House Judiciary Votes to Cite Karl Rove for Contempt
Jul 30 at 12:12pm by Jagwire X
Contemptible Rove?
Karl Rove the smug and arrogant puppet master behind much of the Bush Administration’s policies and power has failed to respond to the authorized subpoenas in the matter of the US Attorney firings and the allegations of his interference in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The House Judiciary Committee, voting along party lines, had elected to push the motion for contempt to the full House of Representatives, where a straight majority vote will be necessary to formalize the contempt citation.
The House Judiciary Committee, decision is only a recommendation, and it is up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to allow a final vote. It is unclear whether she would be so inclined. Rove has denied any involvement with Justice decisions, and the White House has said Congress has no authority to compel testimony from current and former advisers. If so he should have nothing to fear in answering the subpoenas.
Following the actions in the previous contempt citation the House Judiciary Committee filed suit in federal court, seeking an order compelling the US Attorney to proceed with the prosecution. However the case was assigned to federal judge John D. Bates, a staunch Bush ally who dismissed the Plame lawsuit, the Cheney Energy Task Force lawsuit, and the DNC’s lawsuit seeking a ruling by Federal Election Commission on John McCain’s attempt to withdraw from his campaign’s public financing commitments. He also upheld the validity of Bush’s signature on an a bill not properly passed in the same form by both houses of Congress.
The House’s earlier contempt citations were referred under the statutory contempt procedure to the US Attorney who declined to prosecute the cases, upon the instruction of both the White House and the Department of Justice. Given that the previous contempt citations were brought up in the framework of investigation into whether or not the White House or the Department of Justice improperly directing prosecution decisions of the US Attorneys, this would seem to be a flagrant ethics violation as well as conflict of interest.
The Judiciary vote is that point where the decision needs to be made as to which type of contempt violation occurred. Statutory contempt which gets referred for prosecution to the US Attorney, and may be subject to the same conflict of interest, or inherent contempt which can then be prosecuted by the House itself in a trial before the body.
I don’t really have much faith in the House pursuing statutory contempt. It seems to me the inhertent contempt is a more accurate charge in any event.
It’s a step in the right direction but I’d really like to see the House of Representatives step up to the plate and actually get something done for the people.
Related posts
Houses votes 238 to 180, including 9 Republicans voting yea, to move forward an impeachment resolution
Jul 17 at 7:07am by Jagwire X
House of Representatives
Yesterday the House voted 238 yea to 180 nay to move forward with impeachment hearings against President Bush. 9 Republicans broke ranks the party to put country first, voting to send Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s article of impeachment HR 1345 to the Judiciary, where Chairman John Conyers will hold a hearings on abuses of power by the Bush administration. Ten Republicans abstained in this crucial juncture, while only 5 Democrats did.
Those Republicans are:
Congressman Kevin Brady (TX)
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC)
Representative Don Manzullo (IL)
U.S. Congressman Tim Murphy(PA)
Congressman Ron Paul (TX)
Congressman Dave Reichert (WA)
Congressman Christopher Shays (CT)
Representative Mike Turner (OH)
Of those Republican, Walter Jones, represents Camp LeJeune in North Carolina, which is one of the largest Marine bases in the country. It also happens to be one that has made great sacrifices in the Iraq War.
Chairman John Conyers Jr. said he will hold a broad hearing on the general topic of abuses of power by the Bush administration.
“There’s never been one [hearing] that accumulated all the things that constitute an imperial presidency,” Conyers said, explaining that the anticipated hearing would review over a year of committee inquiry into such matters as the firing of U.S. attorneys, the leak of the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame and the information provided to Congress in the run-up to the Iraq War.
There was little or no mention of this in mainstream media so here is a way to easily send a letter to the editor of you local paper.
Related posts
General Clark’s Comments on John McCain
Jul 10 at 3:03pm by Jagwire X
Face the Nation
There’s been a bunch of hub-bub about what Wes Clark said about John McCain. It took no time for the what he actually said to get completely distorted.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents, and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, ‘I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-’
Bob Schieffer: Well-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ‘ -it publicly.’ He hasn’t made those calls, Bob.
Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-
Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.
Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.
Bob Schieffer: Really?!
Note that Bob Schieffer is the one that says “ridden in a figher plane and gotten shot down.” Clark does not in anyway question John McCain’s military service. Clark does state the fact that McCain’s command was not a wartime command but even then doesn’t do anything but state known facts. What he’s saying is that McCain military experience doesn’t make him any more qualified to be president than Barack Obama.
When it comes to experience Obama is more qualified than our current president, who, if you will recall, was a state governor and had absolutely no experience on the national level when he took office.
The plain truth of the matter is that getting riding (was McCain really riding and not piloting?) in a fighter plane and getting shot down and having military service don’t really count as qualifications for president.
See, the thing is, it isn’t.
Loading ...Related posts
FISA Passes Senate
Jul 9 at 2:02pm by Jagwire X
Talking Points Memo
From Talking Points Memo - FISA Passes Senate
FISA Passes Senate
07.09.08 — 3:10PM
By David KurtzThe final vote was a rout: 69-28.
No surprises here. Just the weight of disappointment.
Late Update: Worth noting that Hillary voted against the bill, while Obama –as we’ve noted here before — changed positions on telecom immunity and voted for the bill.
To paraphrase Mark Twain:
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of the Senate (Congress). But I repeat myself.
Related posts
Update on the Primaries
Mar 5 at 12:12pm by Jagwire X
Republicans & Democrats
Well, we already know that McCain has essentially won the Republican nomination and gained the blessing of George Bush, to the delight of both Democrats and Republicans.
