BREAKING: NRSC gets subpoenaed in Ensign affair case

By GottaLaff

Via an e-mail alert. I'm getting lots of those today.

Can an investigation of C Street be far behind?

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury looking into the aftermath of Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign’s extramarital affair with a staffer.

Via Politico. This is getting seriouser and seriouser. Paying people off is no laughing matter.

All my previous posts on this subject are here.

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.

AIG May Face Subpoena From New York’s Cuomo on Retention Payment

By GottaLaff

Cuomo is trying:

American International Group Inc., the New York-based insurer bailed out by taxpayers, may face a subpoena from the state’s attorney general if it doesn’t hand over names of employees receiving retention pay.

Andrew Cuomo requested the data in a letter today and said he’d issue a subpoena if he didn’t get an answer by 4 p.m. New York time.

By the way:

This updates as you refresh. There may be some delay.

Judge reinstates Cheney subpoena in lawsuit

By GottaLaff

Once upon a time, when I first started writing for what was then Cliff Schecter's blog, I got an enormous response to this post. Really enormous. I'd nearly forgotten about it, but I noticed it was getting a few hits earlier today. Now I know why:

A federal judge has reinstated a subpoena seeking testimony from former Vice President Dick Cheney in a lawsuit filed by a Colorado man. [...]

Steven Howards was arrested in June 2006. [See my old post]

Agents called the incident an assault and a harassment charge was later dropped. Howards filed suit, alleging the arrest was in retaliation for disagreeing with Cheney and a violation of his constitutional rights to free speech and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Oh, to get the Nation of Dick in front of a judge! One of these days, something's going to stick. And who better to stick it to than Old Flaccid Dick himself?

From the Dep't. of What Did You Expect? Rove ignores House Judiciary Committee subpoena.

By GottaLaff

Via Think Progress:

Pursuant to a subpoena issued earlier this month, Karl Rove was due to appear for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today. But as CongressMatters reports, despite being “expected” to appear this time, Rove was a no show. Contacted by ThinkProgress, the House Judiciary Committee confirmed the report of Rove’s absence.

It's long past time for Conyers and company to get tough. According to whomever it was I heard this morning, the issue of privilege will most likely find its way to the Supreme Court. Anyone know if that's accurate?

Karl Rove Subpoenaed … Again

By GottaLaff

He probably won't show up, because he'll be too busy shooting birds and and sending Twitpics:

It’s official: the House Judiciary Committee has once again subpoenaed Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush’s longtime adviser and aide, to testify before the committee on the politicization of the Justice Department and his involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D). [...]

Apparently, Rove has made it clear that despite the new administration, he still won’t be showing up to testify. In a letter to Rove’s attorney, Bob Luskin, Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said he won’t delay the hearing any further, just so Rove can continue to blow them off:

Thus, absent an actual commitment by Mr. Rove to comply with the subpoena, I am not in a position to agree to yet a further delay. In essence, given Mr. Rove’s public statements that he does not intend to comply with the subpoena, I am puzzled as to why Mr. Rove needs a mutually convenient date to fail to appear.

Stop playing footsy. Send the Congressional police, drag him in, cite him for contempt, provide him with a jail cell, throw away the key.

Rove says he won't comply with congressional subpoenas

By GottaLaff

Whiplash. Will he or won't he? Did he or didn't he? Shall he or shan't he? My original post, here, explains that he would comply with subpoenas. Now he says the opposite. I need a Dramamine; I'm queasy from all this seesawing:

Rove spoke Tuesday evening at Loyola Marymount University, a Jesuit institution in Los Angeles, as part of the school's "First Amendment Week." [...]

One questioner asked Rove whether he would comply with Congressional subpoenas. Rove was subpoenaed last month to testify to the House Judiciary Committee about his knowledge surrounding the firings of US Attorneys and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

Rove "said he would not, and cited Janet Reno, President Clinton's attorney general, as his authority in resisting Congressional infringements on executive privilege." [...]

"I can say that he would cooperate with the [Justice Department] investigation if asked," Luskin said. He made no such specific commitment to an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, or the Senate Judiciary Committee, both of which have subpoenaed him to testify on the cases.

