Does somebody have Peter Carr’s office number on speed dial?

EW

I want you to run for office. I want you to be asking these questions next time. Think of it, you could be on the BlueAmerica page and everything. I’d kick in some bucks!

as always, the best bloggin around…

Thanks for your work all day, EW.

OT-Obama bought $5 million in ads during the Olympics:

It’s official. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal’s Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads.

Agree! EW, LHP, and Christy!

I’ll bet a bunch of these answers would start changing if Congress would actually use its power of inherent contempt and start locking people up.

Until then, Rove can just sneer, “you’re a wimp, and everyone knows it”. Congress is the proverbial 97-pound weakling, and every administration official of senior rank is a 190-pound strongman who just kicks sand in their faces and steals their significant others.

ISTM if Democrats wanted to demonstrate to the entire country that they’re a bunch of weak, spineless wimps, they could hardly have done a more convincing job than they’ve already been doing in this Congress. Are they ever going to “get” it? Do they really want this brand?

Bob in HI

So, is Conyers going to or not going to:

1. Find Turdblossom in Contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the subpoena?

2. Find Mumbles Mukasey in Contempt of Congress for failing to act on that and the previous subpoenas (Miers and Bolton)?

Sure, we’ll just stay tuned to find out, but I can’t hold my breath that long.

And is someone on Wexler’s staff going to read EW’s annotation (liveblogging thread one, I think), recognize that Wexler let Mukasey hide behind Fitzgerald’s skirts, and do something about that too?

EW, I don’t think I’ve asked you to run in a year…but now that the idea has once again been raised, I’d love to see you in congress asking the tough questions.
Anyone opened a campaign committee yet?

PS: I should clarify (and EW will clarify better): it wasn’t Wexler who annoyed me; it was Mukasey and the way he sidled around the question. But then that is the problem. Someone has to stop his sidling.

And only tangentially OT, I hope everyone takes the opportunity to read today’s latest from Scott Harper” “Six Questions for Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, Author of In Justice”

She’d make a better AG

I especially like this part:

Yes, I was interviewed by attorneys from both OIG and OPR…I expect the report to be filed any day now. I expect them to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to show that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty committed perjury in their statements before Congressional committees and investigators…

Hey, Dan Abrams just this minute said that the definition of “exclusive” sure has become…(something) akin to what EW said last thread.

OT-Re earlier thread:
Bmaz, the interview where Jane Mayer talks about the ‘drumbeat’ to do something about ‘war crimes’ is with Steve Clemons at minute 12:30. She talks about the penalties later at 27:00.

http://www.newamerica.net/even....._dark_side

EW, you really are some kind of genius, you continualy amaze me with your ability to unravel this gobbledygook and cut to the chase. My brain doesn’t work that way, I am more the direct type. But I have my pitchfork at the ready, just awaiting the word. If the citizens ever wake up to all this, I think there will be a run on pitchforks, and their price will rise dramatically. Just give us the word!

man I cannot say this often enough, it does not matter one iota what the court says, it does not matter one iota what case law might exist, it does not matter one iota what the supreme court says

it matters not one iota

all that matters is what congress is going to do about it, and since they will do absolutely nothing then all the priviledge this president claims DOES INDEED EXIST

no matter what our understanding of past court rulings, no matter how specific the constitution or existing law might be

I will say the following and it is brutally obvious once told, yet not realized until spoken;

“congress is powerless unless they use their power”

bing

the president has NO POWER WHAT SO EVER THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT THEMSELVES GRANT

none

all they need to do is the following to the president;

‘comply or be removed from office”

the supreme court cannot stop them, no law can stop them, no precident, nothing

“comply or be removed from congress”

and until they do that the president has every single bit of power he claims

if he claims he can ignore the election and remain president, and congress does nothing about it, then unless there is a revolution the president can indeed hold office ad infinitum

no udnerstanding of law maters, all that matters is what congress will do about this despot

“congress has no power unless they use their power”

“the president has all power unless congress uses their power to stop it”

It’s all that time line stuff; a truly amazing steel trap mind..that’s our EW.

I saw some of the video, very pixellatedly grainy it was. I, too, thought it was Wexler, who quickly pinned Mukasey with inventing a new privilege, and Mukasey looked as if abandoning the Fielding provided training, but the interchange involved unceremonious interruptions ending in Mukasey retrenchment once terminology suited the rehearsal. I have seen this performance in deposition training many times, and Mukasey was fairly deft once he discovered that quickly uttering several concepts lined with keywords dulled the initial accuracy of Wexler’s interrogatory. Then HJC’s feed ebbed and other responsibilities beckoned a share of my available time. I will read more of the liveblogs Real Soon Now.

perris, that’s pretty much the bottom line, is it not?

when i called the HJC offices last week to ask simply for an explanation as to just why they would not move forward with impeachment hearings, the very nice intern (no doubt) said it was because the senate did not have the votes to remove them from office. uh, so? you don’t conduct the hearing because the other body won’t do its job? so you blow yours off? then he - nicely - said it would freeze congress and they couldn’t get any legislative work done. uh, again, so? like you’ve done so much in the 110th what with all the repugs sagotaging and hobbling your every step (not to mention tripping all over yourselves to out-repug the repugs; nope, didn’t say that), and that constant veto threat, yeah, i can see why you wouldn’t want to slow down. actually, truth be told, really lit in to the poor guy (with appropriate apologies for unloading on him when he has no power or say, but …he did answer the phone). had the leadership truly understood how they we won back congress, they would have made these abuse of power issues a top priority and aggressively exposed them, forcing each and every member to step up to renouncing the scumbags with their votes to impeach, and THEN you might have gotten some real work done. work that would stick and not be burdened with all the repug nonsense. but instead here we are, stuck in the middle with the bush mafia.

he then had to beg off, no time. but he was very polite, i have to say, and truly wanted to satisfy my query. but that appears to be the talking points, folks. (and for the record, that was a helluva lot further than i got with nancy pelosi’s office; so much for accessibility.)

yup; the prez has as much power as congress will concede. the dems are showing all the signs of learned helplessness. could be indicative of being tortured all these years with conservative constitution deconstruction and reality fixing. still, hard to sympathize with the ones who have bailed.

“Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping, and unintelligent. –H. L. Mencken

“As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”—H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

not to mention, DREAMY! Did you see the photo of her and watertiger at NN?

Still swoonin’ after all these years.

Mukasey: With all due respect, that’s a matter that is still being litigated on which I can’t comment any further.

Well, didn’t he just put the D in disingenuous. IIRC the reason that this is being litigated right now is that it was he, Attorney General Mukasey, who refused to do his job and enforce the subpoenas against Miers and Bolton which forced the “matter” into litigation.

From Democratic Underground:

Cass Sunstein, an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton–or even the “slight appearance” of it. Update: Sunstein emailed to emphasize that he also said and believes that “egregious crimes should not be ignored.”

I put up a diary on Oxdown, before it collapsed, arguing that progressive blog readers and writers have some leverage with Obama, and should use it to demand accountability.

We are not going to get anything but the shaft. I’m ready to abandon Obama and focus on electing more and better democrats.

Thanks, EW for figuring out the distinction and the bait and switch: executive privilege and absolute immunity. I wish Congress and the Press were proactive in this issue and paying more attention to your website.

I have a simple question about the following exchange today between Sanches and Mukasey:

Sanchez: But [Rove] has not offered to be under oath or be subjected to a transcript, and my understanding from prior court law–and I would expect an Attorney General to understand this as well–is that if the White House wishes to invoke a claim of Executive Privilege, the witness still has to present himself before Congress and claim that privilege on a question by question basis.

Mukasey: With all due respect, that’s a matter that is still being litigated on which I can’t comment any further.

Exactly who is litigating what? And where? Do we know which judge will hear this case?

Does the case Mukasey alludes to have to do with executive privilege or absolute immunity or both?

Oh, Helen. Thanks. I think you just answered part of my question.

