Goes the sound of the shit hitting the fan.
House Committee Authorizes Subpoenas for White House Officials
By Paul Kiel – March 21, 2007, 10:59 AMJust reported on CNN. More soon.
Update: The subpoenas are for testimony from Karl Rove, his deputy Scott Jennings, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley, and Alberto Gonzales’ chief of staff Kyle Sampson. They also seek more documents from the White House.
Just an everyday story of binge-drinking Republicans…..
I really should be listening to Gordon Brown’s budget but as usual whenever Brown is on the air, I soon got bored. So the story of how congresswoman Mean Jean Schmidt slipped and went arse-over-tits in Bush fluffer-in-chief Michele Bachmann’s vomit on St Patricks’s day was a godsend and cheers to Down With Tyranny! and Jesus General for livening the monotony:
MEAN JEAN SCHMIDT vs MICHELE BACHMANN’S PUKE
-by Karen Allen
This past Thursday in Washington, U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) celebrated St. Patrick’s Day early… in her own unique way. Schmidt, known in her district and elsewhere as “Mean Jean,” entered a bathroom in the Cannon Office Building, stepped in vomit on the floor and fell into it. How unpleasant for the vomit, which is thought to have been deposited there by a celebratory and inebriated Michele Bachmann (R-MN)! Schmidt emerged from the bathroom indignantly screaming about the lack of janitorial services therein. Shrill shrew Schmidt soon attracted a group of people with her screeching and gratingly loud voice who then observed the vomit running down the back of her clothing.
DWT readers will recall Schmidt’s ranting speech in November of 2005, when she denigrated Pennsylvania’s Jack Murtha causing the ensuing chaos that shut down the House of Representatives for half an hour. Of last week’s spectacle, Politico reader Vaughn D. Taylor said, “Cowards slip and fall, real representatives never do.” Rep. Jack Murtha had no comment other than a loud guffaw.
What goes around, comes around, Mean Jean, even if it’s via lunatic extremist Michele Bachmann.
You may remember Rep. Bachmann from this embarassing video of her trying to suck Bush’s face off after his State of the Union speech..
Oh, to have been a fly on the wal to see Schmidt covered in chunks. But then any flies in the vicinity would soon’ve alighted on the vomit …. so no, let’s not go there. Not at dinnertime anyhow.
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 AMWASHINGTON — 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.
As the crowds march against the war in Washington Majikthise finds this story of a soldier who died of despair at what he was asked to do by his superiors in Iraq:
Military ethicist lashed out at Gen. Petraeus in suicide note
New evidence has come to light about the suicide of Col. Ted Westhusing a military ethicist who committed suicide in Iraq in 2005, asserting that he would rather die than dishonor himself any further in a profit-driven war:
Now, a new article reveals — based on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act — that Westhusing’s apparent suicide note included claims that his two commanders tolerated a mission based on “corruption, human right abuses and liars.” One of those commanders: the new leader of the “surge” campaign in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. [E&P]
Robert Bryce of the Texas Observer obtained Westhusing’s suicide note which reads:
Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]—You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more. Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. [sic] Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it
COL Ted Westhusing
Life needs trust. Trust is no more for me here in Iraq..
Bryce confirms earlier reports Westhusing was particularly distraught by the corruption of the private military contractors.
Continue reading “Military ethicist lashed out at Gen. Petraeus in suicide note” »
There’s not really a lot to add to that is there?
In terms of sheer bang for the buck, however little or however much it cost The Nation to send Max Blumenthal to the wingnut fundraising conference CPAC, it’s been repaid a thousandfold in entertainment value alone.
The latest tale to emerge from Blumenthal’s CPAC visit is curiously reminiscent of the story of our old friend Jimmy Jeff Gannon:
CPAC’s Gay Porn Star Honoree and the Politics of Personal Crisis
I don’t know if David Horowitz knew Cpl. Matt Sanchez was once a gay porn star and male prostitute when he introduced him to me at last weekend’s CPAC. But he did know that Sanchez was an eager yes-man, and a supposed victim of the campus PC thuggery Horowitz has made a career out of decrying.
As Horowitz played cardiologist, ranting to me about how each leftist “has hatred in his heart” and how members of the New Left to which he once belonged had “treason in their hearts,” Sanchez stood faithfully by his side, muttering encouragement. “That’s right. That’s right,” Sanchez would say, almost on cue. Whenever I spoke, Sanchez would mumble something under his breath like, “That’s such a lie! Omigod!” or “See! Liberals are hateful.”
Horowitz probably discovered Sanchez after the ex-Marine appeared on Hannity & Colmes alleging that while studying at Columbia University, he was called a “baby-killer” by members of that school’s International Socialist Organization. This alleged episode, which was investigated by Columbia but never confirmed, also earned Sanchez a spot on the O’Reilly Factor.
For his supposed courage in the face of liberal cruelty, Cpl. Sanchez was presented with the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award at this year’s CPAC. Sanchez was the perfect vehicle for the conservative movement’s ongoing attempt to wrap itself in the uniform, and to heap resentment on liberals for their supposed anti-military bias.
Soon, Sanchez was rubbing shoulders with the likes of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Malkin posted pictures of herself beside the corporal on her blog. Sanchez was clad in full military regalia and Malkin wore a big smile. But Malkin is not smiling anymore. Like so many of Sanchez’s boosters, she was mugged by reality.
As several gay blogs revealed late yesterday, Corporal Sanchez was known during his halcyon days as Rod Majors, a majorly well-endowed gay porn star. (Photos of Corp. Sanchez aka Rod Majors in action can be viewed here. I warn you, this link is NOT to be clicked on if you have minors around or if you’re in a crowded workplace). According to Tom Bacchus, Sanchez was also a $200-an-hour male prostitute who advertised himself (here) as an “excellent top.”
There is of course nothing inherently wrong with Sanchez being a gay porn star or a male escort. His past is only notable because he chose to join a movement that exploits anti-gay sentiment for political gain. Coulter’s now-famous “faggot” remark was not an aberration, but rather a symbol of the politics of resentment that propels the conservative movement and its elected Republican surrogates; a reflection of the bigotry conservatives have sought to write into the Constitution through the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment. The ascendant “family values” wing of the right is also responsible for sabotaging legislation allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, a maneuver that may now spell the end of Sanchez’s career.
What is it that attracts people whose natural interest would seem completely opposed to the Republican agenda, to that agenda? Why feel the need to become so slavishly adherent to a movement that hates you? How can anyone deal with the internal conflicts and stay sane?
Blumenthal has a theory that he uses Ann Coulter to illustrate: