LOOKS LIKE WE WEREN'T THE ONLY ONES ASKIN' WHY NO ONE HAS SUBPOENAED ROVE

Will the Dems let him off scot-free?

In two posts this morning (here and here) DWT got a little smart-alecky and asked why with all this subpoena hubbub today no one thought of subpoenaing Karl Rove, the fount of the criminal activities pertaining to Purge-gate. Turns out other wonderers were wondering about the same thing. In fact, the question is so obvious that... even CNN asked! But they got "two Democratic congressional sources" to explain it to them.

Both sources told CNN the committees are building their investigation and-- like any investigation-- they want to build their case by talking to and gathering information from lower level witnesses and officials before they possibly move to the more senior witnesses.

“We want to build up and get documents to have basis to ask questions of Rove,” one Democratic congressional source explained. “It’s the way you do it in any investigation.”

But the source conceded it is likely the investigation will lead to a constitutional showdown with the executive branch and the likelihood is Congress will never get a chance to talk to any of these White House witnesses.

No doubt, In fact, that's exactly what we said earlier. So, why not just forget all the Rove order takers like Taylor and Miers, and just go for the big kahuna. If you're going to get into a constitutional battle with the Regime, you might as well get in a battle worth fighting.

DOAN SAYS SHE WAS TOLD TO HOLD BACK INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS

Violating the Hatch Act means Doan has to lose her job. Perjury is another matter. She told the committee that all she could remember about Rove's assistant's meeting at the GSA was that cookies were served. But now it comes out that she was lying her ass off over and over and over. Doan should be in prison with Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby.

If Bush's dumbing down of the education system with his hideous No Child Left Behind Act wasn't law and hadn't abolished civics classes, I'd suggest that every junior high school kid be asked to watch Doan testifying in front of Henry Waxman's House Oversight and Governmnet Reform Committee this morning. The videos are mind-boggling and they'll all available at the link above. But even non-junior high schoolers ought to watch this one; it'll give you an idea about what kind of a government you've been paying for for the past 7 years-- and why Bush ought to be impeached immediately.

Chairman Waxman: “At our March hearing, you repeatedly claimed you could not recall any information about the January 26, 2007 meeting or the White House political presentation, and you had absolutely no memory of asking GSA employees how they could help Republican candidates in upcoming elections. That’s what you told us. We questioned you over and over again. You remember there were cookies, you remembered you came in late, you remembered that some employees didn’t attend, but beyond that you said you had no further information. Five weeks later you testified before the Office of Special Counsel and suddenly you had a new enriched details about the meeting and your statements. According to your OSC testimony, you said you asked the White House presenter, how can GSA help its cabinet liaison understand that the opening of the San Francisco federal building would be a perfect event for President Bush to attend. Did you say that to the Office of Special Counsel?”

Doan: “Yes, I believe I did.”

Waxman: “You also told them that Mr. Jennings suggested you write a white paper, or a one-pager, explaining why it would be relevant for the President to attend. But you didn’t tell that to our committee. During your interview with OSC you testified that you refrained from providing this committee with full information about the meeting, you testified that you were advised not to engage in a quote, ’substantive discussion,’ end quote, of the political briefing that you believed OSC investigators should have quote, ‘first dibs,’ on this information. That makes it sound like when you told us you didn’t recall you were really holding back information. You did tell us under oath that you didn’t remember, then you told the Special Counsel under oath that you did remember and you were even saving the information for him. When you appear before this committee and you testify under oath you’re supposed to testify honestly and completely, that’s an obligation that people have and it’s to be taken seriously.”

Christy has been live-blogging this circus over at Firedoglake, doing the incredible job she always does. The Moonie Times, on the other hand, has a less credible analysis than even the most humble FDL commenter.

BUSH REGIME ADMITTING THE POLITICIZATION OF THE GSA IS NORMAL OPERATING PROCEDURE

In the last couple of days I've tried to cover the Waxman hearings on the politicization of the General Services Administration (GSA) and how Rove illegally uses the federal bureaucracy to advance a narrow partisan agenda. Yesterday I reprinted the entire letter than Waxman sent to Rove demanding truthful answers. Today this escalating story of gross political corruption made it into the Washington Post.

