Hydrofracking: Good video

To DO something about hydrofracking, why not start with this? (push link.)

Mark Ruffalo on Hydrofracking in New York PLUS SOLUTION

Now watch THIS :

GASLAND fracking—keeping tabs on the crime syndicate | The Greanville Post

Cheney and Rover are on it - that is, super profit$ made from FRACKING. Be sure to press the title link to see the video that follows: which is an excerpt from Countdown (Keith Olbermann) interview with documentarian Josh Fox on what the oil/natural gas syndicate is up to. Damn worth watching. (11.4.10)

Turns out Dick Cheney (surprise!) had a big hand in masterminding this disgusting gift to the oil industry, a true unconscionable stab at the public interest, but what is perhaps most irritating is that this crime continues to date unchallenged under Obama.

More on fracking here. In fact, try giving fracking AND water pollution google searches.

So here is the real hullabaloo from Crooks and Liars:

Guess Where Karl Rove Was After The Election? Chowing Down With Big-Money Fracking Polluters

Posted: 05 Nov 2010 07:00 AM PDT

I was on jury duty yesterday, but before I left the house, I caught this Will Bunch piece on Attytood and it made me really, really angry -- and afraid for my state of Pennsylvania. Because the corrupt new Republican governor Tom Corbett is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the natural gas industry, and wants to make Pennsylvania the only state that doesn't even tax these polluters enough to cover the damage.

Then I came home and found that Keith Olbermann picked up the story, too:

You know where Karl Rove spent the day after the all-important mid-term election? Here in the state of Pennsylvania -- Pittsburgh to be exact -- gnawing on steak and potatoes and running a political victory lap with the fracking polluters who can now befowl our state's water supply with impugnity for the next couple of years, aided in no small part by the $38 million in mostly secret donations from large corporations that was donated to Rove's American Crossroads outfit that ran attack ads smearing congressional candidateswho support sensible environmental laws.

In celebrating Tueaday's GOP win with the Marcellus Shale frackers, Rove showed himself a man who not only knows where his cow flesh is seared but where his bread is buttered.

Here's what Rove told them:

Rove said a new Republican House of Representatives supportive of the energy industry "sure as heck" would not pass climate-change legislation that the outgoing Democratic Congress had been unable to pass.

"Climate is gone," said Rove, the keynote speaker on the opening day of a two-day shale-gas conference sponsored by Hart Energy Publishing L.L.P. And Rove told the trade show, "I don't think you need to worry" the new Congress will consider proposed legislation to put the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing under federal rather than state regulation.

The procedure, known as "fracking," is responsible for the dramatic growth of shale-gas drilling in formations such as Pennsylvania's vast Marcellus Shale.

And really, rape and pillage of the environment, the working class and the Social Security trust fund is what this election was all about -- even though the Republican campaign ads never, ever mentioned any of those issues.

That's because whenever Republicans admit their real agenda, the voters soundly reject them. This election is no different.

To be contrasted with THIS, below, the official version of the Rover post-election "story":

Rove: Up to Obama to set the tone in Washington

By JENNIFER C. YATES and JOE MANDAK

Bloomberg/Businessweek

PITTSBURGH

Republican strategist Karl Rove told oil and gas industry officials Wednesday that President Barack Obama's promises of change may have propelled him to the White House but it was his actions that led voters this week to send a clear message that they aren't happy with what he's done.

The architect behind George W. Bush's two presidential election victories spoke at a conference billed as the largest gathering of drilling interests in the Marcellus Shale region. Outside the conference, more than 300 opponents of fracking - injecting water and other chemicals into the ground to break it up and force gas to the surface - chanted "It's our water, we will fight!" and "Whose water? Our water!"

The protesters contend fracking contaminates groundwater and can release harmful chemicals used in the process, including benzene, into the air near wells.

Appearing the day after the midterm elections, Rove touched on drilling briefly, saying he believes the political climate now will take everyone "back to a period of sensible regulations." But he spent most of his time talking about why Republicans won Tuesday night.

Rove said Obama's tone, the state of the economy and health care legislation are all things that drove tea party followers and independents to the polls. Obama failed to capitalize on what brought him to the Oval Office, Rove said.

"He had a unique moment to turn the page and usher in a new era, but it didn't happen," Rove said.

Going forward, Rove said there will be some gridlock but it's up to Obama to set a new, more conciliatory tone.

The protesters gathered outside the downtown convention center where Rove spoke zeroed in on drilling and, more specifically, the fracking process used to get natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, a vast rock formation under New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio.

While many in the crowd called for a ban on all gas drilling, and some were anti-capitalists, others were pushing primarily for a ban or tight regulations on fracking.

Chris Maresca, 28, of Pittsburgh, walked his dog, Baloo, a mutt that had a sandwich board with "I Hate Karl Rove" on one side and "I love Clean Rivers" on the other. He said he isn't against drilling entirely.

"Just the fracking. I have no problem with industry and creating jobs, but doing it at the expense of our health doesn't make any sense to me," Maresca said.

The protesters carried banners as they marched from Pittsburgh's North Side across a river and down a downtown street to a small stage near the convention center. Some held pinatas shaped like oil derricks that were smashed open with sticks, littering the street with candy.

Josh Fox, whose documentary about the dangers of fracking, "Gasland," was featured on HBO, told the crowd that civil disobedience may be needed to ban fracking. He said the drilling industry is lying by characterizing natural gas as "clean alternative fuel."

"This is the fossil fuel industry's big push to kill renewable energy. This is the battleground for climate change, this is the battleground for renewable energy," Fox said.

The protesters reacted loudly when Pittsburgh City Councilman Doug Shields told them the panel has proposed a citywide fracking ban that he claims has a veto-proof six-vote backing.

Mark McConville, a conference attendee, uses natural gas at his Airport Express Limousine Service in Birmingham, Ala., which features compressed natural gas-burning vehicles. He drove one to the conference, and believes it's unrealistic to think there's no downside to any new technology.

"There's always a downside," McConville said. "But I don't believe anybody in the industry's intentionally trying to give us bad drinking water."

And for this, truly, Olbermann takes the tumble . . .

Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs

How does hydraulic fracturing work?

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a means of natural gas extraction employed in deep natural gas well drilling. Once a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well.

What is horizontal hydraulic fracturing?

Horizontal hydrofracking is a means of tapping shale deposits containing natural gas that were previously inaccessible by conventional drilling. Vertical hydrofracking is used to extend the life of an existing well once its productivity starts to run out, sort of a last resort. Horizontal fracking differs in that it uses a mixture of 596 chemicals, many of them proprietary, and millions of gallons of water per frack. This water then becomes contaminated and must be cleaned and disposed of.

What is the Halliburton Loophole?

In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job. It is now commonly referred to as the Halliburton Loophole.

What is the Safe Drinking Water Act?

