John Edwards Forced to Testify About Sex Tape

By GottaLaff

As expected, John Edwards has to submit to a sworn legal deposition on... well, you know. I can't imagine the details not being dribbled out (as it were) by someone, somehow, somewhere:

"Edwards is forced to testify under oath about his extra-marital sex life -- specifically that much-talked-about sex tape he made with mistress Rielle Hunter -- and whether he might have spent federal campaign funds to keep Hunter lavishly hidden away from the media and under the watchful eye of trusted aide Andrew Young."

But here's the rub (as it were): Rielle wants the depositions to be hush-hush. She's worried they'll show up in the movie (that will have been inspired by The Politician by Andrew Young). But those pesky leaks... you know how they can be.

As for the campaign funds, that's an obscenity unto itself.

Rove deposed in U.S. attorney probe

By GottaLaff

Eight hours of Karl Rovian deposition, and what do we get? Nothing. It's a big fat secret:

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman.

Rove’s deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.

Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.

Oh, come on! Just a teensy weensy little hinty winty? For meeeeee? Pleeeeaaase?

“He was deposed today,” Conyers said in an interview. “That’s all I can tell you.”

Fine. See if I tell you about that dream I had the other night... Ooops. Forget I said that.

Why House Committee wanted Rove behind closed doors

By GottaLaff

More time? That was it? Really?

The House Judiciary Committee chose to interview former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove behind closed doors because they wanted more time to question him, and not as a concession to Bush Administration representatives, sources say.

“It was our choice,” one House Judiciary aide told Raw Story.

I'm a big proponent of freedom of choice. Does that mean I have to support this decision?

According to two Judiciary Committee aides, the committee opted for the private testimony so that they could depose Rove for an extended period of time. During a public hearing, each committee member would have only a few minutes to ask questions.

I am now a supporter.

“We could question him for 12 hours if we choose to,” said one of the aides.

I am now a huge supporter.

Both aides confirmed that Rove would not be sworn in before his testimony but explained that testimony before Congress is de facto sworn testimony and any false statements would in fact be perjury regardless.

Asked why in that case Congress bothers to swear people in during public hearings, one of the aides quipped, “Because it looks good.”

I'm sorry, what? Seriously... huh? Is it just me, or shouldn't this swearing in stuff be taken a little more literally?

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed that his client had not requested to be deposed in private. [...]

Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor who was convicted of bribery charges in 2006 and released on appeal this year, said he agreed with the Committee’s decision to question Rove behind closed doors.

“Rove can always be called back before the full Committee for a public hearing if there is reason for the Committee to do so,” Siegelman said in an email. “If the investigation and interrogation of Rove is done thoroughly then we will see Rove again in public testifying after first having been properly sworn in.”

I am now even more of a supporter than I was a few paragraphs ago.

No date has yet been set for Rove’s deposition. Rove is expected to testify after the Judiciary Committee receives documents from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. [...]

The Judiciary Committee aides would not say whether the documents have been provided to the Committee already or how far along they were in the process of obtaining them.

Asked if Rove’s testimony will be made public immediately, one Judiciary aide said it would not.

Oh, come on!

“We want to question other people and call Rove in again if necessary,” the aide said. “We don’t want any testimony to be influenced.”

Okay, you assuaged me all over again. I need to learn to keep my big mouth shut until you're finished.

The aide explained that they want to be sure that Rove and the others to be deposed do not “compare notes,” but that all testimony will be released to the public when the investigation is concluded.

Fair enough. I'm shutting up now.

Rove/Miers deal: The sequel

By GottaLaff

I'm digging up more details. These are from Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, and I'm not happy with some of them:

Craig at times took a hard line in trying to get both sides to make concessions, the sources said. At one point this week, he even told House Democratic lawyers he would authorize Obama's Justice Department to oppose them in court if they didn't back down from some of their demands to complete access to the material.

But in the end, it would appear, it was Bush's lawyers, represented mainly by former associate White House counsel Emmett Flood and his former boss, Fred Fielding, who made the most concessions. Under the agreement, lawyers for Rep. John Conyers's House Judiciary Committee will get immediate access to most of the White House documents in Craig's office. But four documents that cover direct discussions with President Bush about the U.S. attorney firings will still be withheld. The contents of these documents will be described by the former president's lawyers to the House.

