THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE
David C. Farmer, Successor Trustee
vs.
Bobby N. Harmon
(Formerly Mary Lou Woo vs. Harmon and James Nicholson vs. Harmon)
CV05-00030 DAE/KSC
United States District Court, District of Hawaii
Judges: David A. Ezra; Kevin S. Chang
~ ~ ~
DEFENDANT’S WITNESS
KARL ROVE
Address to be determined.
Karl Rove is an American political consultant; former senior advisor to President George W. Bush (sometimes called, “Bush’s Brain”).
* * * * *
KARL ROVE & THORNS IN THE ROSE GARDEN
* * * * *
NEW DISCOVERY (05-22-08):
May 22, 2008
House subpoenas Karl Rove
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday subpoenaed former White House top political adviser Karl Rove to testify about whether the White House improperly meddled with the Justice Department.
Accusations of politics influencing decisions at the department led to last year's resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top aide to President Bush would testify voluntarily.
"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate."
"Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters," Conyers said.
Neither Rove nor his attorney, Robert Luskin, could be immediately reached for comment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_go_co/rove_subpoena
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (05-10-08): David Farmer’s undisclosed connections with AIPAC and “Bush’s Brain”, Karl Rove:
From: Hapa1234@aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 01:26:40 EDT
Subject: Check out The Raw Story | Official probing Rove now under investigation himself
To: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov, senator@akaka.senate.gov, ustrustee.program@usdoj.gov, admin@ehawaii.gov, jurisnot@yahoo.com, bobby_n_harmon@yahoo.com, hwburgess@hawaii.rr.com, Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com, rroth@hawaii.edu}
The Raw Story | Official probing Rove now under investigation himself
"While Rove Fiddled; The Bush was Burning"? or........White men who can't dance?
ck out:
Dismissed U.S. Attorney's Carole Lam {California} and Frederick Black {South Pacific}.
HATCH ACT and the 1978 Hawaii Constitutional Convention:
a} Congressional Defense Appropriation Committee members, previous Bureau of Indian Affairs Chairman, Veterans Affair Committees, Intelligence Committees, Special Counsels {Iran - Contra / Central America International Committees} Bishop, Baldwin, REWALD, Dillingham & Wong, for Hawaii U.S. Senator - Daniel Inouye - Defense Chairman linked to: hidden Public Pork Barrel proceeds for the lavish Hokulia Canoe for Hawaiians only programs / Women Abuse Shelters for Two Political Hawaii Legislature members involved in 1992 U.S. Senate race allegations for Sexual Harassment allegations / Private Defense Contractor Brent Wilkes - Hawaii ADSC Company fronts - Lavish Hawaiian Private Vacations - Luxury Private Accommodations - Hawaiian "Entertainment" linked to Asian Pacific Advisory Council Politicians {Prince Hotels} - AIPAC Lobbyist for Akaka Bill; {Dismissed U.S. Attorney - Frederick Black, Political Appointee under former CIA Director / Vice-President / President George H. Bush linked to former U.S. Federal Prosecutors John Peyton - Kenneth Starr in collusion with former Hawaii District Judges {deceased}: Martin Pence, Harold Fong, & California District Judge: Brian Tamahana}.
b} Alaska U.S. Senator - Ted Stevens linked to hidden Public Pork Barrel projects {Bridge To Nowhere} with family member to self serving Alaska Contractors - Home remodeling projects as well as lobbying ANWAR Bill under the Department of Interior {CREA} with members with the Defense Appropriation Committee Political links to members of Congressional Committees {I.E. - Veterans Committee Chairman - Daniel Akaka, sponsor for the stealth Akaka Bill with no Public voice or vote in Hawaii, Obstruction of Justice in the South Pacific {Jack Abramoff - Tom Delay} and the Broken Trust legacy in Hawaii, in political exchanges for continued political support for a Case of War in Iraq and the ANWAR Bill.
c} California Congressman - Duke "Dukestar" Cunningham: Defense Appropriation Committee member - Veterans Affair Committees linked to lavish Political briberies with Private Defense Contractors and CIA agents linked to Iraq War Appropriations in Washington DC, Southern California, and Hawaii lavish vacations - "Entertainment" with obstruction of justice linked to political Dismissed U.S. Attorney Carole Lam, linked to Political dismissed U.S. Attorney Frederick Black in the South Pacific involving Jack Abramoff {AIPAC} linked to Grover Norquist and Tom Delay {CNP - PNAC}.
Aloha Mai Mo. Aloha Aku: Do the Disavowed Facts matter for Special Counsel Scott Bloch with Karl Rove under Alberto Gonzales and the Broken Trust Legacy in Washington DC?
catbirds - south pac
~ ~ ~
August 12, 2005
Why the AIPAC Indictment Is
Bad News for Karl Rove
From: David Corn
Last week, the Justice Department issued a new indictment of Lawrence Franklin, the Pentagon official accused of passing secrets to officials of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying outfit. The indictment is bad news for the Bush White House and Karl Rove.
That’s not only because the Franklin case is embarrassing for the administration, the Pentagon, and their neocon allies. (Franklin worked with Douglas Feith, who until recently was a senior Pentagon official close to the neocons.) The Franklin indictment is a sign that Rove and any other White House aide involved in the Plame/CIA leak might be vulnerable to prosecution under the Espionage Act.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald--who is not involved in the Franklin prosecution--has not had to state publicly what sort of case he is trying to build in the Plame/CIA leak matter. The most obvious one would be based on the charge that the leaker violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. But that law was narrowly drawn, and to win a conviction Fitzgerald would have to prove that Rove or any other leaker knew that Valerie Wilson was working under cover at the CIA. There are, however, other laws under which Fitzgerald might charge the CIA/Plame leakers. The Franklin indictment points the way. (And criminal law aside, by sharing classified information with at least two reporters--Valerie Wilson’s employment at the CIA was classified--Rove committed an offense that violated various rules and would get most government workers seriously punished or dismissed.)
The Franklin indictments notes:
On or about December 8, 1999, FRANKLIN signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, a Standard Form 312 (SF-312). In that document FRANKLIN acknowledged that he was aware that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by him could cause irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation and that he would never divulge classified information to an unauthorized person. He further acknowledged that he would never divulge classified information unless he had officially verified that the recipient was authorized by the United States to receive it. Additionally, he agreed that if he was uncertain about the classification status of information, he was required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before he could disclose it.
Yet, the indictment alleges, Franklin passed classified information to Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two senior AIPAC officials. And the indictment claims Rosen and Weissman shared this information with Israel. Consequently, the indictment charges Franklin, Rosen and Weissman with "conspiracy to communicate National Defense Information under sections 793(d) and 793(e) of Title 18, United States Code. And Franklin was charged with three counts of "communication of National Defense Information"--not conspiracy--under section 793(d). He was also charged with one count of "conspiracy to communicate classified information" to a foreign government.
Let’s look at sections 793(d) and (e). The first generally applies to government officials, the second to nongovernment officials. Both sections make it a crime to transmit national defense information--and the identity of an undercover CIA officer would probably count as national defense information--to a person unauthorized to receive it (such as a reporter). These sections define violators as
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. [Emphasis added.]
Rove, like Franklin, had to sign SF-312. As Rep. Henry Waxman noted in a short report he released on the Rove leak, this nondisclosure agreement states, "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" unauthorized to receive such information. Rove broke that vow. And Executive Order 12958--which Bush updated on March 25, 2003-- says that "officers and employees of the United States Government...shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently...disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." The sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." So Rove ought to be slapped with one of those punishments.
But worse for Rove--from a legal perspective--is section 793. Rove did communicate classified information which could be used "to the injury of the United States" to a person "not entitled to receive it." The information was the identity of an undercover intelligence official working on anti-WMD operations. Such information could be used to thwart or undermine past or present CIA operations and assets connected to Valerie Wilson. The persons "not entitled" to received this info were Robert Novak and Matt Cooper (and perhaps there were more).
I am--as I’ve said before--no lawyer. But given the letter of the law in section 793, it seems to me there is a case to be made that Rove essentially did what Franklin did. There may be a difference in intent or awareness. Perhaps Rove did not know he was passing on classified information that could be used to the detriment of the United States (though he should have realized that had he given the matter a moment or two of thought), and it seems that Franklin had to know he was sharing classified material with outsiders. But section 793 does not say a violator must be aware he or she is passing on information that could cause harm to the United States if exposed. It only sets as a criterion that the violator "willfully" communicates this information. I assume that means a purely accidental slip of the lip would not be a crime. But Rove--who told at least two reporters about Valerie Wilson’s CIA position--cannot argue he was not "willfully" communicating this information to others.
So might Fitzgerald have a case under section 793? Journalists don’t like these sorts of prosecutions, for it brings us close to an official secrets act (like the one that exists in Britain). If prosecutors chased after government leakers--say those who leaked intelligence showing that the White House’s case for war in Iraq was weak--the public would suffer. And the Justice Department’s indictment of Rosen and Weissman--nongovernment officials--for passing along classified information is also worrisome for reporters who pass along classified information by publishing and airing stories that contain secret information. But Fitzgerald has certainly demonstrated he’s not too concerned about pursuing legal cases and setting legal precedents that are bad for journalism.
And that’s why Rove ought to be sweating the Franklin indictment.
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=302236
~ ~ ~
August 7, 2005
I Predict: Bush Will Pardon Rove
By Paul Begala
Arianna Huffington, Lawrence O'Donnell and others on this post have done a terrific job of staying on top of every new fact in the Plame-CIA leak case. I, however, want to go beyond the facts and engage in a little conjecture:
George W. Bush will pardon Karl Rove.
I know I'm getting WAY ahead of the facts, but this thing has the smell of a serious legal problem for the Bush Administration. From the outside, Mr. Fitzgerald does not look like a prosecutor who sees wrongdoing but believes it falls short of criminal conduct, like, say, Joe DiGenova did when he investigated allegations that the Bush 41 Administration rummaged Bill Clinton's passport file.
The Bush team excels at political strategy. They pride themselves on seeing three moves ahead on the chess board. So let us look a few moves ahead as well:
Mr. Fitzgerald indicts Mr. Rove. Maybe for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, maybe the Espionage Act (which outlaws mishandling classified information). Perhaps the charge is a criminal cover-up –- obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy or lying to a federal investigator.
What does the President do? What does he say?
As a former White House speechwriter, I've taken the liberty of drafting the speech for Mr. Bush:
My fellow Americans. We meet once again in dark and dangerous times. I remember well the terrible tragedy of September the 11th, 2001. Today, we have the terrorists on the run, and yet they attack our soldiers nearly every day in Iraq. They bomb tourists in Egypt, kill innocents in London and Madrid and Indonesia and Kenya. This truly is a global struggle against violent extremism.
This is not a conventional war, and it will not be fought nor won by conventional means. At the heart of our success will be tactics and techniques that I am not free to divulge to you -- strategies and secrets you will never know. At a time like this, in a post-September the 11th, 2001 world, preserving, protecting and defending our national security secrets is literally a matter of life and death.
That is why I was so angry when the name of one of our CIA agents was revealed two years ago. I vowed then to cooperate in every way to bring the wrongdoers to justice, and I have done so. But what started as an investigation into national security has gone off track. Those who seek to undermine me politically are now pursuing a course that will harm America's security and could invite another September the 11th, 2001.
Let me put this as plainly as I can: the charges against Karl Rove are false. He is an innocent man. He was a strong and steady presence at my side on September the 11th, 2001. And he has a right to defend himself, his good name, his lifetime of service to our country and his wonderful family. The charges that have been filed against him are the result of a secretive grand jury proceeding in which Karl has not been shown the evidence against him, has not been able to confront his accusers, has not even had a lawyer present when he was questioned -- a right every murderer in every police station has.
But now that the secret grand jury proceedings are over, more than anything else, Karl wants to stand up in the cold, clear light of day and defend his good name.
But here's the problem. If Karl were to explain how and why he is innocent; if he were to offer his strong and compelling defense in public, it would reveal even more of our nation's secrets. The terrorists have CNN, you know, and Karl's trial would give them a daily tutorial in just how we fight the war on terror. They would learn lessons from the trial that might allow them to attack us here at home, just as they did on September the 11th, 2001.
I cannot allow this to happen. I cannot jeopardize the lives of our fighting men and women -- no matter how much I love Karl and no matter how badly he wants to clear his name. I have not forgotten the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. And I will not allow anything to happen that makes another September the 11th, 2001 possible. And so, in an act of selfless patriotism, Karl has agreed not to offer any public defense. He has agreed to keep secret all the evidence that clears him. And he has agreed -- at my insistence -- to accept a full, free and absolute pardon.
Although innocent, Karl will pay dearly. Those who oppose our efforts to combat terrorism will vilify him. I would remind them that in front of the Department of Justice stands a statue of Nathan Hale. A noose around his neck, Hale stands defiant, about to be executed by the British for keeping secrets that led to America's independence. Nathan Hale said he regretted that he had but one life to give to his country. Karl himself has told me he regrets he has but one reputation, but he is willing to sacrifice it for his country, especially if it helps to prevent another September the 11th, 2001.
Karl's selfless act will end the matter immediately and allow us all to get back to the life and death struggle against those who hate us for our freedoms, and who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001.
God bless you all, and may God bless the United States of America.
www.huffingtonpost.com/paulbegala/
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (04-22-08): David Farmer’s undisclosed connections with AIPAC and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin:
From Exhibit: “CONNECTING THE DIRTY DOTS TO AIPAC”:
David C. Farmer, Successor-Trustee vs. Harmon
(Formerly Woo vs. Harmon & Nicholson vs. Harmon)
U.S. District Court For the District of Hawaii
Judges: David A. Ezra; Kevin S. Chang
—
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT
—
A few words of explanation:
In his "MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO DISAPPROVE APPOINTMENT OF DAVID C. FARMER AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE", filed with the Court on August 24, 2007, the Trustee's attorney, Steven Guttman, Esq., of the law firm, Kessner Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga, stated to the Court:
"... Harmon is once again attempting to create issues of conflict where none exist by attempting to draw connections between phantom dots."...
Mr. Guttman does not elaborate beyond this simple statement of HIS PERSONAL OPINION, as to WHICH of the thousands of connections I have cited that he wishes the Court to accept, without question, as being merely "phantom dots". In other court filings, Mr. Guttman has characterized my Motions as consisting of "conspiracy theories" -- again with no specific references.
Despite these unnamed "phantom dots" and "conspiracy theories", the Court has blithely and unquestionably gone along with Mr. Guttman's opinions and has repeatedly denied ALL Motions that I have made. In fact, both Courts involved have ruled that the Court Clerk shall not accept any future filings from me without the Courts' prior approval - which it has repeatedly declined to give.
Therefore, due to the fact that I continue to discover new, material FACTS almost daily, I am preparing a set of NEW EXHIBITS in which I intend to document the financial, professional, personal, and political connections between the many various entities involved in this case.
~ o ~
The following is a listing of named witnesses in this case who have factual connections with the subject entity. Each underlined name has been linked to a detailed description of that witness to enable the reader to more easily CONNECT THE DOTS TO...
LEARN MORE ABOUT AIPAC:
http://www.stopaipac.org/spystory.htm
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/crime3.htm
http://www.rense.com/general74/zzpo.htm
www.hadassah.org/education/content/influentials_israel.asp
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/021108/hawaii.shtml
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1721.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3467
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/06/lfow.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AIPAC
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/03/6138/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidtiC-UPNU
http://www.franklingate.com/aipac-cheney.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/AIPAC-Obama.mht
http://www.kycbs.net/AIPAC-Bush-Abramoff-Greenberg.mht
http://www.kycbs.net/AIPAC-Mische-7-11-7.mht
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vwV6O5AGKyw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8gHmJUa720
http://ifamericaknew.com/us_ints/mc-aipac.html
http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=9697
www.literarylotus.com/2007/12/wimr-brian-schatz.html
http://www.kycbs.net/AIPAC-Lingle-Abramoff-Brownstein.mht
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (04-12-08):
April 12, 2008
David C. Farmer, Esq.
Office of the United States Trustee
c/o Steven Guttman, Esq., Kessner Duca Umebayashi, et al.