Waxman and the congressmen on his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee were aghast at how blatantly the Bush Regime has been using the federal bureaucracy to push Republican Party electoral goals. This practice was made explicitly illegal by the Hatch Act. Keep in mind that this is not a reference to sleazy Bush Regime apologist Orrin Hatch (R-UT), but to principled Senator Carl Hatch (D-NM). The actual name of the law is officially "An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities." It was passed in 1939 to combat a perception of Democratic Party corruption, although it was proposed by a Democrat, and passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic President. The Republicans, in the Senate, a thoroughly discredited-- but still pesky-- minority party at the time, wanted a much tougher version than the Democrats and the Democrats went along with them and let them have their way. Their addition legislates that anyone below policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns. The Hatch Act was challenged, unsuccessfully twice before the Supreme Court (1947 and 1974).

With that in mind, think about Rove and his political shop in the White House sending over slide shows to government departments targeting vulnerable Democratic congressmen and asking for help in shoring up the electoral fortunes of unpopular Republican incumbents. As the Post puts it:

Six political appointees at the GSA who participated in the videoconference said [GSA Director] Doan asked at the conclusion how the agency could help GOP candidates win in the next elections, according to a letter Waxman sent to Doan.

During the hearing, Doan said at least 10 times that she does not recall asking employees to help the GOP or does not recall details about the presentation.

The matter is being investigated by the independent Office of Special Counsel.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the presentation was not out of the ordinary.

"There is regular communication from the White House to political appointees throughout the administration," he said.

HENRY WAXMAN WROTE A LITTLE LETTER TO KARL ROVE TODAY

"GSA" sounds so unsexy. If you missed the story yesterday, maybe Waxman's letter to Rove today will help you to feel the importance.

March 29, 2007
Karl Rove
Assistant to the President,
Deputy Chief of Staff, and Senior Adviser
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Rove:
Yesterday, the Committee held a hearing into allegations of misconduct at the General Services Administration (GSA). One of the allegations involved a political presentation that your deputy, J. Scott Jennings, made to the GSA Administrator, Lurita A. Doan, and approximately 40 GSA political appointees in the GSA headquarters building on January 26, 2007.
The basic facts of this event are not in dispute. The GSA White House liaison scheduled Mr. Jennings to speak at a meeting that took place on January 26, 2007, at the GSA headquarters building, although some appointees participated by videoconference. After a brief introduction, Mr. Jennings presented a 28-page slide briefing that reviewed the 2006 election results and outlined the Republican Party's top electoral targets in upcoming federal and state elections. This slide presentation included:

* A list of the 20 Democratic House districts the White House views as the most vulnerable to Republican takeover in 2008;
* A list of the 36 Republican House districts the White House views as the most vulnerable to Democratic takeover in 2008; and
* A map showing the Senate seats up for election in 2008 and whether the White House believes Republicans will have to play "defense" or "offense."

After the presentation was over, Ms. Doan asked her staff to discuss how GSA resources could be used to help "our candidates" in the next election.
At the hearing, many questions were raised about the legality and appropriateness of Mr. Jennings's presentation and the discussion that followed it. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued an 11-page report that found that both the presentation itself and Ms. Doan's comments could be violations of the federal Hatch Act. According to CRS, the White House presentation alone may cross the line into being an impermissible "political activity" under the Hatch Act when "the sponsor or presenter is closely affiliated/identified with a partisan political campaign, invitations are directed only to 'political' employees of a department, and the objectives and agenda of the program appear to have a partisan slant."
As part of the Committee's investigation into Mr. Jennings's presentation, I ask that you answer the following questions:

* Did you approve of the slides in Mr. Jennings's presentation? Did you approve of Mr. Jennings's participation in this meeting?
* Does the White House Office of Political Affairs or the White House Counsel have a policy addressing when and where White House employees can make political presentations such as the one Mr. Jennings gave at GSA headquarters on January 26, 2007? Please explain the legal authority you believe allows you to make such presentations on federal property during business hours.
* Did Mr. Jennings, you, or any other employee of the White House Office of Political Affairs consult with the White House Counsel or the Office of the Special Counsel about whether delivering this presentation to federal government employees in a government building during business hours violated the Hatch Act or any other rules, policies or procedures?
* Have you, Mr. Jennings, or other employees of the White House Office of Political Affairs given this political briefing or any similar briefing mentioning future elections or candidates on other occasions? Please provide the Committee a list of the dates, times, and locations of any of these presentations at which federal officials were present, whether they occurred on federal property or not, as well as a list of the people and organizations who participated.
* Have you, Mr. Jennings, or other employees of the White House Office of Political Affairs provided Mr. Jennings's PowerPoint presentation or any similar presentation to federal officials mentioning future elections or candidates to people or organizations outside of the White House Office of Political Affairs? Please provide the Committee a list of who received the presentation, as well as the dates, times, and locations the presentation was provided.
* Who prepared the PowerPoint presentation given by Mr. Jennings? Did your office use federal funds to prepare this briefing? If so, please explain the legal authority that you believe allows you to use federal funds to prepare political briefings such as the one Mr. Jennings presented at GSA headquarters on January 26, 2007.
* Why did Mr. Jennings and his staff assistant use private "gwb43.com" accounts rather than their "eop.gov" accounts to correspond with Administrator Doan's office about the PowerPoint presentation?