In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress to ensure clean drinking water free from both natural and man-made contaminates.

What is the FRAC Act?

The FRAC Act (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act) is a House bill intended to repeal the Halliburton Loophole and to require the natural gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use.

How deep do natural gas wells go?

The average well is up to 8,000 feet deep. The depth of drinking water aquifers is about 1,000 feet. The problems typically stem from poor cement well casings that leak natural gas as well as fracking fluid into water wells.

How much water is used during the fracking process?

Generally 1-8 million gallons of water may be used to frack a well. A well may be fracked up to 18 times.

What fluids are used in the fracking process?

For each frack, 80-300 tons of chemicals may be used. Presently, the natural gas industry does not have to disclose the chemicals used, but scientists have identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

In what form does the natural gas come out of the well?

The gas comes up wet in produced water and has to be separated from the wastewater on the surface. Only 30-50% of the water is typically recovered from a well. This wastewater can be highly toxic.

What is done with the wastewater?

Evaporators evaporate off VOCs and condensate tanks steam off VOCs, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The wastewater is then trucked to water treatment facilities.

What is a well's potential to cause air pollution?

As the VOCs are evaporated and come into contact with diesel exhaust from trucks and generators at the well site, ground level ozone is produced. Ozone plumes can travel up to 250 miles.

Love them rePUBs.

K-K-K-Karl Rover hard at work, while not Facing the Nation

KaKaKarl update

Rove Skips House Judiciary Deposition

Submitted by Chip to afterdowningstreet on Tue, 2009-02-24 02:31.

John Bresnahan reports:

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove was a no-show today at his scheduled deposition deadline for the House Judiciary Committee's ongoing probe into the U.S. attorney firings -- setting up a major decision for President Obama on how to respond to congressional subpoenas.

Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) subpeonaed Rove to find out what he knows about the Dec. 2006 firings which eventually toppled former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

When Rove was subpoenaed in 2007, President Bush asserted "absolute immunity" for his top aides, refusing to allow them even to appear before a congressional panel. House Democrats eventually sued, and won an initial legal victory. The Bush White House, through the Justice Dept., appealed the ruling, and when Bush left office in January 2009, the case was still undecided.

White House Counsel Greg Craig has urged the two sides to cut a deal, but Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, have kicked it back to the White House, saying it is up to them to assert executive privilege or not.

So the next big development will occur on March 4, when the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion in federal appeals court laying out its position on the issue.

President Palin They've already stolen 2008 Rove has already fixed the 2008 election

Get used to it

In 1997, I started writing about how widespread election fraud was the United States.

Google "election fraud San Francisco"

My concern was that if this problem was not addresses, anyone could be put in the White House.

George Bush Jr. was just the beginning.

If, Karl Rove successfully rigged voter records in key swing states - and there is every evidence that he has - and if John McCain does not survive his term - and there is every evidence that he won't - Sarah Palin, the moose-eating, go-go boot wearer, oil company-loving moron, will be president of the United States.

My guess is 2010.

Impossible, you say.

Not at all.

Any country that would tolerate eight years of George Bush Jr. will tolerate anything.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but the possibility is very, very real.

Pelosi publicly challenged on impeachment in Los Angeles, offers an inadequate response.

By Jason Leopold and Alan Breslauer | The Public Record

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's appearance Monday at a West Los Angeles college to discuss her recently published book was marred by dozens of protestors and several angry outbursts by audience members who demanded Pelosi immediately authorize a House committee to hold impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush.

The Speaker made it clear she would not support any effort to hold impeachment hearings against President Bush saying that the president "will be gone in a hundred days."

Chip's Note: Be sure to watch the commercial at the end - twice I got John McCain. Now, on to the rest of the article by Jason Leopold and Alan Breslauer.

Halfway through her discussion at The American University of Judaism, where more than 300 people paid $30 each to hear Pelosi speak about her upbringing and her family's impact on her political career as detailed in her book Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters, the topic shifted to Congress's historically low approval rating and how it reflected on Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker.

American University of Judaism's Rabbi Robert Wexler, who moderated the 75 minute discussion, asked Pelosi to analyze a recent Rasmussen poll that found nine percent of voters dpolled believed Congress was doing a good job, far lower than President Bush's overall approval rating.

According to the results of the July poll, 72 percent of voters believe Congress is more interested in furthering their own political careers. Fourteen percent believe members of Congress are genuinely interested in helping people.

Pelosi responded to the statistics by defending her performance and the performance of her Democratic colleagues in Congress.

"I preside over the greatest collection of integrity and idealism," Pelosi said.

Prior to her appearance in West Los Angeles Monday evening, CNN’s Larry King interviewed Pelosi. She told King she was willing to drop her staunch opposition to offshore drilling and would likely allow the House to vote on the issue.

She said, in her opinion, the reason behind Congress’s historically low approval rating was largely due to the fact that Democrats could not muster up the votes to end the Iraq war, which the Democratic Speaker from San Francisco said she could not do much about because of the Democrats’ razor-thin majority in both Houses.

Wexler, however, continued to press Pelosi to elaborate on her response given that the Rasmussen poll suggested that a wide-range of issues beyond the Iraq war was responsible for Congress’s single-digit approval. Pelosi, visibly flustered, said she was well aware that “much more work needs to be done.”

In November 2006, Pelosi explained the significance behind the record voter turnout that helped shift the balance of power in Washington for the first time in 12 years.

“People voted for change and they voted for Democrats who will take our country in a new direction,” Pelosi said during a victory speech in San Francisco on Nov. 8, 2006.

But Pelosi, who became House Speaker, never managed to exact the change she promised. She explained that she and her colleagues tried vigorously to pass legislation to end the war in Iraq.

"The public doesn’t want to know about process and 60 votes, they want outcomes, they want results," Pelosi said, explaining why Democrats could not end the war as promised prior to the midterm 2006 elections.

But Pelosi’s comments appeared disingenuous to many, since she was largely responsible for crafting an appropriations bill in backroom discussions with House Democratic leaders, passed in June, and then worked secretly with the White House budget director offering up concessions on Iraq war benchmarks if Bush would agree to the domestic spending attached to the final bill with little debate preceding a vote on the measure.

In fact, since the electoral victories in November 2006, the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved more than $300 billion in emergency spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan without the benchmarks or withdrawal timetables that Pelosi and other leaders said they would demand.

When Pelosi launched into the reasons an administration led by presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain would be dangerous for the country, identifying the candidate's support for an endless war in Iraq and his intention to uphold many of the questionable constitutional interpretations relating to torture and civil liberties during the Bush administration, Pelosi said the only way to "dig our way out" is by electing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“Whether it’s the deficit or the challenges to the constitution we have to dig our way out,” Pelosi said, adding “this election is like death for life on this planet as we know it today."