220 S. King Street, Floor 10
Honolulu, HI 96813
Re: 99-04339 - David C. Farmer, Trustee vs. Bobby N. Harmon
Ref. New Exhibit: “THE DIRTY MILLIONS FOR ARMAGEDDON”
Dear Mr. Farmer:
Due to new discoveries regarding the Integrated Resources securities fraud and illegal U.S. political campaign funding by foreign nationals (Israel), I am adding the subject Exhibit. You will find this new Exhibit and related witness descriptions at:
http://www.kycbs.net/Dirty-Millions.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Lingle-Linda.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-McCain-John.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Kissinger-Henry.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Black-Conrad.htm
http://www.kycbs.net/CV05-00030-Witness-Farmer-David.htm
Mr. Farmer, I again suggest that we try to resolve this matter through negotiation rather that your continuing indefinitely this illegal SLAPP lawsuit.
Very truly yours,
Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM
cc: U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
E-mail: <AskDOJ@usdoj.gov>
Curtis Ching, Office of the United States Trustee
Fax: (808) 522-8156
~ ~ ~
December 13, 2007
Lawmakers vote to hold
Bush aides in contempt
By Thomas Ferraro, Rueters
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two men who have been top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas in its probe of the firing of federal prosecutors.
On a largely party-line vote, the Democratic-led panel sent contempt of Congress citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to the full Senate for consideration.
"This is not a step I have wanted to take," said Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. He accused the White House of "stonewalling" and refusing to reach an acceptable compromise on providing documents and testimony.
In a battle dating back to shortly after Democrats took control of Congress in January, Bush has claimed executive privilege to protect aides from complying with subpoenas demanding documents and testimony in a congressional probe into the firing last year of nine federal prosecutors.
Setting the stage for a possible lengthy court fight, the committee rejected the privilege claim as unfounded.
At the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said, "The Democrats should know the futility of trying to press ahead with a criminal case."
In July, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee also approved along party lines contempt citations against Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.
It was unclear when the full House or Senate would vote on the citations. If approved, they would be sent to the U.S. Justice Department for prosecution.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey said during his confirmation hearing he did not believe the department could prosecute since it had deemed Bush's privilege claim as valid.
If the case does end up in the courts, it could takes years to conclude, long after Bush's term ends in January 2009.
Bush nominated Mukasey as attorney general after Alberto Gonzales, Bush's former White House counsel, resigned under pressure from lawmakers who questioned his competency and honesty.
Critics charged Gonzales had politicized the Justice Department and fired prosecutors because they were not seen as sufficiently loyal to the administration.
The White House has contended the dismissals were improperly handled, but did not involve any wrongdoing.
~ ~ ~
November 20, 2007
BUSH/CHENEY MISLED PUBLIC
ABOUT CIA IDENTITY LEAK
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field — and often duck — those types of questions.
Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information," she said.
Plame issued a statement saying the opposite.
"I am outraged to learn that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirms that he was sent out to lie to the press corps," Plame said. "Even more shocking, McClellan confirms that not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice President Cheney, presidential Chief of Staff Andrew Card and President Bush also ordered McClellan to issue his misleading statement."
McClellan turned down interview requests Tuesday.
Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats...
"Just when you think the credibility of this White House can't get any lower, another shoe drops," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "If the Bush administration won't even tell the truth to its official spokesman, how can the American people expect to be told the truth either?"
In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.
"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.
Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.
Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.
McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."
In a CNN interview earlier this year, McClellan made no suggestion that Bush knew either Libby or Rove was involved in the leak. McClellan said his statements to reporters were what he and the president "believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."
Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.
~ ~ ~
August 13, 2007
Karl Rove, Adviser to President Bush,
to Resign
By Peter Baker and Debbi Wilgoren, Washington Post Staff Writers
Karl Rove, the architect of President Bush's two national campaigns and his most prominent adviser through 6-1/2 tumultuous years in the White House, will resign at month's end and leave politics, a White House spokeswoman said this morning.
Bush plans to make a statement with Rove on the South Lawn this morning before the president departs for his ranch near Crawford, Tex. Rove, who holds the titles of deputy chief of staff and senior adviser, has been talking about finding the right time to depart for a year, colleagues said, and decided he had to either leave now or remain through the end of the presidency.
"Obviously it's a big loss to us," White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said this morning. "He's a great colleague, a good friend, and a brilliant mind. He will be greatly missed. But we know he wouldn't be going if he wasn't sure this was the right time to be giving more to his family, his wife Darby and their son. He will continue to be one of the president's greatest friends."
Rove, 56, who escaped indictment in the CIA leak case, has been under scrutiny by the new Democratic Congress for his role in the firings of U.S. attorneys and in a series of political briefings provided to various agencies across government. Citing executive privilege, he defied a subpoena and refused to show up for a congressional hearing just two weeks ago on the allegedly improper use by White House aides of Republican National Committee email accounts. Fellow Bush advisers have said they believe the congressional probes have been aimed in part at driving Rove out.
The White House said his departure was unrelated to the investigations. In an interview published this morning, Rove told Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul A. Gigot that he had been interested in leaving last year but did not want to go immediately after the Democrats took over Congress, nor did he want to abandon Bush as he fought for his troop buildup in Iraq and an immigration overhaul.
"I just think it's time," Rove told Gigot in comments confirmed by the White House. The Journal said White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten told Rove and other senior aides that if they stay past Labor Day, they would be expected to remain through the end of the second term, Jan. 20, 2009.
"There's always something that can keep you here," Rove said, "and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family."
Rove said he was finished with political consulting and plans to spend much of his time at his house in Ingram, Tex., with his wife, Darby, and near their son, who attends college in San Antonio. He said he plans to write a book about Bush's years in office, a project encouraged by the president, and would like to teach at some point, but has no job lined up for now. He does not plan to work on a presidential campaign nor would he endorse a candidate.
Rove is the latest of a string of high-profile presidential aides to head for the door as the Bush administration enters its final stages. In recent months, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, budget director Rob Portman, deputy national security advisers J.D. Crouch and Meghan O'Sullivan, political director Sara M. Taylor, strategic initiatives director Peter H. Wehner and a string of other longtime aides have resigned one after the other.
None came close to Rove's stature or influence, however. His departure is the end of an era in modern GOP politics, the conclusion of 14 years that began with advising the son of the last Republican to hold the White House, then guiding that son first to the Texas governor's mansion and, ultimately, to the White House. Along the way, Rove became the most prominent political strategist of his generation and a bete noire for liberals and even a number of conservative critics.
Along with Karen Hughes and Joe Allbaugh, Rove was part of a group known as the "Iron Triangle" who were central to Bush's early political success in Texas, but he was the most enduring of the three. Bush termed him "The Architect" for his role in capturing the White House in 2000 and Rove was similarly credited with midterm Congressional election victories in 2002 and Bush's reelection over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004. The ouster of the Republican Congress in 2006, punctured Rove's long winning streak and empowered his enemies.
Rove's influence extended far beyond the politics of electioneering, deep into policymaking. He helped craft the first-term Bush agenda of tax cuts, which succeeded, and the second-term agenda of Social Security private accounts, which did not. More broadly, he provided the intellectual and historic framework for the Bush presidency and hoped to use it to open a new era of Republican political dominance, a project that today looks potentially crippled by the unpopularity of both the president and the Iraq war.
Rove was investigated for his role in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose husband publicly criticized the administration's handling of prewar intelligence. Although White House spokesman Scott McClellan initially spoke with Rove and publicly denied that Rove had anything to do with the leak, the investigation later determined that he had in fact divulged or confirmed Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald brought Rove before the grand jury multiple times and considered charging him in the case but ultimately decided not to. Fitzgerald did indict I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to investigators, although Bush later commuted his sentence. Libby's attorney asserted at his trial that he was being sacrificed to protect Rove.
Rove told Gigot that he remains confident Bush will recover politically despite his low approval ratings. "He will move back up in the polls," Rove said. And he said Republicans could still retain the White House next year. The Democrats are likely to nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate," he said, but Republicans have "a very good chance" of beating her.
