Hot Potato Mash

Wake Up America!

REPUBLICAN REP. CALLS FOR ROVE TESTIMONY IN SIEGELMAN CASE AND SMACKS BUSH!

Republican Representative Walter Jones not only calls for Rove to testify before the House Judiciary Committee but SMACKS President Bush while doing so...

“In the year 2000 when President Bush was a candidate he said many times in debate he would bring dignity to the White House. This would be a great start if Karl Rove would come before the Judiciary Committee and let him explain his involvement, if any, in the Don Siegelman case.”

Meanwhile Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez states that she “personally would love to see” Rove arrested and held in jail where there would be a trial in the House of Representatives.

But before anyone gets overly excited it is important to point out that it is now up to Nancy Pelosi to have a vote in the full House. And Sanchez was already hedging on the Speaker's behalf stating that it would depend on whatever else takes priority legislatively.

Further, Pelosi has changed her tune many times and by most indications will not act on this. Because in Nancy Pelosi's world the rule of law, Constitution, three equal branches of government and oversight must take a back seat to picking up a few more seats in the House and Senate and winning the White House. Of course, her strategy appears flawed since Congress under her leadership now has a 9% approval rating.

See Hot Potato Mash's entire Don Siegelman archives

Technorati Tags: Bush League Justice, Dan Abrams, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, Linda Sanchez, Walter Jones

ROVE EXPLAINS HIS FAILURE TO ANSWER SUBPOENA IN REMARKABLE CONVERSATION WITH O'REILLY

This is an extraordinary exchange, on many levels, between Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove. For starters, Bill-o doesn't seem to know or at least pretends not to know, who Don Siegelman is. Introducing the segment, O'Reilly looks down at his notes and struggles to come up with Siegelman's name, and even calls him "Donald" which I have never heard any media personality use to refer to the former Alabama Governor. It would be quite remarkable if O'Reilly was truly unfamiliar with the Siegelman case. More likely O'Reilly was intentionally attempting to minimize the significance of the Siegelman case in an effort to make Rove's failure to appear before the House Judiciary committee appear more reasonable.

Next, O'Reilly clearly doesn't believe in oversight. At least during Republican administrations. House subcommittees are seemingly valueless, according to O'Reilly, since their purpose is merely to be a "dog and pony show" that tries to embarrass witnesses.

Meanwhile, O'Reilly claims that no one in their right mind would want to appear before a House committee. But the fact of the matter is that most witnesses voluntarily testify before House committees because they have information that might be helpful to our government and country. In right wing parlance, one could argue that it is often the patriotic thing to do.

O'Reilly then makes some kind of straw-man argument claiming that "they wouldn't" testify before a House subcommittee without identifying who is the "they" he is referring to. He goes on to say that "they" wouldn't even appear on his show before calling them "pinheads". Maybe O'Reilly is speaking about the TV critics or maybe he has the House committee in mind (Democrats only one supposes). Undoubtedly O'Reilly's audience understands "they" and "pinheads" to be code words for SP's (secular progressives), Democrats and the looney left.

Rove's answer is equally problematic. Note that Rove claims that the White House has invoked executive privilege which prevents him from testifying before the House committee but that he has also indicated "five times" that he would be willing to answer the same questions from House members, either by meeting with them or in writing. Thus, presumably the White House is not worried about Rove answering questions from Congress, but only answering questions under oath. Could anything be more absurd?

The transcript...

Bill O'Reilly: [TV critics] gave you a hard time about not wanting to go testify in front of a House subcommittee about Don, Donald Siegelman (looking at notes), you know. Now who in their right mind, and this is a non-partisan thing, who in their right mind would want to go in to a House committee - which is just a dog and pony show trying to embarrass whoever it is, you, me, whoever has to go - who in their right mind would want to do that? They wouldn't. They won't come on this program most of these pinheads, okay. So they give you a hard time about that and I guess they are giving you a hard time because you worked at the Bush administration and now you work at FNC.