The Democratic nomination is still up in the air. As of noon central time the Democratic Party delegates are distributed as follows:
| Obama 1,520 | Clinton 1,424 |
| Pledged: 1,321 | Pledged: 1,186 |
| Superdels: 199 | Superdels: 238 |
| Needed to Win: 2,025 | |
The caucuses in Texas are still counting but apparently Obama currently has a slight edge of 52% to 48%, again as of noon central time.
Take a look at the New York Times election guide also for alternative tallies.
Related posts
March 4th Primaries
Mar 4 at 10:10pm by Jagwire X
Republicans & Democrats
Well today is the day. Well not THE day. But it’s the day that will most likely decide who the presidential contenders are.
At this point John McCain is already the presumptive nominee for the GOP. Not too surprising there - another militaristic rich white guy is what Republican constituents think this country needs. I think not.
Meanwhile on the Democrats side of the fence we seem to have all sort of craziness going on. The nomination is down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Either way it’s historical precedent. There are reports of voters overwhelming caucuses and claims by the Clinton camp that Obama supporters are illegally obtaining caucus packets in the several Texas caucus precincts. I don’t know the ground rules for caucuses and I probably should but I am to understand that to some degree it’s a first come first server sort of deal where the packets are concerned. Then there are allegation about the Clinton campaign regularly claiming caucus irregularities with the Obama campaign to the point that it seem to have become a tactic of the Clinton campaign.
There are also reports in Ohio of precincts closing down early because they have run out of ballots because a large number of people wanted to vote on paper. I can understand that. Otherwise in Ohio the only real problems seem to be the winter weather making it difficult for people to get out and vote.
So right now the democratic nomination could go either way. From what I see in the various media Obama is ahead by a small but significant margin. Now just to make things interesting the Democratic Party does not use a winner takes all approach to the votes in the primary - it’s proportional. So even if Clinton wins in Ohio it doesn’t mean she gets all the delegate - if she wins 60% of the vote she gets 60% of the delegates and Obama gets the remaining 40%. So this primary could remain close until the very end. Superdelegates are another story - they can vote for whoever they like and can be persuaded by the nominees (or even the voters) to vote one way or the other. It’s all very exciting and tomorrow morning we may well have a better idea of who is likely to be the next president of the United States.
For the record I prefer Obama to Clinton but, as I said before, either way it’s historical precedent. And I frankly just don’t want another rich white guy to be president. That is hardly representative of a country that is comprised of so many non-rich, non-whites and non-guys. Not to mention people who just are fed up with politics as usual. Being a politician shouldn’t be a career option - it should be a duty.
For those interested in hard numbers you can check CNN (they also have a lot of information about how the primary process works) or look a the latest Daily Kos post.
Related posts
Election Year
Jan 28 at 3:03pm by Jagwire X
Ballot Box
Well it’s that time again folks. That’s right I speak of election year - two thousand eight. And once again we are presented with such a limited bunch of self-serving ego maniacs that I continue to wonder how this country keeps together at all. Really, my biggest complaint is the party system. We have a two party system, Democrats and Republicans. We allegedly have a multi-party system, with Greens, Socialist, Libertarians and other, but they are never in contention. It sort reduces the choice from an array of candidates to, well, two. The National Football League has a better selection process for how teams get to the Super Bowl. I don’t buy all the crap about uncommon and unconventional ideas remain non-influential and so a two party system flourishes. It’s a strategy to keep any other parties from gaining traction. It’s not like various Socialist ideals don’t overlap with Democrat ideals, or Libertarian ideals don’t have companion ideals that find traction in with Republicans.
Actually are some interesting candidates, Barack Obama (D, IL), Ron Paul (R TX), Mike Gravel (D AK) and Dennis Kucinich (D OH) for example, less self serving that most I’d say, but still full of sound and fury and a bit of demagoguery, you don’t run for president without a formidable ego at very least, even if you aren’t maniacal. You’d go home in tears every night.
Of course we’ve been dropped into an economic, social, political, and diplomatic mire, for which mitigation will be difficult at best, by the current Republican administration, so I shouldn’t hold too high hopes for the next CEO of the USA. Which is the problem, this is a government of the people, for the people and by the people - not a corporation to be run as so. We, citizens all, are stockholders in this nation and it is up to us to decide what we want. Or are we to lazy to make decisions for ourselves?
But I do hold out hope that things will get better. In any event this being an election year should provided plenty of fodder for blogging. We don’t intend to be another DailyKOS or Crooks and Liars (you should read them too) but we do hope to provide a skeptical (or perhaps cynical) view of the political landscape.
Related posts
Repeal the 22nd Amendment?
Jun 16 at 8:08pm by Jagwire X
Steny Hoyer as Whip
I predicted this would happen. Someone is trying to do it and that someone is House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD). He introduced bipartisan legislation (H.J.RES.25.IH) on February 15th 2005 to repeal the 22nd amendment, which states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Representatives Berman (D-CA), Pallone (D-NJ), Sabo (D-MN) and Sensenbrenner (R-WI) joined Hoyer in sponsoring the resolution.
Sensenbrenner is the very same man who has proposed the Orwellian and absurd drug laws as mentioned earlier this week here on The Hollow Men. I suspect the democrats involved are paying some sort of lip service to the administration. Contrary to what is says in the statement that Bush would not be eligible for re-election I am sure that is intended.
I thought we did away with the monarchy during the American Revolution?
As a side note apparently other legislation was introduced in 2003 to repeal the 22nd amendment as well. H.J.RES.11.IH - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
The current legislation H.J.RES.25.IH - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Both of these may already have been axed but I haven”t found any further information about them. If you know anything send us a message.
RECENT COMMENTS