BLITZER: The White House counsel, Fred Fielding, was up on the Hill today. I don’t know if you had a chance to meet with him. But he’s not necessarily ruling out allowing some White House staffers, maybe even Karl Rove to come and testify. Do you want Karl Rove to testify before your panel?
LEAHY: I’ve never met Mr. Fielding. Frankly, I don’t care whether he says he’s going to allow people or not. We’ll subpoena the people we want. If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don’t want to have.
BLITZER: Will you subpoena Karl Rove?
LEAHY: Yes. He can appear voluntarily if he wants. If he doesn’t, I will subpoena him. The attorney general said, Well, there are some staff people or lower level people — I’m not sure whether I want to allow them to testify or not. I said, Frankly, Mr. Attorney General, it’s not your decision. It’s mine and the committee’s. We will have subpoenas. I would hope that they wouldn’t try to stonewall subpoenas.
************
BLITZER: But is there anything illegal in putting one of Karl Rove’s associates in and making him the U.S. attorney in Arkansas?
LEAHY: There’s nothing illegal in a president firing — by itself, in firing a U.S. attorney. What it does say, however, to law enforcement, You either play by our political rules — by our political rules — not by law enforcement rules, but by our political rules, or you’re out of a job. What I am saying is that that hurts law enforcement. That hurts fighting against crime. And if it is done to be stop an ongoing investigation — this is something we don’t know — if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation, then you do get into the criminal area.
Hope away, Mr. Leahy, but in case you haven't noticed, you are dealing with an Administration which truly believes that the rule of law does not apply to it "at a time of war" (that it created). What I want to know is this: What do you plan to do when they DO stonewall subpoenas?
More at ThinkProgress.
Meanwhile, WINS news radio in New York is repeating the right-wing meme "Buh...buh...buh....but CLINTON..." in pointing out that it is not unusual for a president to replace U.S. attorneys WHEN TAKING OFFICE. The difference here, of course, is that this president is replacing not a previous president's appointees, but his own, and replacing only those who either a) resisted calls to speed up investigations of Democrats so that they would affect the 2006 elections (David Iglesias); or b) were too zealous in investigating and prosecuting Republicans (Carol Lam).
Thos whole operation has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it; he's been doing this sort of thing since his days in Texas:
From the earliest Republican campaigns that Rove ran in Texas, beginning in 1986, the FBI was involved in investigating every one of his candidates' Democratic opponents. Rove happened to have a close and mysterious relationship with the chief of the FBI office in Austin. Investigations were announced as elections grew close, but there were rarely indictments, just tainted Democrats and victorious Republicans. On one occasion, Rove himself proclaimed that the FBI had a prominent Democrat under investigation -- an investigation that led to Rove's client's win. In 1990, the Texas Democratic Party chairman issued a statement: "The recurring leaks of purported FBI investigations of Democratic candidates during election campaigns is highly questionable and repugnant."
A year later, Rove received a reward. Gov. Bill Clements, a Rove client, appointed him to the East Texas State University board of regents. Appearing before the state Senate's Nominations Committee, a Democratic senator asked Rove about how long he had known the local FBI chief. "Ah, Senator," replied Rove, "it depends. Would you define 'know' for me?"
An interesting response, to say the least, given the speculation that it was Rove who was the visitee during Hot Military Stud Jimmyjeff Gannonguckert's 200+ visits to the White House.
But the real point is that this kind of tactic is Rove's standard M.O. And Joe Conason (h/t Digby) notes that this sort of behavior by an administration headed by a man named "Bush" is nothing new:
There was once another Republican prosecutor who insisted on behaving professionally instead of obeying partisan hints from the White House. His name was Charles A. Banks, and the Washington press corps said nothing when he was punished for his honesty by the administration of the first President Bush.
The cautionary tale of Chuck Banks begins during the summer of 1992, as the Presidential contest entered its final months with Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton leading incumbent President George H.W. Bush.
At the time, Mr. Banks had already served for five years as the United States Attorney in Little Rock. As an active Republican who had run for Congress and still aspired to higher office, he counted Mr. Clinton among his political adversaries. The first President Bush had recently selected him as a potential nominee for the federal bench. Nothing could have better served Mr. Banks’ personal interests than a chance to stop the Clintons and preserve the Bush Presidency.
