OMFG, It’s MC Rove

Hiphop Rap is dead.

Thinkprogress has the unbelievable video of Karl Rove rapping at the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner.

Believe it.

Video: Rove raps at correspondents dinner.

At tonight’s Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner, Karl Rove said he likes to “tear the tops off of small animals” in his spare time, then rapped about it as “MC Rove.”

At the same event, President Bush said of the U.S. Attorney scandal: “You know you’ve botched it when people sympathize with lawyers.”. Watch the video:

The Importance of ‘Attorneygate’

I’m planning on spending this morning catching up on Attorneygate, particularly on the Senate hearing testimony of Gonzales’ sidekick and Rove mini-me Kyle Sampson, the baby-faced boy wonder who at first glance seems to be trying to take the fall for his boss for the politically motivated firings of US attorneys, if what he’s admitted so far is any guide.

But is that true? Is Kyle Sampson substantially to blame? Is he taking the fall, and why?

I love this stuff.

But that’s the point at which many eyes are beginning to glaze over. Not all of us are totally obsessed with the minutiae and the internecine rivalries of the administration of US justice.

However, most of us do give a damn when the government of a country that thinks of itself as the world’s policeman, and which has such a disproportionate effect on world culture, economy and politics, is being deliberately corrupted from within. It affects us all one way or another.

That is the big picture here, and why Attorneygate’s so important. But where can we go to find out more in language the casual yet interested observer rather than the political obsessive can understand?

For a list of the dramatis personae and a timeline of events you could do no better than than Talking Points Memo or TPM Muckraker, whose valiant efforts have pushed this story to the prominence it has now and whose readers have uncovered the story by sifting the reams of email evidence released by the White House in an attempt to bury the inquiry in paper.

For those who want the backstory the links are fascinating – it’s like lifting up a log and seeing crawly things scurrying panicky away from the light.

The story, grossly simplified and in short, as I understand it, is this:

Bushco got scared when California politician Randall ‘Duke Cunningham” was convicted of corruption over defence contracts, because a co-conspirator of his, one Dusty Foggo of the CIA, was also on the verge of being indicted for his involvement in the same shady doings.

Dusty Fuggo’s a friend, intimate and business associate of many, many senior Republican figures up to and including in the White House and is privy to all sorts of CIA shenanigans like, oh say, rendition, and torture, and misuse of funds, and bribery and prostitution – take your pick. he also knows where the bodies were buried, figuratively (though possibly actually) speaking, in Honduras during Reagan and Bush Sr.’s Central American adventures.. So the notion of his testifying anywhere, any time, simply would not do.

Foggo could’ve exposed everybody.

Not only was that little storm brewing for the White House, meanwhile there was that darned Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago, worrying away at Cheny aide Scotter Libby and about to expose the White House’s complicity in the media outing of yet another CIA agent, which would then expose their out and out lies over Iraq’s alleged attempted importation of yellowcake uranium from Niger and reveal their whole pretext for the war as a lie and a sham. (Not that we don’t know that already from other extrinsic evidence but it would’ve been nice to’ve seen it proved in court.)

Oh no, exposure! Whatever to do? It all got a bit panicky.

It got worse: previously loyal prosecutors started chafing when pressured politically by Bushco to push unfounded voter fraud cases against Democrats. They might have drunk some koolaid, but even they had limits. There was no evidence, they said.

Karl Rove, the wily old snake, had a brainwave. They could stop the Foggo prosecution and fix the next election too, plus the added extra of bringing the whole national prosecutorial wing of the Justice department entirely under their political control. All their problems solved at a stroke – all they had to do was fire all the lawyers and put unqualified partisans in their place. Of course! Easypeasy, lemon squeezy.

Th idea of being able to prosecute their political opponents on a whim was too tempting to resist. Why, Rove himself had a young padawan, a zealous devotee of the dark Rovian art of candidate smearing, who’d fit perfectly – and in Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s home state of Arkansas too. How very handy for the next presidential election.