Luskin told Raw Story Thursday that while he hadn't seen the specific remarks, he was "confident that I've accurately expressed his position in this matter and it's consistent with what I have conveyed to [House Judiciary Chairman] Conyers and to the White House."

Rove also told the Los Angeles crowd that media coverage leading up to the election was "unbelievably tilted toward Obama," and "not healthy for the system."

"That coverage is putting a finger on the scale," Rove said, adding that most members of the national press corps live in Washington and New York and went to schools with a liberal bent.

That darned liberal media.

But at least we understand now that Rove intends to cooperate with the Justice Department, but not Congress. True to porcine form.

Conyers-Rove showdown postponed until Feb. 23

By GottaLaff

We have to wait until February 23rd:

The John Conyers-Karl Rove showdown has been delayed.

Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, agreed on Friday to postpone the deadline on the Rove subpoena for three weeks, giving the Obama administration time to decide how it wants to handle the issue of executive privilege and congressional subpoenas.

Karl Rove subpoenaed by Conyers

By GottaLaff

Don'tcha just love the blog title? Don'tcha hope a future one says, "Rove convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his miserable life"?

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has subpoenaed Karl Rove, the former top political advisor to President George W. Bush, to question what Rove knows about “politicization” of the Justice Department.

Until now, Rove claimed he was covered by executive privilege and refused to appear. Will he claim it again? Is he even able to (as if it were legal the first time, right?)?

“I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” Conyers said.

Rove has until Feb. 2 to respond to the subpoena.

Conyers added: “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.”

If he talks, he lies, so it's almost moot. But, hey, it's certainly worth a shot.

Conyers wants information from Rove on the U.S. attorney firings, which eventually led to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Conyers also wants to know whether Rove has any information on the prosecution of Don Siegelman. A former GOP activist in Alabama said Rove was behind the Siegelman case but Rove strongly denied the allegation.

I have posted several times about Don Siegelman's case (including Rove's ignoring subpoenas). Nothing would be more gratifying than to see justice done on Siegelman's behalf.

In fact, Thom Hartmann and Siegelman himself are convinced that this case is the one that would blow BushCo's criminal activity wide open.

Finally, after years of stonewalling, there's at least a chance of that happening.

VIDEOS: Saxby Chambliss Turns Election Frustration on Cameraman

By GottaLaff

(This is a really short video, about 25 seconds)

Oh that Saxby, always causing a ruckus. He's probably just upset about his name.

Facing a runoff election in a few weeks — and recently hit with a subpoena to testify about his ties to the sugar company whose refinery exploded in February, killing 14 — the Georgia Republican has turned his frustration on the media, giving a light shove to a cameraman yesterday who appears to get to close to the embattled senator.

The Democrats are hoping to make the subpoena (not to mention the shove) an issue in Chambliss’s Dec. 2 runoff against Democratic challenger Jim Martin — which, by the way, can’t come quickly enough.

Here's another, slightly longer video (h/t: Jon Lester) to give you some background:

Can he just lose already? Please?

Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries

By GottaLaff

Is there no end to this?

When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas... As Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush regime, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again. Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation torture of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Obama has reservations about pursuing too many investigations.

But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.

And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

Supreme Court much?

But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony — or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.

“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.

Ladies and gentleman: The next Precedent of the United States.

Sidebar: If we started the impeachment process, we could at least prevent him from pardoning. Just a thought.

"Say it ain't so" (snark): Lawsuit to Stall TrooperGate Investigation Fails!

By GottaLaff

UPDATE:

Five Alaska lawmakers filed an emergency appeal Friday asking the state's Supreme Court to halt an investigation into abuse of power allegations by Gov. Sarah Palin before the findings are released next week.

IWRC* Palin not only lost the debate (IMHO), but she lost this round, too:

An Anchorage judge today refused to halt the Legislature’s investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin and denied the state attorney general’s attempt to throw out legislative subpoenas. [...]

“I think it’s great. It’s a big day for the state of Alaska,” said Peter Maassen, the lawyer representing the Legislative Council, which ordered the investigation.

Maassen said he expected the other side to attempt a last-minute appeal to the state Supreme Court.