In addition, I ask that you provide the Committee with any documents and communications relating to (1) the presentation of the PowerPoint presentation or any similar presentation mentioning future elections or candidates to federal officials and (2) the use of federal agencies or resources to help Republican candidates.
I request that you answer the Committee's questions and provide the requested documents by April 13, 2007.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee in the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional information on how to respond to the Committee's request.
I will appreciate your cooperation with the Committee's inquiry. If you have any questions about the Committee's request, your staff can contact David Rapallo or David Leviss of the Committee staff at (202) 225-5420.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Enclosure
cc: Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member

UPDATE: ON ONE OF THE OTHER ROVE FRONTS, SPECTER KNOWS THESE GUYS WELL-- AND HE WANTS TRANSCRIPTS

Snarlin' Arlen, over on the Senate side, says he's not so concerned about under oath or not under oath; he just wants transcripts. If they can get Rove to testify and he lies, he'll wind up in prison, oath taken or not because, according to Specter, "false official statements carry a five-year jail sentence." He also favors public hearings but he's open to compromising on that if the Regime agrees to transcripts. Arlen knows these characters and their modus operandi well enough to know that the whole exercise is futile without transcripts. "If you do not have a transcript, no one will know for sure what was said... I think a transcript is indispensable, so on that I am in disagreement with the White House."

WAXMAN DOES NOT SUFFER FOOLS GLADLY-- MAYBE McHENRY AND WESTMORELAND SHOULD LOOK FOR NEW COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

Henry Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, ground zero for investigating Republican malfeasance and criminality is also in the process of passing legislation to finally give residents of the District of Columbia real representation in Congress. As I mentioned in January, I'm not a huge fan of the inherently unfair and racist compromise but, considering the inability to get a better deal, I'm rooting for it as a first step. And, in fact, the bill easily surmounted its first hurdle in the committee yesterday. The bill, which would also give Utah, the most dependably right-wing state in the Union and a Republican bastion, another member in Congress, passed by a vote of 24-5.

Today the House Judiciary Committee will probably give it a tougher time since it's filled with even worse die-hards and hard-right racist nutcases than the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Of course, how you define someone as "worse die-hards and hard-right racist nutcases" than North Carolina's Patrick McHenry or Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland, considered the two stupidest members of Congress, is something else entirely.

In yesterday's session, the opposition came from these two KKKlowns who lamely-- and unsuccessfully-- sought to undermine it with laughable amendments. McHenry offered an amendment that would return parts of DC to Maryland. Waxman's ruling that his amendment was moronic and not worthy of serious consideration was upheld by a 17-5 vote in which most Republicans clenched their teeth and wished McHenry would go play outside in traffic. McHenry was screaming that the bill, sponsored by Republican Tom Davis of Virginia is unconstitutional. His-- and Colbert's-- good buddy Lynn Westmoreland agrees, of course. Can you imagine being stuck on a committee with both these nincompoops? And Westmoreland had his own crazy, childish amendment to annoy people with as well-- which, of course, was also overwhelmingly defeated. He tried to add a provision that would make the bill null and void if it led to a change in the partisan balance that Davis predicted would occur if, as anticipated, DC elects a Democrat and Utah elects a Republican. Their biggest fear, of course, is that eventually DC will get 2 senators, African-American ones.

Waxman will deftly deal with the mentally handicapped members of his committee and the more serious obstructionism from the wingnuts all week as his committee brings 5 important bills to the floor this week. Today the House votes on the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007, the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007, the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007. Tomorrow we have the Accountability in Contracting Act. According to Waxman "For the past six years we've had an Administration that has tried to operate with secrecy and without transparency and without the public having knowledge about their actions and to be able to therefore hold them accountable... The 5 bills we'll be considering over the next two days will reassert the principle that democracy thrives on openness and accountability."

The legislation seek to change the way Congress and the federal government do business and shines a bright light on how the government operates. The bills seek to end waste in federal contracting, strengthen protections for federal "whistleblowers" who report waste, fraud, and abuse, increase disclosure requirements for Presidential records, require disclosure of big donors to Presidential libraries, and provide long overdue and constitutionally-mandated oversight of the veterans' health care crisis and other federal issues. Taken in context with what the 110th Congress has already put in place, these bills are strong step forward to restoring accountability and public trust in Washington.