I said from the very start, the democrats have to deal with the republicans, offer them unchallenged seats, offer them pork, offer them whatever it takes to get rid of this despot BEFORE THE ELECTIONS

this IS VERY IMPORTANT

they need to march into the republicans office, make sure they are NOT WIRETAPPED, and they need to say the following;

“obama WILL be president after the next election, ALL POWER THIS PRESIDENT HAS AMASSED WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO OBAMA, we WILL politisize ALL OFFICES just like this president did, WE WILL MAKE CERTAIN YOU ARE OUT OF OFFICE NEXT ELECTION, we can do this simply by doing what karl rove has done, prosecute you whether or not you comitted any crime, karl rove according to the president does not even have to answer for that crime and neither will we UNLESS YOU HELP US PROSECUTE HIM

the president MADE IT PERFECTLY LEGAL TO SPY ON YOU AND YOUR COLLEGUES, we as the majority party WILL use this now legal power to listen on ALL your conversations and we WILL prevent you from beng producte

THIS IS THE POWER YOU HAVE GIVEN A PRESIDENT

now, you either deal with us now or suffer the consequences after the election

WE ARE GOING TO REMOVE THIS DESPOT FROM OFFICE and you ARE going to help us

if not, you will be removed from your seat of power and we will make CERTAIN you will not profit in retirement”

now, which congress criters have the balls?

Mukasey: With all due respect, that’s a matter that is still being litigated on which I can’t comment any further.

Exactly who is litigating what? And where? Do we know which judge will hear this case?

I was thinking exactly the same thing, I suspect meyers?

Except that we have no choice for this presidential cycle. I’m unhappy with Obama on FISA and his religion/state issues, but proud of him on so many issues including his behavior overseas. I ordered goodies from his campaign to take with me to Panama. I’m thinking the Panamanians will love his campaign buttons and stickers. Totally with you on electing new and better democrats.

EWINAL

If they don’t want it, we can claim it and kick them out of the party!

There were some real unexpected and unforeseen bugs with the Oxdown integration. This is extremely unfortunate, I have seen masaccio’s article, and it is very good. The second Oxdown is up and going, I wholeheartedly recommend that everyone take a look at it.

maybe there’s no interaction between congressmen(women)to explicitly define the issues thus they go into these hearings unprepared or unaware of the real issues.All they would have to due,aside from reading these posts, is get their own legal advice before they go into the hearings.Mumbles is an adversary and should be treated as one not as a consultant giving guidance because if they don’t know by now Mumbles not only isn’t going to tell them anything he’s going to do everything he can to evade and avoid being pinned down on anything. Just because they aren’t lawyers is no excuse to be unprepared.This is the problem they have always had
Like Addington said “I’m not here to give legal advice,you have your own attys for that”
Most of these congressman know just enough to be dangerous and should swallow their pride and come to grips with that fact.They should recognize their shortcomings and get rid of their egos and consult with someone who knows what their doing
Maybe you can’t outsource intelligence after all

The second Oxdown is up and going.

It is? Where?

Yeah, well, when they are given advice on how to do just that, even when it was them soliciting it, they still screw up and blather about and disregard the advice and preparation.

Let me rephrase that, the moment Oxdown is up and going.

Hmmm. The new Democratic Congresswoman from Michigan, Emptywheel ?

I could get behind that and push, but I wonder, does this wheel use $4/gallon gas or does it run on biofuels?

I hope Obama gets elected. I’m just not inclined to throw money at him, or work for him. My money and efforts will go to Vic Wulsin and three or four other candidates who will support progressive issues.

What is Obama going to do to advance progressive issues to justify your money and efforts? As noted, it doesn’t look like he will move on accountability, an issue of great importance to me. Electing progressives is more important in the long run.

I agree. Put your efforts (and $$$) where you get the most return for your effort.

Are there restrictions that prohibit representatives or senators from having legal assitants at a hearing?

Nope, I think they often have staffers and whatnot sitting behind them or in the room.

Dear miss Sanchez in light of the importance of this hearing I would like to offer the services of the FDL legal team to assist you with your questioning of Mumbles in the upcoming hearing to ensure that you don’t FUCK IT UP !!!

