I'm not sure what to think of this story--("GOP Operative: Rove Sought To Smear Dem, 60 Minutes: Woman Says Top Bush Adviser Asked Her To Take Compromising Pictures Of Alabama Gov. Siegelman" - CBS News), I'm wondering how a photo could have been compromising without Siegelman's complicity. In any event, I guess I'm most bothered by what seems to be a lie by Rove that he never attempted to "discredit" Siegelman. Rove hardly has a corner on brass knuckled opposition research of this sort. But that's not what I noticed from the article.
In what seems like a spit shine for Siegelman, the reporter writes:
"(former Governor, now convicted felon Don) Siegelman was the only politician in Alabama history to be elected to all four of the state’s highest offices of secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor, and he did it as a Democrat in the heavily Republican state."Yes, Alabama votes for Republican presidents (you know, because they're racist), but this "observation" is patently foolish to anyone who knows anything about Alabama politics. Obviously Siegelman painted a big bullseye on his back by daring to hold office in such a Red State . . . not exactly.
29 comments:
Rove is a criminal. He materminded the attorney firings. Now we know why Arizona attorney Paul Charlton was one of the nine U.S. attorneys fired last year. He lost his job because of his active investigation of Republican Congressman Renzi. That’s how the Bush administration does business - they protect the criminals when justice is sought. We’ve seen this over and over… from the ignored subpoenas to the telecom immunity sham.
Rick Renzi (R-AZ) has just been indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and more. Renzi is member of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) National Leadership Team.
Actually, that sounds more like how the moral relativists do business. Whatever.
I'm hoping Renzi gets what he deserves.
About the telecom immunity "sham"; are you talking about the one that passed by the Democrat controlled Senate?
I thought you might be interested in our new Huckabee video, "A Call to Texans." You can view the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhApGSuT2BY
Please post this on your blog and pass it on to all your friends in Texas!
Nice video, 11Smiths. Thanks for the link.
BTW, how did y'all do in the TN delegate election?
Glad you got to see 60 Minutes tonight and the exposure of another disgusting chapter in the Republican Culture of Corruption. We've heard about political prisoners in Cuba and China, well the Bush Administration has one in Alabama.
This is a case that is so replete with 'southern good ole boy' Republican corruption that many Republicans are speaking out. 52 former states’ attorneys general from both parties petitioned Congress to investigate the conviction of Siegelman, resulting in hearings held last fall.
However, nothing could be accomplished because the Bush administration refused to hand over hundreds of requested documents vital to the investigation and Karl Rove - the disgusting coward criminal, and others refused to show up when subpoenaed. If the case against was good, why is the Bush Administration hiding from the investigation?
Astonishing is how this same U.S. Attorney and Department of Justice dealt with Siegelman’s successor, current Governor Bob Riley. Riley and many of his most senior associates are closely tied to criminal Jack Abramoff, perhaps the single most scandal-ridden figure in U.S. political history. No problem there!
What Siegelman is accused of is the sort of thing that transpires in American politics every day. HealthSouth had no interest in anything before the oversight board in question, and its CEO had been appointed to the same board by three prior governors. This is corruption? BS.
You know Ned, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Someday, long after Bush is gone, we'll see how deep this rabbit hole goes, how much corruption and illegal activity was masterminded by Rove, Cheney... (Bush, probably not bright or devious enough, just approving and complicit).
Now you know why BushCo won't comply with subpoenaes in the attorney firings... another of many impeachable offenses.
BTW Ned, down in Soviet Alabama, parts of the 60 MINUTES broadcast was blacked out. They said it was a 'technical glitch.' ...my ass...trying to tell us that a glitch in New York ONLY happened in Alabama -- which is the topic of the 60 Minutes broadcast -- and ONLY during the Don Siegelman segment. Unfreaakin'believable.
Sorry, I missed 60 Minutes. Glad that they delivered the product you wanted, though.
And that "'southern good ol' boy' Republican corruption" is a howler, William. Yes, history will ferret out all of this (heck, haven't a whole bunch of books and town councils already chronicled the travesty?) But I'm sure that the Democratic-controlled Congress will somehow be worked into the conspiracy, right?
Calm down, William . . . people might start saying you have a mental disorder or something.
So, I guess you're calling all the Republicans liars who have come forward saying this was a politically engineered vendetta and smear campaign? Right Ned, my bad, must be BDS. How could I possibly imagine a political vendetta when Judge Fuller, a lifelong Republican Party activist who participated in two bitterly fought election campaigns against Siegelman, had him immediately shackled, handcuffed and taken to the pen after sentencing? Can you imagine if they did that to Libby? Hell, they didn't even treat Abramoff that way.
Right after the conviction, Republican Governor Bob Riley was flown to DC to discuss damage control with Rove. BTW... Gov Riley's Press Secretary was Michael Scanlon who plead guilty of bribery in the Abramoff case.