Rove laughed off his own reputation as the svengali of the Bush presidency. "I'm a myth," he said. "There's the Mark of Rove. I read about some of the things I'm supposed to have done and I have to try not to laugh."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300180.html
~ ~ ~
July 26, 2007
FBI Head Contradicts
Gonzales Testimony
Lawmakers Want Probe of
Attorney General; Rove Subpoenaed
By LAURIE KELLMAN and LARA JAKES JORDAN, AP
WASHINGTON (July 26) - The head of the FBI contradicted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony and Senate Democrats requested a perjury investigation Thursday in a fresh barrage against President Bush's embattled longtime friend and aide.
In a third blow to the Bush administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, in connection with its investigation.
"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement calling for a special counsel to investigate.
"I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
The developments marked a troubling turn for Gonzales as well as the administration, which has been on the political defensive since congressional Democrats launched an investigation seven months ago into the firings of U.S. attorneys.
That probe revealed information that Democrats have sought to weave into a pattern of improper political influence over prosecutions, of stonewalling and of deceit in sworn testimony before Congress.
The White House defiantly stuck by Gonzales and denied that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller had contradicted him.
Democrats insisted that Gonzales had been untruthful and that the White House had encouraged top aides to flout congressional subpoenas in the U.S. attorney probe.
But Gonzales took the toughest hits Thursday, when four Senate Democrats issued a list of examples of what they said was the attorney general lying to Congress under oath - the basis for their request to Clement to appoint a special counsel to investigate.
Among the Democrats' examples of Gonzales' untruthfulness was his emphatic and repeated statement to the Judiciary Committee Tuesday that his dramatic nighttime visit to the bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004 was not related to an internal administration dispute about the president's secret warrantless eavesdropping program.
In his own sworn testimony Thursday, Mueller contradicted his boss, saying under questioning that the terrorist surveillance program (TSP) was the topic of the hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials.
Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel. Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.
"Did you have an understanding that the conversation was on TSP?" asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.
"I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes," Mueller answered.
Jackson sought to clarify: "We use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?"
"The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller responded.
The NSA, or National Security Agency, runs the program that eavesdropped on terror suspects in the United States, without court approval, until last January, when the program was put under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
~ ~ ~
March 15, 2007
All roads lead to Rove
The White House political director was clearly at the center of the
partisan plot to fire U.S. attorneys, despite the administration's
clumsy attempts to pretend otherwise.
By Sidney Blumenthal
The Bush administration's first instinct was to shield Karl Rove from scrutiny when Congress began inquiring about the unusual firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Among the replacements, the proposed new U.S. attorney for Arkansas happened to be one of Rove's most devoted underlings, his head of opposition research, Tim Griffin, who boasted during the 2000 presidential election about the effectiveness of the negative campaign against Al Gore: "We make the bullets!" Griffin also posted a sign in his department at Bush headquarters: "Rain hell on Al!"
A letter written by the Department of Justice in late February informed Congress: "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."
Despite this categorical disavowal, a sheaf of internal Justice Department e-mails released this week to Congress under subpoena revealed Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, writing in mid-December 2006, "I know getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Harriet, of course, was Harriet Miers, then the White House legal counsel.
The Justice Department's statement on Karl Rove was simply one part of its coverup. The department's three top officials -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and William E. Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general -- all testified before Congress under oath that the dismissed U.S. attorneys had been removed for "performance" reasons, not because they had been insufficiently partisan in their prosecution of Democrats or because they would be replaced by those who would be.
Yet another Sampson e-mail, sent to Miers in March 2005, had ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys on the basis of being "good performers," those who "exhibited loyalty" to the administration, or "low performers," those who "chafed against Administration initiatives, etc."
The day before the e-mails were made public Sampson resigned, offering a classic fall-guy statement, claiming that he was the one who failed to inform Gonzales and other officials about the firings. Sampson, who was Gonzales' closest aide, accompanying him from the White House Counsel's Office to the Justice Department when Gonzales was appointed attorney general, had sought to become a U.S. attorney himself through the purge. And Sampson was considered to be politically adept enough to be considered a stand-in for the supposedly indispensable Rove. When it was rumored that Rove might be indicted in the Valerie Plame case, the Washington Post reported that Sampson was likely to replace him.
Sampson's abrupt departure was followed by Gonzales' bizarre press conference on Wednesday. Speaking in a passive voice that "mistakes were made," he pleaded ignorance of "all decisions" at his department, explained that it has 110,000 employees, appealed to his modest origins, and promised to oversee the investigation of his own misfeasance. His defense was the very grounds used to fire the U.S. attorneys: poor performance. He used his failure as a shield.
But the day before, Gonzales' ignorance defense had already been punctured. A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, acknowledged that the U.S. attorneys' dismissals were preceded by a conversation between President Bush and Gonzales last October in which Bush complained that some prosecutors were not pursuing voter fraud investigations. These were, in fact, cases that Rove thought were especially important to Republicans.
Rove was the conduit for Republican political grievances about the U.S. attorneys. He was the fulcrum and the lever. He was the collector of information and the magnet of power. He was the originator, formulator and director. But, initially, according to the administration, like Gonzales, he supposedly knew nothing and did nothing.
Even after the administration alibis had collapsed, the White House trotted out Dan Bartlett, the cool and calm communications director, to engage in a bit of cognitive dissonance. There was no plot, and maybe Rove was involved in the thing that didn't happen. "You're trying to connect a lot of dots that aren't connectible," Bartlett said, adding, "It wouldn't be surprising that Karl or other people were receiving these complaints." Thus the "dots" are invisible and Rove is at their center.
To the extent that the facts are known, Rove keeps surfacing in the middle of the scandal. And it is implausible that Sampson, the latest designated fall guy, was responsible for an elaborate bureaucratic coup d'état. Nor is it credible that Gonzales -- or Harriet Miers, who has yet to be heard -- saw or heard no evil. Neither is it reasonable that Gonzales or Miers, both once Bush's personal attorneys in Texas, getting him out of scrapes such as his drunken driving arrest, could be the political geniuses behind the firings.
Gonzales' and Miers' service is notable for their obedience, lack of originality and eagerness to act as tools. The scheme bears the marks of Rove's obsessions, methods and sources. His history contains a wealth of precedents in which he manipulated law enforcement for political purposes. And his long-term strategy for permanent Republican control of government depended on remaking the federal government to create his ultimate goal -- a one-party state.
"We're a go for the US Atty plan," White House deputy counsel William Kelley notified the Justice Department on Dec. 4, 2006, three days before seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were dismissed. "WH leg[islative affairs], political, and communications have signed off..."
From the earliest Republican campaigns that Rove ran in Texas, beginning in 1986, the FBI was involved in investigating every one of his candidates' Democratic opponents. Rove happened to have a close and mysterious relationship with the chief of the FBI office in Austin. Investigations were announced as elections grew close, but there were rarely indictments, just tainted Democrats and victorious Republicans. On one occasion, Rove himself proclaimed that the FBI had a prominent Democrat under investigation -- an investigation that led to Rove's client's win. In 1990, the Texas Democratic Party chairman issued a statement: "The recurring leaks of purported FBI investigations of Democratic candidates during election campaigns is highly questionable and repugnant."
A year later, Rove received a reward. Gov. Bill Clements, a Rove client, appointed him to the East Texas State University board of regents. Appearing before the state Senate's Nominations Committee, a Democratic senator asked Rove about how long he had known the local FBI chief. "Ah, Senator," replied Rove, "it depends. Would you define 'know' for me?"
Rising to the White House as Bush's chief political strategist, Rove well understood the power of U.S. attorneys to damage Democrats and protect Republicans, and he paid close attention to their selection. When U.S. senators, who recommend the U.S. attorneys for their districts, wanted a more independent-minded professional, Rove leaned on them. In 2001, he instructed Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., to sponsor a safe choice from within Republican state circles.
Rove "just said we don't want you going outside the state. We don't want to be moving U.S. attorneys around," Fitzgerald told the Chicago Tribune on March 12. But Sen. Fitzgerald would not relent, and his nominee, Patrick Fitzgerald, an assistant U.S. attorney from New York, became the U.S. attorney in Illinois, where he successfully prosecuted Republicans, including the incumbent governor, George Ryan, for corruption, and went on to be appointed special prosecutor in the Plame case. "That Fitzgerald appointment got great headlines for you, but it ticked off the base," Rove told Sen. Fitzgerald.
In 2002, the first midterm elections of the Bush presidency, Republicans systematically raised charges of voter fraud involving Native Americans in the hotly contended U.S. Senate race in South Dakota. Though the accusations were never proved and the GOP failed to depose the Democratic senator, Tim Johnson, the campaign served as a template.
