
(Photo via Nyx.)
Digby pulled some disparate threads together yesterday into a very coherent whole that needs more attention. If you missed this article, please go and read the entire thing. It's okay, I'll wait right here. Digby cites a McClatchy article which succinctly sums up why some smarm merchant in the White House political shop should have known better than to start messing with people who pick apart lies for a living:
Absent another explanation, the signs point to the White House and, at least in some degree, to the president's political adviser, Karl Rove.
David Iglesias, the former New Mexico U.S. attorney and one of the eight fired last year, said investigating the White House's role is the logical next step – one that would follow existing clues about Rove's involvement.
"If I were Congress, I would say, `If the attorney general doesn't have answers, then who would?' There's enough evidence to indicate that Karl Rove was involved up to his eyeballs."
Iglesias said another clue that the White House may have been the driving force is the relative lack of Justice Department documentation for the firings in the 6,000 pages of documents turned over to Congress.
"If you want to justify getting rid of someone, you should have at least some paper trail," Iglesias said. "There's been a remarkable absence of that. I'm wondering if the paper trail is at the White House."(emphasis mine)
This is absolutely correct and, further, in cases where an employer does not have a paper trail, there are enormous questions raised as to whether there may have been a conspiracy to conciously NOT leave a paper trail so that any evidence of wrongdoing would not be on paper, where the firing or other action may be outside the bounds of acceptable practice. In fact, and the employment lawyers in the audience can back me up on this one, where you have no paper trail whatsoever — no indicia of reprimands or other employee warnings with regard to conduct difficulties and the like, no contemporaneous internal memoranda or dialogue with regard to the need to issue some sort of corrective action with regard to the employee, etc. — that raises a whole lot of red flags in the minds of anyone pursuing a case against that employer. A LOT of questions.
Which is why Congress should pursue the improper e-mail trail of government business routed through the RNC servers with as much vigor as possible — including through third party sources wherever possible. (What, you think it's just a two-way transfer? Think again, and there is no presumption of privilege with an internet provider's servers when wrongdoing is at issue. Hello, Bush-sponsored Patriot Act. How's that working for you now? So the Bush Administration can go Cheney themselves on that privilege claim.)
Why bother? Because George Bush is, once again, trying to give Congress the finger: (via TPM)
But Gonzales himself was hanging tough. "We believe the burden is now on the Democrats to prove that something improper occurred here—and they haven't done that," said a top Justice official (who asked not to be ID'd talking about nonpublic matters). Publicly, the White House was standing by its A.G. One White House adviser (who asked not to be ID'ed talking about sensitive issues) said the support reflected Bush's own view that a Gonzales resignation would embolden the Dems to go after other targets—like Karl Rove. "This is about Bush saying, 'Screw you'," said the adviser, conceding that a Gonzales resignation might still be inevitable. The trick, said the adviser, would be to find a graceful exit strategy for Bush's old friend.
It would be nice if Congress would continue to exert their spine and show a little legislative branch pride in this — because Karl Rove and George Bush have shown, repeatedly, that they feel they have to answer only to themselves. Think again — you work for us, and Congress works for us, and we are all expecting some answers. And Congress can no longer ignore the elephant in the room: every last little malignant scheme of Rove's Shop needs to be dragged out from under the rock and exposed to public scrutiny and labeled for the cheating, festering mess that it is. Read Digby's piece and tell me the whole "gin up a voter fraud crisis that doesn't exist in order to skew the election results" scheme is an isolated mistake and I've got some oceanfront property here in WV to sell you. And if you still aren't sure, take a peek at this from Paul Kiel at The Muck.
Let the sun shine in…
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Great work as always.
One nit. It’s ‘disparate.’
edit: um, zed?
OT ~ TA…Daaaaa! (singsong) http://mfrost.typepad.com/cute…..e_fin.html
a little bit o’ JUSTICE, please!
I can’t imagine that there are very many men who would tell Sheryl Crow “Don’t touch me.” Even Repulbics should find that odd.
OldCoastie @
3
Please, sir, can I have some more?
The Karl Rove “No Voter Left Behind” sham has another side.. when the plot is exposed for what it is, total crap, then Karl hopes that the little subject of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 will be swept out with all the other garbage.
All Roads lead to Rove!
OT,
A new column from Charles Krauthammer on Alec Baldwin & Liberal Parenting skills
I’ve got this picture in my head of a bunch of third graders, who have gotten caught passing notes in class. “OK, that’s the last time we write anything down. We gotta whisper, or lip read, or learn sign language, or something.”
Badwater @ 4
I bet he never said Don’t touch me to Jeff Gannon..
Peterr @
8
While I agree with the juvenile aspects, it’s more like kids who’ve watched “The Godfather” too many times. Or as I said to a friend:
Attaturk @ 7
It’s time for Baldwin to STFU and resign from his self-appointed role of Liberal Spokesman..find some other way to try to revive that career, Alec.
The thing about the emails to the RNC that has been nagging at me is the security aspect of it. Not just the fact that they could’ve been sending sensitive communications over servers outside the governmental firewall, but the question of possible involvement by federal security agencies in the email trail. Did the folks in the WH just set up their email like any other schmoe using an email provider (”hmmm, let’s see, POP server ‘pop.rnc.org,’ user name ‘Karl.Rove’ password ‘Iwillf*ckyou’ … ), or were the good folks in our federal government security apparatus involved in the “hardening” of the communications? What would they know about the emails? Where did these emails actually go on their journey from Rove’s office to the RNC servers to Gonzalez’s folks?
msnbc is reporting that Boris Yeltsin is dead, but I don’t see anything on Russian media.
