Congressional hearings on Leakgate

are currently being televised on C-SPAN3.

On a relevant tangent, it appears that special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald is focusing on crimes that can be easily proven, namely perjury and obstruction of justice, against two of the highest White House officials, presidential advisor Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Now the questions become familiar, echoing back from history: what did the Vice President know, and when did he know it? And the President?

I was fourteen years old during the summer of Watergate and the last time a Republican administration collapsed under the creaking weight of its own corruption. The similarities between that scandal and this one -- sordid political dirty tricks taken to a criminal extreme for the sole apparent purpose of blackmailing a political opponent -- seem today to pale in comparison to 1770 dead American soldiers, thousands of innocent Iraqis killed as collateral damage, billions of dollars wasted in every direction and even misplaced, and the reputation and goodwill of the United States of America ruined.

And as of this post, not a single elected Republican official has yet broken ranks with this White House over this scandal, these lies, these crimes.

That's another difference between Watergate and Leakgate.

There is no member of the President's political party that has yet summoned the strength, the will, the courage, to speak out. No Howard Baker this time around. Eventually as this scandal continues to unfold -- sooner or later -- that will change, and our nation will be the better for that man or woman's bravery.

I think we're still many days away from that day.

Comments evaporated -- accidentally

As part of the new Haloscan code which adds the trackback feature and revises the comments box to this blog, all previously posted comments appear to have been vaporized.

I didn't do it on purpose. Honest. I didn't even want Haloscan comments, but I did want trackback, but I couldn't have one without the other, blah*blah*sob ...

Please continue to give your opinions here (in the hopes that future technological advances won't cause me to lose them).

Annnnnd we're back on Rove

The nomination of John "Here's how you can appoint your brother Prez, Jeb" Roberts gave the White House all of a 36-hour break from Rovegate. It's refreshing to see our plodding yet methodical MSM staying on the case. Barbara at Mahablog has the analysis.

"How high does this go?" asks Booman. (To Cheney, is his answer.)


Yet I am dismayed again today by the apparent capitulation of Joe Lieberman and other "moderates" who have already chosen not to contest this SC nominee, and rushed to the microphones to tell us so.

Why do they do that? Why do they give up before the bell sounds for the first round? How long will it take them to realize that the GOP places no value on temperance?

This lack of fighting spirit, this missing intestinal fortitude -- this weakness -- has gone unrewarded by the electorate enough times already as to be proven the wrong strategy.

Stand aside, Joe. We're looking for fighters from now on.

Rove's Last Stand

(From Billmon. Full size image here.)

Some suggest it's best to wait and see

on Judge Roberts. Some advocating letting him slide on in -- "Let's pick another battle", they say.

I call bullshit.

See, John Roberts is a hack. He's only been a judge for two years. He has been a partisan Republican hack for twenty years.

The Bush administration accelerated the nomination of John Roberts in order to deflect attention from Karl Rove. Really, it makes sense. One partisan hack is taking the heat off another.

Bush was selected by the Supreme Court, and now he selects a member of his campaign team to the Supreme Court in order to draw the media's attention away from the ethics violations (and felonies, most likely) by the architect of his campaign.

Partisan hackery -- old-style, Tammany Hall patronage -- at its purest.

The Supreme Court is not a tool to help deflect attention from the crimes of those who helped (s)elect you. The Supreme Court is not a place for partisan hacks. The Bush administration however, in its continuous can-you-top-this hubris, believes it can be. In fact, it is using the Supreme Court as presidents have previously used ambassadorships. This is just today's example of how fealty is prized above all else -- more important than felonious, treasonous leaks, more important than the Constitution or the rule of law, more important than people's lives.

And so this is our fight -- country over partisanship.

Well, whaddaya know

Another white guy. From Slate:

Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).

His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.

Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)

Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)

Hearings on the nominee probably can't happen before Labor Day, which is about 30 days before the Court reconvenes on the first Monday in October.

Color me opposed.

Supreme Court speculation is intensifying

With Bush frantic to change the subject away from Leakgate, expect a Justice nominee to surface this week -- perhaps as quickly as today -- and apparently the First Lady has had some influence:

Washington was abuzz with speculation Tuesday about Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans ...

Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."

At first blush, I'm speechless.

Update: Bush will let us all know tonight (at 8 pm CDT).

Another busy week ...

... if you're one of those people who are trying to take our country back.

Last Saturday I went across town to hear Chris Bell speak; this account of his appearance in Amarillo the same day echoes my sentiments. Tonight David Van Os spoke in my neighborhood; besides the fifty Meyerland Dems in attendance were three Houston city council candidates: Mark Lee, Herman Litt, and Ray Jones.

Tomorrow night in Bellaire, at the Campaign for a National Majority kickoff, Nick Lampson will address the group.

And this weekend a Downing Street Minutes Teach-In will be held locally. If it's anything like the Peak Oil Conference I attended a couple of weeks ago, there'll be a few hundred people there (SRO).

Find a DSM event near you this Saturday, and go.

Update: Nick Lampson will unfortunately be unable to attend the CNM event listed above; Robert Jara of the Texas Democratic Party will give an update on the prospects for the 2006 elections.

Pretend you're Karl Rove

... the version who, in just a few short months, will be in prison.

Make a license plate (for any state, with anything you care to say on it).

Journey to the left of the blogosphere

H-Town Blogsylvania assembled again during the lunch hour today, and the attendance was impressive: Houston city council candidate Jay Aiyer and his campaign manager, Kyle Johnston (who also managed Richard Morrison's run), representatives of Peter Brown's campaign staff, including manager Bill Kelly, Katie Floyd and Avery Pickard from Barbara Radnofsky's US Senate campaign, a handful of bloggers, and a few of their acquaintances.

Greg has a good wrap-up of the discussion, but the most important development was the impending kickoff of Texas Tuesdays. Go there to learn more.

Emily could be ours

by early next week.

I guess I better go to the grocery store ...

Even more SC whisperings

I'd heard this before I read it here, and it's only noteworthy because Rehnquist has declared premature media predictions of his impending retirement.

So he'll have to be carried out feet first, it seems. Which probably won't happen before, oh, next week ...

I believe there are a couple of conversations happening in the White House right now; one is, shall we go ahead and ignite that shitstorm with the liberals or not, and the other is:

"Can we make the announcement today, Boss, so that I don't have to answer any more questions about Karl, please?"