Then, after the documents are reviewed, Rove and Miers will be questioned in private by lawyers for the Judiciary Committee, with a transcript of the interviews made. But their testimony will not be given under oath and it will not be in public—at least not initially. The judiciary panel will have the right to call the witnesses again later to testify in public if they wish, though this seems unlikely in the case of Miers; her former position as White House counsel will allow her to invoke some attorney-client privileges. House lawyers say the fact that the witnesses will not be testifying under oath is not particularly significant because they can still be criminally charged with making false statements to a congressional committee if it can be proved that they lied. [...]

Wednesday's agreement allowed all sides to claim victory. In a statement, Conyers called the deal "a vindication of the search for truth" about the U.S. attorney purge. Craig said in a statement that the agreement was the product of a "tremendous amount of hard work, patience, and flexibility on both sides," and that Obama was "pleased" that the parties were able to resolve their dispute. Bush's lawyers could not be reached, but even Rove's lawyer called the deal "good news" and said his client "looks forward to addressing the committee's concerns."

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, did acknowledge that even he has not been given access to the documents in question, which are believed to include internal emails about the U.S. attorney firings that either mentioning Rove or were sent to him. Whether Rove will still be looking forward to testifying after those emails are turned over to congressional investigators is, at the moment, the biggest question mark hanging over the case.

Of course, this is a step in the right direction, but... well, that there are "buts".

Terms of the Rove, Miers deal

By GottaLaff

Here's a follow-up to Paddy's earlier post:

Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will provided depositions under penalty of perjury, according to a release from the committee. [...]

Obama had every reason to bring the two parties to the table. Without a deal, he would have been in the awkward position of defending Rove’s executive privilege claim as a way to preserve the power of the executive branch and protect his aides from being forced to testify before Congress in the future. [...]

As part of the agreement, the Judiciary Committee reserves the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It also won significant limitations, according to Conyers, on the invocation of official privileges. [...]

The committee also may depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. attorney firings, if the committee uncovers information requiring it.

The Bush administration also will hand over White House documents related to the inquiry, Conyers said. [...]

In a landmark decision last year, U.S. District Judge John Bates rejected key Bush White House claims of executive privilege. Through this agreement, the impact of that decision will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the panel can go back to court and the legal battle will continue.

More, from CBS:

[T]he key to the agreement was that the Obama White House stopped short of acknowledging that "executive privilege" still applied to Rove and Miers -- though the House Judiciary statement says "it was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited."

So what do you think?

Karl Rove may have to testify as Obama's lawyers get involved

By GottaLaff

I'm not sure which is more appropriate here, optimism or skepticism:

White House counsel Gregory Craig issued a statement late Friday encouraging former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove to cut a deal with Congress, an indication the new administration has begun to put pressure on President George W. Bush's former chief adviser.

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Obama's White House counsel Gregory Craig said in a statement yesterday to The Washington Post's Carrie Johnson. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

[pouting] No. Don't wanna settle. Wanna throw Rove in prison.

Moreover, the Obama White House is now trying to work out an agreement with former Bush administration staff -- seemingly going over the head of the man some once dubbed "Bush's brain."

Craig's statement does, however, seem to suggest that Bush's former adviser will be granted some leeway as to the form of his deposition to Congress in lieu of President George W. Bush's claim that Rove is protected by executive privilege.

[holding breath until I turn blue] No. No leeway. Testify. Then, prison.

The winds appear to be changing. Obama lawyers and Bush representatives are now "engaged in discussions that could clear a path for congressional testimony by onetime Bush aide Karl Rove, three sources familiar with the talks" told Johnson for Saturday's Post.

The negotiations surfaced on the same day House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) issued his third subpoena compelling to Rove to testify in less than two years. Seeing that Conyers is not backing down, Rove's attorney has hinted at a more conciliatory position, and Bush advisers seem to have all but conceded that they must allow Rove to testify in some form.

"Democrats say President Obama's view of the matter may open the door for Rove's eventual appearance on Capitol Hill," Johnson said.