Digby’s post is great, and the mess in MO is a sleeping story. The Blunt family is trying to emulate the Bushies, and they’ve been engaged in underhanded stunts for years trying to do the dirty work of GWB, Tom Delay, and other GOPers higher up on the rightwing food chain.
James Robinson @
1
another nit – cite, not site. Site = location. Cite = quote.
O/t -
Does anyone know if Smerconish is supposed to be a permanent feature on MSNBC mornings? The changes at CNN now rule it out as any possible source of early a.m. news and now (when ya think things couldn’t possibly get worse) I clicked to find *this* piece of trash on MSNBC. Ugh………:-(
Did Bush Commit Election Fraud?
BriVT @ 12
You need to read this post by Todd Johnston and luaptifer at ePluribus Media.
The RNC’s operative worked inside the firewall for the White House and Congress.
Be sure to read the other articles linked at the end since they discuss the RNC operative.
I imagine that Mr. Rove or his elves are making rounds on the Hill with excerpts from his J. Edgar Hoover-like files, and all those little bits and bobs he’s picked up via illegal NSA and FBI domestic spying programs (his collating makes Sampson look like a piker), just to remind Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle what open warfare will look like.
He may have snapped a few spines with those visits, but the visits themselves, and the dirty tricks underlying them would sink Rove and his Party. We just need a few people who’ll talk to a grand jury.
Constituents can remind their Members of Congress that we expect them to do their job – that’s the only reason they have them – and that they will collectively get far more support by doing it rather than avoiding it. It might also bear repeating that 2008 is just not the finish line, it’s just the next lap.
I was wondering how people at the DOJ are reacting to Gonzales this morning.
Are they treating him like a battle scarred survivor? Is it business as usual? Are they giving him the the bare minimum of courtesy and eye contact? Are they avoiding him like the plague? Are they in his face?
egregious @
13
Please click on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6584481.stm
Peterr @ 8
It was a lot like that; there had to be some unwritten codes of practice.
For instance, there was a meeting between a number of the players in USDOJ at the White House in regards to the dismissal of the Gonzo 8. But the document dumped meeting notice from their Exchange-Outlook mail system does not show who was the invitee from the White House.
Why would they have a meeting at the White House and not at DOJ with no one from the White House invited?
That’s f*cking bullsh*t right there. They either didn’t disclose the invitation to White House attendees, or there was a practice of not actually making the invitation by email. Remember Susan Ralston removing an entry from Rove’s calendar in regards to a phonecall to/from Rove in re: the Plame Affair? Yeah. Something like that happened.
The voter fraud fraud story is still operational with these losers. Don’t touch me, indeed.
Saturday, Reprehensible Wilson’s staffers showed up at a meeting held by the newly appointed county clerk. Their main reason for attending was to not identify themselves as staffers while trotting out the same old “stolen ballots” and “voter (ID) fraud.”
It was pathetic. But that canard is not going away.
Believe me KKKarl, I don’t want to touch you. I want you off your sorry taxpayer funded junket. For evah.
Rayne @ 18
i’ve only started reading… this is the first paragraph (my bold):
wtf? on the HOUSE network?
selise @ 24
YES. ON. THE. HOUSE. NETWORK.
Keep reading. OH precinct voting data is involved, too.
I’m really cranky this morning after watching the spin on teevee news…global warming breaks down on party lines, but doesn’t break down the same way by gender…go figure, what kind of math is that?
Googling “Rove Crow” brings up tons of stories that differ from what we have heard. MSNBC said Rove was “attacked” by Crow or something like that. Seems most of the stories go back to one talker..
Jay @
9
Jeff Gannon was probably part of the hospitality package Dubya offered for Pioneers and Rangers…to keep the tap flowin’.
Bush values: turning the WH into a gay bordello?
Karl Rove’s reaction to Sheryl Crow was a) churlish, b) cowardly, c) imperious, d) heterophobic…or e) all of the above?
Okay, now that I’ve got the shiny objects out of my system….
Great post, Christy. The dogged persistence of the Congress to stay on the USAs story is essential to oversight and our democracy.
We must not only hold Dems’ feet to the fire, but also the Repubes who opened the door of their party and allowed this gang of privateers to take over. Bushians will live in infamy with the barbarians of history….
Waccamaw @ 16
Smerconish is BFF with Chris Matthews.
Rayne and Selise -
didn’t Bob “The Mayor” Ney have something to do with this installed system or am I thinking of another scandal ?
Word choice nit, Christy: 4th sentence, 1st paragraph should begin “Digby cites . . “, not “Digby sites . . .”
Great post, as usual!
shrub and patreus on CNN
Iglesias: will he be the new Joe Wilson? I hope so.
shrub looks terrible and is repeating himself
Iglesias. Not. Happy.
Not going away.
Good Morning from L.A.
OT- Pat Lang’s blog entry for today contains a one sentence analysis of walling off Baghdad into ethnic enclaves:
Just a Little Too Medieval Maybe?
That should be our mantra “YOU work for US”.
I feel like an at-will employer today. Karl Rove is gonna be shitcanned.
cbl @ 29
I’d recommend asking that question in the ePM thread so that the hardcore techies answer it in detail. We know that some “white hats” are watching the site; the question will help them as much as you.