Her response led Peter Thottam, founder of the LA Impeachment Center, to demand Pelosi "do her job" and pursue impeachment hearings against President Bush for launching a war on false pretenses.

"Who gave you the right to take the constitution and shove it down the toilet? Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Nobody told them to do this,” Thottam shouted at Pelosi moments before Secret Service agents removed him from the packed auditorium and turned him over to officers with the Los Angeles Police Department. “One million Iraqis are dead. Five thousand Americans are dead. You have destroyed the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments."

Pelosi seemed stunned by the outburst, but the way she addressed Thottam’s charges further fanned the flames and led to additional verbal protests over her decision not to hold the administration accountable for what many individuals in the audience believe are High Crimes and Misdemeanors by President Bush.

When a member of the activist group Code Pink stood up and insisted Pelosi brush up on her reading regarding evidence of the Bush administration's long list of alleged constitutional violations, Pelosi reacted angrily.

"I take an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the United States and don't tell me that I don't do that,” Pelosi said, using hand gestures to emphasize her disdain over the impeachment demands. "Why don't you go picket the Republicans in Congress that will not allow us to have a vote on the war. This is not very effective. Not very effective."

"As Speaker of the house, the third highest office, first is the president, then vice president, and then Speaker, I take my responsibilities deadly seriously,” Pelosi said. “I try to promote bipartisanship but that's not what the other side wants."

Before Election 2006, Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table,” in part, to avoid alarming centrist voters. Now, with Democrats hoping to gain additional seats in Election 2008, a similar political calculation applies, fearing a backlash against a last-minute drive to impeach Bush and Cheney. Bush knows that Pelosi long ago rejected impeachment proceedings, the one instrument included in the Constitution for Congress to wield against a President who has abused his powers.

Pelosi's refusal to consider impeachment hearings or cut off funding for the Iraq war prompted antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan last year to launch a campaign for Pelosi's congressional seat. On Monday, San Francisco election officials said Sheehan has obtained enough registered voters on her petitions to be placed on the November ballot. Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004, is running as an Independent.

At the conclusion of Monday evening’s presentation, Pelosi signed books but refused to answer questions about her policy decisions. The Public Record asked Pelosi whether she would authorize the full House to vote on contempt charges against former White House political adviser Karl Rove, who has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the alleged political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.

Immediately following his query to Pelosi, The Public Record's Alan Breslauer was grabbed by Secret Service and dragged away from the table where Pelosi was signing copies of her book. The Speaker did respond to Breslauer's question, however, saying a vote on contempt charges against Rove is "up to [House Judiciary Committee Chairman] Conyers."


Jason Leopold is Editor-in-Chief of The Public Record. Alan Breslauer is a frequent contributor to BradBlog and maintains a personal blog, HotPotatoMash. He can be reached at hotpotatomash@gmail.com

More on Mary Beth Buchanan's (US attorney) improper legal behaviour

Improper FBI Access to Wecht Juror Files Taints Prosecutor Reviews of 9-11 Investigation

[Ethics, anyone? Not likely it seems when the US Department of Justice wants to defocus from its own crimes, as evidenced, in the Wecht case as well as the Seligman and the firing of US attorneys. They and the White House think they really are above the law. So here we go! Let's those of with an eye to justice keep investigating the official "investigators"/prosecutors in the US DOJ. - V]

By testing - from TPM Muckraker
Government Fails To Address Why FBI Agents Had Access To Wecht Jury Lists

The rest of the story behind the Wecht Jury lists relates to the emails and the files. The Western District of Pennsylvania was brought into conduct a review of a high profile terrorism case. The improper FBI access to those juror names would show the prosecutors -- providing an "independent" review of the District's attorneys -- were not impartial, as required.

The questionable FBI access is only part of the problem. The question is how long Buchanan has known about the questionable file access; and why she didn't ensure her office recused itself from the 9-11-related misconduct investigation. The public needs some assurances from the Buchanan-DOJ camp on what they were really doing with the files containing the Wecht Juror names.

There is no reasonable explanation for why the names of the prospective or seated jurors were released to anyone outside the counsel. There is no language permitting anyone other than the government counsel to have access to these seated juror names. Critics have said that the court orders permitted changes or disclosures. That language does not exist.

The 3d Circuit reminds us what legal standard applied to the Wecht Juror names: There was no provision to to permit anyone other than counsel to have access these lists:

3rd Circuit (Citations omitted):

"The order further provided that “any and all juror lists generated by this Court for use in the jury selection process shall be deemed confidential and property of the Court and shall not be removed from the Court at any time.” . . .

The jury selection lists used during the jury selection process were only available to counsel. Critics have provided no language permitting anyone other than counsel to have access to the prospective or seated juror lists:

3d Circuit: "The juror lists were available only to counsel who were required to execute a receipt for the list and to return it upon completion of jury selection."

There is no language permitting anyone other than counsel to have access to the lists. The 3d Circuit made changes to how the media would be notified of the jury names, but there were no changes to any rules in how the juror names were or were not available to counsel.

This language has no relationship to how the FBI agents got access to the seated or prospective juror names:

"Schwab, however, released jurors' names in a list that did not differentiate from those who actually served and those in the overall jury pool. He also redacted the actual jurors' names from the transcript of the jury selection process."

There is no adequate explanation for how the FBI agents got access to the information only provided to the counsel. Critics have pointed to no language or court order which specifically authorized non-counsel to get access to these prospective or seated juror names. We've shown the method to supposedly "derive" the names of the seated jurors from the list of prospective jurors is inadequate.

The FBI agents, in defiance of the court orders, had access to information they were not authorized access. The government's explanations have not provided a coherent reason why the FBI agents were doing what they were doing.

If the FBI agents were doing nothing wrong, then the government should not have said the FBI agents were "scheduling" appointments. There is no evidence the US Attorneys office was using the FBI agents for a scheduling function. The US Attorneys office has not explained why counsel did not participate in the FBI-Wecht Juror home meetings.

Jury polls are judicial actions. FBI agents are not part of the Judicial Branch. Whether a jury poll was or wasn't done during or after the Wecht trial is unrelated to whether executive law enforcement can or cannot access information the court has sealed from non-counsel. Even if the court "failed" to do a final jury poll, that has no relationship to whether that judicial failure would trigger an executive branch action or follow-up.

Critics have not adequately discussed how long the prosecutors have had a formal process to review systemic trends across general cases. The prosecution would have us believe that a focused review on a specific defendant, not case-type, was appropriate.

No one has provided a copy of the e-mail, policy, or other controlling language establishing these non-prosecutorial reviews; or justifying why the FBI agents should be involved with a specific case or specific defendant.

Critics have failed to point to a specific date when the prosecutors had either a formal or informal process to review general case trends with classes of case types. It is misdirection to argue that the jury polls are the same as post-trial prosecutorial assessments; or that these prosecutor reviews have always been done.

- How long have the prosecutors been doing these post-trial reviews; where is the copy of the email or policy which established this specific review procedure?

- Have the post-trial reviews always been mandatory; or were there some reviews which were discretionary?

- Was there a reason some classes of cases were not reviewed?

- Who said FBI agents gather information to do a risk assessment of adverse prosecution trends?

- Why is the Wecht-defendant targeted for this post-trial review; but other reviews have not focused on a specific case-defendant, but on a general class of cases?

The US Attorneys office has issued inconsistent statements. There problems were identified in the DOJ IG report, and raise doubts about Buchanan's credibility. The government and Buchanan have not adequately explained why Buchanan omitted important information, or why she was not investigated for deception through omission when she testified before Congress, and as reported by the DOJ IG into their investigation.

Critics have not adequately discussed the timing of the emails, or what risks there might be if the Western District of Pennysylvania's Attorney's Office was involved with any improper file transfers. It would be a problem, while the FBI agents were given improper access to the Wecht Juror names, for the government to use the US Attorneys office to investigate in a separate case the DC office for improper file transfers. The government has not adequately discussed the implications of improper file transfers in Pennsylvania; and how they might relate to required recusals for other investigations.

The public needs assurances about the file reviews the Western District did; and receive confidence Buchanan was not aware of any improper file transfers that would taint her office's investigations in other high profile cases. It would be a shame to learn, adding insult to injury, for the 9-11 victims to learn the government improperly conduct an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct related to the 9-11 prosecution.

- How long has Buchanan known about the problems with the file transfers; and the questions this would raise about whether her office was or was not adequately tainted on problems with file transfers?

Incomplete Buchanan Denials Mirror Rove

Critics have not adequately addressed the failure of the government to broadly deny that anyone was involved with any direction to engage in any politically-related prosecutions. As with Rove's incomplete denials, Buchanan's incomplete denials did not exclude the possibility the President was providing direction.

The public needs a definitive statement of complete denial from Buchanan -- in her own words, not coordinated with DOJ -- that she is not aware of anyone -- including the President, of -- providing any direction or leadership to prosecute anyone for political reasons. Her statement needs to adequately explain why, despite this denial, Republican lawyers have provided affidavits discussing what they overhead about White House influence.

Buchanan's denial must broadly include the DoJ-DoD military analyst program, and adequately deny that she was aware of any communication, discussion, or meeting involving the military analysts, DOJ personnel, or anyone else connected with the White House in making any prosecutorial decision related to Wecht.

Public Statement Shows Non-Independence of DOJ

Buchanan has failed to explain why the language within her denial -- supposedly evidence of her independence -- matches language within a DOJ press release. It would be a problem if the US Attorney, through outside counsel, issued a statement designed to mislead the public about who was directing the political prosecutions. The DOJ IG raised a similar concern.

It would also be a problem if her counsel, as a government attorney, had previously issued a public statement designed to show independence and a commitment to reform, but that public statement substantially matched language from a previous US prosecutor. This would show, contrary to Buchanan's assertions, that the public statements were not linked with one office, but driven from the Department of Justice.

Buchanan, when she provides the statement, must disclose who provided input to that final release; whether she had any help from outside counsel; and what input, if any, she had from the DOJ, White House, or GOP staff in crafting this statement of denial.

Buchanan's Conduct Subject To Similar Admonishments

It would be a problem if the US Attorney was connected with anyone who previously made statements about the responsibility of US prosecutors to do things, but Buchanan is not adequately showing she is fully complying with these reasonable requirements.

It would also be a problem if Buchanan would have us believe that her incomplete statements to the DOJ IG were acceptable; but her counsel was linked with earlier admonishments against uncooperative witnesses. Buchanan and her private counsel need to explain why something less than full cooperation with the DOJ IG is acceptable; but her counsel did not agree on another legal issue.

Buchanan must address why her counsel would have one standard of cooperation for one class of investigation targets; but a different standard when it comes to Buchanan appearing before Congress. Cooperation should require a cooperative agreement on what cooperation means; not selective parsing for one audience or administration over another.

- What do Buchanan and her counsel think "cooperation" means today?

- Why is there a moving target on where incomplete cooperation is or isn't admonished?

US Attorneys Office Tainted By Improper File Transfers

The objective of Buchanan and the FBI re the Wecht jury names is to deflect attention from the emails showing that there was a problem with improper file access. This is a smokescreen from the integrity problem of asking the Pennsylvania prosecutors to conduct an investigation of
misconduct in DC that the prosecutors in PA were engaged: Improper file transfers.

It would be a problem if, when the FBI had improper access to the Wecht Juror names, the US Attorneys office in Pennsylvania was conducting a review of the DC office on improper file transfers.

Buchanan must explain what her concerns are with the FBI improperly accessing information; which cases would be jeopardized if the US government improperly transferred key evidence or files during any prosecution; and how this misconduct would jeopardize other high profile cases of interest to the United States.

It does not follow, in this supposed "war on terror," for the US Attorney to do nothing about Geneva violations; but then claim she is concerned about judicial independence. Her actions do not match her words, as the DOJ IG warned us. It would be a sham, on top of the failed combat operations in Afghanistan, to discover the prosecutions are at risk because legal counsel decided to cross the line on what evidence or files should or should not be transferred in defiance of court orders.

- Which terror-related cases are at risk because of improper file transfers?

- Which audits did prosecutors do that need to be re-accomplished?

- Which reviews is Buchanan aware that must be reaccomplished because her office didn't follow the court orders, and this conflict taints her office on whether they can or cannot independently review other reports of prosecutorial misconduct?

- Why wasn't the DOJ OPR and DOJ IG, rather than the Pennsylvania office, brought into the nexus to review the prosecutorial misconduct and improper file transfer?

(BuZh) Foot-Dragging to the Finish: Dan Froomkin

by Dan Froomkin

Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, August 8, 2008; 11:57 AM

President Bush often talks about how he intends to " sprint to the finish." Meanwhile, his legal team is engaged in an entirely different race against time.

A federal judge last week sternly rebuked the White House for asserting that its aides are immune from congressional oversight, ordered a former and current staffer to comply with outstanding congressional subpoenas, and strongly encouraged the White House and Congress to reach some sort of compromise.

But Bush White House officials apparently aren't interested in anything other than running out the clock. Can they postpone potentially incriminating testimony until after the November election? Can they make it all the way to Jan. 20?

Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post: "White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers yesterday asked a federal judge to delay an order to cooperate with Congress while they appeal the ruling.

"The court filings indicate that Bolten and Miers will continue to resist subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee as the Bush administration heads into its final months. . . .

"Lawmakers are seeking testimony from Miers and documents from Bolten related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. After [U.S. District Judge John D.] Bates's ruling, Democrats announced they would schedule hearings on the issue in September -- less than two months before the presidential elections."

Jesse J. Holland writes for the Associated Press: "Bates did not immediately rule on their request. . . . The judge asked House lawyers to respond by next week. . . .

"Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers," the Bolten and Miers request said."

After last week's ruling, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy reasserted his demand for testimony from Bolten and former chief White House political guru Karl Rove, in connection with Senate subpoenas issued in June and July of last year. He also asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to publicly retract his finding of absolute immunity for top aides.

In a letter to Leahy yesterday, Fielding struck a defiant tone. "[W]e believe that entertaining any requests for Mr. Bolten's compliance with the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena should await a final resolution by the courts. In regard to my August 1, 2007 letter to Mr. Rove, please be advised that, consistent with the above, the view stated therein remains the position of the Administration on the question of immunity for close Presidential advisors."

Leahy responded with this statement: "For more than a year, Karl Rove and the President's chief of staff have hidden behind baseless and unprecedented claims of 'absolute immunity' not to appear in compliance with subpoenas. They continue to withhold critical evidence and testimony and to act as if they are above the law because they work at the White House. This claim was rejected by Judge Bates after months of consideration. Still, the White House refuses to appear or cooperate. This continuing contempt of Congress is another example of the lengths to which this administration will go and how it uses government lawyers to protect its actions from scrutiny and increase its power, rather than respect the rule of law."

Also yesterday, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) sent a letter to the Republican National Committee arguing that the ruling also applies to e-mail records the RNC has refused to turn over in connection with the U.S. attorneys probe.

On the Inside Track

The president's legal team also has to worry about an executive branch investigation that, according to investigative reporter Murray Waas, is now reaching into the White House.

Waas writes for Huffingtonpost.com: "The Justice Department investigation into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys has been extended to encompass allegations that senior White House officials played a role in providing false and misleading information to Congress, according to numerous sources involved in the inquiry.

"The widened scope raises the possibility that investigators will pursue criminal charges against some administration officials, and recommend appointment of a special prosecutor if there is evidence of criminal misconduct. . . .

"One senior Bush administration official told me that White House staffers talk about their 'nightmare scenario' in which any one of the three currently internal DOJ probes 'spins out of control' and leads to the appointment of a special prosecutor with broad authority. . . .

"The investigators have been specifically probing the role of White House officials in the drafting and approval of a Feb. 23, 2007 letter sent to Congress by the Justice Department denying that Karl Rove . . . had anything to do with the firing of Bud Cummins, a U.S. Attorney from Arkansas. Cummins was fired in Dec. 2006 to make room for Tim Griffin, a protégé and former top aide of Rove's.

"The February 23 letter stated, 'The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin,' and that the Justice Department was 'not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment.'

"Federal investigators have obtained documents showing that Kyle Sampson, then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and Chris Oprison, then an associate White House counsel, drafted and approved the letter even though they had first-hand knowledge that the assertions were not true. . . .

"Oprison, in turn, consulted with White House Counsel Fred Fielding and Deputy White House Counsel Bill Kelley in approving the draft of the letter, according to a review of White House records undertaken in response to questions for this story."

Waas writes that "some witnesses to the investigation told me that they have been asked specifically about Rove's own personal efforts.

"Two former senior Justice Department officials, former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and principal Associate General William Moscella, have separately provided damaging information to the two internal investigative agencies.

"Both, according to sources familiar with their still-confidential testimony, said they inadvertently gave misleading testimony to Congress about the firings of the U.S. attorneys because they were misled by Rove himself in addition to other White House figures."

IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT: Why Pelosi MUST be removed

Court Indirectly Reminds Congress Wecht Prosecution Linked With Impeachment

By testing - August 6, 2008, 12:48PM

The court ruling against Miers and Bolten mentions the express purpose of an investigation, which the House may investigate. Miers, Bolten, and Rove are, for now, at the heart of the Judiciary Committee inquiry into selective prosecutions.

The court reminded the government and Congress the underlying subject is not narrowly gathering information or conducting an investigation, but the removal of executive officials:

Court: "Moreover, the Executive argues, the Committee cannot rest on an implied right to investigate derived from Article I because the underlying subject matter here -- removal of executive officials -- is an issue on which Congress has no authority to legislate and thus no corresponding right to investigate."

The court rejected this argument.

Selective Prosecution Against Wecht and Others Cited in Letter to Rove Counsel

After the court ruled against Miers on privilege claims, on August 1st, 2008 House Judiciary Chairman Conyers mentioned the Wecht case in a letter to Rove's attorney, whose law firm includes DoD military analysts:

Conyers: "On October 23, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the CAL Subcommittee held a joint hearing exploring several cases of alleged selective prosecution, including the prosecutions of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, Wisconsin state employee Georgia Thompson, and prominent Democrat Cyril Wecht in Pittsburgh."

The letter cites three selective prosecution hearings, footnotes 11-13, page 4 of 12:

A. Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in our Federal Justice System: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Subcomm. on
Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007).

B. Allegations of Selective Prosecution Part II: The Erosion of Public Confidence in our Federal Justice System: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Subcomm. on
Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2008).

C. The Politicization of the Justice Department and Allegations of Selective Prosecution: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2008).

The court said "Ms. Miers is not absolutely immune from congressional process and that Mr. Bolten must produce more detailed documentation concerning privilege claims"

On impeachment investigations, there is no debate, and Congress needs to ignore the President's excuses:

Court: "[T]he Executive overlooks the fact that the Supreme Court has already construed Article I in McGrain, Eastland, and other cases to find an implied right of investigation, and indeed an implied right to compel compliance with that investigative power, accruing to Congress."

Conyers' letter says his staff is preparing for Rove's September 2008 testimony.

Conyers: "Particularly in light of yesturday's ruling by Judge Bates clearly rejecting the absolute immunity claims on which Mr. Rove relied, we expect that mr. Rove will agree to appear promptly before the Committee as the subpoena requires."

The only reasonable interpretation of the court ruling is that the court intended to remind the Congress, public, and executive branch the goal of the subpoena is not to narrowly gather facts or conduct an investigation; but to make an informed decision about whether to remove or not remove Executive Branch officials for crimes.

It is absurd for the Speaker and House Members to celebrate this victory against Miers, but then not expressly state their open intent to use this information to support an impeachment investigation or impeachment.

All information and investigations about Wecht must be couched in the proper perspective. It is not narrowly a question of political power, but whether or not the Executive will or will not be examined, and, as needed, punished for that abuse of power against Wecht and the Wecht Jury.

The Executive abuse has happened and continues. The Congress, by refusing to keep all options on the table to challenge that abuse is complicit.

This language from the court shows us why the Senate needs to take a role in conducting investigations. There is nothing stopping the Senate from gathering facts, and transmitting those to the House for their consideration:

Court: "Because the Congress expires every two years, and a subpoena issued by the House remains valid only for the duration of that Congress, it would be difficult for any House subpoena dispute to fit into that two-year window once the time for appeal is factored into the equation."

