The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on a resolution to hold former Bush political aide Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for failing to appear to testify as directed by a Congressional subpoena.

Rove’s attorney cited executive privilege when the former top White House adviser declined to appear at a July 10 Judiciary Committee hearing.

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat, issued the subpoena on May 22 in a bid to force Rove to testify about allegations that the Justice Department has engaged in politically motivated prosecutions of Democratic officials, including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Rove denied any involvement in the matter in a July 22 letter to Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, the ranking minority member on the panel.

Rove has offered to submit to an off-the-record, untranscribed interview or answer written questions about the Siegelman case, but not about the broader issue of the politicization of the Justice Department. Conyers has rejected that offer.

The practical effect of a contempt resolution, however, is likely to be limited, according to Congressional Quarterly.

In February, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey refused to refer a contempt of Congress citation against President Bush’s chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, and Harriet Miers, a former White House counsel, to a federal grand jury, as required by law.

The House had voted to cite Bolten and Miers for contempt after they refused to comply on executive privilege grounds, with Judiciary subpoenas related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

A lawsuit filed by members of the House to force compliance with subpoenas seeking testimony and documents from Miers and documents from Bolten is now pending in federal court.

The committee will meet at 10:15 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building to consider a resolution and report finding Karl Rove in contempt for failure to appear pursuant to subpoena and recommending to the House of Representatives that Mr. Rove be cited for contempt of Congress, according to the committee’s Website.

A Lionsgate QED International movie trailer film preview of “A chronicle on the life and presidency of George W. Bush,” by Josh Brolin, directed by Oliver Stone, release date October 2008. Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioan Gruffudd, Thandie Newton, Ellen Burstyn, Jeffrey Wright, Richard Dreyfuss, James Cromwell, Scott Glenn, and Jesse Bradford.

Glynn Wilson

House Speaker Nanci Pelosi speaking in Birmingham earlier this year…

Citizen Journalism Contest

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just published a book called Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters.

Bob Fertik at Democrats.com has not yet read her book, but he wonders if her “message to America’s daughters” does not encourage them to rise to positions of power and then turn a blind eye to those who start wars based on lies that kill and mutilate hundreds of thousands of daughters and force millions to become refugees and prostitutes… who torture and murder prisoners who are the sons and husbands of daughters… who out-covert CIA operatives who are daughters, etc.

Pelosi kicked off her book tour on “The View” and Joy Behar asked her, “Why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?” Pelosi did her best to avoid answering, but finally said:

“If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story… unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.”

Speaker Pelosi, meet Representative Dennis Kucinich. He’s “somebody” and he “has” 35+1=36 impeachable offenses, most of them involving statutory crimes — and “the goods that this president committed” them. In fact, he presented them to Congress in the exact form specified by the Founding Fathers: Articles of Impeachment. You even gave John Conyers permission to hold a hearing on Kucinich’s “crimes.”

So we have a simple question to follow-up on Joy Behar’s question:

Of the 36 detailed Articles of Impeachment introduced by Dennis Kucinich, do you consider any to be crimes? If yes, which? If no, why not — and what (if anything) would you consider an impeachable offense?

We’ve asked this question through Speaker Pelosi’s office, but we’ve never received an answer to our questions.

So we’re also announcing a Citizen Journalism Contest: We’ll pay up to $1,000 to any progressive citizen (or journalist) who succeeds in getting a direct and substantive answer to this question, and records it on video or audio tape for publication on Democrats.com.

Pelosi’s book tour includes call-in shows and book signings, so we encourage you to take advantage of every opportunity to ask her this question.

We also encourage you to do your homework before you ask Pelosi our question, so you can pin her down more successfully. Start by reading Kucinich’s 35+1 Articles of Impeachment. It makes sense to focus on one or several that you are familiar with already.

According to the Constitution, a President can be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” There is no definition that is more precise; former House Minority Leader (and later President) Gerald Ford said, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

“High Crimes” are generally considered to mean abuses of the power of office, whether or not those actions are “crimes” outside the context of government. For example, Bush’s refusal to enforce duly-enacted laws by attaching legally-meaningless “signing statements” is one of the High Crimes documented in Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment.

“High Crimes” can also include familiar felonies like murder, torture, and fraud, which are also documented in Kucinich’s Articles of Impeachment.

To start impeachment hearings, the House does not need to have “proof beyond a shadow of a doubt,” as a jury would need to convict someone of a crime. “Impeachment” in the House is the legal equivalent of “indictment” by a grand jury. The House simply collects evidence to present to the Senate for a trial. So the relevant standard for House evidence would be the lower standard of “probable cause.”