Nice bunch you support.
And... thanks once again for demonstrating to us your integrity and christian moral values.
Yes, I'm a Republican, if that's what you're insinuating.
Guess I won't need to watch 60 Minutes since you recounted all the bullet points on the blog here.
And you're not being judgmental again, are you William? (After all, you know all that Christian stuff is a bunch of malarkey, right?)
BTW, Rove lied again today and said on Fox News that he was NOT contacted by 60 Minutes.
Yes Ned, you've proven that you are completely subject to 'group think.'
BTW Ned, you should be proud of Karl Rove. He succeeded in electing your hero, GW - the president that will go down in history for his incompetence and the most impeachable offences of any president in history. We know Rove's methods, he was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign for planting a negative story with Bob Novack. You remember what he did with McCain in 2000, right?
Rove smeared McCain by planting the story that he had "committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute," according to the New Yorker.
Remember the church fliers in SC that labeled McCain "the fag candidate?" That was more of Rove's brilliance. You should be proud. He knows exactly how to manipulate you christ-ees.
"group think." Help me out, here; I'm assuming that is one bullet point on your Authoritarian Cultist check list?
No, I didn't know those things about Rove (though I've heard some about the SC2000 molehill but never heard Rove's connection), not that I necessarily believe you or any other Liberals on the issue.
And I'm still waiting for ONE impeachment of Bush or Cheney or whomever, William. Put up or shut up.
But based on your words and actions, it appears to me that he's an expert at manipulating folks like you.
How many abuses of power, how many ignored Freedom of Information requests denied, how many subpoenaes ignored, how many emails 'lost', how many signing statements, how many millions spied upon, how many lies have to be told and documentaries written to burst your bubble of denial ... that our christian president's godly administration wouldn't or couldn't ever do anything wrong, illegal, corrupt or dishonest?
You bushies are amazing. Definitely a case study.
What is the mental disorder that sees an impeachable offense behind every tree?
You and your party are guilty of that, William. Oh, I know, cite me a KOStistic about how many Vermont town councils have voted to impeach, investigate, (dis)embowel the Chimp and his cronies; and how many books have been written DOCUMENTING!! the corruption. Put up or shut up, William.
(I need to hang around DailyKos, I guess, but are signing statements now impeachable offenses?)
No Ned, you need a little professional and ethical development. I suggest hanging around constitutional scholars, (maybe a psychologist could help too).
an impeachable offense behind every tree
???
I happen to have the law, the Constitution, ethics and the weight of consensus of expert legal opinion on my side. What do you have? A penchant for authoritarian dogmatism.
Considering your profession and your abject denial, you make an excellent case study. An answer to the question, "How could this happen in America?"
I feel a blog post coming on.
Sorry for the non-secularist reference . . . "demon behind every tree" --> "impeachable offense behind every tree," get it? How 'bout this one? "if the only tool you have is a congressional subpoena power, every Republican action looks like an impeachable offense." Naah, that's not as good.
For someone who tells me he has a PhD, you ought to realize that lining up a bunch of Liberal attorneys on a given legal position doesn't prove much of anything--except perhaps a serious case of BDS. ;)
Get some rest, William, you'll probably need it to be able to run interference for your boy or gal's administration.
A bunch of liberal attorneys, there all incompetent enemies of the state, libs.
Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton produced a total of 322 signing statements btween them. By 2/1/08 Bush has issued over 1100 signing statements that challanged federal law. You see nothing wrong with this when the experts in your own profession have concluded they are
"contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers"?
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Violation of Presidential Records Act, failure to comply with Freedom of Information act, Congressional subpeonaes, 4th Amendment violations, attorney firings, how many more would you like? You think I'm making this stuff up?
Oh, here's another of many... but pay no mind, the author probably ius infected with BDS.. a lib.
HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL:
"There are too many crimes and blunders to choose among. I will focus here on one central disaster, the use made of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and one egregious constitutional violation, the abrogation of habeas corpus."
-- Gerald L. Neuman, J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.
Yeah, you mentioned all that in your first comment.
But wow, you have a Harvard Law professor that supports some of your argument!?!
Give me a break, William.
I guess it wasn't a threat to democracy when Bubba issued signing statements? When he ignored subpoenae? When he . . . when he . . .
I will hand it to you, y'all have an unsurpassed war room, and I know those guys--though incredibly prolific, are getting tired after losing two elections that y'all had in the bag. But you get into trouble when start believing your press clippings (esp. the ones written by your anti-Republican buddies in the MSM).
Ned, If Bush approved it, you could make a case for why Jesus would torture, spy, kill, or violate justice. There are no shades of gray with such religious authoritarians as you. The enemies are numerous. Thanks for providing a great case study. It'll be valuable for future reference and research. A great study in -
1. Complete submission to authority
2. Abject denial
3. Suspension of professional logic and ethics where the world is filtered through a political/religious perception where the reality is: "either you're for us or you're against us."
