Investigative Reporter Alleges Cover-Up in Obama White House Delay

by Glynn Wilson

A staff member for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said today that the deposition hearing scheduled for Monday, Feb. 23, for Karl Rove, the infamous former political adviser to former President George W. Bush, “is still on at this point.”

The Obama administration had sought a two week delay to weigh in on whether former Bush White House officials must testify before Congress about the politics involved in the firing of at least nine U.S. attorneys across the country, according a recent report by the McClatchy newspaper bureau in Washington, D.C., as well as the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, according to other sources.

The request came after Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, asked the Obama White House and the Justice Department under the new Attorney General Eric Holder to referee his clash with the House of Representatives over Bush’s claim of “executive privilege.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., issued a subpoena requiring Rove to appear Monday to testify about the firings and other allegations that the Bush White House let politics interfere with the operations of the Justice Department.

Michael Hertz, the acting assistant attorney general, said in a court brief that negotiations were ongoing.

“The inauguration of a new president has altered the dynamics of this case and created new opportunities for compromise rather than litigation,” Hertz wrote in the brief. “At the same time, there is now an additional interested party — the former president — whose views should be considered.”

Rove refused to appear on Feb. 2 in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress, according Conyers’ release. That “absolute immunity” position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as “completely misguided,” he said.

“I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today’s action is an important step along the way,” Conyers said. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added: “Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it’s time for him to talk.”

The staff member contacted today did not know if there was still a chance the deposition will be delayed Monday. No details are being released about the ongoing negotiations.

A PDF copy of the subpoena is linked here.

To catch up with other documents in the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into how the Bush administration turned the justice system into a White House political operation, this page on the committee’s Web site has a number of important links.

Cover-Up?

Meanwhile, investigative reporter Wayne Madsen released a story on his proprietary Website Feb. 17 alleging that the move to seek a compromise amounts to a “cover-up” by the Obama White House and White House Counsel Greg Craig — who for a time represented Karl Rove and is a friend of Siegelman — for “assisting in a cover-up of a major campaign financial scandal from the 2002 Alabama Republican primary and general election.”

The cover-up is allegedly of a July, 2002 Air Force One “political junket” from Washington, D.C. to Birmingham, Alabama, a fund raising trip where Bush raised $4 million for Alabama Governor Bob Riley in his race against the incumbent Democrat, Governor Don Siegelman.

Read the rest of this entry »

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. released a 500-page report on Tuesday documenting numerous abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and calling on a continuation of the investigations of administration officials, including criminal prosecutions.

The report, titled “Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,” contains 47 separate recommendations designed to restore the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. Recommendations include calls for continued committee investigation, a blue ribbon commission to fully investigate administration activities, and independent criminal probes.

“Even after scores of hearings, investigations, and reports, we still do not have answers to some of the most fundamental questions left in the wake of Bush’s Imperial Presidency,” Conyers said. Pointing to allegations of torture and inhumane treatment, extraordinary rendition, warrantless domestic surveillance, the Valerie Plame Wilson-leak, and the U.S. attorney scandal, Conyers continued, “Investigations are not a matter of payback or political revenge – it is our responsibility to examine what has occurred and to set an appropriate baseline of conduct for future administrations.”

In addition to the set of recommendations, the report contains a foreword by Chairman Conyers and detailed discussions of: the administration’s legal approach to presidential power; the politicization of the Department of Justice; the administration’s far-reaching assaults on individual liberty (including torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless domestic surveillance); the misuse of Executive Branch authority; the administration’s retribution against its critics; and the administration’s excessive secrecy, noncompliance with congressional oversight, and manipulation of pre-Iraq War intelligence.

For the full report, go to this page on the House Judiciary Committee Website.

by Glynn Wilson

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and the House of Representatives took concrete steps in the first days of the 111th Congress to ensure a continuation of ongoing investigations of the Bush administration, specifically torture of detainees, warrantless wiretapping, and for politicizing the Department of Justice by firing independent prosecutors and wrongly prosecuting Democrats.

The details are just beginning to emerge on the House Judiciary Committee Website, but stories in the Las Vegas Sun, the TPMMuckraker, and Consortium News show that at least some members of Congress are not ready to move on and let bygones by bygones when it comes to potential crimes by Bush administration officials.

Conyers introduced a bill calling for a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties that will establish a “blue ribbon commission” comprised of experts outside government service to investigate the broad range of policies of the Bush years, “undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers,” according to the press release.

Also, as part of a routine package of rules governing the opening of the new Congress, the House agreed to continue the lawsuit it brought last year after President George W. Bush’s former officials ignored subpoenas to produce documents and appear before the House Judiciary Committee. The action shows that the coming of a new Congress won’t stop House leaders from continuing their long-running effort to obtain documents and testimony about the U.S. attorney firings from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and especially former Bush political aide Karl Rove.