An impeachment investigation must be expressly linked in Congress with these investigations into selective prosecutions and attorney firings. Until the Congress convinces the public it understands this -- with investigations in both the House and Senate -- the public must reasonably conclude the Congress is incapable of comprehending gentle remind from the Court.

The court reminds us: Congress has the power, not the right, to investigate. An impeachment investigation, as a power, is always on the table. Congress, in refusing to keep impeachment on the table, cannot (in its own mind) convince itself why it is really conducting these investigations.

Impeachment is not the same as a removal. It is a process to gather facts, make charges, and let the Senate
decide what to do. Representative Pelosi must explain why she will not let the Senate
and the House fulfill their legal obligations. Conversely, there is nothing stopping the Senate from independently investigating.

The error isn't simply the government abuse of power; but the Congressional complicity in refusing to challenge that abuse, and the absurd arguments for inaction:

Court: "Two parties cannot negotiate in good faith when one side asserts legal privileges but insists that they cannot be tested in court in the traditional manner."

Power can -- and must -- be tested during impeachment, and Pelosi is not in charge
of Congress. She is the Speaker of the House. She must lead the effort
to investigate in the House; or we must lead an effort to find a new Speaker.

Either the executive branch officials are investigated for possible removal; or Pelosi must be removed.

Congress is lost. This is, in part, a leadership problem with the Speaker. She must convince the public she understands the gentle reminder from the court -- the investigations are about a removal decision. Without her leadership she must be removed as Speaker.

Let's turn our attention to the Senate and their ongoing collusion with the President.

How to Put Rove Behind Bars for Years: David Swanson

Last August, a group of Congressman Henry Waxman's constituents met with him and urged him to make use of inherent contempt. They were then obliged to explain to him what inherent contempt is. While the current (110th) Congress has probably seen more requests, subpoenas, and contempt citations ignored than all previous Congresses combined, Waxman has certainly endured more such insult than all other committee chairs combined in the current Congress. He's single-handedly destroyed whole forests with the flood of letters and requests and subpoenas he's sent down Pennsylvania Avenue, and yet he was apparently unaware of a procedure commonly used by Congress through most of this nation's history that would actually compel people to show up and answer questions and produce documents.

Over the past 12 months a vague sort of awareness of inherent contempt has crept into the minds of certain committee members and party leaders, almost entirely as a result of thousands of citizens demanding that they immediately make use of it. Quasi-grass-roots groups afraid to demand impeachment have taken up the cry for inherent contempt, but pro-impeachment groups have not all paid sufficient attention to it, their eyes set on a bigger and better prize. And, of course, in a sane world we would see impeachment happening. The latest overwhelming piece of evidence of the most egregious impeachable offense conceivable comes from Ron Suskind's book released this week reporting that Iraq's intelligence chief had informed the United States prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. George Tenet and the White House have admitted the truth of this, but absurdly dismissed it as unimportant.

However, here's an additional vital piece of information: our so-called representatives only intend to pretend to work for two more weeks this year, and those two weeks are scheduled for September. If anything could move them to impeachment (and more days at the office), perhaps a fight over inherent contempt could. Therefore, I propose we all demand one. (And if you bear with me, I'll tell you exactly what inherent contempt is.)

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren recently wrote the following dismissive letter to her constituents who were demanding inherent contempt:

"Thank you for contacting me about Karl Rove's failure to appear before the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts with me. The Judiciary Committee is taking Karl Rove's failure to testify very seriously, and we are currently considering all options - including contempt proceedings -- to compel him to answer important questions regarding the firing of several U.S. attorneys. Some have suggested that Congress implement 'inherent contempt' as if that is a viable option. The jail cell in the basement of the Capitol doesn't exist and the Sergeant at Arms is an over 60 year old executive. Congress is not a police force, and we will likely need to continue to utilize the courts and system of justice to pursue these matters. Again, thanks for being in touch. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I may ever be of assistance to you or your family."

Congresswoman Lofgren is very badly informed or chooses to pretend to be. The age of the Sergeant at Arms is not a decisive factor in the question of whether the Congress will engage in what for most of its history was understood as "inherent self-protection". There is a Sergeant at Arms for the House and one for the Senate, there are deputies, and there is an entire Capitol police force. In one of the earliest uses of "inherent contempt" a prisoner of the United States Congress argued that a warrant used to arrest him was invalid because it had been addressed to the Sergeant at Arms and had been enforced by the Deputy Sergeant at Arms. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the warrant was still valid; and that practice was subsequently followed for many decades. The Sergeant at Arms is not on his own, but is permitted and required to employ subordinates as needed. In 1877 a Deputy Sergeant at Arms was instructed to accompany a Congressional prisoner to New Orleans to procure telegrams he had hitherto refused to produce when subpoenaed, and to accompany another prisoner to New York to be seen by his physicians. In addition, a Sergeant at Arms incapable of performing his duties can be reassigned. With labor unions banned on Capitol Hill, there shouldn't be any legal difficulties in immediately rearranging a few employees of the government.

When inherent contempt began to be discussed in 2007, having not been heard of in some 75 years, the Politico (never a publication overly careful with facts) reported that the jail had been razed in 1929. Congresswoman Lofgren, on the other hand, maintains that "the jail cell in the basement of the Capitol" doesn't exist. She seems to take no position on whether such a thing ever did exist. Both of these replies wildly miss the mark. The House or the Senate or, in fact, any committee thereof, has the power, according to tradition and to rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, to instruct the Sergeant at Arms of the House or Senate to imprison anyone being charged with contempt of Congress or being thereby punished for contempt of Congress. The difficulty of finding a place to imprison them has been easily solved in a variety of ways and could be again quite quickly.

The reference to 1929 may be a reference to the building that stood on the current site of the Supreme Court building, construction of which began that year. The Old Capitol Prison was not the only thing housed in that building when it was there, was not among the initial uses for that building, and had long since ceased to be used by Congress when the building was razed. During the latter part of the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th, the common jail of the District of Columbia was routinely used by the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate. While the jail did not belong to Congress, an arrangement was made to use it, housing the occasional "contumacious witness" in the same building with the general DC prison population. The District Jail is described in this 1897 New York Times article. This 1934 article from Time Magazine discusses the Senate's use of the District Jail to punish contempt in both 1860 and 1934.

In 1872 a Congressional committee discussed the problem of the DC jail not being controlled by Congress, but apparently concluded that the Sergeant at Arms could keep control of a prisoner in that jail. In other instances, including that same case, a prisoner of Congress was summoned to appear by a court, and Congress instructed the Sergeant at Arms to transport the prisoner to the court to explain the situation but not to release the prisoner from his control.