I think the proximity depends on the hearing room and format from what I have seen over the years; clearly in the one today, there was no ability to have assistants seated right behind them, but I have seen it in other settings.

Mukasey: As I understand it, Mr. Rove acted at the request of the President in response to the invocation of Executive Privilege. He has offered to meet with staff, he has offered to discuss the matter–

Executive Privilege means you can’t talk about what you said to the President period. What is this offer to meet with staff to discus the matter, unless Karl just does not want to testify under oath?
Since Karl is willing to talk to Congress I assume with Bush’s permission but just not under oath, well Executive Privilege does not work that way.
My Lawyer does not testify about what I said Attorney Client Privilege he also does not talk about what I say off the record even if by talking off the record AND LYING he is protected from perjury.
By this action though has Bush waived any claim to Executive Privilege by Karl Rove in this matter?
Because Bush has freed Karl to talk about this matter just not under oath, but the system does not work like that.

Sanchez ignored Mukasey’s premise–that absolute immunity must be based on a proper claim of Executive Privilege–which it was not in this case.

Mukasey absolute immunity argument is bull and more importantly a stall for time Bush is running out the clock. But this bull claim rests on Executive Privilege which I am sure Bush will assert again to stall for more time after the Absolute Immunity argument is dashed.

I think there is a need to think about things in another way.

What has happened over the Bush Presidency has been worse than Watergate because it is about the sytematic corruption of the system.

But Obama’s advisor is right,and Pelosi has probably been right all along,to avoid serial impeachments, because to the public, the very fact that is is happening in the depths of the legal system makes it incomprehensible. We mainly understand it, because we are kept educated by Marcy et al, but they don’t. They could understand burglary. Come to that, they could understand infidelity.

But it is always important to look forward. What has happened is not going to be changed.

I suggest the way to deal now, hopefully near the end of the rule of the extrme right in the US,is to concentrate on seeking undertakings from the Democrats who will hopefully be the next Administration.

1 Demand that the President keep Party and Government operations separate, and be seen to do so.

2 Demand a commitment to ensure the OVP is a branch of the Executive, and the junior one at that, as it always was before Barnacle Dick.

3 Demand a commitment that in Government, starting with the DOJ, a clear unambiguous mission to serve the public in a non-partisan manner will be strongly asserted and followed through. You know I don’t think that is as difficult as you think. I suspect lots more Republican lawyers in Government than you know of are embarrassed by the current state of things.

The reps on the upper tier had staff sitting behind them, and the senators always do at hearings. Most of those staffers look so young to me, but I guess that makes them bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for the long grind. Are they all legal advisers — ie, are some there more for practical assistance, finding the right docs, distributing copies, holding up displays, etc?

Nothing at all in the papers today about Mukasey’s testimony yesterday. His last testimony before Congress and not a word about it.

After reviewing as much of yesterday’s HJC questioning of Mukasey as I could stomach (& I don’t just mean the frustrating 5 mins each w/Sanchez & Wexler), I can’t imagine why Rove wouldn’t be delighted to testify.

Like Mukasey, & Addington before him, Rover can assure himself of running circles around this bunch by dictating the flow of Dem questioning.

Unless a plan to give Artur Davis 20 mins. or so to grill KR on the Siegelman matter was agreed upon (& that will never happen) why should Rove be worried? He can just review his predecessors’ appearances & use the same tactics to lead the Dems by the nose.

Sorry to be so negative, John, Linda, & Co, but you were no match for AG Mukluk (p.s.- it’s hard to “think on yr. feet” when you’ve tied yourself to slogging through presets on a piece of paper you’re reading. “I have a lot of questions to get through?” How about just “getting through” one of them in depth?)

Questioning of AGMM was beyond disappointing. What an infuriating missed opportunity.

It’s the Miers/Bolton case before John Bates right now. A decision is expected in August. Most people think Bates will just say Congress hasn’t taken all the steps it can do on its own (inherent contempt) so dump it back to Congress to deal with, though I’ve spoken to at least one person involved who is more optimistic that Congress will get a favorable ruling of some kind. In any case, it will be appealed.

