|
||
What Did the President Know and When Did He Know It? Karl Rove Knows...
Republican Senator Howard Baker once asked "What did the President know and when did he know it?" when it became clear that then-President Nixon was involved in the Watergate scandal.
Back then Republicans were about small government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law. Back then Democrats were about accountability, labor fairness, and limiting corporate influence in government. Much has changed since those days, when Congress acted as a check on the Executive Branch and a single break-in was enough to spark a serious Congressional inquiry into White House dirty tricks and abuses of power.
The Republicans in office now are by and large social reactionaries who have helped expand government powers, depleted the US Treasury, and disregarded the rule of law. Democrats have not done better. When Speaker Pelosi declared that the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney was "off the table," she not only abdicated her Constitutional responsibilities, she ensured that we would be dealing with the consequences of her negligence for years to come.
So Here We Are Now
Karl Rove is alleged to have used the US Department of Justice as his own political brown-shirts (see articles at end). Innocent people went to jail, were denied their freedom, their rights, and even now are being denied justice. The victims of these alleged illegal activities, including Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Oliver E. Diaz Jr., John Whitfield, Wes Teel, Georgia Thompson, and others were in most cases financially destroyed and their careers ruined. The stress from this onslaught in most cases permanently affected the health of these victims and in two cases, has denied them the right to tend to a seriously ill spouse. In Paul Minor's case, his wife of 40 years is dying from breast cancer that has spread to her brain.
She cannot see her husband because she cannot travel as she is in hospice. He cannot see his wife, because he is in prison. They will likely never see each other again. In Wes Teel's case, his wife has Multiple Sclerosis and has to live through the daily horrors of this illness alone. Do these people, American citizens -- whose only crime was that they were allegedly targeted as political enemies by Karl Rove -- get any justice?
Rove Subpoenaed
The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove this past Monday to testify about these alleged political prosecutions. The people Rove allegedly talked to or gave orders to were in the Department of Justice and in the various US Attorney offices as well as individuals not in government. Rove has publicly denied discussing this with anyone, including anyone at the White House.
Yet he invokes Executive Privilege in order to not appear in front of Congress.
Why?
If Rove had no discussions with the President about this - as his attorney has publicly claimed - then how does Executive Privilege apply? And EVEN if Rove had discussed these alleged illegal activities with the President - he must still honor a Congressional subpoena, even if he then invokes privilege during the hearing. Either the President knew - (in which case Howard Baker's now famous question still applies) - or there is no Executive Privilege. Rove cannot have it both ways. In any case, how does what Rove can and cannot answer have anything to do with showing up?
Moreover, Executive Privilege ONLY applies to giving advice to the President or conversations with the President. It does NOT apply to conversations with people outside of the White House or outside of government.
Fred Fielding's Legal Advice
According to Rove, 4 days before Bush left office, White House Council Fred Fielding issued a letter telling Rove not to honor a Congressional subpoena. Fielding is essentially advising a former client of his to break the law. It is one thing to advise that Rove may not answer certain questions or any questions for that matter. It is a whole other matter to actually advise his client not show up when subpoenaed. What authority does Fred Fielding claim he has in order to advise his client to break the law? Is Fielding being told by President Bush to advise Rove in this manner? In other words, is the President saying that anyone who has ever worked for him is above all laws because he decides it? (What did the President know and when did he know it?)
Surely Mr. Fielding might be able to answer this question? Where does he claim this authority from? Unlike former Nixon White House Council John Dean - who did the honest, ethical, decent and legal thing -Fielding is doing his best to obstruct justice. As a result, I would like the relevant legal bar under which Fielding has his license to investigate this matter.
Ultimately, however, this can be more quickly resolved via the following:
Congress can disregard Bush's belief that he and his friends are above the law, and vote on Inherent Contempt. Rove can sit in jail while Fielding spins and dances.
Attorney General Eric Holder can open up criminal proceedings into both Rove and Fielding.
Otherwise, there is only one thing to conclude in all of this should Rove not be held to account for - at the very least - skipping out on his subpoena - that so long as your attorney writes you a note, you are exempt from being held to account. John Yoo did this kind of legal get-out-of-jail pass for the Bush administration when he authored justifications - illegal - for acts of torture. Fred Fielding is doing the same thing now. Since we are a democracy and none of us are above the law, either we all have to honor subpoenas or we don't. If Rove does not have to show up, then none of us have to.
Articles
The Permanent Republican Majority Series (US Attorney Scandal):
- Part 1: Political Prisoner
- Part 2: Siegelman's Daughter Speaks Out
- Part 3: Running Elections from the White House
- Part 4: Mississippi Prosecutions
- Part 5: Interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver E. Diaz, Jr.
- Part 6: Break-Ins Plague Targets of Political Prosecutions
- Part 7: Justice for Sale
- Judge who denied Paul Minor's release protoge of Karl Rove
- DOJ Investigating 2 US Attorneys in alleged political prosecutions
- 60 Minutes signal dropped in Alabama only during Siegelman portion
- Interview with Dana Jill Simpson on Karl Rove's alleged smears
- Abramoff said he had agreement with White House aid regarding communications
- Treasury Department investigating US Attorney for sharing private income tax returns of a case target
Also see Scott Horton's excellent reporting on Mississippi and Alabama.
See local Alabama journalist Roger Shuler's excellent reporting
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This ought to be good. Stay tuned.
HuffPost's Pick
"The Republicans in office now are by and large social reactionaries who have helped expand government powers, depleted the US Treasury, and disregarded the rule of law. Democrats have not done better. When Speaker Pelosi declared that the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney was "off the table," she not only abdicated her Constitutional responsibilities, she ensured that we would be dealing with the consequences of her negligence for years to come."
