Karl Rove is promising to defy the subpoena issued by John Conyers — citing instructions from Bush lawyers shortly before the end of the Administration. The statement may indicate that President Bush is preparing for a novel fight: asserting executive privilege against the position of the sitting president (who would presumably support Congress in this matter). In the interview, Rove compares himself to the Great White Whale in Moby Dick.
Appearing on O’Reilly this week, Rove had the following exchange:
Rove: I have been directed, again on January 16, by the outgoing president’s legal counsel, not to respond to a subpoena, exerting privilege on behalf of the former president and his close aides.
O’Reilly: So you’re not even going to show?
Rove: No, and —
O’Reilly: What if they hold you in contempt of Congress?
Rove: Look, this issue is — let’s step back for a minute. This issue of whether or not I should show up — I’ve never exerted any personal privilege, I’ve never said I have a personal right not to show up.
O’Reilly: No, but you’re a counselor to the president, it’s executive — I got all that. But let’s go beyond the argument. I know your argument. Say Conyers says Mr. Rove is in contempt of Congress. What happens then?
Rove: Well, look, this issue is before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. Rep. Conyers could have waited until they resolved the issue one way or the other, gave guidance to him and gave guidance to the former president and to the current president. But instead, he decided to go forward with this — I don’t know if I want to call it a witch hunt, I don’t think of myself as a witch, but I’m certain — this is a guy who went to the cloak room and said, ‘Somebody has to get his –‘ and then filled in a crude way to describe my posterior. He’s sort of like Captain Ahab and I’m the whale.
This could be extremely interesting. While Obama appears (again) eager to avoid a fight over such issues, Conyers to pushing ahead. It will force Obama to take a side. If he supports Conyers, he would waive any executive privilege claims. This would leave Bush as asserting the privilege while the current president sees no need to protect the information. This is precisely the plan that Bush lawyers have clearly discussed with Rove, who noted ” “It’s generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege as to matters occurring during their term. We’ll solicit the views of the new White House counsel and, if there is a disagreement, assume that the matter will be resolved among the courts, the president and the former president.”
It would also put pressure on Eric Holder to lift the bar on the submission of the criminal contempt charge to a grand jury.
For John Conyers, I suggest that he explain the reason why he has chosen to go forward to force this testimony. Here is the relevant quote:
Captain Ahab: Speak not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me. Look ye, Starbuck, all visible objects are but as pasteboard masks. Some inscrutable yet reasoning thing puts forth the molding of their features. The white whale tasks me; he heaps me. Yet he is but a mask. ‘Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung.
The “malignant thing that has plagued mankind” is scheduled to appear in the House Judiciary next week or facing a new harpooning by a criminal contempt sanction.
For the story, click here.
Hey Wayne,
I’ve told you what you need to do to see me IRL. So respectfully, put up or shut up Billy Badass. See your problem is you think you’re dealing with a soldier when I’m more like a general. Why should I surrender my hold of the hill because you won’t do what I told you to do to get to see me, shitheel? Why should I meet an acknowledged aggressor on his terms? Hmm? I shouldn’t because I’m not a moron like you, sport. I didn’t just read Sun Tzu, I understood him.
You want a fight.
You think you’ve got skills.
Battles are won in the mind before they are started.
You are brining a peashooter to a missile attack.
I ran you off once because YOU COULDN’T DEFEND YOURSELF . . . in an ARGUMENT. What’s changed since then?
Not a thing. Except you were stupid enough to come back and threaten me physically again.
You have MORE than enough information to find me if you’re serious.
I’m pretty sure the jury is back on your “seriousness” too, buddy.
So I’ll put this in language clear enough for you to understand. I am in the same place I was last time you threatened me. Come GET me or shut the fuck up, Wayne. You’re starting to sound like s psychotic with Tourette’s. You’ll walk away just like the last idiot who tried to start a fight with me. Or I’ll break every bone from your wrist to your shoulder. On both arms. Your choice.
Bron98 1, January 30, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Wayne:
I hope you were not being contentious on my behalf.
Nope. Don’t even know you.