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas, primarily interested in the case of the firing of Nevada’s former U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden in the U.S. attorneys scandal, said the move by the Democratic-controlled House is an assertion of congressional authority after several years of what scholars see as executive branch overreach by the Bush administration.

“A very fine U.S. attorney from the state of Nevada was unceremoniously removed for no reason –- I would like to know why, I would like it to be made public and I would like those responsible punished,” Berkley said. “By passing this rule we have assured this will be done.”

There is no word from Birmingham Rep. Artur Davis on where he stands on the investigation of the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, although he told me for a story last month: “I’ll let John Conyers decide what to do about that.”

It looks like Montgomery Independent editor and publisher Bob Martin is finally catching up on his post-holiday reading, since an editorial published online today shows that he is now echoing our reporting from last month on a potential Davis candidacy for governor.

Siegelman said in an e-mail response he’s heard nothing from the House Judiciary Committee on the investigation of his case. But he said, “I trust John Conyers. He has been in Congress longer than most.”

Democratic Party activists have feared for the past few months that the new Obama administration might “turn the other cheek,” so to speak, and not take the time and effort to look back at the Bush administration’s legal failures. A wide array of groups, including the “aggressive progressives” at Democrats.com, have kept up the pressure on Conyers and others to hold the administration accountable, especially Karl Rove, who is still in defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify in Siegelman’s case.

With a New Day Dawning in D.C., Will Rove Escape Justice?

We have messages in to the House Judiciary Committee press office and Davis’s press office. We’ll add more to this story if and when we hear back.

The mainstream, corporate news media in Alabama still shows a serious deficiency in covering this story, although one Associated Press reporter in D.C. has weighed in a few times. Most other political blogs in Alabama also seem to completely ignore this story and its implications, with the exception of Roger Shuler at the Legal Schnauzer blog.

by Glynn Wilson

Update: Scratch that. The hearing has been postponed due to the seventh anniversary of 9/11 and the memorial dedication.

The United States House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Thursday at noon in the “continuing investigation into the U.S. attorneys controversy and related matters,” according to the committee’s Website.

According to the TPMMuckraker, the committee will consider a citation for contempt for Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey Wednesday “for his failure to supply documents in accordance with the subpoena” issued in late June.

At the Democratic National Convention a couple of weeks ago, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman pleaded with Colorado’s congressional delegation to vote to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress before it adjourns for the year, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly said she would work to bring the issue up for a vote in the full House.

But informed sources who have watched this Congress in action for the past two years since the Democrats took back control as the majority in the 2006 midterm elections are not sure there is the will or the votes in an election year to uphold the law.

Chances are the Democratic leadership will poll members of Congress and find out they do not have enough votes to sustain a vote of contempt for Rove, and they will make an announcement to that effect. Alternatively, if they see political capital to be gained from forcing a vote of the full House, they may bring the issue to a vote, even if it seems destined to lose, just so that members of Congress who are sworn to uphold the law will be on the record voting not to uphold the law.

The committee voted 20-14 to hold Rove in contempt on July 30, for failing to respond to a subpoena to testify under oath before the committee. He has been accused of manipulating the Bush Justice Department for political purposes, including having a hand in the prosecution of Siegelman.

And there is ample, sworn evidence for this, as we have reported time and again. North Alabama attorney Jill Simpson signed a sworn affidavit to that effect last May, and testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee legal staff one year ago, last September. And she has called on Pelosi to hold Rove in “inherent contempt.”

Birmingham attorney Doug Jones also testified under oath before the full committee that there is “no doubt” Siegelman’s case was “political.” Rep. Artur Davis, the Birmingham Democrat and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, has said the same.

According to Montgomery attorney Priscilla Duncan, who represents Ms. Simpson, if the full House doesn’t vote to hold Rove in contempt, there will be no reason for any American citizen to pay heed to a subpoena from Congress.

“The House has a duty to us as citizens to uphold the Constitution. If the members don’t have the spine to vote upholding the authority of their own subpoenas, they should be shamed from office,” Duncan said. “Karl Rove hasn’t been granted any executive immunity from the President in the Siegelman investigation. This is a no-brainer.”

If the House fails to follow up on this action, it will be a travesty of justice, for sure. I mean what is the job of a member of Congress if not to uphold the law? This is especially true as it relates to enforcing subpoenas to enforce Constitutional checks and balances to hold one branch of government, the executive, accountable to another, the legislative. That is their prime Constitutional directive.