By the election of 2004, Rove became a repository of charges of voter fraud across the country, from Philadelphia to Milwaukee to New Mexico, all in swing states. In the campaign, unproven voter fraud charges, always aimed at minority voters, became a leitmotif of Republican efforts.
In Washington state, when the Democrat won the governorship by 129 votes, the state Republican Party chairman, Chris Vance, demanded that U.S. attorney John McKay tell him the status of his investigation. At that time, Vance was in constant contact with Rove. "I thought it was part of my job, to be a conduit," Vance told the Seattle Times. "We had a Republican secretary of state, a Republican prosecutor in King County and a Republican U.S. attorney, and no one was doing anything." McKay refused to have any conversation about an investigation. And he found no basis for charging anyone with voter fraud. In a Sept. 13, 2006, e-mail, Kyle Sampson identified McKay as one of those "we should now consider pushing out" -- and he was among the eight attorneys fired.
In 2006, Rove addressed the Republican Lawyers Association on the "growing problem," as he put it, of voter fraud. Every instance he cited was in a swing state. New Mexico was one of them.
Rove had heard complaints from the New Mexico Republican Party chairman, Allen Weh, about David Iglesias, the state's U.S. attorney, for his supposed refusal to indict Democrats for voter fraud. Iglesias appeared to be a dream figure for local Republicans -- the model for the movie "A Few Good Men," Hispanic and evangelical. "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh asked Rove at a White House Christmas party. "He's gone," Rove replied. Indeed, Iglesias' firing was already a done deal.
In California, it was time for payback against U.S. attorney Carol Lam, who had prosecuted Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in the most flagrant corruption case involving a member of Congress. Her probe was expanding to encompass the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis, another California Republican. On May 11, 2006, Sampson e-mailed the White House Counsel's Office regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." Soon, she was axed, one of the eight.
Those fired were not completely "loyal," as Sampson's e-mails emphasized. But to what policies should a prosecutor be "loyal"?
Two academics, Donald C. Shields of the University of Missouri and John F. Cragan of Illinois State University, studied the pattern of U.S. attorneys' prosecutions under the Bush administration. Their conclusions in their study, "The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials," are that "across the nation from 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department investigated Democratic office holders and candidates at a rate more than four times greater (nearly 80 percent to 18 percent) than they investigated Republican office holders and seekers."
They also report, "Data indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops." Thus what the 85 U.S. attorneys who were not dismissed are doing is starkly detailed.
If the Democrats hadn't won the midterm elections last year there is no reason to believe that the plan to use the U.S. attorneys for political prosecutions -- as they have been used systematically under Bush -- wouldn't have gone forward completely unimpeded. Without the new Congress issuing subpoenas, there would be no exposure, no hearings, no press conferences -- no questions at all.
The replacement of the eight fired U.S. attorneys through a loophole in the Patriot Act that enables the administration to evade consultation with and confirmation by Congress is a convenient element in the well-laid scheme. But it was not ad hoc, erratic or aberrant. Rather, it was the logical outcome of a long effort to distort the constitutional framework for partisan consolidation of power into a de facto one-party state.
This effort began two generations ago with Richard Nixon's drive to forge an imperial presidency, using extralegal powers of government to aggrandize unaccountable power in the executive and destroy political opposition. Nixon was thwarted in the Watergate scandal. We will never know his full malevolent intentions, but we do know that in the aftermath of the 1972 election he wanted to remake the executive branch to create what the Bush administration now calls a "unitary executive."
Nixon later explained his core doctrine: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Karl Rove is the rightful heir to Nixonian politics. His first notice in politics occurred as a witness before the Senate Watergate Committee. From Nixon to Bush, Rove is the single continuous character involved in the tactics and strategy of political subterfuge.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
~ ~ ~
March 12, 2007
Rove is the Centerpiece of Massive Corruption: DOJ Edition
Submitted by chicago dyke on Mon, 2007-03-12 17:23.
Forget Gonzo, let’s tie Rove to criminals more firmly, shall we?
In 2002, GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff was secretly lobbying on behalf of the Guam Superior Court against a judicial reform bill pending in the U.S. Congress. Abramoff won this contract by telling Court officials he had access to then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and other Republican leaders. Perhaps due to Abramoff’s lobbying, the judicial reform bill died at the end of the 107th Congress in 2002. Instead of paying Abramoff directly, the Court funneled its payments through 36 separate $9,000 checks made out to a lawyer named Howard Hills in Laguna Beach, California.
In November 2002, a grand jury in Guam began investigating the secret lobbying arrangement. The day after the grand jury issued subpoenas, the Bush Administration demoted the U.S. prosecutor in charge of the investigation, Frederick Black, who had been the acting U.S. attorney in Guam for 12 years. Black was replaced by Leonardo Rapadas, an attorney recommended to Karl Rove by the Guam Republican Party, and barred from investigating public corruption cases.
Scroll down to page 104. Goddess Bless Louise! Public Campaign Action has more:
The story of the eight US Attorneys who were involved in public corruption investigations centered on elected officials and subsequently fired has ensnared Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and New Mexico Reps. Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson — now, as details resurface about the 2002 firing of a US Attorney investigating lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the trail leads to the office of Karl Rove.
According to the Associated Press, New Mexico Republican Party Chair Allen Weh complained to Rove about the activities US Attorney David Iglesias, who has said he received pressure from Reps. Domenici and Wilson to accelerate his investigation of Democrats in advance of the 2006 elections. Weh claims he then received assurances from Rove that Iglesias would be dismissed.
It would appear this was not an isolated incident, indeed the White House now says “presidential adviser Karl Rove served as a conduit for complaints about federal prosecutors.” So, let’s head back to 2002, when a US Attorney leading up a grand jury investigation into the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff in Guam was removed from his position the day after he issued subpoenas in connection with the investigation.
His dismissal — and replacement by Leonardo Rapadas who came highly recommended to Rove by the Guam Republican Party — effectively ended the investigation of Abramoff, which dealt with a secret contract he held with Guam’s Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill; work for which he was paid by checks shuttled through a California lawyer’s office.
At the time this was going on, Karl Rove’s assistant was a woman named Susan Ralston, who had previously worked for Jack Abramoff.
If Karl Rove serves as the “conduit” for complaints about attorneys heading up public corruption investigations, and many of those attorneys are dismissed in the middle of those investigations, does this constitute a pattern of abuse wherein attorneys investigating elected officials are punished for attempting to enforce accountability among lawmakers?
We’re concerned that US Attorneys are not sufficiently insulated against partisan politics, and that their essential investigations of public corruption are being hampered by political maneuvering....
Surely there’s got to be a law against this sort of thing? Democrats? Legalists? Anyone?
I’m in no way surprised, it completely fits the authoritarian pattern of “in all things, be concerned with the political agenda first” that we’ve seen from the Bush Administration from day one. “An impartial Justice system? Natch!” But still, tampering with ongoing investigations, for people who are later proven to be criminals? That just can’t be legal.
But I would not be a proper Correntian doomsayer if I didn’t share with you a little bet I took with the mighty TRex:
I had a long conversation with a fellow blogger today about whether or not we will ever see justice served up, hot or cold, to any of the thugs in the BushCo junta. My friend is one of those people who can be crushingly cynical, but who also has an irritating habit of being right. She says no, that executive privilege will protect them to the limits of their terms in office and beyond.
I don’t remember putting it as “executive privilege” exactly but the point stands. Democrats have plenty of time to prove me wrong, and that blatant abuse of power is a crime serious enough to warrant their attention. They could set in motion those wheels of justice they control, fund and oversee. But I don’t think they will. I think the general attitude will remain, “hold some embarrassing hearings to make our candidates look better in 08, and when we take back the White House and gain seats in Congress, we’ll forget all about the dark days of the Bush administration and focus on our major corporate donor’s own issues.
The lesson of the Nixon gang still hasn’t sunk in. There is one, and only one response to corruption and abuse of power: indictments. There are many ways to make them happen, many pressures that can be applied, investigations that can lead to charges, putting criminals under oath in front of committees, etc. We’re seeing some of this now, but I bet the tyranosaurus two of my finest American dollars that Rove and Gonzo will walk free. What do you think?