In September 1992, a Republican activist employed by the Resolution Trust Corporation provided that opportunity by fabricating a criminal referral naming the Clintons as witnesses in a case against the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association (the small Arkansas savings and loan owned by Whitewater partner and Clinton friend James McDougal).
The referral prepared by L. Jean Lewis lacked merit—as determined by both Mr. Banks and the top F.B.I. agent in his office—but Ms. Lewis commenced a persistent crusade for action against the hated Clintons. The F.B.I. and the U.S. Attorney repeatedly rejected or ignored her crankish entreaties.
[snip]
The Whitewater case didn’t save the first President Bush, but it was later revived as a pseudo-scandal that ultimately wasted almost eight years of investigative effort and tens of millions of dollars in an effort to destroy President Clinton. More pertinent today is what happened to Mr. Banks and Ms. Lewis—and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Little Rock.
Mr. Banks forfeited his promised judgeship and returned to private practice with his political career ended.
The incompetent Ms. Lewis appeared before the Senate Whitewater Committee, where she lied repeatedly before “fainting” under examination by the Democratic counsel. She then disappeared from public view until 2003, when the White House rewarded her with an important federal job. Those who had observed Ms. Lewis in action were astonished when she was named chief of staff to the Pentagon Inspector General, at a salary of $118,000 a year.
An ugly sequel occurred last December, when the Justice Department rudely ousted H.E. (Bud) Cummins III—another upstanding and competent Republican prosecutor in Little Rock—so that a crony of Karl Rove could replace him in the U.S. Attorney’s office.
Was this what George W. Bush meant when he promised to return “honor” and “integrity” to the Oval Office?
Digby makes a strong case for a concerted effort by Karl Rove to make "suspected voter fraud" the key to challenging what he knew would be the loss of some seats in Congress last November -- and that this was driving much of the pressure put on prosecutors:
For those who didn't follow the whole saga in Washington state (like me) this article gives a full rundown of what happened and the Republicans' insistence that the election was stolen by the Democrats despite no proof that any such thing happened. The Justice Department never "ordered" the US Attorney to do anything. Rove isn't that bold. He had local surrogates do it, just as he did in New Mexico. And when Mckay refused to play ball he was first denied a federal judgeship and then fired.
As Josh Marshall noted last night, the GOP cries of voter fraud go back a long way. It's an extension of their old habits of disenfranchising blacks in the south and latinos in the southwest (as Joe Conason outlines here.)
But since the 2000 election the Democrats have been the ones complaining about voter irregularities and I think that Rove recognized that he could deftly twist the public awareness we created and turn it back on us. His problem was that the Democrats won the election by too wide a margin in 2006 for them to cry fraud in any systematic way --- and some US Attorneys refused to play ball.
If Rove had been successful, however, I suspect that he could have pulled off something even more subversive for 2008. He could have had in place pliant US Attorneys who are willing to keep open all of these cases of "voter fraud" and pursue new ones from the 2008 election. If a Republican wins the presidency, no harm no foul, they just keep pressing, suppressing the vote and pushing the new meme about Democrats stealing elections. If a Dem wins, they exert political pressure to keep these US Attorneys in place for reasons of "justice department integrity" and a Democratic president finds him or herself battling their own Justice Department --- which has been salted with Karl Rove's partisan clones who cannot be fired.
The problem for Karl was that a handful of US Attorneys with integrity wouldn't be pressured with the usual inducements and so they had to be forced out. The problem for Democrats, however, is that if they don't handle this carefully, the scenario I outlined above could happen anyway. You can bet that nothing any Republican says now will stop them from screeching like rabid howler monkeys if a Democratic president tries to replace even one Bush appointed US Attorney in 2009.
Again, if you look carefully, Rove's footprints are not that difficult to find. In this case, it's all about taking a Democratic strength -- commitment to voting integrity -- especially in the aftermath of the Republican shenanigans in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 and turning it against them.
That's why it's vitally important that Congressional Democrats not get wobbly on this. And if it means we have a Constitutional crisis as a result of the White House ignoring subpoenas, so be it. Because if this Administration has done us one favor, it has shown us where the flaws in our system of government lie. We might as well address those flaws now, before another would-be Republican dictator is able to steal the presidency.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire