IMPEACHING BUSH IN NOVEMBER MEANS HE WON'T BE ABLE PARDON ANY OF THE CRIMINALS INFESTING HIS REGIME

Lucas puts Botero into a current American context

Randy Rhodes had a great idea today: impeach Bush after the elections and before Obama becomes president. I'm all for it. And House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers seems to be setting the stage with his investigation into Karl Rove's persecution of Alabama Democrat Don Siegelman. Conyers (according to CBS): "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

Conyers said the committee wants Rove to testify about his role in the imprisonment of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, among other things.

"We want him for so many things, it's hard to keep track," Conyers said.

The big news in this case, though, comes from an interview with the former Alabama governor in yesterday's Anniston Star. Asked why Rove has refused to testify under oath before Congress, Siegelman explained, simply, that "he doesn't want to run the risk of lying under oath and being prosecuted for perjury... it's clear he's got something to hide. Otherwise, there is no reason why he wouldn't testify under oath."

The Star: Since 1998, you've been the subject of some kind of investigation. Why do you think that is?

Siegelman: It's all part of the same case. It started when Karl Rove's bag man, I call him, Jack Abramoff, started putting Indian casino money into Alabama to defeat me in 1998.

Shortly after I endorsed Al Gore in 1999, Karl Rove's client, the attorney general of Alabama (Bill Pryor) started an investigation. In 2001, Karl Rove's business associate and political partner's wife, Leura Canary, became a U.S. attorney and started a federal investigation. …

It started with the attorney general and the state investigation, followed by the federal investigation, followed by indictments in 2004, and then another series of indictments leading up to the 2006 election … but, yeah, it's all part of the same case.

The Star: More specifically, why do you believe you were a target?

Siegelman: … I don't feel picked on. It wasn't just me. He was looking at and going after a lot of people around the country.

I think that what happened, and this is just pure speculation, he was here and taking on Democrats in the Supreme Court, and he tried to defeat me in 1998 and defeated the lottery in 1999. He defeated John England, a man that I had appointed to the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000.

He had his hand in the election of 2002, and so he was active in many of my races and activities in the state of Alabama beginning in 1998.

But then he goes to the White House. So it's at that point he has another tool available. It's no longer a state attorney general. He has access to the Department of Justice, where he can … and not only the Department of Justice but U.S. attorneys around the country, that he can use for political reasons.

The Star: Your case has gotten a lot of national media attention. Are you surprised at that?

Siegelman: [MSNBC anchor] Keith Oberman had a segment about the three worst scandals in the Bush administration, and they had something called "Siegelman Gate" (chuckle). They had this case, Blackwater and the war in Iraq as the worst.

I think this will make Watergate look like child's play when it is fully investigated, not so much this case because certainly it's not about me. It's about restoring justice and protecting our democracy and, because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power, it has attracted the attention of the national press.

Specifically, because it is tied to the White House because Karl Rove is not only a political adviser to the president but he's a close personal friend of the president, and you asked me if I was surprised, no I'm not surprised that the national media has focused on this because it is the only case that has led Congress directly to the doors of the White House.

The other cases that are being mentioned or being talked about are primarily the eight U.S. attorneys who were targeted for removal either for failing to move quickly enough or for not following really the party line-- the Karl Rove party line-- of trying to do damage to Democrats who were involved in an elections contest.

What Congress is seeing in this case is the other side of that coin, which is what happens when a U.S. attorney does follow the party line and a person is selectively prosecuted to impact the outcome of an election.

What gave this case its viability was the sworn testimony of a Republican whistleblower, Dana Jill Simpson. Had she not had the courage to come forward and relate under oath to Congress what had happened on that conference call with Bill Canary and the governor's son, Rob Riley, then you know there wouldn't be any story. We wouldn't be talking about this today.

The Star: You've got a lot on your plate with your appeal. Why are you working so hard at this appealto Congress?

Siegelman: It's much bigger than me because it's not just my case. This was not an isolated incident. This was a pernicious, political plan that was set in motion by Karl Rove to further his espoused dream of establishing a permanent Republican majority in this country, and what he left out was by any means necessary.

It is clear to me-- and I think to those who have been investigating, and that's why they're so hot about this case-- it is clear that Karl Rove abused his power and misused the Department of Justice as a political tool to win elections, and that is something that would happen in a police state. That is something that we might have read about in history books as happening in Russia, but it is not something that should be allowed to happen in the United States of America. And Congress, and I believe John Conyers, clearly sees this as a wrongful action against democracy in this country, and he wants to make a statement that is clear and unequivocal that this kind of abuse of power is not going to be tolerated under any administration whether it's a Democratic administration or a Republican administration.

We have got to regain control over our system of justice, and it's got to be put back in order, and not allowed ever to be used in this manner again.

That's why I've been working not just on my legal appeal, but on an appeal to the United States Congress to keep digging in and fighting for the truth.