Karl Rove: Yeah, well on the first one you know, well, in a lot of them the questions were polite but they were clearly ill-informed. They said why do you refuse to testify. I said look, I've not invoked any privilege. The White House has invoked an executive privilege - the Constitutional authority of the President not to have his aides drawn up to the Hill for any reason that they want. And I've said but I have been five times offered through my lawyer to meet with Democrat members, Democrat staff, Republican members, Republican staff or answer in writing questions that they may want to submit about this in order to preserve the President's prerogatives - separation of powers - while at the same time giving them information they supposedly want and not foreclosing any option.

O'Reilly: Yeah, but you know they don't want that.

Rove: Sure they don't. They want a circus.

O'Reilly: They want to get you up there and mock you and the TV critics want to see you disparaged.

Rove: Sure. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly.

O'Reilly: Now why in your opinion - I'm in journalism 35 years, you are in politics, I guess, about the same time - why is the print media particularly so left wing in this country in your opinion?

BUSH LEAGUE JUSTICE: Karl Rove Says White House Won't Allow Him To Testify In Siegelman Case and Attacks MSNBC's Dan Abrams

 

Karl Rove talks for the first time about his failure to appear before the House Judiciary to testify about his knowledge of the prosecution of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and says it is the White House that is preventing him from testifying. Rove also attacks MSNBC's Dan Abrams.

So what will Congress do about Rove?

a) huff and puff and do nothing

b) vote to hold Rove in contempt and then do nothing

c) go on TV and huff and puff in order to win points with their constituencies and then do nothing

d) give him yet another extension to testify and then do nothing

e) say that they are powerless to do anything despite always claiming that they are a co-equal branch of government and then do nothing

f) all of the above

e) ???

Technorati Tags: Bush League Justice, Dan Abrams, Karl Rove

BUSH LEAGUE JUSTICE: CONGRESSWOMAN SANCHEZ WANTS KARL ROVE IN JAIL

Representative Linda Sanchez says she wants to see Karl Rove in jail. A second segment follows with law professor Jonathan Turley. There does appear to be some confusion as to whether or not the White House has claimed executive privilege on behalf of Rove as both Sanchez and Turley state. Marcy Wheeler, on the other hand, makes a compelling case that executive privilege has not been claimed by the White House over at Empty Wheel.

Technorati Tags: Bush League Justice, congress, Constitution, Dan Abrams, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, Jonathan Turley

RIGGED DEMOCRACY

Professor and cyber lawyer extraordinaire, Lawrence Lessig, discusses his big idea - that the American public has lost faith in and respect for the central institution of our democracy, Congress - at the 2008 Aspen Ideas Festival.



Yesterday Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed Congressional approval ratings had fallen to single digits (9%) for the first time in tracking history.

Yet, if history is any indication, more than 90% of all Congressional incumbents running for reelection will win despite the single digit approval rating:

1964 87%
1966 88%
1968 97%
1970 95%
1972 94%
1974 88%
1976 96%
1978 94%
1980 91%
1982 90%
1984 95%
1986 98%
1988 98%
1990 96%
1992 88%
1994 90%
1996 94%
1998 98%
2000 98%
2002 96%
2004 99%
2006 94%

How does this happen? Well, throwing election fraud aside, the system is rigged to ensure incumbents win by, among other reasons, gerrymandered districts, unfair money advantages and "perks" of the Office.

Gerrymandering is when Congressional districts are redrawn, often in ways that look and are insane, to give unfair advantages to one party. In 2000, the two dominant parties in California (aka Republicans and Democrats) co-operatively redrew the legislative map to ensure electoral safety for politicians on both sides of the aisle. This included the 38th district (at right) which, despite being held by a Republican from 1984 to 2000, is now overwhelmingly Democratic to the point that the Democratic incumbent was not even challenged in 2004 and garnered 100% of the vote.

Then there is the ridiculous money advantage incumbents enjoy over challengers. For example, in the 2000 election cycle incumbents spent 93% of the total money and won 67% of the total vote. And in 2004, challengers in the House were outspent by incumbents by an average of $700,000 while Senate challengers were outspent by $4 million.

The result of this rigged system is that the American people have little say in determining who represents us in Washington. More to the point, Congress has little incentive to represent the American people. Instead, Representatives and Senators write laws that benefit the corporations that keep them in office through large donations to their campaigns. And more often than not, those same laws hurt average middle-class Americans.

Thus, a Congressional approval rating of 9%.

SHOCKING! Pelosi Trying To Block Rove Contempt Charge

One wonders what the Republicans have on the Speaker of the House since she has continuously done the White House's bidding since the Dems took over in 2006...

From Pam Miles:

I have firm confirmation that Nancy Pelosi is urging the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt against Rove.

Congressman John Conyers and the Judiciary staff are battling for it but this has become an infight among dems.

Time to burn up the phone lines.

800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 toll free to congressional switchboard

PLEASE CALL. House Judiciary Committee:

Here are the direct phone #'s of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. They're all democrats, and they're all congressmen:

All their phone numbers begin with 202, next three digits are 225. I will list only the last four digits, to save time:

John Conyers, Michigan - 1-202-225-5126

Howard Berman, California - 4695

Rick Boucher, Virginia - 3861

Jerrold Nadler, New York - 5635

Bobby Scott, Virginia - 8351

Melvin Watt, North Carolina - 1510

Zoe Lofgren, California - 3072

Sheila Jackson, Texas - 3816

Maxine Waters, California - 2201

Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts - 3111

Robert Wexler, Florida - 3001

Linda Sanchez, California - 6676

Steve Cohen, Tennessee - 3265

Hank Johnson, Georgia - 1605

Betty Sutton, Ohio - 3401

Luis Gutierrez, Illinois - 8203

Brad Sherman, California - 5911

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin - 2906

Anthony Weiner, New York - 6616

Adam Schiff, California - 4176

Artur Davis, Alabama - 2665

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida - 7931

Keith Ellison, Minnesota - 4755

Lieberman Must Go - Amen!

Lieberman Must Go

Iran, Joe Lieberman

BIG BAD JOHN

WOW! Let's take a quick looksie at Senator Big Bad John Cornyn (R-TX). First, did he open up government as the vid claims? Please. Here are some typical Big John votes:

Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)

Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)

Big Bad John also opposed an Arlen Specter (R-PA) bill that would get presidential signing statements declared unconstitutional. Said Big Bad John, "I don’t see what the problem is."

What about the second major claim in the vid? Does Big Bad John really support our troops?

Cornyn was one of only 22 Senators to vote against the 2008 GI Bill that would expand the educational benefits for soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan

Voted NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months

Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)

Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

Voted NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)

Finally, Big Bad John is probably best known for stating that violence against judges is understandable.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Big Bad John was also the subject matter of a few emails sent between religious right huckster Ralph Reed and imprisoned lobbyist extraordinaire, Jack Abramoff:

On November 12, 2001, Reed sent Abramoff an e-mail message stating, "get me details so I can alert cornyn and let him know what we are doing to help him" [sic]. Similarly, on November 13, 2001, Reed wrote "I strongly suggest we start doing patch-throughs to perry and cornyn [sic]. We're getting killed on the phone." Also, on January 7, 2002, Reed sent Abramoff an e-mail stating "I think we should budget for an ataboy for cornyn" [sic].

While one can only imagine why these two scum-bags would want to "budget for an ataboy for cornyn" it is a pretty safe assumption that it wasn't for anything good.

The truth is that John Cornyn represents everything that is wrong with our government. He has served corporate America at the expense of his constituents at every turn. And he thus has nothing to run on other than trying to dumb down his Senate race to the pure issueless propaganda seen in the video above. One can only hope that Texans are smart enough to see through the b.s.

BTW, Rick Noriega, a military veteran who really would support our troops, is Big Bad John's opponent. Check out his campaign website.

Propaganda, Senator John Cornyn, Rick Noriega

And The Pressure Mounts

Former prosecutors challenge White House immunity claim...

Twenty former U.S. attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, urged a federal judge Thursday to intervene in a constitutional battle over whether two White House officials should be forced to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The former top prosecutors, including two who served under President Bush, argue in court papers that the judge should reject the Bush administration's assertion of blanket immunity for presidential chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in the congressional investigation.