The plan was all going well for the little group of alleged conspirators, Rove, Gonzales, Harriet Miers, (potentially Cheney and Bush too but that remains to be seen) – great theory, great plan. It all got discussed by email within and outside the White House (by whom is exactly what the hearings are about) then it was up to Gonzales to put it into action, which he did in the same half-assed way Bushco do everything.

He palmed it off to his deputy Kyle Sampson, the man who’s now sitting in the chair sweating before the committee. Because the US attorneys, quite understandably, didn’t take to being fired on flimsy pretexts like incompetence very well and started to talk to the media, and it all began to unravel. The Democrats took Congresss, the story came out, and here we are, Bushco and its evil lawyer minions on the stand, looking for all the world like the low-rent theives they are.

The big question is: how high up can this be proved to have gone? While it may be obvious to most of us that Bushco’re as rotten as a log full of woodlice, because of the virulence of the Right’s revisionist attack trops in the media it has to be shown in the clear light of judicial sunshine that the Democrats are not, in their turn, using the administration of justice for partisan purposes.

The proof of Bushco wrongdoing needs to be revealed in public.

Yes, there’re a lot of grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney and Gonzales too for that matter, but without the actual, physical proof of a crime it’s all just conjecture and accusation. The evidence that’s coming to light as a result of the Attorneygate hearings may be that actual, physical proof – or at the very least, we may hear the testimony that will finally put the criminals in the White House in the dock, not for grand historical war crimes but for squalid hole-in-the-corner corruption and conspiracy.

How worried are Bushco about this? Worried enough to have made a futile attempt to stop the hearings yesterday on procedural grounds.. I shall continue to watch this one with interest, it has great potential to be the blow that finally brings the rotten edifice of modern-day Republicanism tumbling down.

Always Twirling, Twirling, Twirling Towards Freedom

Last night it was Bush, accusing congressional Democrats of staging political theatre over the Attorneygate hearings whilst himself flanked by theatrical props, ie military families:

Bush appeared at the White House alongside veterans and family members of troops to accuse Democrats of staging nothing more than “political theater” that delays the delivery of resources to soldiers fighting in Iraq.

This morning it’s this headline re corrupt US attorney general Alberto Gonzales:

Gonzales Launches PR Campaign
Will Tour And Letters Of Support From Latino And Law Enforcement Groups Burnish Embattled AG’s Image?

A PR campaign? It’s a little bit late for that, surely?

I’ll give Bushco one thing, they are at least consistent: anything and everything they do gets spun. Sometimes they spin so hard and so fast they disappear up their own arsesholes in a puff of ridiculousness.

But what do they care as long as the actual truth is muddied by falsehood? The mainstream media will report this, as they do all other Bushco spin, as though it were gospel. I predict that by next week the conservative media narrative will be ’embattled yet brave president and his unfairly picked-upon Hispanic hero sidekick’. Job done.

Attorneygate: Is This The Chimperor’s ‘Cataclysmic Fight To the Death’?

Finally the British papers are perking up and taking notice of the now- inevitably-known-as Attorneygate scandal, which is is growing like topsy, sprouting tendrils all over the place, almost escaping the efforts of the Talking Points Memo team and the mainstream reporters who’re trying to keep up with them.

As they sift through a pile of 3,000 emails released by the White House, with 2,000 more to come, the sheer scale and blatancy of Bushco’s political interference in the Justice Department is becoming ever more apparent.

Luckily this is the sort of thing the left blogosphere, with its overpopulation of political wonks, geeks, lawyers, lawyer wannabes, scholars and various combinations thereof eats right up with gusto and the revelations are coming thick and fast. (I bet whoever thought up distributed processing didn’t really have bringing down governments in mind, though.)

So what do we know so far? Kevin Drum via Digby gives a succinct overview:

If seven U.S. Attorneys were fired that day for poor performance, that would be fine. If they were fired for insufficient commitment to Bush administration policies, that would be fine too. But there’s considerable reason to believe that at least some of them were fired because either (a) they were too aggressive about investigating Republican corruption or (b) they weren’t aggressive enough about investigating Democrats.

That’s it. That’s the argument. David Iglesias: Didn’t bring indictments against some local Democrats prior to the 2006 election. John McKay: Failed to invent voter fraud cases that might have prevented a Democrat from winning the 2004 governor’s race in Washington. Carol Lam: Doing too good a job prosecuting trainloads of Republicans in the wake of the Duke Cunningham scandal. Daniel Bogden and Paul Charlton: In the midst of investigations targeting current or former Republican members of Congress when they were fired. And this all comes against a background that suggests the Bush Justice Department has initiated fantastically more investigations of Democrats than Republicans over the past five years.

Thanks to the email dump we now also know that the attempted putsch of federal attorneys and the installation of political apparatchiks in their places was orchestrated by Bush’s brain, Karl Rove, with the collusion of Alberto Gonzalez and his deputy Kyle Sampson with then WH counsel Harriet Miers (her paltry revenge against real lawyers for not having secured that vacant Supreme Court seat?). Every one of them’s a political operative.

Knowing that prosecutions are on the way for Republicans and Bush loyalists in particular, not content with having already stacked the Supreme Court in their favour and having installed party loyalists at every level, the White House sought to make assurance doubly sure by gutting an entire level of federal prosecutors, many of whom had been appointed by Bush for their loyalty. They just weren’t loyal enough.

What happens next? Well, things are hotting up for a confrontation between the White House and Democrat-led Congressional oversight commitees over executive privilege, specifically over who will testify to the committee. The White House says no way WH staff will testify, the committee says OK, we’ll subpoena them.

For Bushco executive privilege is the Big One. It’s the principle behind everything they’ve done; the notion that Presidential power is absolute and what the President does may not be questioned underpins every single Bush administration policy and action.

The assertion of the untramelled power and privilege of the Presidency is also the battle royal that Bushco’s mad-eyed lawyers have been preparing for since the day the administration took office:

December 12, 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: Congressional Subpoena for Executive Branch Documents

I have been advised that the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives has subpoenaed confidential Department of Justice documents. The documents consist of memoranda from the Chief of the Campaign Financing Task Force to former Attorney General Janet Reno recommending that a Special Counsel be appointed to investigate a matter under review by the Task Force, memoranda written in response to those memoranda, and deliberative memoranda from other investigations containing advice and recommendations concerning whether particular criminal prosecutions should be brought. I understand that, among other accommodations the Department has provided the Committee concerning the matters that are the subject of these documents, the Department has provided briefings with explanations of the reasons for the prosecutorial decisions, and is willing to provide further briefings. I also understand that you believe it would be inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the Department’s law enforcement responsibilities to release these documents to the Committee or to make them available for review by Committee representatives.

It is my decision that you should not release these documents or otherwise make them available to the Committee. Disclosure to Congress of confidential advice to the Attorney General regarding the appointment of a Special Counsel and confidential recommendations to Department of Justice officials regarding whether to bring criminal charges would inhibit the candor necessary to the effectiveness of the deliberative processes by which the Department makes prosecutorial decisions. Moreover, I am concerned that congressional access to prosecutorial decisionmaking documents of this kind threatens to politicize the criminal justice process. The Founders’ fundamental purpose in establishing the separation of powers in the Constitution was to protect individual liberty. Congressional pressure on executive branch prosecutorial decisionmaking is inconsistent with separation of powers and threatens individual liberty. Because I believe that congressional access to these documents would be contrary to the national interest, I have decided to assert executive privilege with respect to the documents and to instruct you not to release them or otherwise make them available to the Committee.