Best explanation of the last 8 years I've read, summed up in a paragraph.
Kudos.
Larisa is my hero.
Mwah!
One thing I haven't heard any mention of... The CIA. I wouldn't want to be in rove's shoes after outing a CIA operative... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! So long, karl... )c 8
You remind me of accounts of how the Mossad has evened scores over the years; the CIA may well do the same. When one plays with the big boys, well, the big boys play back.
Ok, so rover is claiming "Executive Privilege", but why wait while it is being decided whether or not he REALLY has Executive Privilege? Haul him in and sort it out with rover in court while he is in "protective custody for his own good." If it is found that he does indeed have Executive Privilege, issue a heartfelt apology, gosh-darn it!
Well, what about the Rove-Plame leak? That's treasonous behavior and perhaps an angle that skirts any executive privilege BS. I mean, we can only hang the guy once and once will be sufficient if hung properly.
The smell of REAL investigative journalism reminds me of
...TRUTH, justice and a level playing field - for ALL!
Eye openers seem ever your gift to others, Larisa, thanks once again.
Larisa, many readers have been concerned by what you are sharing here for quite awhile. If our nation is democracy of laws and our leaders take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, they must be held accountable or it won't be long before we teeter on anarchy. When Gov. Palin and her husband and advisors were advised by Senator McCain's campaign to ignore subpoenas, I was outraged. Many are still absolutely shocked that Alaska has not impeached her, as ILL did Blagovich. Interestingly, I had just saw the movie about Nixon the day the news came out about Cheney claimed in an interview on PBS with Jim Lehrer that our nation couldn't be accused of torture because our President ordered the interrogations and our country doesn't torture because it is against the law. This is the kind of circular logic that Nixon used and was so demonstrated in the film - Frost/Nixon. If the President ordered it, it can't be illegal, even if it is against the law. What I find the most hypocritical, are the very Conservatives that pretend to be so self-righteous are the same ones who oppose accountability to our laws for those in leadership. As the article stated, you can't have it both ways. I consider them modern day Pharisees - the law is for everybody else except them!
There's all of this pressure (even from many Huff bloggers) to just "move on." America can't move on until people like Rove, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc answer for what they've done.
If he has nothing to hide then what's he afraid of? Isn't that what the Bush administration has been telling the rest of us all these years?
As matters stand, Bush, Rove and the entire band of criminals are indeed above the law. They declared that it was so and Nancy Pelosi agreed. Most Americans, including the people who comment on these pages, fail to understand that this renders the constitution meaningless. The rule of law means that the law rules and the president does not. Duh. The president is an administrator, not a ruler. If Rove, who is above the law, is not returned to his proper place UNDER the law then the republic is dead.
Ms. Pelosi is either being coerced or persuaded to not move forward on this. Perhaps the GOP discovered some skeletons in her closets,and is also peeking into Mr. Conyers' closets as well. Their lack of action is deplorable,but I think that there's more to this story than what's been exposed.
I feel that a weekend at Attica would be most appropriate for Rove,and his merry men. Toss 'em into the yard on Friday,and if they survive until Sunday,maybe we'll let them out. This might be the basis to a new reality show!
Speaker Pelosi does not have to be persuaded or coerced to act as she is; she is only concerned with acquiring and maintaining power, not managing it Constitutionally. She signed off on torture, and so clearly fears being exposed for the facilitator of war crimes that she is.
And yes, bizarrely alarming how this country fails to differentiate between Constitutional authority and the prerogatives of a king.
If Ms. Pelosi is being threatened or blackmailed or both she should either confront her tormentors or resign. There is no excuse for her failure.
Here's another possible tack--go after Fred Fielding and John Yoo using the American Bar Association for issuing illegal legal advice. Issuing Rove and Meiers a letter advising them to perform an illegal act by ignoring a legal subpoena? Could this possibly be grounds for disbarment?
Fight fire with fire, send the lawyers after the lawyers?
Thank you Larisa for putting it clearly. This country was raped so bad for eight years that most people are still in shock and can't reason straight. If these criminals continue to punk the masses, pretty soon they'll be blaming Barack for everything up to and including the economy AND IT WILL WORK. We MUST hold these animals to account or you haven't seen anything yet. We let the beast survive by letting the Iran/Contra scandal go unpunished and this is a direct result of that. It will just get worse without immediate justice.
Wow, if Nixon had thought of that, he could have saved himself a lot of controversy...if the president or his team does it, it isn't a crime...Sorry, but I dISAGREE. I really wasn't in favor of the retrospective; but now I am somewhat miffed and VERY CURIOUS!!!
Should BO dictate a few premptive letters himself? Wonder how that would go over -- LOL!!!
Let's speak the obvious often and loudly: the privilege Rove seeks is to keep a criminal conspiracy secret. It's predicated on the notion that a criminal conspiracy in the White House is not a crime. Tell that to Valerie Plame Wilson. Or Richard Nixon, for that matter.
Executive Privilege only exists insomuch as anyone takes such nonsense seriously. Harry Truman ran that dirty diaper up a flagpole, and lo and behold, people saluted it. It is, at best, "common law" dating to about 1947. Sad how Truman, in retrospect, was the first to truly hack the Constitution to pieces (cf. CIA).
Certainly Congress should not try to extract information they have no right to oversee, such as private advice to a president, but we don't need a legal doctrine to cover that. We need common sense, and presidents holding their ground against extraconstitutional requests.
But Speaker Pelosi, as you've so correctly pointed out, violated her oath of office by failing to protect the Constitution. Frankly, I was hoping Cindy Sheehan would unseat her. I find the entire Democratic leadership, in both houses, unfit for office.
Karl Rove must be treated as the crime boss that he is. Absolutely no deference must be granted to this shredder of the Constitution.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