Biofuels. But might I point out that I’d be running against the longest incumbent in the House, John Dingell?

Not Gonna Happen.

As I point out in the post, Bush did NOT invoke executive privilege here. He invoked absolute immunity. Different thing, one that rests with the person, and not with the conversation.

I have to say, I’m normally pretty critical of Wexler. He did very well for himself yesterday.

I was unable to watch the hearing with Mukasey yesterday. Went to the HJC site can not get into listen to yesterdays hearing. Any suggestions?

For Wexler, he was fine, I’ll agree w/that. Wexler always impresses me as a bit of a blowhard, but his heart’s in the right place. The tone of the entire hearing angered me- guess my attitude was soured by the ease of Mukasey’s skirting the salient issues, the Dems general lack of probing to get some depth to his answers.

I watched a TiVo of it, but here’s a link to CSPAN archived version you can view w/their flash vid:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/.....d=206525-1

Sunstein is clearly singing the “let’s move on bus” theme song coming out of both Dems and Repubs. They all need to get out on the streets more Americans are starving for Accountability NOW

thanks

Sanchez: But he has not offered to be under oath or be subjected to a transcript, and my understanding from prior court law–and I would expect an Attorney General to understand this as well–is that if the White House wishes to invoke a claim of Executive Privilege, the witness still has to present himself before Congress and claim that privilege on a question by question basis.

Mukasey: With all due respect, that’s a matter that is still being litigated on which I can’t comment any further.

Sanchez: But prior case law has held that that is the case.

Mukasey: DON’T KNOW THAT. I know that is a matter under active litigation and is I believe sub judice before a judge in–

Sanchez: So you agree that Karl Rove can disregard a congressional subpoena–

Mukasey: What I’m saying is the question of whether an immediate advisor to the President has to appear at all when a proper claim of has been made of Executive Privilege is a matter that I believe is actively before a District judge and I shouldn’t comment anymore on that and I won’t.

“DON’T KNOW THAT” Was that the U.S. Attorney General saying that? That is frightening and pathetic. Did he really mean that?

EW I bow to your “steel trap brain” and your commitment to Justice, but was that really a Sanchez “thumping”? I really thought Sanchez got a message through that the AG was unwilling to enforce the law and more than willing to go along with the Bush administrations revamping of the law. I thought she made it crystal clear just who Mukasey is representing and how he persists in obstructing justice.

Nothing at all in the papers today about Mukasey’s testimony yesterday. His last testimony before Congress and not a word about it.

It had such a high priotiy for CSPAN that they only aired it @ 2:15 a.m. middle of last night on CSPAN2.
If the TiVo hadn’t already been programmed to catch it, I’d have been SOL.

More coffee needed- that’s “priority” &
HJC hearing was aired @ 2:15 ET.

We don’t agree about this. If we don’t punish the people who have violated the laws we have about government, they will come back, just like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Negroponte and a host of others.

We can have pledges, we can create new laws, we can have a decent set of people in office for a while. None of that will stop them the next time they get into office.

Laws that are not enforced are not laws. They’re just requests.

Tangential, but related to Arar: more evidence that the Canadian government is full of slavish idiots in thrall to BushCo:

“Senior government of Canada officials should be mindful of the potential reaction of our U.S. counterparts to Abdelrazik’s return to Canada as he is on the U.S. no-fly list,” intelligence officials say in documents in the possession of The Globe and Mail.

“Continued co-operation between Canada and the U.S. in the matters of security is essential. We will need to continue to work closely on issues related to the Security of North America, including the case of Mr. Abdelrazik,” the document says.

Although heavily redacted, the documents illuminate a government keen to placate the Bush administration, irrespective of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Abdelrazik, who has lived in the lobby of the Canadian embassy in Khartoum for nearly three months.

I’m too angry about this to be coherent.