You can see in the graphic at the ePM story that Ney’s right in the middle of it.
Ken Blackwell is, too.
I hope someone figures out a way to quickly and efficiently clone people. We need 10,000 Fitzes, STAT.
Is RICO applicable?
This argument drives me crazy. The reason that Congress can’t prove that something improper happened is because the WH and the DOJ are witholding evidence.
And the idea that is should be up to the Democrats to prove a crime, and not the House, Repugs included, is just a lame attempt to keep this looking like political gameplay.
mornin all.
As of this morning:
Tim Griffin is still US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Alberto Gonzales is still Attorney General
Karl Rove still works at the White House
FDL has yet to be awarded a Pulitzer, but the Texas Toast series sure ought to be a nominee (once the committee moves into the 21st century and recognizes blogs as media).
OT – Harry Reid on c-span at noon (ET)
sunny @
17
That’s a good one!
Christy
I was glad to see Pach online again the other day. He musta been busy lately. Is there an update coming on the financing plans? I will certainly sign up as a “regular” but I was hoping for a “buy us a server” campaign or something. You could use one of those thermometers to measure progress, etc. I’ll bet you’re gonna need more hardware when Karl finally comes to testify!
My 2 cents, EPU’ed from ‘Tell Me How This Ends II’
Morning all,
I have just returned from my ritual review of today’s tragic metrics. It’s something I do to retain a grasp on the reality of what’s happening to us (the human race).
* April 2007 still on track to be one of our deadliest months in Iraq since the war began. (in or near the top ten)
* Newsweek marks milestone: 25,000 U.S. Dead and wounded. (via Iraq Casualties -dot- Org)
* Bombings continue to rock Baghdad (20, 30, 40 dead as the clock ticks)
* Iraqi dead & wounded: who’s counting?
* U.S. Battlefield Wounded-to-Dead ratio: approx 16:1 (Vietnam was less than 3:1) The horribly BAD statistic being made to look good.
* 150,000 U.S. troops represents 1/20th of 1% of the U.S. population (i.e. of course we all need & want to support our troops, but we MUST consider the metrics) This metric could safely be compared to the passengers of the Titanic supporting its’ navigator’s charted course, and it’s captain’s order to ’steam on!’.
We all gotta look at the metrics, see them for what they are, and once and for all disabuse ourselves of these platitudes “win”, “support” and “stay the course”.
OldCoastie @ 31
please tell us more. (i don’t have cable, and c-span is not covering this).
thanks!
I think it was Keith Olberman who once said on his show that Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Cheney et al receive the blame for all the malarky, but Chimpy, hardly ever.
Exactly. The only thing that makes me crazier than this administration is the punditry’s obtuseness. On Shields and Brooks last week Brooks:
DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, well, we’ll see. You know, they’ve been going after Karl Rove, and this is the great dream for Democrats to get Karl Rove finally. He’s the great, white whale floating out there, and every few months there seems to be an attempt. They think they’re going to get him, whether it’s Plame or this. They never seem to get him.
So I’ll reserve judgment on whether Karl Rove — Alberto Gonzales was the guy was in charge of this agency, and it was his agency.
My follow up question is: “are there any sentient beings in theDC beltway set who don’t believe Rove is up to his eye balls in this? Whether or not he gets caught is a separate issue.
Let’s say we all agree: The firings of the USAs were purely political and all signs point to Rove and Miers – but, that there is no paper trail outside the White House, or the White House’s control.
We know from the Gonzales hearing that Fitzgerald actually had the RNC e-mails, but lost control of them inside the DoJ – presumably Gonzo big-footed him and had the docs handed over to the newly co-opted (’annexed’ politically by Bush) OPR.
Why not force a battle over the removal of evidence from an active investigation by DoJ?
Let’s assume Bush IS acting as the Unitary Executive, and has been since the AUMF. Is he saying that he is above both legislative oversight AND judicial review? He would have to be in order to smother a criminal investigation.
If he says ‘Yes, I am beyond all review and questioning,’ then we would have no choice but to impeach him – and at least 70% of the Country would be supportive.
Going up against Bush on Iraq is too volatile – instead, we would do better to slow all war-enablement to a crawl.
In the meantime, we should vigorously pursue the Corruption angle and begin forcing a line that puts the UE/Bush Administration in Court over interfering with a criminal investigation into the UE.
Bush can’t beat the ‘conflict of interest’ argument regarding the evidence.
A partisan hack on MSNBC said this morning that Gore lost the election because of the Clintons. The Rove machine is cranking up bigtime. We ought to chase that voter fraud story and ARREST THEM ALL.
mui @ 46
Like a hurricane of scandal and corruption, Bush sits in the eye of the storm, the calm and serene center, and the cause of it all. How long can the center hold?
Yup. Even worse for Rove et al is the fact that they’ve replaced these top-flight attorneys with wet-behind-the-ears zampolit with degrees from a barely-accredited NeoConfederateChristian University.
No wonder the real attorneys are picking them aparts.
old gold at #20
I think they don’t want to recall who he is anymore.
Maybe they are smiling at him at the DOJ, but using their smiles as weapons, or as shields. (Remember Ted Wells’ smile?).
selise @
45
there wasn’t much… questions started about alberto and the press conference ended suddenly after shrub reiterated that alberto had his full confidence.
OldCoastie @ 31
So, what are they saying about those walls?
GeorgeSimian @ 39
One little quibble with the frame. They aren’t just withholding evidence.