4. A high degree of self righteousness
5. Rationalization and absolution from any and all failings of yourself or your leaders gained in part through religious conviction (and your association with Bush to Christianity)
When you get called on your ethics you will either: deny, refuse to admit, blame someone else, or say 'they did it too'. That's about as deep as it goes.
Primarily how authoritarian loyalty trumps reason, intergrity, ethics - even in someone who is trained to know better.
I would think you'd have some respect for the opinion of the ABA - the world's largest association of legal professionals, the body that accredits the very law school that granted your law degree. (BTW- The ABA Blue Ribbon Task Force that was formed with a cast of legal all-stars from BOTH political parties to investigate the Bush abuse of powers. They described the Bush use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as: "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".
William,
Bush is not God. He's not perfect. He's not Jesus. He's the President. Likewise, he's not Satan. He's not the fount of all evil. He is, however, a Republican, and for you that has all kinds of ramifications.
Signing statements are nothing new. They have been refined to an art from by this president, and I'm guessing you're asserting that by volume the act of a president expressing his/her interpretation of a law (sort of like legislative history is secondary "authority" for interpreting what legislators intended when they passed a law). There is an on-going debate on the issue. The fact that a committee of an organization controlled by the Liberal end of the Bar--the ABA, opines on one side of the issue doesn't make that side of the argument right.
There is a debate about whether enemies-in a war, who are speaking by telephone to persons who happen to be inside the U.S. have a right not to be surveilled. There is a debate about whether FISA applies. Your side (seemingly because Bush is on the other side) holds one view on that issue, and I am willing to accept Bush's interpretation of it.
Congress indeed has subpoena power, but there is a limit to it, my friend. Congress and the Executive branch are CO-EQUAL branches. That is consistent with the separation of powers, so this or that House subcommittee does not have unlimited authority. ON PRINCIPLE, members of the Executive branch shouldn't kowtow to every demand of a hyper-partisan, hyper-petty bunch of politicians. The priorities of US Attorneys--who serve at the pleasure of the President is reason enough to fire them. I thought it was lame for Bill Clinton/Janet Reno to fire almost every USA when she took office, but that was her prerogative. Nevertheless, prosecutors make all kinds of decisions that reflect the policy and values of an administration, so their willingness to pursue the chief executive's priorities is relevant.
When are y'all going to get to work impeaching Dubya? The talk of impeachable offenses amount to sweet nothings whispered in the ears of the Dem base. Where's the beef?
Being challenged on "self-righteousness" by you is ironic, William. Same with dogmatism. Are you blind, man? But I'd like for you to point out places where I've done that.
William, I hate to be causing you so much heartache. You're welcome not to frequent the blog. Will I defend the Republican president from incessant, typically-frivolous, opportunistic demonization? Yep. So don't be shocked.
Is Bush ever wrong? Sure, but not by virtue of being Republican. That's where you and I differ. Study that.
What you've just said is that the Framers system of checks and balances are invalid for this administration.
This is criminal behavior, that is why it is called 'criminal contempt' ... it's like failure to appear.
In an administration that has shown unprecedented secrecy, corruption, abuse of power and cronyism, you call efforts for oversight " hyper partisan and petty"... just like you called the ABA Task Force comprised of members of both parties "hyper partisen."
Sorry, you demonstrate that you do not believe in justice and that abuse of power is ok as long as it is by someone you voted for.
How do you think the American people would vote on whether or not Bush should follow the law and submit the emails required to be logged by the Presidential Records Act? Or compliance with the contempt citations? You have to realize that you are in a very small minority if you believe in this abuse of power ... yet denial is one of your specialties.
As an attorney, isn't it common sence to you that when someone does not comply with an investigation, or simply refuse to turn over documents, that there is a reason for it? What would you suppose the reason is here? You don't think it is reasonable considering the track record here that we should be suspicious?
FYI
The Congression Oversight hearing into the missing emails happened this week and from the transcript:
"...in 2OOO, Dan Burton, who was then Chair of this [Oversight] Committee, alleged that the Clinton Administration deliberately lost and withheld e-mai1s from Congress. Mr. Burton held five hearings on that issue and forced the White House to spend over $11 million to reconstruct 200,000 e-mai1s.
In the end, the overblown charges of wrongdoing were proven false. The silver lining to the Committee's investigation, though, was that the problems in the Automatic Records Management System were addressed. When President Clinton left office and President Bush came into office, the White House had in place a system for archiving White House e-maiIs that complied with the Presidential Records Act.
That is what makes the actions of the Bush Administration so inexplicable.