Congress has not always made use of outside jails. In 1868 this measure was approved: "Resolved, That Rooms A and B, opposite the room of the solicitor of the Court of Claims, in the Capitol, be, and are hereby, assigned as guardroom and office of the Capitol police and are for that purpose placed under charge of the Sergeant-at-arms of the House with power to fit the same up for purpose specified.... Resolved, That said Wooley, for his repeated contempt of the authority of the House, be kept until otherwise ordered by the House in close confinement in the guardroom of the Capitol police by the Sergeant-at-Arms until said Wooley shall fully answer the questions above recited, and all questions put to him by said committee in relation to the subject of the investigations with which the committee is charged, and that meanwhile no person shall communicate with said Wooley, in writing or verbally, except upon the order of the Speaker."

The U.S. Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings are full of rooms that could easily be transformed into guard rooms, and are in fact almost certainly full of guard rooms already. The room where we held the Downing Street Minutes hearing in June of 2005 would work fine with very few modifications. And -- I'm sure this will surprise you -- DC is chock full of jails, several of them quite close to the Capitol. In fact, the Capitol Police make extensive and frequent use of them under an ongoing understanding with the custodians of the jails. The Capitol Police also hold people, at least temporarily, in a building very near the Senate office buildings.

Reviewing the early history of Congressional contempt reveals a mixture of offenses, including refusing to answer questions (on various topics), refusing to produce documents, failing to appear, etc., but also libeling Congress, assaulting a Congress member, beating a congress member with a cane, even Congress members themselves beating up a senator, and the case of a drunken citizen applauding inappropriately. While use of police force has disappeared as a response to recalcitrant witnesses, it is still routinely used for people who applaud inappropriately. When about 50 of us held a sit-in in Chairman John Conyers' office last summer to urge impeachment, he had us taken to a nearby jail by the Capitol Police. The age of the Sergeant at Arms didn't seem to get in the way. When Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing an unacceptable T-shirt to a "State of the Union" speech, the Capitol Police sent us and the media on a wild goose chase to several different jails that they use before arriving at the one from which they actually released her.

But if use of the police has vanished since 1934 as a tool for enforcement of Congressional contempt, then what did Congresswoman Lofgren mean by suggesting that her committee was contemplating "contempt proceedings"? Well, she meant that -- in fulfillment of the popular "definition" of insanity -- Congress would consider doing with Karl Rove what it has long been doing with Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, that is: waiting for the executive branch of our government to go through some sort of magical conversion and begin prosecuting its own most loyal criminals.

In the early years of this country inherent contempt was not distinguished as "inherent". It was simply called contempt. But it was enforced exclusively by Congress, just as contempt of a court was enforced by a court, just as contempt of a state legislature or an earlier colonial legislature or the British Parliament was enforced by the very same body. While the Constitution did not mention contempt, it was the consensus of Congress, later supported by multiple U.S. Supreme Court rulings, that Congress had the inherent right to this form of "self-protection". This was understood most often as protection from disruptions and assaults, but also as protection from insult and from the erosion of Congressional power through the refusal to comply with requests or subpoenas. (Interestingly, the record shows that a citation of contempt by Congress, or rather a warrant to arrest someone charged with contempt in order to put him [or her, Miers may be the first her] on trial, does not have to be preceded by a subpoena. That answers another question asked aloud by Rep. Waxman in a recent hearing.)

Common Cause recently advocated inherent contempt with this statement: "Under the inherent contempt power, the House Sergeant-at-Arms has the authority to take Karl Rove into custody and bring him to the House where his contempt case can be tried, presumably, by a standing or select committee. If he is found by the House to be in Contempt of Congress, he can be imprisoned for an amount of time determined by the House (not to exceed the term of the 110th Congress which ends the beginning of January 2009) or until he agrees to testify. The Supreme Court has recognized the power of the House to enforce its own subpoenas through the inherent contempt provision, stating that without it, Congress 'would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it.' Before Congress asked the Justice Department to try contempt cases on its behalf, the inherent contempt power was used more than 85 times between 1795 and 1934, mostly to compel testimony and documents."

Even the Washington Post agrees: "Both chambers also have an 'inherent contempt' power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice."

Before moving on, and before I forget, I should point out that there is a reason my title claims we can put Rove away for years, while the proposal from Common Cause would only lock him up until next January. While the House must release all prisoners at the end of each two-year Congress (and has traditionally done so), the Senate need not and can hold them into the next Congress. And, remember that while the House Judiciary Committee just recently voted to hold Rove in contempt, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to do that last December. It simply hasn't yet done it, choosing to defer to the full Senate, which chooses to shut its eyes, cover its ears, and hum.

But deferring to the full House or Senate is part of the tradition of statutory contempt, not inherent contempt. It has been solidly established that inherent contempt resides in a full house or a committee. So, what is statutory contempt? Well, in 1857 Congress passed a law criminalizing contempt of Congress (and the maximum jail time is 12 months). It did so in large part precisely because of the need to free prisoners at the end of each Congress, but also because of the time-consuming nature of putting people on trial for contempt, something that was commonly done by committee, with the accused often permitted legal counsel and witnesses. Given what Congress spends its precious time on these days, who wouldn't wish for it to have back its inherent contempt power? Well, our wish is granted. Congress never lost that power, and in fact continued to exercise it up through 1934since when it has simply chosen not to. Inherent contempt is a power that resides in what the U.S. Constitution created to be the most powerful branch of the government. It cannot be overruled in court, and it cannot be vetoed or pardoned. It can also not be endlessly delayed by court appeals, which is where the House's contempt citations for Miers and Bolten now are. Delaying that court decision until the next Congress, which seems likely, makes the possibility of enforcement unlikely. And if a decision were reached, it would fall to Congress to use inherent contempt to enforce it anyway.

On April 15, 2008, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) laid out its understanding of contempt powers in an updated report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

This report describes the first use of Congressional contempt in 1795. Bizarrely, to the modern eye, the matter arose when a number of Congress Members protested that someone had attempted to bribe them. While today's members of Congress will hardly deign to speak with anyone who has not properly bribed them through our "campaign financing" system, at that time this action was considered an insult to the dignity of Congress. Yes, Congress was believed to possess dignity. (Another early case involved a newspaper falsely reporting that the Senate had passed a bill. Nowadays it's acceptable for the president to falsely sign a bill that wasn't passed. False reporting these days is almost considered a patriotic duty.)

The CRS report disagrees with the Bush administration's assertions of "executive privilege" but cannot change the fact that they are likely to be raised again as often as needed. And the report suggests that the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination applies in certain contexts. However, past tradition makes that claim debatable, and the statute reads:

"U.S. CODE

TITLE 2--THE CONGRESS

CHAPTER 6--CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS

Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses

No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous."

The power of Congress that I am proposing it use or lose is not the sort of power the White House has claimed to randomly kidnap, detain, disappear, torture, and murder. Everything Congress does in this regard must be open and public. It must not randomly, even if publicly, arrest someone for an offense unrelated to contempt of Congress - or for no offense at all. It must allow communication with legal counsel and family. It must treat everyone humanely. It must not abuse its power, and such abuses must be checked by the judicial branch. The purpose of Congress detaining prisoners is to compel them to produce information believed to be of potentially vital importance to the governance of our nation.

The CRS report provides very little background on this, but a great deal can easily be had. Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon's Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You'll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales's endless recitations of "I do not recall."

In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his "sources" just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress. Imagine trying that with ABC News executives until they revealed who fed them the anthrax-is-from-Iraq lies.

In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held -- literally held -- him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved "the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States." The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned. Imagine locking up the attendees of Cheney's secret energy task force meetings until they explained how our supposedly democratic government arrived at some of its worst recent decisions.

Various cases of contempt in the past have involved perceived insults to Congress and have been resolved by a simple apology. This may strike people today as humorous and vain. I find less fault in it than I do in today's Congress, which appears completely incapable of feeling either shame or self-respect. If impeachment is off the table, inherent contempt is in the past, contempt citations are delayed until moot, subpoenas are laughed at, FISA requests are tossed in the trash, and other appeals to the executive branch to please allow itself to be overseen are simply ignored, then I must agree with Senator Walsh that we are witnessing the very death of the House and Senate. The capacity to hold someone in contempt, on its own, in September, would be a sign of life in what otherwise appears a motionless corpse.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Lock Up Rove

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://www.davidswanson.org

DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

Rove Confronted With Second Attempted Citizen's Arrest

Rove Confronted With Second Attempted Citizen's Arrest

Karl Rove, allegedly a traitor and complicit with war crimes planning and election fraud, was the target of another citizen's arrest in Iowa. Rove is alleged to have been complicit with Nuremberg-like war crimes planning, illegal retaliation against prosecutors, and illegal domestic propaganda.

In written responses to the House Judiciary Committee, Rove provided incomplete denials to questions about his alleged complicity with illegal prosecutions. Rove's legal counsel are members of the President's domestic military analyst program.

DOJ OLC memos reminded civilian policy makers and advisors they could be subject to war crimes indictments. If convicted of these alleged war crimes, Rove could be sentenced to the death penalty.

In Rife, he Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the applicable Iowa statute:

"Iowa Code section 804.9 governs the arrest of persons by private individuals. . . .A citizen may make an arrest for any public offense if the offense is "committed or attempted in the [citizen's] presence." . . .

However, if the public offense is a felony, a less stringent standard
is imposed. If the offense constitutes a felony, the citizen must only
possess reasonable grounds to believe the person to be arrested
committed the felony." (Rife v. Corner,641 N.W.2d 761, Iowa Supreme Court, Filed 2002)

Earlier, in March 2008, Rove's arrest warrant was referred to as a "Citizen's Arrest Complaint" and specifically mentioned allegations of treason, fraud, and conspiracy. The written complaint had a typographical error, citing the US Code, calling it 19.371, instead of 18 USC 371.

COMMENTS

Oh brother. Be careful what you ask for.

The Clintonistas invented extraordinary rendition (torture), declared war and bombed Iraq, and indulged in domestic wiretapping via Carnivore. Whatever crimes you come up with can likely be followed back to them. Is that what you had in mind?

shooter,

Yes, it doesn't matter in the slightest which administration breaks the law and ignores the constitution. Whether it be democrat or republican, they should be prosecuted.

That's a lovely sentiment and all, but politics is the art of the possible. "Should" is not equivalent to "could." In a fantasy world all the men are handsome, the women strong, and the children, above average. It's nice to fantasize but don't confuse it with reality.

As for "breaks the law," you mean ALLEGEDLY breaks the law. Moreover, since the basis for Bush's alleged wrong doing is Article 2 of said Constitution - you are pretty much out of luck trying to wave the Constitution around as an indictment.

Like it or not, no future President is going to criminalize a prior President for doing what they thought best for the country, no matter whether you agree with it or not. Why? Because it is entirely possible for the future President to find himself in exactly the same position when a new regime steps forward.

Politics is irrelevant, art of the possible or not. It doesn't take politicians to successfully prosecute a malfeasor.

Forget this faux realism you are waving as if it were an all-powerful solvent for the criminal difficulties the administration is in.

Nothing is required of the next administration other than allowing the courts to do their work.

Just sit back and watch what happens.

jimmie dean,
maybe what you do not choose to understand is that there actually will not be a polarized GOP base that will spring to the defense of turdblossom in the context of this upcoming general election . There are many ,many former gwb43 supporters who are now openly calling for criminal indictments for the Bushies. Witness the Ron Paul Revolution in the GOP primary - and now see Bob Barr appearing in Congressial Hearings calling out the gwb43 ongoing criminal conspiracy . Liberterian Presidential Nominee Barr is polling consistently in the 8% range for those who are disaffected with gwb43.
This is not about revenge jimmie this is about holding Rover and the rest of the criminals accountable-and yes we can - in the context of the general election . Go google what Bruce Fein has to say about impeaching gwb 43 - there will be no polarized base of the gop to save turdblossom et al ...
jimmie rant away your still stuck at the five & dime soda stool ...

Wow... This post hit the Tollfecta.

Bulldog, your continued persistence here at TPMCafe belies your flippant remark and shows just how serious you and the rest of your Republican gang take this site and its "nutjobs". Must be tough for you to keep coming back. But hey, a job is a job.

I also find it amusing that one would admonish the asking of a legitimate question by basically saying, shush... or you'll wake the sleeping Republican base and sweep McCain into power.

Bull shit... Some of our current and former "Public Servants" should be prosecuted and shown to be the miscreates I believe they are. And now is the time, not later. The greater public knows the distinction between a witch-hunt and true pursuit of justice. Though, I guess, the blurring of the line seems to be the role of some of the local trolls.

The pursuit of Rove and others isn’t about getting the Democratic Party into the White House. (Though that is an end that I will work my best to assists, because I believe in the social, economic and civil government that I think Obama and the Democratic Party BEST represents.)

No, this is about efforts greater than one party or the other. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but it seems that testing’s continued posts are about the rule of law and the Constitution over partisanship.

Dave Kahn ,
You are correct , testing seems to be getting "TROLLVILLE " riled up -especially the one troll that keeps saying don't wake up the scary Republican base ( jimmie dean are you reading this buddy ?) - . I agree with you - Dave - this is about defending the country and its values -we must have accountabilty for this lawlessness , we cannot let war crimes -such as starting illegal wars go unpunished .

Testing -please keep bringing these excellent post -maybe we can arrest turdblossom in some state jurisdiction soon ,,,