“The full House must vote on the Rove contempt citation ASAP,” Siegelman said in response to an e-mail Wednesday morning while he was on his way to Tennessee to meet with former Vice President Al Gore and others.

Our editorial position is this: Any member of Congress who fails to support that effort should be impeached and removed from office. It is their duty according to their sworn oath to uphold the law and the Constitution.

Plus, if the Democrats in Congress don’t do something to weaken Karl Rove right now, he will continue to play a destructive role in the McCain-Palin campaign for president. What better way to get him out of the way for the next two months? Confiscate his little Blackberry and his cell phone and put his lying, spinning, pasty white ass in jail for contempt!

And for any other bloggers or media outlets lurking here, you can quote me on that!

Don Siegelman Agrees

by Glynn Wilson

Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson is calling on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow a vote in the full House of Representatives on “inherent contempt” for former Bush political aide Karl Rove.

In light of the Judiciary Committee’s vote Wednesday finding him in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify under oath about his involvement in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and the politicization of the Department of Justice, Ms. Simpson said in an exclusive interview it would be “useless” to turn the case over to the Bush Justice Department.

If the House simply finds Rove in “statutory contempt,” the case will just be turned over to Attorney General Michael Mukasy, she said. And his office has shown time and again that he is not interested in finding out the truth and holding former White House officials responsible under the law, including Harriet Myers and Josh Bolton.

“The time is now,” Ms. Simpson said. “Ms. Pelosi promised when she took over the House after the 2006 elections to clean up. It’s time for her to clean the White House for thumbing their noses at Congress.”

Ms. Simpson says she feels akin to the 127,000 people who signed a petition calling on Congress to send Karl Rove to jail, she said, and she thinks the House should use the Sergeant at Arms to arrest him. Inherent contempt and the Sergeant at Arms have been rarely used in American history, she said, “because most people don’t thumb their noses at the United States Congress.”

“Mr. Rove has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.S. Congress, and he should have respect for the Constitution and the Congress,” she said. “The time has come to stop this.”

The Judiciary Committee voted 20-14 Wednesday to hold Rove in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena to testify under oath before the committee.

“This is a constitutional crisis when the White House can just say we are not going to testify if we don’t want to,” Ms. Simpson said. “The Department of Justice has repeatedly NOT stood up for the Constitution and that only leaves Congress.”

She agreed to go to Washington to testify last year, she said, because she considered it a civic duty.

“Karl Rove should see it as a civic duty too,” she said. “Instead, he prefers to run around the country thumbing his nose at the Constitution.”

Ms. Simpson commended Linda Sánchez, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee, along with committee chairman John Conyers and Birmingham Rep. Artur Davis, “for their valiant efforts to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States,” she said. “They need to do a thorough, to-the-bottom-of-the-bucket investigation. Otherwise there is going to be a revolt.”

Rove is claiming he has White House executive privilege, she said, “but that sure as heck doesn’t prevent him from spouting off his mouth everywhere he goes.”

“Rove thinks because he is an elite political operative no longer serving in government that he is above the law,” she said. “He thinks he is the law.”

“Furthermore,” she said, “President George W. Bush should want to get to the bottom of the story for his own legacy.”

While everyone’s attention is focused on Rove’s role in manipulating the Justice Department, perhaps they are ignoring an in-the-loop role by members of the Bush family as well. After all, isn’t Rove just a political operative who takes orders from the people he works for?

“George Bush owes a duty to the citizens of the Unites States to ask that his employees testify, if he really wants to heal the problems at the Department of Justice,” she said. “This is directly going to affect his legacy.”

In reacting to the story today, Don Siegelman said in an e-mail message: “I have always said I believe Jill Simpson. She is an American hero.”

Siegelman said the Texas Republican and ranking minority member of the committee, Rep. Lamar Smith, has made false statements himself, along with Rove in his written responses to the committee last week.

“We must encourage the full House to vote yes,” Siegelman said. “To do otherwise would advance the cause of this corruption of the DOJ and make it more likely to happen again.”

Rove didn’t even deny the central sworn allegation against him, that he and Bill Canary conspired to advance the prosecution against me by Canary’s wife,” Siegelman said.

Karl Rove and George Bush could not be reached for comment.

The United States House Judiciary Committee voted 20-14 Wednesday morning to hold former Bush political adviser Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena to testify under oath before the committee.

In a memo on the full committee meeting, Chairman John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat, summarized the facts surrounding Rove’s refusal to appear before the committee and assert executive privilege, according to the TPMMuckraker.

Mr. Rove has refused even to appear before the Committee and assert whatever privileges that he believes may apply to his testimony, relying on excessively broad and legally insufficient claims of “absolute immunity” — never recognized by any court — in declining to appear.