The White House, the RNC and the USDOJ are obstructing justice, just like I. Lewis Libby.
mui @ 54
nothing – all’s shrub said was “politicians in Washington shouldn’t tell the generals what to do”. that was it – entire press conference… shrub looked squirmy and grumpy… patreus said nothing.
This diary is about crushing the 1st Amendment. Gonzo etal. plotting to commit treason, anyone?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..85210/0963
hmmmm . . . Bush says Alberto’s testimony on Friday strengthened the AG’s standing. How much of a Reader’s Digest version (cause the president was too busy talkin’ chicken-pluckin’ at the time to watch the testimony)did Bush aides provide him? Maybe each senator’s initial “Thank you, Attorney General, for appearing here today.” Yup. All in order. They all thanked him. Lookin’ good.
More likely, Bush is having as much luck finding a replacement as he’s having in the War Czar search.
* OnTopic, a few days old but noteworthy:
Leahy with Specter on PBS News Hour shortly after Gonzo hearing: “we’ll be looking at calling more WH staff to testify, more documents, more subpeonas…” (paraphrased)
* OnTopic: Sheryl Crow…reach out & touch ME!
:)
I’m still waiting for some principaled whistle blower in DoJ to sing like a canary. Have all the good guys already left out of disgust or been fired? Why can’t someone like Fitz do something? Arghh!
OldCoastie @ 56
Wow that’s laughably hypocritical of the preznit/politician.
Attaturk @ 7
Ooooh. Just cries out for a dueling column: Rudy & Conservative Parenting Skills.
eCAHNomics @ 62
great point! touche
thanks Rayne! heading over to ePM now
Christy – you have even more mail :)
Think Progress has the shrub’s “press conference” with Patreus up… don’t worry, it’s not long.
Bush on Gen Betrayous (we miss you 9/11) and Abu
“They aren’t crooks.”
Bush said Abu’s performance increased his confidence in him.
Subpoena testimony from Mike and Heather Connell ASAP.
OldCoastie @ 33
Perhaps he’s either seriously hung over or still drunk.
LS @ 67
And Tom Synhorst.
CHS, pls pardon spelling weasel, but as others have said (including #1!) it’s dispArate. Tnx :)
Bush is slurringgg.
Shrub: Gonzo answered “as honestly as he could.”
WTF does that mean? As honestly as he could because Rove runs DoJ and therefore Gonzo knows nothing? As honestly as he could, because if he really answered honestly, he would meet the same fate as Fredo?
Other Pat @
58
There is no need for a replacement. Bush will never do what others tell him to do. If the Dems can’t convince 16 or 17 (lie-berman ) to impeach and remove then bush will just say FU to congress.
If congress tries regular contempt of congress the rethugs already have a precedent in the Gorsuch matter to have the USA of DC ignore congress.
So its inherent Contempt or impeach/removal nothing else will do.
Even if it got to the courts, the Federalist Society judges and the prosecutting AUSAs would find away to sabotage the issue anyway. There is a small hope in that Luttig went against them on some issues. But that was an anomaly.
Even if the supremes voted against Bush, do you think he would listen and obey an order from them? Andy Jackson didn’t, why would the chimperor be any different. Nixon was a louse but he actually was a law and order guy. Bush is far worse.
Rayne, I can’t get your site to load.
Mae @ 72
He also said that Gonzo recommended to him who (whom) to fire, and that he has a right to fire whomever he wants to. Doesn’t that conflict with Gonzo’s testimony? Gonzo said he made the decision – he never said the president did.
Rayne @ 55
Yup. And I’m going to cite again an interesting article by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate. She reconsiders how badly AG did in his testimony, realizing that under the plan of pushing the “unitary executive” theory, Gonzo’s testimony was terrific. I think this whole thing is headed to the courts – the WH will stonewall congress saying that they just plain do not have to give up any of these emails or communications, and unless someone breaks (um, Monica dear? how’s that conscience?), they’ll keep stonewalling until the Congress has to choose if they’re going to take it to the courts. Bush, holding firm at a solid 33% approval rating, has nothing to lose by being a stubborn ass. He’s going to run out the clock and be his own island, forcing Congress to challenge his unitary executive theory legally. Republicans will mildy criticise him so they can distance themselves politically, but the only way the issue can be resolved is if someone squeals and coughs up evidence, or if they drag this out in court. Yikes.
egregious @ 74
Weird…have you had that problem with any other Blogger/Blogspot websites?
If GWB believes Gonzales’ testimony last week painted a good picture for AGAG, it shows very poor skills in analysis.
From David Iglesias’s Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes of March 21, 2007:
OT: Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., speculated that concealed weapons could have mitigated the Virginia Tech massacre.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit…..efend.html
Virginia allows concealed weapons by permit, but Newt will never allow truth to prevent him from scoring cheap political points.
Milan River at 78: read the Lithwick article I cited in #76. Lithwick is a smart reporter, and she really opened my eyes to how the admin might be viewing this.
Christy, thank you for another great post.
As we all know, they really thought they had the whole “Republicans Rule Forever” thing locked down. They became so arrogant about their ability to maintain power, they never thought about the potential repercussions of their overarching swipes at the justice system because they simply could not envision a Democratic Congress.
Just like the war. No contingency plans. Brilliant bunch.
May many more of these stellar ideas of theirs continue to bite them in the @$$. Amen.
landofthefree @ 76
I agree. Bush seems to know that there is nothing substantial that Congress will do. Unless they impeach, but that’s not likely.