I request that you advise the Committee of my decision. I also request that the Department remain willing to work informally with the Committee to provide such information as it can, consistent with these instructions and without violating the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Bushco knew right from the start that what they planned to do when in office was illegal and they’ve taken steps all along to ensure secrecy by asserting privilege and presidential rights where there are none, with the supine, gluttonous acquiescence of a pork-fed Republican Congress. The tussle between the White House and Congress over whether Rove testifies to Congress may well be the “cataclysmic fight to the death”Bush promised after the Democratic rout of Congress last November:

In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush’s understanding of the presidency, the President’s team has been planning for what one strategist describes as “a cataclysmic fight to the death” over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is “going to assert that power, and they’re going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.”

The Attorneygate hearings are much more than little local spat between dull government bods. Whatever else, the upcoming tussle between the White House and Congress over Karl Rove certainly is going to put the doctrine of the balance of powers under severe strain and might even cause a constitutional crisis. Is it too cynical of me to think that’s what’s been planned all along?

This could turn out to be the end-game of Bush’s power grab, for good or ill: the question of who wins on executive privilege, Congress or the White House, may well determine the course of US and world political history – if it gets that far. If push comes to shove, Bush can always be persuaded to nuke Iran and the likely consequences of that would make an argument over the balance of powers seem just a little bit irrelevant. Let’s hope that’s not what ‘a cataclysmic fight to the death’ actually means.

UPDATE

Game on! The Washingon Post reports:

House Panel OKs Rove, Miers Subpoenas

By LAURIE KELLMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 21, 2007; 11:00 AM

WASHINGTON — A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote, but with some “no” votes heard, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president’s top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

At The Court of The Littlest Emperor

More reason to ratchet up that looming sense of unease and history spinning out of control… In an otherwise rather hagiographic piece by Irwin Stelrzer in the Sunday Times this morning

No matter how many years one spends in Washington, lunch with the president of the United States is an exciting prospect. Entering through a special door not accessible to tourist riffraff and the tight security only heighten the sense you are entering a special realm.

comes this little miniature:

[…]

And then in came the president. Bush is taller than he seems on television and chirpier. He is also refreshingly free of the pretence so common in this town. “Let’s eat,” he said and explained we were gathered to discuss Roberts’s book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples because “history informs the present”. His goals, he said, were to see what history can teach us today and to “pander to you powerful opinion-makers”. Such humour is typical of the man. In addition to Roberts and myself the group included the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, neocon Norman Podhoretz and theologian Michael Novak.

The president divulged with convincing calm that when it comes to pressure, “I just don’t feel any”. Why? His constituency, he feels, is the divine presence, to whom he must answer. Don’t misunderstand: God didn’t tell him to put troops in harm’s way in Iraq; his belief only goes so far as to inform him that there is good and evil. It is the president who must figure out how to promote the former and destroy the latter. And he is confident that his policies are doing just that.

[…]

All of this led the president to turn the conversation to the old question of what exactly is “evil” and what constitutes “good”. The discussion centred on Novak’s contention that although there is indeed evil, there is no such thing as absolute good. The president didn’t buy that line. Bush’s formulation is that we are engaged in a war between absolute evil and good principles. These principles, the president said, are practised by imperfectly good men.

[My emphasis]

This was a lunch given so historian Andrew Roberts could brief Bush and Cheney on his historical ideas, one of which is:

Third lesson: don’t hesitate to intern your enemies for long periods. That policy worked in Ireland and during the second world war. Release should only follow victory.

The Decider gets to decide who his enemies are on the basis of what the invisible sky-fairy tells him and thinks that interning them indefintely is a mighty fine idea. How very reassuring.

Oh and the guest list for that lunch? A full hand of Neocon Hall of Shamers:

In addition to Roberts and myself the group included the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, neocon Norman Podhoretz and theologian Michael Novak. .

That would be this Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz and Michael Novak.

These people are what pass for the guardians of intellectual rigour at the court of the Littlest Emperor – a coterie of war criminals, wingnut welfare queens, revisionists, insane rightwing zealots and sycophantic divines, like a midwestern Rotary version of one of Mme de Pompadour’s salons. Only without the glamour or wit and armed with nuclear weapons.

UPDATE: The WaPo has this headline today:

Bush Shows New Willingness to Reverse Course

Wahahahahaha. As if.