The 5 bills Waxman will shepherd through Congress:

H.R. 1309 - The Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 2007
This bill amends the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a dozen substantive provisions to provide for more timely disclosure of government documents, including restoring the presumption of disclosure to FOIA, helping FOIA requesters obtain timely responses, improving transparency in agency compliance with FOIA, providing an alternative to litigation, and providing accountability for FOIA decisions.

H.R. 1255 – Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007
Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are supposed to be released to historians and the public 12 years after the end of a presidential administration. In November 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233 which overturned an executive order issued by President Reagan and gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 nullifies the Bush executive order and establishes procedures to ensure the timely release of presidential records.

H.R. 1254 - Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007
This bill requires the disclosure of donors to Presidential libraries. Presidential libraries are built using private funds raised by an organization or foundation working on behalf of the president. Under current law, donations for the presidential library can be unlimited in size and are not required to be disclosed. The bill would require that all organizations established for the purpose of raising funds for presidential libraries or their related facilities report on a quarterly basis all contributions of $200 or more. You want to guess why?

H.R. 985 - Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007
This bill strengthens protections for federal whistleblowers to prevent retaliation against those who report wrongdoing, waste, fraud, or abuse to authorities.

H.R. 1362 - The Accountability in Contracting Act
Under the Bush Administration, spending on no-bid contracts has more than doubled and the Administration has hidden contractor overcharges from Congress, international auditors, and the public, impeding oversight and diminishing accountability. This bill changes federal acquisition law to require agencies to limit the use of abuse-prone contracts, to increase transparency and accountability in federal contracting, and to protect the integrity of the acquisition workforce. The bill limits the duration of no-bid contracts awarded in emergencies to eight months, requires large federal agencies to develop and implement a plan to minimize the use of noncompetitive contracts, requires an agency to prepare a public letter explaining why it awarded a no-bid contract, requires that contract overcharges more than $1 million be disclosed to Congress, mandates that agencies devote at least an additional 1% of their procurement budgets to contract oversight, planning and administration, and closes the revolving door, requiring that former federal procurement officers wait one year before seeking employment at a lobbying or contracting firm.


PEELING BACK THE MOLDY, DARK CURTAINS OF SECRECY BUSH AND CHENEY USE TO MASK THEIR CRIMES

The House overwhelmingly passed Waxman's Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007, 333-93. Not one Democratic congressman voted against it and only the worst rubber stamp partisans among Republicans backed Bush and Cheney on this. Even one of the worst right-wing extremists in the whole Congress, Roy Blunt, their whip, broke ranks with Bush on this one and voted with Speaker Pelosi! This is how the bill is described on Speaker Pelosi's website:

Overturning the Bush Executive Order. Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are supposed to be released to historians and the public 12 years after the end of a presidential administration. In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 which overturned an executive order issued by President Reagan and gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 would nullify the Bush executive order and establish procedures to ensure the timely release of presidential records.

Among the far right loons who voted in favor of keeping information away from historians and the public are all the usual villains: Duncan Hunter (CA), John Kline (MN), Joe Barton (TX), Michele Bachmann (MN), "Buck" McKeon (CA), Dan Lungren (CA), Don Young (AK), John Doolittle (CA), Marilyn Musgrave (CO), Mean Jean Schmidt (OH), Gary Miller (CA), Howdy Doody (FL), Tim Walberg (MI), Brian Bilbray (CA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Denny Hastert (IL), Steve King (IA), Thelma Drake (VA), John Boehner (OH), Barbara Cubin (WY), Lynn Westmoreland (GA), Heather Wilson (NM), "Doc" Hastings (WA), James Sensenbrenner (WI), Doug Lamborn (CO), Jim McCrery (LA), Patrick McNutcase (NC), Sue Myrick (NC), Virginia Foxx (NC), Tom Tancredo (CO), and the 3 far right Rogers (AL, MI and KY).


UPDATE: THREE PASSED SO FAR! GO, HENRY!

With the Regime fuming, the House overwhelmingly passed the first 3 of Waxman's 5 "sunshine" bills today, bills pushed by the media to make the Regime less hostile to the Freedom of Information Act. Predictably, Bush says he'll oppose, or even veto, the bills. The bills Bush-- the perfect little authoritarian shit-- most fears are the ones that open up presidential records and the ones that protect government whistleblowers. The votes were 390-34 on the presidential library bill, 333-93 on the presidential records bill and 308-117 on the FOIA legislation.