George Bush openly admits he committed several of Kucinich’s crimes, including approving warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. Bush also instructed current and former officials to refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas and contempt citations. The House does not need to investigate these crimes, they can simply vote for the relevant Articles of Impeachment.

If you succeed, contact us with the details.

Once again, we’ll pay up to $1,000 to any progressive citizen (or journalist) who succeeds in getting a direct and substantive answer to this question, and records it on video or audio tape for publication on Democrats.com.

Fine print:

The amount of the award will depend on the specificity and depth of Pelosi’s answer in our judgment. A simple “Yes” or “No” is worth $100.

An award will be made only for each unique answer; for example, the $100 award for “Yes” or “No” will only be awarded the first time.

To qualify as a “progressive” citizen or journalist, you must be active with a known progressive group or news organization or website (including Democrats.com). Your activity can be as limited as volunteering or posting comments.

Good luck!

For more information, visit: Democrats.com.

Book Tour Schedule

Here’s a partial list of public appearances where you might catch her.

Author Tour Dates

It is now officially the “Dog Days of Summer” here in Alabamaland. And even though I recently pledged not to talk any more about the private sex lives of politicians and to focus instead on substantive issues in the news — such as why Karl Rove is still running from a Congressional subpoena and for some reason is still avoiding testifying under oath — it is obvious from the e-mail lists and other blogs that people would rather talk about sex.

Troy University

Now this may just be an unfortunate Freudian slip, but here’s the cutline according to Troy: J.W. Godwin, a junior broadcast journalism major from Greenville, is dubbed Homecoming King by Governor Bob Riley during homecoming festivities. Riley had promised during his first campaign to crown queen each year at TROY.

And with the release yesterday of the U.S. Justice Department Inspector General’s report on how under President George W. Bush, all things including sexual preferences were “on the table” for the past seven and a half years, even when it came to appointing judges and career prosecutors, what the heck. Let’s talk about sex.

In light of the report, it should have come as no shock that John McCain’s presidential election team scrubbed any mention of Alabama Attorney General Troy King from their Website two weeks ago, considering the rumors about his sex life. And it’s no real shocker that Republicans are distancing themselves from Troy “Toy Boy” King now, who has still not officially denied the story.

As we learn from reading the report, one of the most shocking revelations is that even the rumor of being gay wiped out any chance of lawyers being hired by the Bush Justice Department, even if it was a violation of ethics, policy, and law. I mean we already knew this administration, staffed by Federalist Society lackeys, didn’t care about the rule of law. But get this.

It wasn’t just Democrats who Monica Goodling was trying to rid the Justice Department of. If you were gay — or even rumored to be gay — your career was in jeopardy, according to the TPMMuckraker.

In Gonzales’ DOJ, Lesbian Rumors Could Cost You Your Job

And:

In the absence of a more substantial explanation from the justice Department for Chiara’s firing, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if the rumors of her lesbian relationship with Hagen led to Chiara’s downfall, too.

As a Republican source told NPR, “To some people, that’s [being gay is] even worse than being a Democrat.”

According to the blogger who has had the most fun with King, Loretta Nall, “supporters who were defending King a few weeks ago on blogs all across Alabama have been dead silent.”

There is definitely a lot of something to this Troy King story. I want to know what J.W. Godwin does that qualifies him to make $57,504 of Alabama taxpayer money a year. Does he carry suitcases real well when he and Troy travel together? Does he make a mean cup of coffee?

What is meant by “he acts as a liaison between the Attorney General and the ‘staff’?”

(I bet the reporters were giggling their butts off when Chris Bence gave them that line…I know it about did me in when I read it.)

Does it mean he is just a high-priced gopher who scurries between offices to deliver donuts? What exactly does he do to earn that much cash?

And Chris Bence. Another guy with a broadcast background now in the position of paralegal….with no paralegal training. I can see how Bence could be hired into a position as spokesperson….but if what we have seen out of him so far regarding this story is the best that he can do then….WOW….just wow!!

I mean if someone were paying me $104,000 a year to be their media person I think I could come up with something better than “What about the children” and “JW is near indispensable.”

According to sources in Montgomery who know Mr. King well, there is still a debate going on about the best political strategy. One key endorser of King who knows him well has advised a policy of silence, especially if there is truth to the story.

Remember what happened to Gary Hart in the 1980s when he denied the rumors of an affair and challenged reporters to follow him around? Do you remember the boat Monkey Business and the National Enquirer photo of him and Donna Rice? Whoops!

Some supporters have advised King to issue a firm denial, sources say, but they know that would immediately result in a story in every newspaper and TV news show in the state. And what if there are reporters in Montgomery who know more than they have reported to date (which is zilch)?

Monkey Business indeed…