Wow, Rayne, from your website – you speculate that Harriet Miers may have added the Patriot Act language. That would explain the dodging and weaving. That goes way further than signing statements.
What has happened with the new rule rolling back the AG USA appointment concept? Did it go to Bush yet? Also, did they make it retroactive?
CNN is getting ready to address the Crow/Rove story after the commercials.
Milan River @ 78
He didn’t analyze the performance; press secretary Dana Perino came out and volunteered last week Thursday that Abu G. had Bush’s full confidence, and then admitted that Bush hadn’t even reviewed his performance as of that statement.
But it didn’t matter what Abu said because his role was only to stonewall, not to tell the truth, and Bush can have complete confidence in his ability to do that since it’s what Abu has done for years, including covering up that DUI charge and jury duty avoidance (not unlike TANG duty avoidance) during the 2000 election.
Bush also can’t say anything else about Abu, because Abut not only knows everything about the DUI and jury duty — Abu knows where the figurative bodies are buried.
The other piece that’s missing from all the color play is Sampson’s private testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senators were quite disgusted before they sat down with Abu last week, not only because they knew he’d already snowed them one or more times, but because they must have gotten more info from Sampson that put Abu in even worse light. And even if Bush had Sampson’s private testimony via the NSA, Bush couldn’t say anything other than Abu had his complete support.
Well, mine loads ok but I’ve changed it to new blogger/google. Still can’t bring up your site either from the link here or from coming thru search engine. Will try later, just a heads up.
Good morning, CHS, everyone. If you glanced at this front page headline in today’s WaPo (”Hedge Fund Ties Help Edwards Campaign”) and guessed that it is yet another John Solomon hit piece, you would be correct–ding, ding, ding, ding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..id=topnews
Solomon’s non-story about the buyer of Edwards’ D.C. house was a bust, so he’s at it again. In this piece he singles out his new favorite target Edwards but also calls out the other Dem candidates (almost exclusively) in this article about donations from hedge funds. These donations are legal, but Solomon is spewing the inference that the money is tainted because of hedge fund investor tax loopholes and therefore Dem candidates, especially Edwards, are hypocrites. Then, he tries to spin this latest “news” into his larger meme that Edwards is a phony:
“He announced in December that he would again be a candidate for president, wearing jeans and a work shirt at a news conference held in a New Orleans neighborhood devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
More than any other 2008 presidential candidate, Edwards has made poverty an issue and sought support from organized labor. But his image has suffered because of publicity surrounding the family compound he is building on 102 acres in North Carolina. By the time the compound is completed, it is expected to be assessed at $6 million. And his finance reports disclosed that his campaign had paid for two $400 haircuts.
Steve Jarding, a former top strategist for Edwards, said he would have advised the candidate to avoid the business and fundraising relationship with the hedge fund because it flies in the face of his political persona as a champion for the poor and an advocate for making the wealthy pay their share of taxes.
‘It raises the question, ‘Is John Edwards the guy he says he is?’ — and that is not a debate John wants to have when he is trying to raise money and to move into that top tier of candidates,’ Jarding said.”
Imagine the scandal–Edwards wore jeans and a workshirt and announced his candidacy in New Orleans! We know John Solomon has a problem and is a lousy reporter, but how do the Post editors continue to run with these pieces and play them on the front page? Maybe they live in fear that he will leave for the greener pastures of The Politico. Oh, and nice friend Edwards has there in Jarding.
–
Morning all — we had a meeting at The Peanut’s preschool this morning, and I’m just now geting back in front of the computer. Thanks for the typo heads up, gang — I think I’ve gotten them. Had to write this in a bit of a rush this morning, so I really appreciate the heads up on errors.
Rayne (and others): do you think Congress will go after Gonzo for lying to them? If they have documented proof that Gonzo was evasive or less-than-forthcoming or a bit clueless, that doesn’t seem like an easy row to pursue legally. But, if they have documented proof that he made clearly false statements, they can go after him. Do you think they have enough proof of intentional perjury and/or obstruction of AG?
And, even if they do have enough proof, do you think congress will pursue it? I can’t help but wonder if Congress will instead keep digging for more proof of the larger conspiracy. Bush might be willing to toss out Gonzo as a small fish that diverts Congress’ attention away from larger prey available.
No doubt The Peanut has been a model citizen and got lots of gold stars from the teachers and, like her Mom, “plays well with others.”
CityGirl – my gut instinct is that the Republicans are actually most concerned about Edwards being the Dem nominee. They can get plenty of anti-Hillary support & money, and even anti-Obama (a lot of people in this country will quietly oppose a female or black president, I’m afraid). Edwards is the one that scares them. So, I expect to see a lot of subtle hit pieces in the future, as they will try to smear him. Smears against Hillary write themselves. They already did some work on Obama. There’s a whispering campaign about Richardson. They are trying to drum up something that will stick against Edwards. And, if there is any truth to the rumors that Gore is considering a run, then they have ammo available for him.
John Solomon ??? bwaahaahaaa
he’s such a hack, even Lovey ‘Nothing To See Here’ Howell had to take him on in his very first WaPo front pager – kinda like Abu calling you on your ethics
link
Christy Hardin Smith @ 90
Figured you must have had urgent business elsewhere!
