

Dear Attorney General Mukasey:

Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting the administration’s claims that White House advisors are immune from testifying in response to Congressional subpoenas. The court’s decision also reaffirmed the President’s obligation to provide the specific basis for any executive privilege assertions to provide Congress a means to evaluate those assertions. The administration has not provided that basis despite my requests to do so for more than a year. For your convenience, I attach a copy of the court’s opinion.

Karl Rove failed to appear and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last August 2 in response to a subpoena I issued July 26, 2007, as part of the Committee’s investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. It is my understanding that Mr. Rove’s failure to comply was based on an August 1, 2007, letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding informing the Committee that the President would invoke a blanket claim of executive privilege to direct Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify before the Committee. Mr. Fielding’s letter cited a memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to assert that Mr. Rove was "immune from compelled congressional testimony" as an "immediate presidential advisor."

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous OLC opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court’s decision will cause you to revaluate your memos and those from OLC in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making. Read more →

Nixon Sez: Karl Rove Must Testify

/in /by

As I explained in this post, Judge Bates has issued a ruling in the House’s suit to force Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to respond to the House Judiciary Committee subpoenas with regards to the US Attorney firings.

With regards to the Miers and Bolten subpoena, Bates emphasizes, his ruling is fairly narrow, in that he doesn’t resolve the question of whether or not the White House was right to invoke executive privilege.

It is important to note that the decision today is very limited. To be sure, most of this lengthy opinion addresses, and ultimately rejects, the Executive’s several reasons why the Court should not entertain the Committee’s lawsuit, but on the merits of the Committee’s present claims the Court only resolves, and again rejects, the claim by the Executive to absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides. The specific claims of executive privilege that Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten may assert are not addressed — and the Court expresses no view on such claims.

Basically, then, his ruling requires Harriet Miers to show up before the House Judiciary Committee and invoke executive privilege on a question by question basis. And it requires Josh Bolten (who was subpoenaed to turn over a bunch of documents pertaining to the US Attorney firing), to turn over any non-privileged documents, and provide a description for anything not turned over and the basis for the claim of privilege. In other words, even assuming the White House accepts this ruling (I expect them to at least try to appeal it), the White House and HJC are still bound to get in an argument over whether or not the White House’s claim of privilege outweighs HJC’s claim to need the information to conduct its oversight duties.

So with respect to Miers and Bolten, this decision is narrow and somewhat inconclusive.

But with respect to Rove, this decision makes it very clear that Rove must show up to testify–and (unless the White House invokes executive privilege with respect to the HJC subpoena of Rove, which they haven’t done) he must answer all questions. That’s because the sole basis the White House gave to justify Rove blowing off HJC’s subpoena was "absolute immunity"–the White House did not invoke executive privilege with regards to this subpoena.

Read more →

BREAKING: Judge Bates Rules for the House

/in /by

Judge Bates just issued his opinion in the Miers and Bolten contempt case–and he ruled in favor of the House. Miers will have to appear and Bolten will have to turn over the documents a description of the documents he is withholding. (I guess all it took was for me to post this post.)

This also means Rove will have to appear, as Bates threw out the notion of "absolute immunity."

I’ll have more shortly.

Update: Here’s the opinion. (Note, I’ve fixed my statement above–Bolten has to turn over a description of the documents he is withholding, but not the documents, yet.)

Here’s the crux of Bates’ logic:

Notwithstanding that the opposing litigants in this case are co-equal branches of the federal government, at bottom this lawsuit involves a basic judicial task — subpoena enforcement — with which federal courts are very familiar.

Update: Here’s what Bates thinks of this "absolute immunity" claim:

Indeed, the aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that Ms. Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. The Supreme Court has reserved absolute immunity for very narrow circumstances, involving the President’s personal exposure to suits for money damages based on his official conduct or concerning matters of national security or foreign affairs. The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law. The fallacy of that claim was presaged in United States v. Nixon itself (id. at 706):

neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial [or congressional] process under all circumstances.

Also, bonus points to Bates for mentioning Boumediene, which is sure to cause BushCo a whole lot of heartburn.

Update: Here’s Conyers on the decision.

Today’s landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law. Judge Bates’ decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the US Attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the Committee was entitled to challenge that claim in Court. The Judge also ruled that the White House may not claim Executive Privilege over documents without describing them in reasonable detail Read more →