Don’t even want to.
Bron,
Read all you can on fascism and get back to me on PNAC.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, January 30, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Bring it, Big Man. You’re so intent on escalation, so blinded by rage, so bedeviled by your obvious failure to defend your evil stance, that you really want to fight Wayne . . . I’m still waiting
Lol, that’s it Buddha, keep lying through your teeth even though the comments show clearly that it is you who are the only one talking about fighting.
Not only have I not said anything of the sort, nor did I ever even hint at it.
I stated plainly and repeatedly that I merely wanted to see if you were able to come out from behind your cloud of anonymity, so as to speak to me like a human being, instead of constantly slandering and threatening me and others in here.
You talk a good game Budha, but at the end of the day you hide behind your tough talk and your anonymity.
I’ve provided my photo, my email, and even offered to exchange contact information with you if you were just man enough to come out from your wall of anonymity.
Your response was and is to challenge me to “show up” at a parking lot in Kansas” so you and your “friends” can meet me.
Laughable. Beyond laughable.Prepubescent like even.
Perhaps patty and a few of her cuckolds buy your act, but I see right through you.
I’ve put myself out there to prove I am not a troll including posting my photo, email and even offering more if you met me half way. But as of this writing, you’re still in here challenging people to fight, lying about it, bragging about your “30 years of martial arts” (ad nauseum) and my inbox still has no email from Buddha is laughing, or any other Zen masters.
Buddha is laughing alright.
He’s laughing at you.
Patty,
you are doing harm to my fat free, low sodium diet. The Italian Sausage Chili is sending to my kitchen, since I do the cooking at home. I guess I can substitute turkey sausage. Oh well I’ll figure something out. Yours though sounds so delicious in the telling my mouth is watering.
All the Mayans I know live in the Yucatan.
I assure you there are none represented here, although they are among the most gracious people I have ever met and have shown me a thing a or two about cooking.
Maya. There are people here that are maya. Let them go.
excuse me what Nazis are
Buddha:
just because I generaly agree with what PNAC has to say does not make me a NAZI. I see nothing wrong with having a strong military and trying to project American values around the globe, what part of liberty, freedom, free markets do you have a problem with? If I know my Dick Cheney he pretty much thinks that America is good and worthy of being emulated. I seriously doubt he is a Nazi. I think you are confused about Nazis are, I actually think you mean Fascist
mespo727272 1, January 30, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Patty C:
I think you’re right that that plague of locusts know as Bartlebee has returned in earnest. I also think Buddha is correct that his mom has yet to let him see the light of day.
—-
Super Bowl recipes, anyone?
Since we couldn’t agree here, I’ve relented and am doing ‘Hoagies’
AND my famous Italian Sausage Chili, tossed greens and a fruit salad.
Mangia…
http://www.recipezaar.com/Real-Italian-Hoagie-130778
The word Hoagie came from the sandwiches that used to get eaten by workers over on a place that was nicknamed “hog island” The workers there would bring crusty rolls with Italian meats and some olive oil and they became known as “hoggies” which eventually morphed into hoagie… Now that I’ve sounded like a Cliff Claven… the only other thing I have to say is don’t make this with a soft roll! It has to be a GOOD crusty Italian Long Roll!
SERVES 4
Ingredients
* 2 teaspoons red wine vinegar
* 1 tablespoon dried oregano
* 1 tablespoon olive oil
* 4 hoagie rolls
* 1/4 lb prosciutto di Parma, thinly sliced
* 1/4 lb capicola, thinly sliced
* 1/4 lb genoa salami or soprassata salami, thinly sliced
* 1/4 lb provolone cheese
* 1 large tomato, thinly sliced
* 1 small onion, thinly sliced
* 1/8 cup shredded lettuce
Directions
1. Slice the rolls, but not all the way through.
2. Place the vinegar and oregano in a small bowl. Slowly whisk in the oil until emulsified.
3. Remove some of the bread from the center of each half of roll (if desired).
4. Drizzle a little of the olive oil mixture on the bread.
5. Place first the meats, then the cheese in layers.
6. Top with the tomatoes, onions, then the lettuce. Drizzle with more of the dressing, as desired.
—–
From the famous Silver Palate caterers. Great one-dish party fare. Serve with crusty bread and a hearty red wine. (Can be prepared 2 days ahead and refrigerated. Just reheat before serving.)