Can’t ignore the SHRUB in the flower bed. http://www.dubyad40.com/2007/0…..s_23.shtml
landofthefree- thanks. Its getting old having the GWB administration treat us, and US professionals like unthinking infants. I know that the professionals can make distinctions. I think the GWB group hide behind ‘the troops’ and now, the ‘career professionals’. They are trying to make any dissenters of administration action look uncaring or cold-hearted.
CityGirl — yes, it was quite the good report and we are most pleased, Mr. ReddHedd and I. :) Thanks for asking.
We’ve got president Clusterfuck playin silly tricks with his criminal AG. This won’t be resolved for months- and then there will be another criminal to screw around with. And so goes the presidency!!!
BillE @ 73
dont bother with a referral to DOJ. even without Gorsuch precedent, this bunch would ignore/obfuscate/delay (run out the clock) in “good faith.” just refer it to the House of Reps for impeachment proceedings. All they need is a simple majority and I think they have that.
Re: Smerconish on MSNBC:
On Friday I was positive MSNBC wasn’t going to simulcast his radio show. Imagine when I saw his mug this morning holding forth that Gonzales is a nothing story.
Dan Abrams (MSNBC general manager–in charge of programming) purports to be a leftie like his dad, Floyd Abrams.
egregious @
88
Thanks, I’ll keep watching it today, but it loaded fine for me. If you’re using Firefox you might want to try clearing your cache to see if it helps.
LS @ 84
If you read that linked article from TPM, realizing that Sampson must have been rubbing shoulders regularly with Miers while he was at the White House, reading between the lines in his commentary directed to Miers: “I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed. It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don’t have replacements ready to roll immediately. I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. [By sidestepping the confirmation process] we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House.”
That’s conspiracy, right there.
And then ask yourself who might have been invited to a meeting in the White House with principals from DOJ in this matter, but undocumented…Rove? Sure. Miers? Most likely.
Bush is telling the nation and the world that the law is what he decides it is.
I can’t think of a more corrupt mindset in a leader.
That Gonzales, who Bush ridicules as Fredo, is willing to continue to debase himself by standing pat is all we need to know about him. Amoral, cowardly and willing to suffer any amount of disgrace to keep his place of privilege and power.
-GSD
landofthefree @ 76
there’s only one way to deal with the Unitary (unilateral) Executive theory – it’s called checks and balances. Congress has unique (one might say unitary) powers that may not be checked by the two other branches of govt. One of those powers is impeachment.
I agree with the posters here who think that Edwards is the candidate that the Republicans fear the most.
When Maureen Dowd starts lamenting Edwards hair grooming, you know he is the candidate to watch. God forbid Edwards ever dons earth tones like the dreaded Al Gore, but if he does, rest assured he’ll be attacked.
On the topic of Karl Rove…it infuriated me to learn that the New York Times is the one who invited KKKarl to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
[and also to learn that Christopher Hitchens invites Wolfowitz to his parties, and that, according to David Carr, President Bush can be very funny as an entertainer…[he meant intentionally.]
(sigh) sometimes I hate that newspaper.
CityGirl @ 89
FDR was a very wealthy patrician — and he proceeded to introduce Social Security and did his best to put millions of people back to work building bridges, roads, parks, libraries and thousands of other public works that everyone could use and enjoy. He did not ravage the tax code by making favoring the rich, did not dismantle programs for the poor and did not force people to abandon government programs in favor of more expense private programs.
So what, exactly, is Solomon’s point? Edwards is another FDR? Okay.
Fresh thread, up and running for everyone.
New thread from Christy.
Impropriety
Milan River @ 97
Yes, but it’s all they’ve got. Treat us like dumb peasants that have no power (meanwhile taking away our power), and stall until the clock runs out.
Sigh.
Whatever happened to doing what was just and fair and following the constitution and laws of our land for legal and noble reasons?
Rayne 102, You nailed it. Schumer and Leahy seem to be hot on their trail.
Rove to Miers to Gonzo to Sampson to Goodling to Miers to Rove to Gonzo to Sampson to Gonzo. Today, in W’s little gaggle, I thought I heard him say Gonzo recommended to him to fire those USA’s and that he has the authority to do so. Gonzo said he had a conversation with Bush, but that it was about policy. So which is it?
Morning everyone. I see you’ve had your wheaties again this morning Christie. Great post.
Tech question about blog itself:
Is the heading of a comment suppose to show up PINK once I hit ’submit comment’? Should I do something else bf hitting submit so this doesn’t happen?
Rayne @ 77
Yes (if you are referring to the epluribusmedia -dot- org link, the server is completely down; will crash some browsers and blankpage others)
many others sites having misc. problems with speed & loads (at my end at least).
Strangely, seems only alt media, blogs etc. that are discussing Fed scandals, Bush, Gonzo, etc.)
(No, I’m not a tin foil hatter…but I been watching & analyzing things for about a week now)
Milan at 113 — We had the pink header feature written in specially so that you can distinguish your own comments from those of others as you are scanning down the page. If you refresh the whole screen (not just hit refresh comments button) you’ll see that it disappears. The only person seeing the pink header on your comments is you. Hope that helps.
TiredFed – And all.
Whats the point of impeachment for any of the administration clowns if the senate can’t remove them?
Even a superficial reading of Christy’s and TPM’s hot stories today, and especially their invaluable links, suggests that Rove’s harshest critics have underestimated him.
I knew that Ken Mehlman, Harvard-trained lawyer and ex-RNC chair, was a computer genius. His RNC computers can tell within seconds whether a would be entrant into a “private” speech by “our” President votes Republican or not. No little “R” after their name and no entry.