Democrats in the House of Representatives say they were forced to sue in March, more than a year after they launched the probe, because the administration has refused to allow Miers and Bolten to provide crucial information about the reasons the prosecutors were fired. The case also could determine how former presidential adviser Karl Rove responds to a subpoena in a related congressional investigation.

The lawsuit accuses administration officials of injecting partisan considerations into the firing decisions and making "questionable or outright false statements" in subsequent explanations to Congress.

"In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration" (David Iglesias)

BYRON DELEAR ON TALK NATION

The more I see and hear Missouri congressional candidate Byron DeLear in action the more impressed I become. Today he posted a "Talk Nation" radio interview (with transcript) at Daily Kos that is hella good. Listen to it, read it and please help spread the word about DeLear.

It would be a good thing to get rid of DeLear's warmongering Bush crony opponent Todd Akin. And it would be a GREAT thing to replace Akin with the progressive DeLear.

Also see my brief interview with DeLear and a conversation I videotaped with DeLear and Gore Vidal.

Eleanor Clift Questions Democrats Spine In Dealing With Karl Rove

Eleanor Clift: "Karl Rove's claim of executive privilege will not hold up in court if the Democrats have the spine to challenge it."

Technorati Tags: Don Siegelman, Executive Privilege, Karl Rove, Eleanor Clift, Subpoena

KARL ROVE SUBPOENAED!

Not sure why Congress gives Rove until July 10, 2008 since he more than likely won't show up anyways. This certainly lends credence to those who believe Congress is merely pursuing Rove for show to quiet the Party's progressive faction which insist on upholding the rule of law.

(h/t 99)

Technorati Tags: Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, Subpoena

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Gore Vidal And Byron DeLear Conversation

The highlight of Sunday's fundraising event where I interviewed Byron DeLear was a far reaching discussion between Gore Vidal and the Missouri Congressional candidate. Their conversation is broken up into five parts below which is then followed by some remarks by progressive radio personality Bree Walker and Nova M Radio founder Sheldon Drobny.

Part 1

Topics covered include: restoring representative democracy, big money and lobbyists, FDR, Gore Vidal's grandfather and his first experience with racism.

Part 2

Topics covered include: Missouri Compromise, Missouri Senator Jim Reed, Missouri's penchant for picking the president, DeLear's endorsement of Barack Obama, the Missouri primary, gerrymandering, the need for Democrats to become the values party in opposition to the GOP money party.

Technorati Tags: Bree Walker, Byron DeLear, Gore Vidal, Sheldon Drobny

My Interview With Missouri Congressional Candidate Byron DeLear

Yesterday I interviewed Byron DeLear who is running for Congress in Missouri's 2nd District. The current holder of the seat is the ultra-conservative war supporter and Bush crony, Todd Akin (R-MO), who last year infamously argued to keep sending reinforcements to Iraq by invoking Davy Crockett at the Alamo.

I found the intellectual DeLear, who supports the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, extremely knowledgeable on a wide range of issues including election integrity. DeLear even goes so far as to call for the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution to secure the vote:

“I talk about the necessity for the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution to be securing the most sacrosanct institution of our Republic which is the vote – the cornerstone of our democracy. And how is it that we can allow corporations to own the source code that instructs voting machines how to count the vote? How is it that in our supposedly popular and public owned electoral system can we have privatization occurring where the basic functions of our elections are in secret and are not available to the scrutiny of the American people?

So I think the 28th Amendment to the Constitution should be securing the vote, providing for independent verification of ballot results and I think we should explore the idea of perhaps standardizing the American voting experience. Because when you have 13,000 different methods of counting the vote littered across the landscape of our Republic – that essentially violates the essence of equal protection under the law. And I don’t think it’s fair that you can have African Americans waiting six hours in the rain in Ohio and then other people in other parts of the country just walk in and get their votes cast and there is no problem whatsoever.

So we got to end this kind of unequal, unfair playing field that is occurring in regards to counting our votes and getting our voice heard.”

You can find out more about DeLear and contribute to his campaign at his website - DeLear for Congress.

UPDATE: DeLear also spoke at length on Sunday with Gore Vidal. Below are some of the highlights from DeLear that had me thinking he should be running for President instead of Congress:

Technorati Tags: Byron DeLear