But that is not all. The White House is also refusing to cooperate with the National Archives. For almost a year the nonpartisan National Archives has been urging the Bush White House to assess the problem of missing e-mails and to take "whatever action may be necessary to restore any missing e-mai1s. "
The lack of cooperation became so severe that, last May, the Archivist himself wrote to the White House Counsel, Fred Fielding, to urge "utmost dispatch" in addressing the missing e-maiIs.
Yet in September 2007, the Archive's General Counsel drafted a memo summarizing the White House's decision to ignore the request of the Archivist. He wrote: "We still have made almost zero progress in actually moving ahead with the important and necessary work that is required for a successful transition. Our repeated requests have gone unheeded. Of most importance, we still know virtually
nothing about the status of the alleged missing White House e-mai1s."
The Archives also asked the White House to start recovering official e-mails that the Republican National Committee deleted pursuant to its policy of regularly purging
e-maiIs from its servers. These repeated requests have also been rebuffed. In fact, the RNC has informed our Committee that it has no intention of trying to restore the missing White House e-mails from backup tapes containing past RNC e-mail records."
Clearly, a willful violation of the law.
William,
What you consider to be "unprecedented," "corrupt," "secre[t]" etc. ain't necessarily so.
Like I said above, and elsewhere, and previously, you presume that Bush and anyone in his administration is evil, ruthless, unscrupulous, unprincipled, etc. Thus, you see an impeachable offense behind every tree.
Also as I said above, and elsewhere, and previously there are limits to Congress' authority to jerk around the other branches--as are there similar limits to the other branches.
Also as I said above, and elsewhere and previously why concede ground to someone when you have a defensible basis not to and when such a concession will only embolden the party demanding the concession.
As I've said above, elsewhere and previously, you're misinterpreting my references to similar actions by Dems as me avoiding the issue of whether it is right or wrong by saying "y'all do it too." No--and this is REALLY important for you to understand, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you, for whatever reason, have no comprehension of how unremarkably precedented these purported impeachable offenses are. At the risk of seeming like I'm dodging your accusation, an example of what you're saying is to claim that lying under oath was no big deal because it was about sex.
Yes, I am suspicious of someone who won't cooperate with an investigation, but even as a very pro-prosecution person I would always advise a person viewed as a suspect (at least a person whom I believed was innocent ;) ) NOT to "cooperate" with investigators.
It is even more true of a situation where your prosecutors traffic in insinuation, demonization, conspiracy-mongering, etc. etc. Oh, one of the Iraqi oil contracts was secured by a company owned by a millionaire (!) who gave lots of money to one of the two political parties--the party that doesn't consider capitalism and petroleum evil, oddly enough?!?! Wow, that's cronyism if I ever saw it.
Clearly, a willful violation of the law.
Perhaps you're right. What is the purpose of that law? Is it really a "law" or is it a policy of an executive branch agency? What are the penalties for violating it? What is the basis for their non-fulfillment of this archivist's requests? What is the basis for Congress' demand for the emails?
It's a law. Records were not kept or produced, likely in order to prevent a Senate Oversight Committee from having access to records during an investigation of possible inappropriate or even criminal activity. This is called Obstruction of Justice.
BTW, an AP article just came out says:
Two federal laws, one carrying criminal penalties, require preservation of White House e-mail.
"The penalties for regulated companies that have failed to implement effective e-mail archive solutions have been quite severe, penalties often imposed by branches of the federal government," said James K. Wagner Jr., a lawyer and co-founder of DiscoverReady LLC, a firm that assists companies in gathering and reviewing electronic documents.
Not appropriate in an open Democratic society:
Another assault on freedom on information by Bushco. Bush would require state sanctioned history books if he could:
However, this is not just another blow against openness; Bush’s Executive Order 13233 could change history — literally — by restricting historians’ access to materials that help them document and ultimately judge a president’s actions, lapses, and principles.
Executive Order 13233 gives ex-presidents nearly unlimited discretionary authority to prohibit the release of their papers, and allows them to name designees who can act in their stead. Moreover, a sitting president may also prevent the release of a predecessor’s papers — as Bush has already done with some of Ronald Reagan’s papers — even when the predecessor has authorized his papers’ release. These are radical encroachments on the public’s access to documents that were produced in the public interest, at public expense, by officials elected by the public.
The Bush administration’s Executive Order 13233 underscores the new fact that presidential legacies, once the domain of academic historians and parlor game aficionados, have become a serious business — so much so that a president has mounted a Kremlinesque campaign to stifle the free dissemination of information.
No more comments will be responded to on this thread, William--you're wasting my time and energy.
Let me just say that after reading that AP article, I would be wise to actually read the links in your crazy rants and I should never assume there's any substance to your assertions. I'm going to have to look into the "criminal" nature of this situation. I sure wasn't able to rely on you to fairly answer the questions posed.
Of course you see a criminal offense here. Bush is a Republican and believes in God. Where there's a Republican, there's fire . . . right, William?
Post a Comment