House Panel OKs Subpoenas for Rove and Miers

The one thing these day that both the Democrats and republicans seem to be able to agree on, is that the administration and particularly Attorney general Gonzalez, did a poor job of handing the firings of eight federal prosecutors. Bill Clinton fired all 93 federal prosecutors when he came to office, and there is no doubt that president Bush was well within his rights to fire the eight prosecutors in question. “I’ve told the attorney general that I think this has been mishandled, that by giving inaccurate information … at the outset, it’s caused a real firestorm, and he better get the facts out fast,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. The House Judiciary subcommittee, without dissent, decided to subpoena the president’s top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firing of the prosecutors. By issuing the subpoenas the committee was rejecting the President’s offer that his aides could to talk privately to the Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. who is leading the Senate probe into the firings, dismissed the White House offer.“It’s sort of giving us the opportunity to talk to them, but not giving us the opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened here,” Schumer said. “There must be accountability,” added subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.Arlen Specter, R-Pa., argued that “It is more important to get the information promptly than to have months or years of litigation”“Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.When asked would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?”Absolutely,” Bush declared.Calling the investigation “ A Politically motivated fishing expedition.” By fighting the subpoenas the administration is asserting “Executive Privilege” in preventing their appearance under oath. It is impossible for me to hear that term without flashing back to the Nixon administration. It is my recollection that the strategy did not work well for Nixon. Not trusting my memory I did a Google search and confirmed my recollection.In an article By MICHAEL C. DORF he writes the followingThe Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. The Supreme Court considered this argument in the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon. A grand jury convened by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski issued a subpoena to President Nixon requiring that he produce Oval Office tapes and various written records relevant to the criminal case against members of Nixon’s Administration. Nixon resisted on grounds of executive privilege.The Court recognized “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” It noted that “[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process.”Nonetheless, the Justices concluded that the executive privilege is not absolute. Where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ordered President Nixon to divulge the tapes and records. Two weeks after the Court’s decision, Nixon complied with the order. Four days after that, he resigned. Let’s not forget that the accusations in this case are trivial in comparison to the Nixon case, and there is no way President Bush is going to, or should resign over this case. However there are a lot of Democrats that would love to get some “Quality time” with Carl Rove under oath, and are likely to just walk away from the opportunity. So look for a fight.

Michael C. Dorf is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University.

Valerie Plame Covert agent?

Valerie Plame tells congress she WAS a covert agent.



March 17th, 2007


In response to new information to an earlier posting Libby leaked Plame’s covert CIA connection. A copy of which ran on the ABC New Blog I read the following response.

Facts………do not matter. This is about politics: Dems/Media vs Bush. It was never about justice/truth. There was no underlining crime. Say it with me! Plame was NOT a covert agent - read the defition. Fitzgerald was tasked w/ investigating who gave Robert Novak Plame’s name. From the start he knew it was Armitage. Case should have ended there.
If providing info on Plame was a crime - why wasn’t Armitage charged. Answer - because it was not a crime. Armitage was State Dept. NOT the Whitehouse. Armtage was against the Iraq War….not for it. Armitage is not a Bush supporter. Fitzgerald like in Moby Dick….went hunting the Whale and would not quite until he got someone for something. Libby was convicted for having a bad memory.Shame on Fitzgerald for being a political tool for the Democrats. : William Mar 12, 2007
In answer to the comment above Posted on ABC News Blog by: William Mar 12, 2007 12:05:22 AM. Where he said
“Plame was NOT a covert agent” this Is just plain untrue. Valerie Plame WAS A COVERT AGENT.
Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson stated. “There is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person “served” overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed “. . . .[19] Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
Talk about working without a net! Are the Democrats playing politics with this affair, absolutely. Is Libby a fall guy, absolutely. But was she a Covert Agent working overseas on matters of national security, absolutly. The CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA issued a statement where they said the following: ”During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA. Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson’s classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life”.[29] Valerie Plame-Wilson was a covert agent who put her life on the line during a long career with the CIA. She was “Outed” by the Bush administration as a means of political revenge. She paid a great price by loosing her career. And our nation paid a great price by loosing an important agent and making it more difficult to recruit new agents. In our war with terrorism our most powerful weapon is information. Larry Lubell

Warmest Winter on Record

March 16th, 2007
By Larry Lubell



Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Reported that the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since they began keeping records back in 1880.
Those that believe that global Warming is real will point to this as well as the fact that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. Not everyone is convinced that A. Global Warming is more than just a standard fluctuation, or B. that even if real that the rise is caused by man.Last week, the UK’s Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it’s been extremely difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly.The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands of web viewers, can be viewed online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831. From Fox Nexs- The world’s climate scientists meeting in Paris on February 2nd reported unequivocally that the Earth’s climate system is increasingly heating up and that it likely has not been this warm for at least 1300 years. The fourth report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that evidence for this includes more than increases in global average air and ocean temperatures.With much stronger language and more assurance than in previous reports, the IPCC members said there was less than 10 percent chance that this global warming was natural — they pinned it directly on human greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of CO2 spewed out per year from fossil fuel burning is 12 percent greater now than in the 1990s, their report indicated, and the amount of the greenhouse effect is the greatest in 10,000 years.
The Earth, and it’s weather are extremely complex systems. Scientists have been working for years with “Super computers” trying to build the most accurate model possible. It is that very complexity that opens the door for conflicting opinions.

Weather and insurance premiums
Global Warming Robert Rosenberg


Posted in Uncategorized, Current events and politics, Stories of Interest