One thing I think you guys are missing about how Rove operated in AL–Scott Horton has mentioned this several times but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else touch it–is that Rove (and/or Rove’s associates) laundered their communications to the DoJ through several journalists in AL. If you’ve read Eddie Curran (Mobile Register) and Brett Blackledge’s (Birmingham News) coverage of Siegelman, you know that: 1. they had inside information about the grand juries, the grand jury testimony, the evidence against Siegelman, and so on, and 2. _after_ Curran and Blackledge published articles accusing Siegelman of various crimes, the DoJ announced that they were opening investigations in to Siegelman _based on_ Curran and Blackledge’s articles.

Rove may or may not have directly leaked to Curran and Blackledge–he could have used an intermediate, of course–but both journalists were clearly laundering information _from_ the DoJ (and possibly other law enforcement sources) to the DoJ. There were multiple investigations into Siegelman. If you read the AL press, it looks like information that surfaced–legally or not–in early investigations was laundered through Curran and Blackledge to create new investigations and keep the pressure on Siegelman. It is, of course, remotely possible that Curran and Blackledge were innocent of working directly with the GOP and Rove’s office early on–maybe they just thought Rove and Co. were great sources–but after a while they had to know they were being used as information laundries aimed at influencing the DoJ. It seems likely that Rove set up much of operation in AL this way, knowing that using these journalists was safe. Among other things, the journalists would never tell because it would destroy their careers to do so and, of course, if pressured, everyone could hide behind jouralistic confidentiality.

In short, Curran and Blackledge are the Judith Millers of the Siegelman prosecutions. This angle is going to be tough to purse but without sorting out the roles of these two journalists, it’s hard to make sense of what Rove was up to in AL. No, Rove probably didn’t call up Alice and tell her to get Siegelman. What he did was leak information he gathered from DoJ sources to Curran and Blackledge to provide a smoke screen for Martin to continue to go after Siegelman. No timeline of the Siegelman affair is complete without the relevant Mobile Register and Birmingham News articles. Those articles couldn’t have been written without inside DoJ knowledge and without them Martin couldn’t have continued going after Siegelman.

You have a lot of company in yr. feelings about this- from Patrick F. in the pile of comments @ G&M:

The situation would be completely understandable if this man were, indeed, a proven terrorist.
As of yet, no proof of his guilt has been provided, so it is the duty of the Canadian government to bring one of its own home.
And if the Americans don’t like it, that is entirely their problem.
Are there any politicians with backbone left in Canada? Pierre Elliot Trudeau was never afraid of offending the American administration - unlike Harper, he was a man of character.

Bring this man home!

Even if there were some evidence of something — which there isn’t, and that has been known for years — I would still think that this was wrong. If he’s a Canadian accused of terrorism for any good reason at all, bring him back here and try him here — in a, like, y’know, real court? (As far as I know, all our courts are still real courts. Thank heaven for small mercies.)

The ironies in these stories just keep on tumbling out. Syria and Sudan are valued partners for the Bush administration? Run that by me again? And this a week after the chief prosecutor for the ICC announces that he is going to indict Sudan’s president on genocide charges? (No wonder BushCo don’t like the ICC.) skdadl’s head hurt — too much illogic.

Your post was full of insight into how Rove operates. I pray for the safety of Ms. Simpson? who is being smeared and threatened as well.

Its all about plausible deniability and stonewalling till our ADD population forgets the facts.

I look forward to hearing from Siegelman today!

Do you feel Harper & his minions will blow w/the prevailing wind on this one? That there’s a good chance Mr. Abdelrazik can return to Montreal only after 1/09?

It’s very hard to say just now. There are several intertwined cases — seven, in fact. At the moment, Harper is stonewalling about Omar Khadr, but public feeling is finally beginning to rise — and U.S. legal decisions against the GTMO processes certainly help on that score.

Harper could be facing an election any time this fall, and while he definitely is in Washington’s pocket, it is never good to look that way during elections. So … I dunno. I’ve been thinking they might cave on Khadr, although they still sound oblivious. These docs about Abdelrazik could tip the balance because of the way those memos were worded.

I disagree. You can’t get all snitty with the AG when you, yourself, are unclear on the issues and you let him make unchallenged assertions that–if challenged, would put him in a much more precarious situation.

