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…

Former Justice Department counselor Monica M. Goodling and former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson routinely broke the law by conducting political litmus tests on candidates for jobs as judges and career prosecutors, according to a report on the Bush Justice Department released Monday by the department’s own inspector general’s office.

Goodling passed over hundreds of qualified applicants and squashed the promotions of others after deeming candidates insufficiently loyal to the Republican party, investigators said. They interviewed 85 people and received information from 300 other people who sought jobs with the department.

Some examples of wrong-doing include the testimony of one former Justice Department official who told investigators Goodling was asking interviewees for their views on abortion. And in one glaring example of a demand for loyalty to Bush, Goodling asked candidates, “What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?”

The extensive report confirms the long-held suspicions of congressional Democrats and underscores the challenge the next president will face in restoring public confidence in the nation’s premiere law enforcement operation, according to the Washington Post.

Today’s study marks the second of four lengthy dissections of the role that partisan political considerations played in Justice Department employment decisions during the Bush administration. Reports on hiring problems in the Civil Rights Division and the firing of nine U.S. attorneys have yet to be released.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) called the political interference “widespread” and said it “could not have been done without at least the tacit approval of senior Department officials.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez say they are considering criminal referrals based on the report for former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and others. The TPM Muckraker in Washington is covering this issue extensively.

“Today’s report describes ‘systematic’ violations of federal law by several former leaders of the Department of Justice,” Conyers said in a statement. “Apparently, the political screening was so pervasive that even qualified Republican applicants were rejected from Department positions because they were ‘not Republican enough’ for Monica Goodling and others.

“The report also makes clear that the cost to our nation of these apparent crimes was severe, as qualified individuals were rejected for key positions in the fight against terrorism and other critical Department jobs for no reason other than political whim,” Conyers said. “The Report also indicates that Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, and Alberto Gonzales may have lied to the Congress about these matters. I have directed my staff to closely review this matter and to consider whether a criminal referral for perjury is needed.”

“The House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the politicization of the Department of Justice has been criticized by the Minority as a fishing expedition that has caught no fish,” Sánchez said. “This report, which found that Monica Goodling and many other Justice Department officials committed misconduct by violating both federal law and Department policy, adds to a growing public record that this Administration has tainted our system of justice.”

The report, released today by the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility found:

* Senior Bush Administration Department of Justice officials, including Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and others violated federal law and committed misconduct in basing hiring decisions for career prosecutor positions, details to senior Department offices and immigration judgeships on the applicant’s political affiliations and views. (125-27)

* The report highlighted political cronyism that was “particularly damaging” in a vital counterterrorism post when a qualified expert was rejected because his wife had the wrong political affiliation. Instead, a candidate was chosen that “lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues” and who other DoJ officials believed “was not qualified for the position.” (136)

* Immigration judgeships were needlessly held vacant for long periods while Department leaders sought to identify politically suitable candidates, leading to a severe backlog of immigration matters. (128)

* Monica Goodling also made false statements to the Department’s own lawyers who were defending a lawsuit regarding Immigration Judge hiring. (138)

* A current Department official, John Nowacki, prepared and circulated a press release responding to public concern about these issues that he knew was false at the time; the report recommends that Mr. Nowacki be disciplined (127-28)

* Monica Goodling refused to approve several DOJ appointments for an AUSA who Ms. Goodling believed was gay. (132-33)

Excerpts from the Report:

“The evidence also showed that Goodling considered political or ideological affiliations when recommending and selecting candidates for other permanent career positions, including a career SES position in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and AUSA positions. These actions violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct.” (136)

“Goodling’s use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates. For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife’s political affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the position.” (136)

“[W]e believe it was improper, and violated the law and Department policy, for Goodling to use political or ideological affiliations in selecting or rejecting detailees to these positions.” (136)

“[T]he evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs [Immigration Judge], which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.” (137)

“We also concluded that Goodling committed misconduct when she provided inaccurate information to a Civil Division attorney who was defending a lawsuit brought by an unsuccessful IJ candidate. Goodling told the attorney that she did not take political factors into consideration in connection with IJ hiring, which was not accurate.” (138)

“The evidence detailed above demonstrates that Kyle Sampson, Jan Williams, and Monica Goodling each violated Department of Justice policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in soliciting and evaluating candidates for IJs, which are Schedule A career positions, not political appointments. Further, the evidence demonstrates that their violations were not isolated instances but were systematic in nature. The evidence demonstrates further that Goodling violated Department policy and federal law by considering political or ideological affiliations in selecting candidates for the BIA.” (115)

“Elston said that Goodling made it clear to him that she did not want Democrats detailed to the ODAG because she had a ‘farm system’ approach to filling vacancies in the Department, and she wanted to ‘credential’ Republicans so that they could move on to higher political positions. Elston also stated that there were some Republicans that Goodling did not want to hire as detailees because they were not ‘Republican enough.’ ” (47-48)

And in this video, a DOJ lawyer tells Bill Moyers “the lunatics are running the country…”