SERVES 8 -10 (change servings and units)
Change to: Servings US Metric Close
Ingredients
* 1 lb hot Italian sausage, cut into 1-inch pieces
* 1 lb sweet Italian sausage, cut into 1-inch pieces
* 1/4 cup water
* 1/4 cup olive oil
* 1/2 lb onion, coarsely chopped
* 3 tablespoons minced garlic
* 2 lbs ground chuck
* 3/4 lb green bell pepper, coarsely choppd
* 3/4 lb red bell pepper, chopped
* 1/3-1/2 lb green jalapeno, seeded and cut into 1/8-inch dice
* 3 (36 ounce) cans Italian plum tomatoes, drained
* 1 cup dry red wine
* 2 tablespoons tomato paste
* 1 cup minced fresh parsley
* 6 tablespoons chili powder
* 3 tablespoons ground cumin
* 2 tablespoons dried oregano, crumbled
* 1 tablespoon dried basil, crumbled
* 1 tablespoon salt
* 2 teaspoons fresh ground pepper
* 1 1/2 teaspoons fennel seeds
* 2 lbs fresh Italian plum tomatoes, quartered
* grated monterey jack cheese or grated cheddar cheese
* sour cream
* sliced green onion
Directions
1. Combine sausages and water in heavy large skillet over medium heat. Cook until sausages are brown, stirring frequently, about 10 minutes. Transfer sausages to paper towels and drain.
2. Heat oil in heavy Dutch oven over low heat. Add onions and garlic. Cook until translucent, stirring occasionally, about 7 minutes.
3. Increase heat to medium. Add ground chuck and cook until well browned, mashing with fork and stirring frequently.
4. Add sausage, bell peppers and chilies. Cook until peppers are wilted, stirring frequently, about 10 minutes.
5. Mix in canned tomatoes, wine and tomato paste. Stir in herbs and spices. Simmer 10 minutes, stirring frequently.
6. Add fresh tomatoes and cook 10 minutes. Tip pan and degrease.
7. Spoon into bowls.
8. Pass cheeses, sour cream, and onions separately.
Bring it, Big Man. You’re so intent on escalation, so blinded by rage, so bedeviled by your obvious failure to defend your evil stance, that you really want to fight Wayne . . . I’m still waiting.
Violence is the last resort, but it seems the only option that will satisfy you, so come on down.
Careful what you wish for. You’ll get it.
I’ll be glad to beat your ass. I’ll do it on my terms though, not yours.
If your retardation allows you to realize that I’m way to smart to give an aggressor the right to dictate terms or lay in wait (like chicken shits like yourself always do), come on to Kansas City, Mr. Mouth.
Wayne:
I hope you were not being contentious on my behalf.
When your martial arts training gets to the point where it gives you courage enough to write an email, let me know.
In the meantime we all see you for what you are.
A child, who when confronted with an adult, turns to baby threats of fighting in the parking lot, and bragging about how much martial arts he knows.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, January 30, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“I’m still waiting in Kansas City, Mr. Big Balls. Where are you?”
Buddha Is Laughing 1, January 30, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Oh that’s right. You’re in Bron’s basement too. If mom let’s you out to fight, be sure to head my way.
——
Just as I thought.
I invite him to exchange contact information, provide my private email address to him in a public blog, post my photo several times, and all Chuck Norris here can do is challenge me to fly on an airplane to a parking lot in Kansas where he stated he and his “friends” would be waiting “to fight”.
Some tough guy.
As I thought you’re just a bully troll, nothing more. You and Patty gang up on others in here by hiding behind your anonymity and threats of violence. And yes, they are threats of violence when you keep pointing out your martial arts experience.
In fact, you talk about your martial arts experience more than you punctuate.