It’s last-minute because the investigator hired by the Legislative Council, Steve Branchflower, is to present his report in a week. Branchflower is looking into Palin’s dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, and whether she improperly pressured him to fire a state trooper divorced from her sister. There is intense national interest in the outcome now that Palin is the Republican nominee for vice president.

Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg said he didn’t know whether he’d appeal or if he’ll now advise the subpoenaed state officals to cooperate with the investigation. He said he needed to consult with them. [...]

Five Republican state legislators sued to stop the investigation, and Colberg, a Palin appointee, asked the judge to throw out the legislative subpoenas. The governor’s husband, Todd, and nearly a dozen state officials have refused to honor the subpoeanas ordering them to testify, and they face the threat of possible jail time.

Thomas Van Flein, the Anchorage attorney representing both Todd and Sarah Palin, watched the court hearing today. He said in an interview afterward that, if the judge refused to throw out the subpoenas, he would expect Todd Palin to testify after all.

“Short of appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, which no one has talked about, I don’t see why we wouldn’t just have Todd testify,” he said.

It's time for another one of these:

(click on image to animate)

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"

TrooperGate: AG says state employees won't honor subpoenas

By GottaLaff

Who do they think they are, Miers and Bolten? Bush and Cheney? I take that last one back. Bush III, Cheney II. Established.

Moving on, just add this to the lawsuit and we have enough scandal to last us for... hours, until the next one rears its ugly Palin head:

Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.

In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.

Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate. [...]

Last week, French's Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed 13 people. They include 10 employees of Palin's administration and three who are not: her husband, Todd Palin; John Bitney, Palin's former legislative liaison who now is chief of staff for Republican House Speaker John Harris; and Murlene Wilkes, a state contractor. [...]

Like Colberg's letter, the surprise maneuver by Harris reflected deepening resolve by Republicans to spare Palin embarrassment or worse in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

And it marked a further fraying of a bipartisan consensus, formed by a unanimous panel before Palin became McCain's running mate, that her firing of the state's public safety commissioner justified the ethical investigation. [...]

Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said. But she and the McCain campaign have taken actions that could slow the probe, possibly past Election Day.

What a fine role model for Meghan McCain: Ignore subpoenas, take the law into your own hands, encourage your Republican cronies to ignore proper legal procedures, and do your best impression of Bush and Cheney as you tap dance your way through what promises to be an even sleazier presidential campaign.

UPDATE: Alaska lawmakers vote to subpoena Todd Palin

By GottaLaff

Earlier I posted that it was expected that First Dude Todd would be subpoenaed in the TrooperGate investigation.

Bingo.

The abuse of power investigation against Sarah Palin, Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate, took a potentially ominous turn for her party on Friday when state lawmakers voted to subpoena her husband.

Republican efforts to delay the probe until after the Nov. 4 election were thwarted when GOP State Sen. Charlie Huggins, who represents Palin's hometown of Wasilla, sided with Democrats. ''Let's just get the facts on the table,'' said Huggins, who appeared in camouflage pants to vote during a break from moose hunting. [...]

Branchflower also asked for a subpoena for the phone records of one Palin administration official, Frank Bailey. Bailey was recorded calling an Alaska State Trooper lieutenant and discussing confidential information about Wooten, including his job application and worker's compensation claim. In a deposition taken by Palin's attorney, he testified that he never saw Wooten's file, but instead received the information from Todd Palin.

Probe seeks subpoenas for Palin's husband

By GottaLaff

Looks like the "first dude" is in deep dude-y:

The investigator looking into whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power in trying to get her former brother-in-law fired is asking state lawmakers for the power to subpoena Palin's husband, Todd.

The probe has taken on new significance since Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his running mate.

Retired prosecutor Stephen Branchflower asked the state House and Senate judiciary committees for power to subpoena 13 witnesses, including Todd Palin.

"He's such a central figure. ... I think one should be issued for him," Branchflower said.

The committees were expected to grant the request.

Branchflower said he wants to interview Palin herself, but did not ask for a subpoena for her.

Drip. Drip. Drip.

