Inside View of how Bush's Thugs Roll

Yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the video below, he testifies about some amazingly unethical and illegal behavior conducted by former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and Former White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. Yes, the embattled current Attorney General.

This testimony is absolutely amazing. It shows the depths to which this Administration will go in order to continue abusing the rights of Americans and dancing all over the Constitution. The video is twenty minutes long, but every moment of it is riveting. You'll see thoughtful questioning from New York Senator Chuck Schumer and the testimony of SOMEONE in this Administration that refused to bow to extreme pressure and forced the Bush Administration to back off. I'm not ready to give him a gold medal, but he's earned some respect.

New Scandal Brewing at DOJ?

Today, there is a hearing in Denver, CO. On Monday, there is a hearing in Chicago, IL. Depending on the Judge, the Justice Department could find itself in major legal trouble. While I can't discuss everything about the case, I'll give you the basic story.

Here's the background. The Justice Department has been investigating someone for corporate reimbursement. This is one of around a hundred cases being pursued by the Justice Department, citing a Federal law that allows them to criminally prosecute campaign finance violations.

That's where the scandal starts. The law that DOJ has been citing is outdated. A newer law requires a referral from the Federal Election Commission in order for the DOJ to pursue it criminally. The reason for this is that over 99% of campaign finance violations are settled by the FEC by fines. Only the most egregious ever are prosecuted criminally. Think about it. When is the last time you heard of criminal charges for campaign finance reasons?

Today, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington just today announced that they are filing a complained against Senator Mel Martinez for violations in his 2004 campaign. He also serves as the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. See their release here to see how far reaching his violations were. So far, there is no criminal prosecution of him. Hmmmm.....I wonder why.

I don't know how many of those hundred cases being pursued by DOJ are against Democrats. Nobody does because they won't tell us. There is probably a reason for that.

So, because they have been using an outdated law to investigate and prosecute, the Attorney General is being sued in Federal Court in several jurisdictions. The first hearings are the ones in Denver and Chicago. This could lead to the dismissal of all pending investigations.

However, it could be a watershed moment for another reason. Because of the recent oversight given to the Executive Branch, we now know that the Justice Department has circumvented the legal process and issued tens of thousands of "national security letters." These documents allow DOJ/FBI to forgo getting a Judge's approval for a subpoena. In other words, it allows bureaucrats to violate the Constitutional rights with no Judicial oversight. It is also done in secret.

But, there are indications that national security letters were issued in these campaign finance investigations. It is possible that this Justice Department abused the law to go on a crusade to investigate Democratic donors. So far, the Government has been unwilling to provide an answer to the question of whether or not this is true. If we're lucky, a Federal Judge in Denver or Chicago will seek the truth and uphold the spirit of the law and our Constitution.

Tony Snow: WH Asserts Privilege for Conversations that Never Happened

Astonishing.

In the White House Press briefing that just concluded, Press Secretary Tony Snow said that he was not aware of the President being briefed on the US Attorney issue. He further said the President did not sign off on the firings.

CNN's Ed Henry hit the nail on the head: if no conversations occurred with the President, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield Presidential advice. Tony Snow's response: "That's an intriguing question."

Darn straight it's an intriguing question! What the heck are they protecting if there exists no Presidential advice on the issue? I'll tell you what they are protecting: Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, two of the President's most loyal and trusted advisers.

Snow further stated the true purpose of the White House's actions: to prevent a public 'spectacle' of a public hearing. Well, Mr. Press Secretary, you all have made your bed and it's time to lie in it.

This stinks to high Hell.

Further, on the O'Reilley Factor last night, guest Judge Andrew Napolitano clearly stated that legal precedent is that Executive Privilege applies only in the area of national security issues. For a court to change that precedent would be a major shift in judicial philosophy.

The issue of executive privilege is now dead in the water. There is NO circumstance under which there is a reasonable argument for Rove, Miers, et. al to NOT testify under oath in a public hearing before Congress.

Bush's Offer is not in Good Faith

Last night, I watched the O'Reilley Factor. It's not something I do often, because it is really "info-tainment" and you rarely see a valid presentation of anything close to a fact.

But, I wanted to preview what the right wing's defense of George Bush's bull-headed collision course with Congress would be. Predictably, they continue to use Clinton as justification of their declaration of executive privilege. They forget that they cried foul anytime that Clinton wanted to prevent his staff from appearing before the witch hunt that was run by Sen. Al D'Amato back in the mid-90's.

O'Reilley had former Judge Andrew Napolitano on as his guest last night. Surprisingly, he made it clear to O'Reilley that the courts have spoken clearly over the years on the issue of executive privilege. The established precedent is that this privilege only applies to issues of national security. It would be a major change in judicial philosophy to expand that definition of executive privilege.

Accordingly, Bush's threat to go to court over this issue is in bad faith. They must know they will lose a court battle. So, their strategy must be to delay this issue long enough for the media attention, and subsequently public scrutiny, to wain enough for Congress to back off.

Another interesting point made by Napolitano, which we may hear the conservatives try to use is that the penalty for lying to Congress is the same whether you are under oath or not.

Okay, so that sort of makes sense. But only for a moment. Bush's offer to Congress is that Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, et. al have a 'discussion' with the Ethics Committees that is in private, without the press, not under oath, and without a transcript. This begs the question that if there is no transcript, then who do you prosecute any of these witnesses for perjury? Accordingly, how does Congress ensure that the testimony they are receiving is accurate.

It's all a load of crap. If this Administration has nothing to hide, they will immediately adhere to the subpoenas issued today by the United States Congress. Anything short of that is unacceptable and a gross breach of public trust.

Stonewall Bush Dares Democrats to a Confrontation. They should accept.

George Bush has just finished talking to the American people for the second time in two days. At least he's taking questions today, but it's still as ridiculous as his comments yesterday.

He is clearly challenging the Congress to a confrontation over his staff and former staff testifying under oath about the growing scandal over the firing of nine United States Attorneys (nearly ten percent of all US Attorneys!). He is using the classic argument that says that if White House staffers have to testify under oath to Congress, they will lose any ability to offer confidential advice to the President. That is nothing more than a red herring.

They are free to offer confidential advice to the President until they are blue in the face. Until they start acting unethically. Then, Congressional oversight is warranted.

I still remember the Whitewater Hearings when one after another of the Clinton Administration was dragged before Al D'Amato's Government Affairs Committee to testify there about any number of issues. In these cases, the staff themselves were not suspected of unethical behavior, they were merely a means of seeking damaging information on President Clinton.

There are indeed valid reasons for White House staff to be prevented from testifying to Congress. This, however is NOT one of those times.

The President's position is nothing more than stonewalling. They have made a conscious decision to prevent the truth coming directly from the mouths of his closest and most trusted staffers.
Bush said, "If they are truly interested in information, they need to read all of the emails we have released. They would rather be involved in partisanship. They are just interested in scoring political points."

While he is on message, he couldn't be farther away from the right thing to do. His "fair offer" to have Rove and Miers testify off-camera and off-the-record is wholly unacceptable.

Chairmen John Conyers and Pat Leahy should pick up the gauntlet thrown down by the President. The ONLY reason for Rove and Miers to not testify under oath and on the record is so they A) don't disclose information damaging to the White House, and B) so they don't find themselves facing perjury charges for lying about what they said and did.

This is unacceptable. Democrats need to STAND UP and DEMAND that Congress get to the bottom of this. Otherwise, a dangerous precedent will be created. At risk is the integrity of the Federal legal system.