Why do I feel sqeamish?

But Conyers said he would not accept testimony about Siegelman without testimony about the US Attorneys.

"I do not believe it is acceptable for the Committee to allow witnesses to unilaterally determine what they can and cannot testify concerning," he wrote yesterday.

Just. Don't. Cave. Please, Prez O, that's all we ask.

Here are the rules: No immunity. Under oath. On the record. Then, prison.

Second IWRC* Palin Troopergate Investigation Moving Quickly

By GottaLaff

I'm going to put up Mudflats' latest TrooperGate post in full for accuracy:

Yesterday, Sarah Palin gave her deposition to the second Troopergate independent investigator, Tim Petumenos. Petumenos flew out of Alaska to question Palin on the campaign trail in St. Louis. The details are scant, but we do know a few:

• The deposition took two hours.
• Petumenos told Palin he was moving quickly, but couldn’t say whether the investigation would be complete before Election Day.
• Palin wants to make the transcript of her interview public.

“I am so pleased to finally have gotten the chance to tell what really happened and get the truth out,” Palin said in a statement released by her attorney, Thomas Van Flein. ”It was the right thing to do to bring this before the Personnel Board and have a true arms length unbiased and apolitical investigator look into this.”

I have a hunch that Petumenos will have nothing to do with that last request, for two reasons. First, although Palin herself has waived her right of confidentiality, other members of her staff have not. So it would be difficult, if not impossible, to tease out the information that has only to do with Palin and nobody else.

Second, I think Petumenos will realize that the release of her deposition would make the whole thing look political, which is the LAST thing that Palin wants. Right?

We all know that if Palin really wants this “out there,” all she has to do is hold a press conference. I doubt that reporters will come up with any questions that Petumenos didn’t. Nothing is stopping her. So, why doesn’t she do it? Because she doesn’t want to. One independent investigation has already found Palin guilty of an ethics violation. Branchflower and Petumenos are both highly respected men, known for their professionalism, and thorough unbiased work. All of Branchflower’s work was turned over by request to Petumenos for use in his own work. It would be stunning if the second investigation found anything different.

IWRC* has a habit of saying things that, on their face, make her sound better than she is. This seems to be one of those attempted betterisms. But she's not fooling anyone this time.

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"

Pre-Deposition: IWRC* Palin is traveling with her TrooperGate lawyer

By GottaLaff

IWRC* is being forced to multi-task, which can't be easy for someone of such minimal brainage:

Palin will be deposed tomorrow by the independent investigator working for the Alaska personnel board. The interview will be under oath. Todd Palin will be deposed separately tomorrow.

Background here. Pass the popcorn.

Among the campaign staff and reporters traveling with Palin today was her personal attorney, Thomas Van Flein, who flew from Alaska to meet Palin, and traveled on the campaign plane this afternoon from Dayton to Pittsburgh. ... [T]he lawyer is here to prep the Palins for their meeting with the personnel board investigator.

Coming 11 days before the election, the depositions are not well-timed for the campaign, which had to deal with a spate of Troopergate headlines two weeks ago, when the legislative committee issued its report on the matter. (It found Palin abused her power.)

NBC has learned that the investigator for the personnel board insisted the depositions take place now and the Palins, who, after all, initiated this investigation, were in no position to protest about the timing.

Will she be cleared? Will she be in deeper trouble? Stay tuned...

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"

Caribou Barbie: $150,000 + to clothe and accessorize IWRC* Palin

By GottaLaff

Who's the elitist again?

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August. [...]

Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.

“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent,’ she said.

The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles. [...] But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.

Let's not forget the young 'un!

The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 dollars was spent to accommodate the littlest Palen to join the campaign trail.

What would Joe the Plumber say?

And while we're on the subject of IWRC*'s wardrobe, I wonder what she'll wear to her latest deposition:

The investigator conducting a second inquiry into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused the powers of her office by firing the state’s public safety commissioner is scheduled to take depositions from her and her husband, Todd, on Friday, the McCain-Palin campaign said this afternoon.

She really ought to stick to sterling silver accessories. They go much better with handcuffs.

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"