Thanks for that, numbertwo. I’ve pointed to the way Rove continues to try to use journalists as laundromats in this case–though I’ve definitely focused on how he’s tried to get Dan Abrams and 60 Minutes to reveal their backup information.

Any chance you can show up today at 12 and ask Siegelman what he thinks of that.

Sure looks like tcongress is just making “request”

Rep Cannon ” So I take it you are aware that he (Rove) is on a long planned trip”?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....-hearings/

You certainly have a deeper understanding. I am giving you my honest take from what I saw and heard on that clip. Plan to watch the whole hearing

Not with Cass Sunstein as an adviser.

Could John Dean, Jonathon Turley or Bruce Fein become advisers for Obama? They talk Accountability all of the time.

I saw two distinctly surprising moments in MM’s testimony that have not been the subject of much discussion yet: MM disagrees with Addington’s position that the VP is a barnacle on the legislative branch and appeared comparitively dismissive of the entire idea, and when asked if conversations with the VP qualify for executive privelige, replied “in the abstract, no”. If I am hearing this correctly, and if, in fact the AG is the final and binding authority on legal interpretations for the executive branch, there is some VERY fertile territory here. I would suggest that the congress needs to find some way to get MM’s opinions on both these matters (in official and hopefully binding opinions). That alone would render (properly) absurd many claims coming out of the executive lately.

I read these latest Mukasey cover ups from emptywheel, and they are so clear and comprehensive - and then I look at the papers, and see nothing, or I look at Congress, who do nothing. Congress seems to have lost interest in pursuing all these cases. August is coming up. Then November is right there. If they’ve lost interest in this now, I can’t imagine them getting more interest in January when a new President is trying to get his own agenda passed.

It’s too sad.

That was during Steve Cohen’s questions, yes? Cohen is another good examiner; he can do things with that sly sense of humour, as can Delahunt. Remember how well they both did with Addington?

“In short, Curran and Blackledge are the the Judith Millers of the Siegelman prosecution”. Or the Bob Novak in the Plame case.

I didn’t pay enough attention to the questioner (I play Diablo while listening, which means I sacrifice some detail in return for not being bored senseless or angered to distraction by the utter nonsense that constitute 90% of the questions and 99% of the answers).

I watched the entirety of the broadcast of the Watergate hearings when they happened, and I remember the questions being sharp and the answers being informative. I wonder what happened. Something needs to be done to make hearings more confrontational and MAKE the subjects either answer in a responsive manner or face immediate, answer-by-answer contempt citations.

emptywheel:

Congratulations Congresswoman Sanchez, you blew the best opportunity we have had to pressure Mukasey into either endorsing Rove’s claim that his “official duties” pertain to making sure Governor Siegelman gets prosecuted, or to refer Rove’s imminent contempt citation to USA Jeff Taylor.

I have trouble following this. I don’t understand what you expect “endorsing Rove’s claim that his ‘official duties’ pertain to making sure Governor Siegelman gets prosecuted” to potentially lead to. If that question were ever insistently posed to them wouldn’t they just improvise and assert it’s Rove’s person as an advisor that is absolutely immune and that his “duties” aren’t the issue? They are, after all, just making shit up.

I thought this exchange made it crystal clear how Mukasey is more than willing to be part of the team who have been changing the rules midstream to obstruct justice.

There are some exacting rules about the manner in which they may make shit up, I think, or at very least some strategic considerations. The claim of EP (or any other privilege they decide to make up) would only be “properly” made if it related to official duties. Should the AG say that it did NOT apply to his official duties, in a hearing or other official setting, the courts that hear the dispute on said privilege would take notice (or, rather, SHOULD take notice) of that pronouncement and find against the privilege being asserted.

Kind of off topic but not really. Slate has a really cool tool to use showing the crimes and criminals in the imperial administration of Lord Bush

I was just looking at that interactive tool. It is great fun and very informative, but it doesn’t include records act or hatch act violations. Of course, if it did, there wouldn’t be enough room to list the possible or probable defendants and might crash everyones computers….