According to the Associated Press, the voting was largely along party lines. The committee says Rove broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.

The committee decision is only a recommendation, according to AP, and it was unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow a final vote in the full House.

Rove has denied any involvement with Justice Department decisions, but not under oath, and the White House has said Congress has no authority to compel testimony from current and former advisers, although it is still unclear why Rove would claim executive privilege for discussing the case with the president — unless he discussed the case with the president, and Bush was fully in the loop.

So far activists and bloggers have focused their sites on getting Rove arrested, perhaps to weaken his influence in the upcoming election. But they have failed to realize that Bush was in the loop.

It will be interesting to see how the House tries to enforce its contempt charge, since it has no police powers, except perhaps for the Sargent at Arms, which has never been used to make an arrest of this kind.

Check back often to the LFJ for more details on how this case will proceed, including more details proving president Bush was in the loop in the Siegelman case.

Meanwhile, TPMM is also reporting that Bush Justice Department inspector general Glenn Fine, testifying this morning before the committee, said Rove aide Scott Jennings was the only White House official he sought to interview for his report released Monday.

“Why were no others at the White House questioned?” Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Penn., asked.

“From the evidence that we had, both emails and discussions, we did not see that others were involved in this process, and we questioned the person who was involved,” Fine said, referring to the partisan screening of prospective judges and career prosecutors.

Fine said he did not believe any of the misconduct described in his 140-page report, released Monday, called for criminal prosecution for false statements.

“We looked at that and clearly in our judgment and in the judgement of prosecutors who have been working on this case, we do not think there was a sufficient basis for a criminal prosecution for false statements,” he said.

BS.

Exclusive interviews with Jill Simpson, Scott Horton, and Don Siegelman

by Glynn Wilson

Updates below…

Jill Simpson breathes another sigh of consternation over the telephone from Rainsville as the news hits the blogs that Karl Rove has once again tried to deny influencing the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman — without raising his right hand and swearing to tell the truth under oath.

Glynn Wilson

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman on trial. We can finally now report that the woman in the background is Sephira Bailey Shuttlesworth, wife of Birmingham Civil Rights icon Fred Shuttlesworth, thanks to Bonnie Fountain, a photographer and copy editor in Birmingham.

The Talking Points Memo out of Washington, D.C., is claiming an “EXCLUSIVE” Wednesday on a story under the headline:

Karl Rove Issues New Denials in Gov. Siegelman Prosecution in Written Answers to HJC (House Judiciary Committee). Other bloggers are commenting there that they had it first, however, so who knows.

But we can report this from an EXCLUSIVE interview today with Jill Simpson.

“They’ve tried to call me a liar the whole time, but I swore under oath,” Ms. Simpson said. “The moral of the story for Karl Rove is, if what he is saying is true, then why won’t he go testify?”

The news, if it is news, is that the House Judiciary Committee received a copy of Rove’s written responses to questions from the ranking minority member of the committee, a Republican from Texas. Rove is trying to delay and/or avoid contempt charges by substituting a written denial that is not signed or sworn under oath.

Questions from Rep. Lamar Smith, R.-Texas, are now online, along with Rove’s answers, submitted by his lawyer, Robert Luskin.

One way Rove tries to deal with the 14 questions from Smith is to deny without really denying certain key things, which in Washington politics, as opposed to a court of law, is called a “non-denial denial.”

Smith’s Question: Before former Alabama Governor Donald E. Siegelman’s initial indictment in May 2005, did you ever communicate with any Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any individual other than Dana Jill Simpson, Esq., regarding Governor Siegelman’s investigation or potential prosecution? If so, please state separately for each communication the date, time, location, and means of the communication, the official or individual with whom you communicated, and the content of the communication.

Rove’s Answer: I have never communicated, either directly or indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution, conviction, or sentencing of Governor Siegelman, or about any other matter related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to communicate about these matters on my behalf. I have never attempted, either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.

But if he had said that under oath, a lawyer or a Congressman could say, “but what about that phone record we have here as exhibit X?”

Or maybe: Was your friend Bill Canary, head of the conservative Business Council of Alabama, just lying about that? Perhaps we should get him up here to testify as a rebuttal witness?

Ms. Simpson’s position is that the written responses are nothing more than what Rove has said already in other forums, and the questions have been “asked and answered.” But they are not the key questions and they have certainly not been answered under oath.

From talking to attorneys, Ms. Simpson believes Rep. Smith wanted to have her subpoenaed to testify along with Rove — if the committee goes forward with the full contempt citation and takes the extraordinary step of having Rove arrested.