Update: Chuck wants Karl in the Chair.
In light of recent revelations, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to hear from Karl Rove. And today, he asked the committee to call on Rove to testify.
He explained in a statement:
“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. Attorney purge… Recent disclosures reveal that Rove talked to the NM State Party Chair Allen Weh before any public announcement of the firing was made and that Rove talked about Mr. Igleisas to the Attorney General and the White House Counsel. While the White House states not incorrectly that someone in Karl Rove’s position might get complaints about U.S. Attorneys, it is almost unheard of for a U.S. Attorney to be fired shortly after such discussions occur, when that US Attorney had received highly favorable reviews and ratings.”
The House Judiciary Committee has also declared a desire to hear from Rove.
It would be funny if Chuck were the guy responsible for my loss of this bet. “Under oath,” ok, Chuck?
~ ~ ~
November 27, 2006
OHA push for Akaka bill topped $2M
PDF: Lobbying in D.C.
See An analysis of data on the amount spent by local organizations on lobbying efforts in Congress shows OHA leading the list by four times as much as the next highest total. This information was complied from reporting forms that only require precise disclosure of expenditures of more than either $10,000 or more than $20,000. There are two total spending columns, one the minimum possible, the other the maximum.
By Jim Dooley, Advertiser Staff Writer
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs spent $2 million on its congressional lobbying efforts for the Akaka bill — a third of all money spent by Hawai'i companies, private citizens and government agencies on Washington lobbying since 2003, according to an analysis of public records.
The OHA expenditure was the highest on the list of total dollars spent on lobbying efforts in Congress, outpacing the second highest expenditure from the University of Hawai'i, which paid $561,000 in Washington lobbying fees in 2003-04 under former president Evan Dobelle, U.S. Senate records show.
OHA's Akaka bill campaign was led by high-powered lobbyists with strong ties to both the Democratic and Republican power structures in Washington, including connections at the highest levels of the White House and the U.S. Senate.
Despite spending four times as much on lobbying as any other Hawai'i entity and the political clout of its lobbying team, the Akaka bill — which would establish a federally recognized Native Hawaiian government entity — failed to garner enough support for passage from 2003 to 2006.
The $2 million total in OHA fees does not include $900,000 spent by the agency since 2003 to operate and staff a "Washington bureau," said OHA administrator Clyde Namu'o, nor does it include costs incurred by regular visits to Washington by OHA and other state officials, including Gov. Linda Lingle, to seek passage of the Akaka bill.
And it does not include $120,000 spent by Maui-based private developer Everett Dowling's company on pro-Akaka bill Washington lobbying. Dowling, who has been involved in several development deals with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on Maui, said he spent the money because, "I think federal recognition is important."
Namu'o said he believes the lobbying effort "was worth it" because the Akaka bill was extensively debated on the floor of the Senate this summer for what's called a "cloture" vote, which would have brought the stalled measure to the full Senate for a formal vote.
Sixty votes were needed for cloture and it failed, 56-41, shelving the bill for the remainder of the congressional term.
"Getting to the cloture vote was a major milestone," Namu'o said. "It's the furthest we've ever gotten."
He said the cloture debate "told us exactly what issues there are for the bill by the senators" and "hearing some of those issues and discussions will help Senator Akaka next year" if the bill or a substitute measure is introduced, Namu'o said. The bill may have a better chance of passage now that Democrats are in the majority of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.
CLAIMING PRIVILEGE
OHA has refused to disclose detailed records of its Washington lobbying campaign, claiming that because the work was performed by law firms, the records are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
A protest of OHA's refusal to reveal the billing records — itemized accounts of who was lobbied and what expenses were incurred — has been pending before the state Office of Information Practices for more than a year.
OIP executive director Les Kondo said that a formal opinion on the legal issues involved is still being prepared but should be completed soon.
OHA spent $1.8 million on Akaka bill lobbying by a major Washington, D.C., lobbying firm, Patton Boggs, and $300,000 with another D.C. firm, Zell & Cox, which has no other clients except OHA, according to federal lobbying records.
The chairman of Patton Boggs is Thomas H. "Tommy" Boggs Jr., regarded as one of the most influential lobbyists in Washington, with deep family and professional connections to the Democratic Party. When the lobbying contract was signed in May 2003, Boggs was charging $735 per hour for his services, although he told OHA at the time that billing rates were "adjusted" annually.
The other lead lobbyist for OHA at Patton Boggs is Benjamin Ginsberg, an influential attorney for the Republican Party and personal friend of Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's closest political adviser. Ginsberg's billing rate in May 2003 was $500 per hour.
Another partner in the firm, Robert Luskin, is Rove's personal attorney and represented Rove during the 2003-05 federal grand jury investigation of the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to news media.
Newsweek magazine reported a year ago that Rove was involved in White House meetings involving OHA and the Akaka bill. The White House declined comment when the magazine asked if there was any policy requiring Rove to disqualify himself from issues connected to the Patton Boggs firm. A spokeswoman said, "All ethical obligations are being met," Newsweek reported.
Boggs and Ginsberg have led a team of some half-dozen lobbyists working on the OHA account, according to disclosure records filed over the past three years in Congress.
The most recent report, filed with the secretary of the Senate Aug. 8, said Patton Boggs received $340,000 during the first six months of this year for OHA lobbying. The agencies that were lobbied during that period, the report said, were the White House, the U.S. House and Senate and the Departments of Interior and Justice.
It was during that period that a last-ditch effort to bring the Akaka bill forward for a Senate vote failed.
SENATE CONNECTIONS
During this year's push for a Senate vote on the Akaka bill, Patton Boggs subcontracted part of its lobbying effort to a firm with close connections to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, lobbying records show.
That firm, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc., was paid $50,000 by Patton Boggs, records show.
Alex Vogel, co-founder of the firm, is former chief counsel to Frist and partner Bruce Mehlman is the brother of Republican Party National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman.
Namu'o said that the firm was brought on board for the OHA lobbying campaign in part because of its ties to Frist. The Akaka bill proponents needed Frist's cooperation to bring the measure to the floor of the Senate for the cloture vote.
Namu'o said the $50,000 paid to Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti came from from fees already paid to Patton Boggs and was not an additional expense to OHA.
Namu'o said the Patton Boggs lobbying contract was "suspended" this summer but may be reactivated once decisions are made on whether to seek reintroduction of the Akaka bill or a similar measure.
Zell & Cox, the other lobbying firm hired by OHA to assist on the Akaka bill, was hired last year under a two-year contract for $150,000 a year.
A partner in the firm is attorney Patricia Zell, a former longtime staffer for the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and chief of staff for the committee when it was chaired by Hawai'i Sen. Daniel K. Inouye.
Zell retired from federal employment at the end of 2004 and went into business with her husband, Michael Cox, also a lawyer and a longtime Washington lobbyist.
The partnership registered with the Senate as an OHA lobbyist in June 2005 and since then has registered no other clients, according to Senate records.
OHA has had a close working relationship with Zell for years. In August 2004, OHA threw a $37,000 retirement party here that honored Zell for "her steadfast support and work in advancing the well-being of Native Hawaiians" during 23 years of service at the Indian Affairs Committee.
The retirement bash was held at the Hilton Hawaiian Village and included presentation of some $1,000 in gifts, lei and commemorative photographs to Zell, records show. Tickets that OHA sold for the event brought in $9,000.
Namu'o said Zell is still working actively for OHA in Washington on lobbying tasks unrelated to the Akaka bill. A one-year extension to her firm's contract was signed in May at the same cost of $150,000, although the Zell & Cox billing rate was reduced from $400 to $350 per hour.
The Honolulu Advertiser
~ ~ ~
February 26, 2003
Lingle urges Senate to pass ‘vital’ Akaka bill
By Elizabeth Wolfe, Associated Press
WASHINGTON >> The Hawaiian recognition bill now before Congress is vital to the survival of the native Hawaiian people, Gov. Linda Lingle told a Senate committee yesterday.
"It is vital to the continued character of our state, and it is vital to providing parity and consistency in federal policy for all native peoples in America," Lingle said in testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in support of the so-called Akaka bill to federally recognize a native Hawaiian governing entity.
Approval of the bill will bring about "what is righteous, what is practical and what is just," she said.