What I didn’t know was that this was the tip of a much bigger berg. The RNC’s and the Bush family’s IT consultants have not just ginned up an RNC supercomputer. According to ePluribus Media, those consultants have installed IT networks in the White House, at the Depts of Justice, State, and Energy, and at some of the top committees on the Hill. They also have key contracts for state election data processing too, such as Ohio.
This gives partisan IT services providers essential critical mass to get their companies off the ground and grow them so that they get more business. It deprives federal or state public agencies of the same opportunity, and deprives them of unfettered or unfiltered realtime access.
Like Black Water and Halliburton, it makes them essential contractors for the federal government. Tech savvy folks and people who’ve used their services know how hard it is to set up outsourcing gigs. But it’s much harder to unwind them.
It gives partisan IT services providers first access to the essential raw data of government.
What are the contractual limits on its use? Do they read and copy it? Do they “test” their proprietary analytical software on it before anyone else? What are they looking for or analyzing? Who audits them, Lurita Doan?
Who else gets access to that data – a unitary executive listening in on the Hill or key departments? If they do, does it allow them to monitor would be “subversives”? To predict or respond faster to events that upset their plans – or allow them to derail them before they do?
During a heated election in Ohio or Alabama, do their proprietary s/w and databases allow them to predict high turnout in a key neighborhood with enough time to bus another fifty voter challengers there, or to re-allocate a dozen state patrol cars to line the highway to the polling booth?
One of the great issues this administration and its Pet Congresses has failed to address, or even acknowledge, is the IT revolution happening under our feet.
It’s not just that privacy has gone out the window. It’s not just that your cable tv, Internet access provider or search engine make unacknowledged billions off your personal data. It’s what partisan politicians have done to access, use and possibly corrupt the data of government. The White House e-mails on those RNC servers is a single rose on the icing of a birthday cake that could feed New Orleans for a week.
Thanks Christy–Thought it was some weird, mystical sign.
Anyone interested in buying some prime property in EPUville?
Got the deed right here, and I’ll give you a swell price!
:)
p.s. Milan River @ 113
I think that’s normal, to highlight your post when it first appears.
AnnieW @ 105
I agree as well, to a point. Of the announced candidates he’s the one to fear, but Gore would really get the hair on the back of their necks standing up because he’s already beaten them in the popular vote.
Back to Edwards; the mistake wasn’t the haircut; it was in having the campaign pay for it. He’s a millionaire, he can afford it.
It’s bad PR to talk about 2 Americas economically then use campaign funds for a $400 haircut. Don’t give the nutbags easy talking points.
Last but not least I’ll offer again that the 2008 race will be Gore/Thompson.
Milan at 118 — Nah, we had it written in because on busy days the comments move way too quickly for a lot of folks to keep up. It helps to have a visual marker for spotting where your comment enters the conversation. :)
Listen to W’s gaggle here:
http://thinkprogress.org/
He is saying that Gonzo recommended the firings to him, and that “we” chose who to fire.
Isn’t that flying right in the face of Gonzo’s testimony? Am I just mis-hearing this?
119: “interesting in buying” = “interested in buying”
[Repaired by the moderator]
~arrrrrg~
122: “Isn’t that flying right in the face of Gonzo’s testimony? Am I just mis-hearing this?”
That’s what I heard too, LS, and my same reaction. Have you ever mixed all the colors on an artist’s pallette? You end up with a drab, muddied grey. Always, every time.
Re the Edwards hair and make-up bill for a televised political appearance, did Johnny Carson or does Jay Lenno personally pay for the same services? Does multi-millionaire hair guy Mitt Romney?
I don’t think there’s a question that these were legitimate campaigning expenses in the modern era. What’s galling is that the Republican machine suggests that their side doesn’t do the same.
It’s hard to imagine that Ann Coulter does her own hair or make-up for an O’Reilly appearance. It’s equally hard to believe that Victoria Toensing ever let’s anybody else do her hair or face; it’s clearly a DIY job. (Doesn’t that example alone justify the cost as a campaign expense?)
On Edwards, a haircut & comb is ‘prissy boy’.
On Reagan, it’s stately, star quality, debonair and rugged!
It’s great humor tho, watching them try that tack. Like watching them try to convince the public that Paul Wolfowitz has more appeal & magnetism than say George Clooney or Clint Eastwood.
In the business world, one generally has to jump thru all sorts of hoops to dismiss a low-performing employee. Any manager knows that when you have a problem employee on your hands, the first thing you do is start documenting poor performance. Memos to file, off-the-record conferences, on-the-record conferences, etc. etc. So we’re being asked to believe the DOJ doesn’t do this as well?
Mae @ 60
They are singing, to Senate and House Judiciary staffers. What you see on TeeVee is only the tip of the iceberg. We have experienced prosecutors working this case now, and they won’t let go.
landofthefree @ 93
I agree, and the other reason is that he is an experienced trial lawyer who can speak directly to people and make it sound real, the way FDR did. Clinton had this capacity, too, but exploited it only in his own defense (to his defense he probably didn’t have much choice in the matter). Edwards would be lethal to the thugs, and they know it. He could mobilize what my mom calls ‘working people’ in a way that no one since FDR and perhaps John Kennedy have done.