No real martial artist constantly brags about his martial arts in a chat room to try and intimidate others, nor do they hide behind a wall of anonymity.
Out of the two of us, I’m the only one who’s posted their own photograph, several times now, and their own private email address.
You on the other hand hide behind your anonymity, along with patty, and call others trolls.
Which makes you two the trolls. Not me.
Bron,
Too little, way too late. You’ll win converts here just about when Hell freezes solid, but I’d like to thank you and the other troll for showing up and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that when you can’t beat logic, you resort violence.
Just like your Nazi heroes.
Oh that’s right. You’re in Bron’s basement too. If mom let’s you out to fight, be sure to head my way. I don’t usually beat on the mentally handicapped, but since you seem so insistent on being violent, come on down.
here you go liberal venal trolls even one of your own a supreme no less disagrees with you. She may want to but at least she understands what you jack asses dont.
I submit for your viewing pleasure:
ABA Journal July 2008 (maybe she changed her mind after readings Buddhas cogent analysis)
Prosecutions of Bush administration officials for their conduct of the fight against terrorism are unlikely, said speakers at a panel held today during the World Justice Forum in Vienna.
As George W. Bush’s time as U.S. president nears its end and in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings rejecting the administration’s treatment of suspected terrorists in the years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a number of commentators and legal experts have suggested that some of those policies violated international conventions prohibiting indefinite detentions and inhumane treatment of detainees.
The issue was raised by an audience member near the end of a program moderated by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But Ginsburg and Michael Posner, president of Human Rights First in New York City, responded that a likelier scenario than legal proceedings against President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and other top members of the administration would be some serious rethinking of U.S. policy since 2001.
The real question, Ginsburg said, is “Where do we go, what lessons can we learn from the past? The important thing is, what you can learn from the past and make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Ginsburg said a revenge motive that may be fueling some of the calls for legal action against administration officials may help explain the U.S. government’s continuing opposition to the International Criminal Court. The ICC is authorized by the 1998 Rome Statute to investigate and prosecute individuals for serious violations of international human rights laws and war crimes when national legal mechanisms don’t exist to handle such cases. The U.N. Security Council also may refer cases to the ICC.
The Bush administration officially opposes the court on grounds it would put U.S. officials and military personnel at risk of prosecutions.
But Ginsburg also chided another audience member when he said the United States no longer offers the world a model for commitment to the rule of law because of its anti-terrorist policies.
“I would not judge our country by seven years,” Ginsburg said. “It’s had more than 220 years.”
Posner acknowledged that there may be efforts in the United States and Europe to hold U.S. officials legally accountable. “But it’s important to have another kind of accountability, a mechanism that looks at what happened, and why,” he said.
Prosecutions would be legally and politically more complicated, Posner said. He said it’s unlikely any administration would want to get involved in proceedings against leaders of a predecessor administration.
Another speaker at the program, Parvez Hassan, described the trauma in Pakistan when that country’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, tried to sack the country’s chief justice and most of the judiciary in 2007 and suspended the constitution when it appeared the Supreme Court would reject his attempt to run for another term as president. Musharraf’s actions led to widespread street marches and other protests by Pakistani lawyers.
Hassan praised lawyers in the United States and elsewhere for supporting their Pakistani colleagues. “Every time we heard or read about the American Bar Association marching on our behalf, that was a night we slept well,” said Hassan, a human rights and environmental law activist.
“It hasn’t always happened,” Ginsburg said, “that the lawyers have stepped forward when a country is in turmoil as have the lawyers of Pakistan.”
The ABA and other sponsors of the World Justice Project convened the forum this week to bring together an international roster of leaders of the legal profession and other disciplines to form a consensus on how to advance the rule of law as the foundations for societies of equity and opportunity. On Thursday, the WJP unveiled its Rule of Law Index, meant to measure how effectively countries have applied the rule of law.
Nearly 500 invited attendees from 15 disciplines will wrap up their work Saturday to seek to identify rule-of-law programs that can be implemented in various regions of the world.
I’m still waiting in Kansas City, Mr. Big Balls. Where are you?