The legislation would establish an office in the Department of the Interior to address native Hawaiian issues. It also would create an interagency group composed of representatives of federal agencies that currently administer programs and policies affecting native Hawaiians.
As Hawaii's new Republican governor, Lingle thinks she can sway the Bush administration to do more for native Hawaiians, she said after her testimony.
Lingle said she was "more optimistic and hopeful" after conversations this week with Attorney General John Ashcroft, Interior Secretary Gale Norton and presidential adviser Karl Rove.
Sen. Daniel Akaka, who introduced the bill and for whom it is named, said the bill extends the "process of reconciliation" that began with a 1993 congressional resolution apologizing for the U.S. government's role in overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawaii a century earlier.
Micah Kane, director-designate of the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, said there is broad support for the bill from Hawaii and non-Hawaiian communities and both Democrats and Republicans. He also said the Akaka bill would eliminate legal problems and uncertainties that have adversely affected the Hawaii economy.
http://starbulletin.com/2003/02/26/news/story7.html
~ ~ ~
Patton Boggs, Karl Rove and OHA
From WorksOfConklin
The November 28, 2005 issue of "Newsweek" magazine includes an article linking White House chief of staff Karl Rove to Washington lobbying firm Patton Boggs and the payment of $400,000 by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to Patton Boggs to lobby for the Akaka bill. The implication is that Rove may be improperly using his influence with the President to lobby on behalf of Patton Boggs clients, including lobbying for the Akaka bill, in return for money and legal representation for himself regarding the investigation of CIA leaks involving Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Here are excerpts from the "Newsweek" article:
Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove recently took out a $100,000 line of credit from Wells Fargo Bank ... any Rove legal debts -- which won't have to be publicly disclosed until next year -- could bring attention to his relationship with Patton Boggs, the D.C. powerhouse lobbying firm, where his lawyer in the leak case, Robert Luskin, is a partner. Lobbying records show Patton Boggs represents a battery of foreign governments, corporations and others with interests before the government. Rove has been involved in White House meetings involving at least one big Patton Boggs client: the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which paid the firm $400,000 earlier this year to lobby for a controversial native-Hawaiian recognition bill. Patton Boggs lawyer Ben Ginsberg, a Rove friend and big GOP lawyer who recommended he hire Luskin, is a principal on the case. The White House -- which recently ordered all staffers to take an ethics training course -- declined to say if there is any policy for Rove to recuse himself from issues involving Patton Boggs clients.
The Bush administration has shown ambivalence on the Akaka bill. The "Newsweek" revelations about Rove might explain why. Political influence-peddling sometimes squeezes out principled decision-making.
On the policy side, career civil rights experts and Constitutional lawyers in the Department of Justice have consistently opposed the Akaka bill and other Hawaiian race-based programs, but have sometimes been muzzled and over-ruled by political pressure. The Republican conservative base has strongly opposed the Akaka bill as shown by dozens of newspaper articles and blog comments during the period in mid-2005 when the Akaka bill appeared headed for Senate action. Even as far back as year 2000 the Wall Street Journal editorialized against it; and in 2001 Roger Clegg and Michelle Malkin published commentaries opposing it. For a collection of the most important published articles opposing the Akaka bill, in chronological order (about 200 pages), see: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaPublishedOpposition.html
On the political side, there have been many rumors that Karl Rove and other strategists in the Republican party want to support the Akaka bill as a way of helping Hawai'i's Republican (in name only) Governor Linda Lingle, who is likely to run for re-election or who might someday run for the Senate. For example, the Grassroot Institute survey of Hawai'i households showed that 2/3 of all who responded to the question said they oppose the Akaka bill. http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaScientificSurvey070505.html
A rumor is that when those results were in the process of being distributed by hand to the offices of all 100 Senators, the person distributing them was told by a White House operative to stop doing that because it would embarrass Governor Lingle who was at that moment personally lobbying Senators for the Akaka bill. Lingle has made the Akaka bill her top priority in an all-out effort to win the support of what she regards as a monolithic ethnic Hawaiian swing vote comprising 20% of Hawai'i's population. She has ordered her appointed Attorney General to vigorously defend state government agencies providing racially exclusionary benefits, against civil rights and taxpayer lawsuits. Lingle has also marched in red-shirt rallies in support of powerful race-based institutions (both government and private); see http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AntiAmericanHawaiianProtesters.html and also http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/redshirtsept2004.html
Throughout all 5 years of the Bush administration so far, there has been the same tension between principle and politics on issues such as affirmative action and border control. Karl Rove is the political "architect" trying to broaden the Republican base by appealing to powerful leaders and institutions in the black and Hispanic communities (and the ethnic Hawaiian 20% "swing vote" in Hawai'i). Identity politics caters to a mistaken stereotype that all blacks support racial quotas or affirmative action, that all Hispanics support open borders, or that all people with a drop of Hawaiian native blood support racial separatism or ethnic nationalism. Identity politics conflicts with the traditional Republican focus on individual rights and equality under the law.
Political expediency sometimes triumphs in the short run over principled decision-making. Unfortunately, political expediency might also sometimes lead politicians to take money under questionable circumstances, or to exchange political influence for money-equivalents such as legal representation. The connection between Karl Rove, Patton Boggs, $400,000, and the Akaka bill is troubling, although so far only circumstantial.
For further information about the Bush administration's activities related to the Akaka bill, see: "Bush Administration Actions and Statements on Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, 2000-2004 (includes 2005 addendum)" at: http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/AkakaBush20002004.html
Full text of Newsweek report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10117472/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
http://kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php
~ ~ ~
April 2, 2008
Karl Rove Likes What He Sees
'Bush's Brain' Reflects on the Race for
the White House, Pardons & War
By LISA DePAULO, ABC News
I can see Karl Rove standing outside the restaurant, on the phone, yakking, pacing, occasionally peering at me through the etched-glass window and sticking a stubby finger in the air to indicate that he'll just be just one more minute....
If you didn't know he used to be Bush''s Brain, if you didn't know he is widely credited/blamed with leading the Republican Party to an era of total world domination, if you didn't recognize him (as numerous gawkers inside the Muse hotel restaurant do) as the man W. famously dubbed "Turd Blossom," you'd think he was a middle-management sales lackey in town to sell Ginsu knives or something....
Karl Rove: Sorry to be late. I have a lunch with the Big Boss shortly.
GQ: The Big Boss? Mr. Murdoch.
Ah, that big boss. Does that mean you'll be getting more money out of Fox? No, it doesn't.
Do you like being a TV analyst? Uh, it's odd. You know, it's weird for me. But it's interesting.
Do you think Fox News is fair and balanced? I do. I think they go out of their way to be fair and tough in questioning. I'm really impressed with the people I've gotten to know. Brit Hume is a very bright person; Chris Wallace has got a lot of integrity.
You also sold a book recently. I did.
What'd ya get? A lot.
And you're doing speeches, too, right? I read that you just gave one at Penn -- I like speaking to the college campuses.
And the first question, someone called you a cancer. Right. Oh, sure.
You must get that all the time. Uh, I get it some. When I go to campuses. But did you hear what I did? I just let him rant. And when he was finished, he had no question, he just wanted to accuse me of undermining the Constitution and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And I said, "Thanks for your thoughtful rant." And he sat down. And I said, "Now do you feel better about yourself?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "Well, I want you to feel better about yourself." And everybody laughed, and we went on.
Want more politics from GQ? Click Here
But is it hard when people-- No. No. Look, everywhere I go, people say nice things to me. I don't live for that. I appreciate it, and I'm grateful for their kind words, but I don't live for it. And similarly, when people say ugly things? It doesn't affect me. They want their words to affect me. And as a result, I'm not gonna let 'em. But when people say, "You've created this climate of fear" I laugh.
You laugh? Yeah. I laugh. Sure. How? What, exactly? I'm not apologetic about what this administration has done. It's protecting America. It has won important battles in a war that we as a nation better win or we will leave the future to our kids, a much darker and dangerous future.
What's the biggest misconception about your role in the Bush White House? That it was all about politics.
If that's the misconception, what's the overlooked truth? Look, I'm a policy geek. What I've most enjoyed about my job was the substantive policy discussions. Being able to dig in deeply and, you know, learn about something, ask questions, listen to smart people, and form a judgment about something that was from a policy perspective.