202-616-2777

202-616-2777

Let’s help with the re-focused campaign.

I am done with crap like this and have decided to become a thorn…Who would like to join me in backing EW with a non-stop phone call effort to DOJ Deputy Director of Public Affairs, Peter Carr?

Here’s the question we need an answer to:

Did DOJ tell Fred Fielding that Rove’s “official duties” include obstruction of justice and channeling oppo research from Alabama Republicans to the DOJ?

or asked another way…

Did DOJ tell Fred Fielding that Rove’s official duties include witch hunts against Democrats?

The sad part about this, is that there are a thousand ways Rove could prompt oppo work without stating a thing but play word games, quiet nods and references to literature to make his point to proceed with destroying anyone. Rove could state until he’s blue in the face that he did not talk to anyone in DOJ. Now did he direct people through deceptively coercive and seemingly non-coercive means? You betcha.

Call today. Post any responses.

the courts that hear the dispute on said privilege

I’m fundamentally ignorant of where the Fielding claim will go next: will a court be looking at it? Who’s going to pass the issue on to that court?

And, come time, any repug involved in the process of submitting these questions should be charged with obstruction.

Super-OT

bmaz is advised to check out this Crooked Timber thread for his working thread later on.

I apologize for injecting trash talk yesterday.

Been on the “thorn” bus for a long time. Called last week will call again.

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” T.J.

On Obama, Dennis Ross as an adviser on the middle east (not much will change in the I/P conflict with Ross’s influence, unless you balance his influence with Prof Norm Finkelstein, Noam Cholmsky or Former President Jimmy Carter as advisers on the middle east)

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183

Sanchez: There are a number of different areas of questioning that I have and I’m going to try to get through them as quickly as I can.

And here we see the problem again. No time for follow up. Nose to the sheet of paper. And dancing witnesses. Until such time as evidence is clearly obtained outside of the congress and clearly documented by investigative reporters AND followed up by LOCAL prosecutors these hearings are a joke. Unless they really want to get into it. And focus! Use the Section 2C of the committee rules. Or change the rules.

Calling and questioning of witnesses

snip…

(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and
(C), each committee shall apply the
five-minute rule during the questioning
of witnesses in a hearing until
such time as each member of the committee
who so desires has had an opportunity
to question each witness.
(B) A committee may adopt a rule or
motion permitting a specified number
of its members to question a witness
for longer than five minutes. The time
for extended questioning of a witness
under this subdivision shall be equal
for the majority party and the minority
party and may not exceed one hour
in the aggregate.

(snip…

” Mukasey: As I understand it, Mr. Rove acted at the request of the President in response to the invocation of Executive Privilege. He has offered to meet with staff, he has offered to discuss the matter–

Sanchez: But he has not offered to be under oath or be subjected to a transcript, and my understanding from prior court law–and I would expect an Attorney General to understand this as well–is that if the White House wishes to invoke a claim of Executive Privilege, the witness still has to present himself before Congress and claim that privilege on a question by question basis.

Mukasey: With all due respect, that’s a matter that is still being litigated on which I can’t comment any further.

Sanchez: But prior case law has held that that is the case.

Mukasey: Don’t know that. I know that is a matter under active litigation and is I believe sub judice before a judge in–

Sanchez: So you agree that Karl Rove can disregard a congressional subpoena–

Mukasey: What I’m saying is the question of whether an immediate advisor to the President has to appear at all when a proper claim of has been made of Executive Privilege is a matter that I believe is actively before a District judge and I shouldn’t comment anymore on that and I won’t.”

1. Clearly he has not “seen” anything in writing personally from Bush to Rove or he wouldn’t say “I believe”.

2. Clearly, he is not somehow not privy to actual documentation regarding EP in the “litigation”.

3. He’s been told to STFU and is basically out of the loop.

4. He’s like Schultz…..”I know nothing”…

Maybe the President has claimed EP to Mukasey regarding Mukasey’s request about something in the litigation in order to keep Mukasey out of the loop.

Feilding and Addington are running the United States.