CHS:
You are sooo right re: the employment law aspects of a paper trail. There are a couple of rules which mgt. employment lawyers advise their clients to follow w/o exception:
1. When dealing with an employee who may be headed out the door for conduct/performance reasons — No Surprises. Make sure the employee knows well in advance that s/he has one foot on a banana peel and the other out the door well before the deed is done, and make sure there is a paper trail documenting everything that got done in this regard.
2. The corollary to No. 1: Triers of fact (juries, judges, arbitrators) subscribe to the notion that if an employee’s conduct/performance is serious enough to get him/her fired, it is serious enough to have all been put in writing. Failure to have the paper trail leads to the not – illogical inference that . . .
3. The employer’s alleged reason for termination is a pretext for the real reason, which the trier of fact will assume is unlawful, otherwise, why lie about it?
4. All the blathering about the USAs “serving at the pleasure” of Dear Leader is to a certain extent beside the point. The analogy to employment law is that all employees are “at will”, which in the real world translates out to they can be fired for a good reason — not doing their job — or for no reason, but they can’t be fired for a bad reason, i.e., because they fall into a protected classification or were engaged in “protected activity” (long legal def. there, but the concept may very well cover the sorts of investigations that several of the fired USAs appear to have been in the midst of).
5. The David Iglesias situation presents the cleanest case of a protected activity. Whatever fool in the DOJ who stated Iglesias was being fired for being an “absentee landlord” because he was on Naval Reserve duty committed a prima facie violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-Employment Rights Act.
That evil little prick! Any ordinary human would have been relieved to have dodged the bullet that Karl did in the whole Fitzgerald/Libby affair. Any ordinary human would have laid low and done as little as possible to rock the boat or draw attention to himself… for at least a little while.
NOT FUCKING KARL ROVE! He cooks up yet another political assassination. Eight of them.
Why oh why haven’t we put this prick in jail yet? What the hell will it take?
>In fact, and the employment lawyers in the audience can back me up on this one, where you have no paper trail whatsoever — no indicia of reprimands or other employee warnings with regard to conduct difficulties and the like, no contemporaneous internal memoranda or dialogue with regard to the need to issue some sort of corrective action with regard to the employee, etc. — that raises a whole lot of red flags in the minds of anyone pursuing a case against that employer. A LOT of questions.
Christie, I’d like to think it raises a lot of red flags but corporations can be very clever. For example, they can request performance goals for employees but conveniently neglect to actually write them. Or the person who you thought was your supervisor is not actually the person rating you. It might be someone higher up. Or the performance goals can be written so vaguely that the employee could fail to meet them even if he/she does good work. Or they could put a Jack Welch style Rank-and-Yank rating system in place where your managers and peers rate you. The danger in that is that sucking up is *required* for keeping your job. It starts looking like a game of Survivor where people are making alliances and voting people off the island. Both badassness and sycophantic loyalty is required. Can you bust someone’s corporate culture? Only if someone complains and in those kinds of cutthroat environments, NO ONE complains. Think Enron. The Smartest Guys in the Room will give you a primer of today’s corporate culture.
There are always ways to skirt the policy, usually by omission or obscurity. I wouldn’t look at the official paper trail route because it’s likely not very revealing. It’s the gossipy email that’s going to yield the most bang.
BTW, when there is a bullying environment at work, the absolute last place you should expect assistance is the HR department. They go straight to the supervisor and tell everything. That is probably why David Iglesias didn’t report the call from Domenici. But his antenna should have been twitching like mad. The bullied employee’s best chance of survival is good record keeping and networking. But from what is sounds like, the fired USA’s were carefully kept out of the loop and other USA’s were cautioned to not get involved. The firings were meant to be a sudden, frightening ambush in order to keep the other ones in line. Maybe a sympathetic current USA will come forward with information but don’t count on it. They’re all scared s$%^less
earlofhuntingdon @
117
A horrible thought just crossed my mind: the White House and the RNC are capable of computer blackmail. It wouldn’t take much for them to take down our entire system, delete bank accounts, screw up social security. They can mess us up good. If the Capital Hill Police were asked to escort them out of the building after impeachment, we could never be sure that our whole information system is safe. Who has the frickin’ superuser passwords?
If the NSA can exploit the telecommunications companies to surveil American citizens, including hooking into the routers to “wire-tap” messages, then I figure the Bush administration is right now busily having their people do everything possible to erase any record of the RNC emails with the help of the compliant telecommunications companies.
You know it’s happening. I know it’s happening.
Once people noted that some record should exist somewhere of the RNC emails, then the Bush administration would immediately have had their hacks at work finding and deleting them…under the cover of “national security” or some such CYRA (Cover Your Republican Ass) nonsense.
They have experience in Fielding, they will NOT get caught with evidence, they WILL go to the mattresses on the privilege question. He lost the fight before, he will do everything in his power, provided they pay him enough, to WIN this time.
No other way to get those fleas out than to keep on brushing that dang dog! Some day, FAR in the future, we will have a democratic government again. Stay strong, be patient. Root them out and keep squeezing Jacky Boy till he screams.
BTW, what kept Nixon from destroying everything to save himself? Whatever it was, 43 doesn’t have it. Paranoia reigns in bushco right now, we can expect ANYTHING.
Even if they are able to “muddy” the waters or “gum” it to death, eventually, the bush legacy will be revealed for what it really is, a kick in the butt to those of us who have not participated, have not been a true “citizen”, because it is our fault that it has gotten this far out of line. I found I do love my country, that I am willing to fight for it. At least, it made us witness a corruption so deep that “The People” woke up simply from the stench of it. We’ve got celebrate that.