Comments on: David Iglesias Doesn’t Think Those Were Karl Rove’s “Official Duties,” Either

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:39:42 +0000

Conyers should ask about these oaths on the 25th, huh?

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:01:04 +0000

Heard that too. Seems to have been required in the Bush White House. I wonder if Mukasey has taken that oath, too.

By: victoria2dc

victoria2dc — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:25:02 +0000

I agree, it’s unclear and could go either way. Like I said this would be brand new caselaw, this has never been tested before.

The congressional leadership cannot permit an impeachment of Bush. If they did, their own rolls in various things would become known rather than just suspected.

The constitution was not set up to deal with the situtation where all three branches are consipring to violate it.

Boxturtle (The price of Bush being impeached is the Democrat leadership going down in flames, it seems a fair deal to me)

Pelosi and Harman’s roles are written into the record two times that I know of; once in the HJC hearing on June 10th (Addington/Yoo), and the other one was the HJC hearing on June 26th, the hearing with Doug Feith and Phillippe Sands.

Everyone knows it except the media and the American people!

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:52:22 +0000

But… didn’t KKKarl take an oath of office of loyalty to the President?
I mean, isn’t that what Monica Goodling(?) told us they did?

Just a few days ago I heard former AG John Ashcroft also say his oath or loyalty was to the President. Nobody flinched or asked a followup question about that. I think that even the slightest indication of intelligence, common sense and law abiding behavior is a relief, despite such oaths.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:04:05 +0000

The official duties claim is really just part and parcel of the absolute immunity claim which as we know is made up out of thin air as in can you say “stall.”

By: marksb

marksb — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:55:37 +0000

I just don’t understand. I try and try and it just doesn’t compute.
How can “official duties” negate personal responsibility for breaking the law? I know Nixon claimed it, and certainly it’s the operative theory in the current White House, but…
I don’t get it. Can a presidential adviser or employee do anything?
Like murder? Or fixing a legal proceeding?
Doesn’t this go against the lessons of Nuremberg?
I feel like I’ve fallen through the looking glass and it makes my head spin.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:43:39 +0000

As to prosecutors, misconduct, yes; illegality, eh, way thin re the witness sandpapering. As to Rover, criminal or civil Hatch Act violations? Aren’t our roles getting reversed here? Seems like yesterday that these were your arguments….

By: JThomason

JThomason — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:36:58 +0000

“…archive”, even.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:34:42 +0000

Forgive my impatience. You yet speak through the arhive:

Now, as we reluctantly concluded yesterday when we were discussing this, these are probably just civil Hatch Act violations, not criminal ones. And since the penalty for a civil Hatch Act violation is termination, there’s no way we can hold Rove accountable on these terms (though it still seems worthwhile to make the case).

EW: The Significance of the Official Duties Claim, July 11, 2008.

By: JThomason

JThomason — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:11:53 +0000

EW, did you reach a final conclusion concerning whether Rove’s purported statement about channeling resources to the prosecution was merely a nominal violation of Hatch or whether it would instead amount to a punishable violation?