Sliver of non-convention news: Miers may be forced to testify

By GottaLaff

Sorry to impose other news into our Big Day [sarcasm]:

A federal judge has denied the White House's request for a stay in legal fight over a subpoena for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, opening the possibility that Miers may be forced to testify about her role in the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Judge Rules White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed

By GottaLaff

Just throw the key away, already:

President Bush's top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches.

House Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law. They swiftly announced that the Bush officials who have defied their subpoenas, including Bush's former top adviser Karl Rove, must appear as part of a probe of whether the White House directed the firings of nine federal prosecutors. Democrats announced plans to open hearings at the height of election season.

The Bush administration was expected to appeal. [...]

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration's efforts to bolster the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. Disputes over congressional subpoenas are normally resolved through political compromise, not through the court system. Had Bush prevailed, it would have dramatically weakened congressional authority in oversight investigations. [...]

Bates, who was appointed to the bench by Bush, issued a 93-page opinion that strongly rejected the administration's legal arguments. He noted that the executive branch could not point to a single case in which courts held that White House aides were immune from congressional subpoenas.

''That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law,'' Bates wrote.

BushCo will drag this out as long as they can.

GOP blocks Medicare, Conyers subpoenas Bush/Cheney transcripts and more

By GottaLaff

Congress whatnots and thingamajigs -- First, Senate Republicans are fraidy cats, says Harry Reid:

Final action came as Senate Republicans narrowly blocked passage of a separate Medicare bill, which had sailed through the House only days before but fell one vote short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture.

The stalemate means physicians with elderly patients face an automatic 10.6 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements effective July 1. Pacing the floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) angrily accused Republicans of putting the government-backed health program at risk and vowed to force a second vote on the issue as soon as the Senate returns from the Fourth of July recess.

“During the next 10 days, think how you are going to vote the next time,” Reid said, openly taunting President Bush for his weak standing in the polls.

“How in the world could anybody be afraid of him vetoing a bill?” Reid asked. “How you can go home and say, 'I voted no because this weak president, with the weakest political standing since they’ve done polling, I voted because I was afraid to override his veto.' Oh, come on.”

Next, Conyers wants interviews and so much more:

House Judiciary Committee John Conyers has issed a subpoena to the Justice Dept. for the unredacted interviews with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on former CIA operative Valerie Plame, as well as numerous other documents sought unsuccessfully by Democrats for years.

Conyers is also seeking FBI notes of interviews with some top former White House officials, including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Scott McClellan, Dan Bartlett and Andrew Card.

The committee also wants unreleased memos from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, including an Oct. 23, 2001, memo related to use of American military forces to combat terrorism within the United States.

In addition, Conyers is seeking any materials in DOJ's possession related to the 2002 New Hampshire "phone jamming" incident, the firing of a U.S. attorney in Minnesota, the department's civil rights activities, and "selective prosecution" of Democratic politicians such as former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

Whew! 'Atsa lotta wanna!

But you know what they say, ask not, want not.

White House and Congress going to court

By GottaLaff

Dear Wish Fairy, please do your magic:

Lawyers for the White House and Congress are headed to court Monday in a dispute over whether top aides to President Bush must provide evidence in a House investigation.

The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee is demanding documents and testimony from the president’s chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and former lawyer, Harriet Miers, about the firing of federal prosecutors. The White House says Congress can’t do that because of the separation-of-powers doctrine. [...] A federal judge has scheduled a hearing for 10 a.m. [...]

The hearing will be the first appearance in court since Miers and Bolten snubbed Congress nearly a year ago. Observers expect the court battle to continue perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court, and a resolution is not predicted before President Bush leaves office.

Running out the clock has become an art form. And if it goes to the Supreme Court, chalk it up. Wish Fairy, can you give us a hand?

Bush/Cheney Plame interviews subpoenaed

By GottaLaff

The Mustache of Justice is at it again:

The House Oversight Committee today “issued a subpoena to Attorney General Mukasey compelling the production of FBI interview reports of Vice President Cheney and President Bush and other documents regarding the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.”

That was the interview in which BunnyPants and the Nation of Dick held each other's hands, wasn't it? I wonder if there are any notations in the margins about that.