When you look back at your career, especially in the Bush administration, what's the worst thing you did? I'm not gonna be good at answering that.
But is there anything you feel guilty about? Or wish you did differently? [exasperated laugh] Off the record?
No! Don't go off the record. Off the record.
Okay, let's look back, to the very beginning of the Karl Rove story, when you got handed the keys [from Bush the father, to deliver to Bush the son] until now. And you look at where the president's approval ratings are today-- Yeah.
What did you do wrong? Oh, look, I did a lot of things wrong. But the main thing is, we're fighting an important but unpopular war.
You still think it was the right thing to do? Absolutely. Absolutely. And you know, one of our biggest mistakes was, the first time Harry Reid got up and said, "You lied and you deliberately misled the country," we should have gone back immediately and hit back hard, and we didn't. We let that story line develop. In reality, you go back and look at what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore -- I'd be happy to supply you the quotes -- what they said about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.
What are you most proud of? Being part of a group of people I have a great deal of respect and admiration for in service of the country.
If you had to make a bet, can Hillary pull it off? The odds are long, but improbable things have happened almost every month in this race. She wasn't supposed to win New Hampshire, and she did. So we'll see. You know, she's got a lot of strengths, and he does, too. We got two well-matched opponents going at each other hammer and tongs. It's fun to watch.
If it's mathematically impossible for either of them to get enough delegates, how will this get resolved? Somebody can get to a majority, but they're gonna have to get to a majority with superdelegates. Neither of them can win enough delegates to win it on just simply the elected delegates.
So if it comes down to superdelegates, doesn't that become a question of who can be more ruthless? Well, you know, people will have to decide whether they're going to act as reflectors of the popular vote in their districts or states, or whether they're going to exercise independent judgment. I think this is the big dilemma the Democrats face: Are they going to choose a nominee who essentially is chosen, validated, by a minor aristocracy, by essentially an undemocratic group? Because, look. Does anybody think that Patrick Deval [sic], governor of Massachusetts, and Senator Ted Kennedy are gonna respect the wishes of their home-state crowd and go for Hillary Clinton, who won their state? No.
It Isn't All About Politics. Check out the latest from GQ here.
So how ugly is it gonna get? Well, I -- we don't know. We have geological ages that are gonna pass. It's not that ugly today. The wounds are fresh, but there's plenty of time for them to heal. The question is, will the wounds get deeper and more difficult to heal? We don't know. My gut tells me it happens, but I don't know.
If you could run one of their campaigns, which one would be the dream campaign to run? Neither one.
Why? Because I don't believe in what they say...
It seems like you're talking about authenticity here. Are you saying Obama is inauthentic? I'm saying that he has adopted two themes for his campaign that are not supported by his actions.
Do you think Obama would be easier to beat? I try not to think about those things. Because that inevitably leads you to believe, I would like to have A or I would like to have B. You need to keep your mind open about both of them.
You've said -- what was the phrase you used about Hillary? "Fatally flawed"? Fatally flawed. I just thought her flaws would show up in the general election. I didn't know they'd show up as early and as strong as they have.
Which flaws? Uh, calculating. You know, she went through the period where she had the calculated laugh, she went through the period where she had the calculated accents, and you build that on top of a person who already has the reputation that anything she says is calculating, you know.&
Is calculating a terrible thing? It is if people think it's phony. And that's what her problem is. That and the sense of entitlement. You know, the sense of "This is mine, I deserve it; we're the Clintons, this is ours." And I think that really caused a lot of people to say, "You know what? It's not yours." And do we really want to go back? The '90s were nice in a lot of respects, but do we really want to go back to all that drama?
There is something ironic about Karl Rove criticizing someone for being calculating. Right. Look, it's one thing to calculate and say, "What's the best way for me to do this?" It's another thing to say, "What's the best way to do this, even if it means the sacrifice of my fundamental principles?" When she stood up there and said, "I'm in front of an African-American group in Alabama, so let me adopt a phony southern accent!" And when she sat there and said, "You know what? I need to warm myself up, so for the next weeklong period I'm gonna sit there and laugh and cackle at anything that is even remotely funny." You know, when both she and he, who are free traders by instinct, went to Ohio and said, "We're gonna renegotiate NAFTA," when they know that (a) there's no provision to renegotiate NAFTA, and (b) the Canadians and the Mexicans are not gonna want to renegotiate NAFTA, and (c) when both of them understand that trade liberalization, particularly with our neighbors, has been to our economic advantage, who are they kidding?
But when people call you calculating, do you take that as a compliment? Look, what I'm charged with is, in politics, taking the material that I have to work withwhich are the views and values, convictions and principles, of my candidate or clientand charting the best path to victory. That's different than saying, "How am I gonna take a fundamental belief or a reality of me as an individual and discard it?"
So there's good calculating and bad calculating? Absolutely.
If Hillary pulls it out, will Mark Penn [her chief strategist] be considered a genius? Mark Penn is a very smart guy regardless of whether or not she pulls it out. He's a very smart guy.
But don't you think there've been a lot of mistakes? Sure. But if you have to lay them at the feet of one person, you lay them at the feet of the candidate. The candidate sets the tone.
Are you surprised at how Obama exploded? You know, I want to be carefulI think we need to be careful about not getting carried away with a narrative that doesn't truly exist. Like the story this morning in The New York Times about "the Obamacans"the Republicans who support Obama.
You don't buy that? No. Do I buy that there are Republicans who support Obama? Sure, I do. But take a look at the last four polls on which there are cross tabs available. There are twice as many Democrats defecting to McCain as there are Republicans defecting to Obama.... There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em. Which he is. That comment where he said, you know, "After 9/11, I didn't wear a flag lapel pin because true patriotism consists of speaking out on the issues, not wearing a flag lapel pin"? Well, to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism. It's a statement of their patriotic love of the country. And for him to sit there and dismiss it as he did...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4569091&page=1
~ ~ ~
Karl Rove is expected to testify regarding his business, professional, political and personal relationships with Gale Norton, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, “Scooter” Libby, James Baker III, Condoleezza Rice, Dan Inouye, Daniel Akaka, Daniel Case, Steve Case, Ed Case, Linda Lingle, Jared Jossem, Robert Katz, James Bath, James Ahloy, Aloha Petroleum/Harken Energy, The Carlyle Group, Henry Kissinger, Suzanne Case, The Nature Conservancy, Faye Kurren, Jeff Watanabe, Marsh & McLennan, Chubb Group, AIG, Henry Paulson, Goldman Sachs, Richard Rainwater, Robert Rubin, William Simon, Bill Frist, Mark McConaghy, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ferdinand Marcos, Carole Lam, James B. Nicholson, James B. “Jim” Nicholson, David Farmer, James Duca, Ron Rewald, Kenneth Starr, Larry Mehau, Francis Keala, and others to be named upon discovery.
Internet References:
www.famoustexans.com/karlrove.htm
http://starbulletin.com/2003/02/23/news/story3.html
www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/republican_corruption.htm
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush's_Rangers
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Karl_Rove
www.pcffa.org/RoveWSJ07-30-03.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration
www.monitor.net/monitor/0307a/galenorton2.html
www.caller2.com/2001/june/23/today/localnew/3491.html
www.tidepool.org/artshowday_new.cfm?day=08/25/03
www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/karl-rove/
www.oilempire.us/karlrove.html
www.thinkingpeace.com/Lib/lib027.html
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/02/18/309/78623
www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/08/scooter_libby/
www.kycbs.net/Apartheid-Hawaii.htm
www.kycbs.net/Broken-Trust-Book.htm
www.kycbs.net/ConnecticutConnection.htm
www.kycbs.net/NatureConservancy.htm
www.kycbs.net/PunaConnection.htm
TO GO TO THE FARMER VS. HARMON WITNESS INDEX
* * * * *
CHRONOLOGY
February 14, 2006: Originally posted on www.the-catbird-seat.net
March 13, 2007: Judge David Ezra signs Order to shut down website
August 11, 2009: Latest update on www.kycbs.net
~ ~ ~
THE CATBIRD SEAT ARCHIVES
The Catbird Seat Archives: 2000-2002
The Catbird Seat Archives: 2002-2007
* * * * *