“But he doesn’t have the votes,” she said, since the committee is made up of a majority of Democrats since the 2006 election.

The Republicans on the committee who questioned Ms. Simpson last year were not very prepared for the interview, she said, “So they regret not asking me a bunch of questions.”

And the bottom line for Rove is, he wants to know what other evidence Ms. Simpson has about the relationship, evidence that has so far not been revealed in sworn testimony. And typical of lawyers, until a case gets into court, and everybody is under oath, the entire case is not going to be laid out.

“Karl Rove can go do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say, but he has a duty to testify,” Ms. Simpson said.

While the story so far has included the line that he is operating under a broad claim of executive privilege since the events occurred when he was still working in the White House as President George W. Bush’s chief political aide, conversations with the president are supposed to be kept confidential. But now other bloggers are reporting that Bush never actually exempted Rove from testifying under executive privilege, probably because Bush doesn’t want to reveal that he was in the loop on the Siegelman case.

So the story today amounts to the same old spin from the spin master himself, according to Washington political experts.

According to Scott Horton, a New York attorney and writer who has followed the case closely and blogged about it himself for the Harper’s magazine Website, if Rove indeed had no discussions with anyone about Siegelman, then he had no need to refuse to appear and answer questions under oath.

“But the questions and answers are both very carefully tailored to look comprehensive while they are not,” he said. “If Rove were to appear, his relationship and dealings with Bill Pryor, whom he served as a paid political advisor as Pryor was assembling a case against Siegelman, would be fair game and he would be compelled to answer them; similarly, he would be forced to enumerate and discuss his dealings with Bill Canary, his wife, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and Bob and Rob Riley.”

“Second,” he said, “his final pages consist of an extended effort to trash Jill Simpson with rank falsehood and innuendo, largely drawn from Rove’s own sock puppets. In the end the main point remains this: Rove needs to take an oath and submit to the Committee’s questions, just as Jill Simpson did. His contempt of Congress is obvious, and the reason he won’t testify is also increasingly plain.”

Ad 1: After appearing on Verdict with Dan Abrams on MSNBC Wednesday night, Siegelman said this in an e-mail interview:

“Rove built his career in Alabama working with Bill Canary. Canary and Rove’s client started investigating me in 1999,” Siegelman said. “Rove’s partner’s wife accelerated the case federally in 2001. Rove’s partner’s wife indicted me during the 2006 campaign and brought me to trial less than four weeks before the Democratic primary.

“There is sworn testimony that Rove’s partner said that he had it worked out with Karl to destroy me and that two Alabama U.S. attorneys would do the job. Both those U.S. attorneys did in fact indict me. And now, Rove refuses to deny that he talked to Bill Canary about prosecuting me.

“Does anyone believe all this is circumstantial? How much more proof do you need? They sent me to prison on less evidence than this.”

Other breaking news out on this subject from Wednesday:

AP: Siegelman Supporters Call for Expanded Probe

AG Says Siegelman Findings to be Released

Six Questions for Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias

One from the archives, important facts and clues for the newbies on this story: The Nation: A Whistleblower’s Tale

On Oversight of the Department of Justice
And the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush

The House Judiciary Committee will question and hear testimony from Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Wednesday beginning at 10 a.m. in a hearing on oversight the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the committee’s Website.

Then on July 25, the committee will hold a hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses.

“Over the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration,” Conyers said in a statement. “At the same time, the administration has adopted what many would describe as a radical view of its own powers and authorities. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review commensurate to this constitutionally dangerous combination of circumstances. Friday’s hearings will be an important part of that ongoing effort.”

The Committee is expected to examine a range of legal and legislative responses to allegations of administration misconduct and their expansion of executive branch power.

Since the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Committee has conducted extensive oversight into allegations of misconduct by the administration, including: (1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies; (2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority; (3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs; (4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto; (5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and (6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

The July 25 hearing will be held at 10 a.m. in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Additional information, including witness participation, will be announced.

To coincide with the hearings, the National Impeachment Network (NIN) began its “Choose the Constitution” campaign to bring citizens to Washington, D.C., from July 21 to 25 to personally tell members of Congress to Choose the Constitution by using the remedy of impeachment and to ask them to attend the hearing on impeachment of the full House Judiciary Committee on July 25 at 10 a.m.

The second goal is to expand the news of the hearings nationwide and to ask the media for coverage. For those in D.C. on July 25 there will be a pre-hearing rally at 9 a.m. in front of the Rayburn Building.

Delegation members have been astounded by the response they’ve received, according to the group’s press release.

“During our two week lobbying experience in D.C. we have found the most effective way to present our message is in-person,” says Cynthia Papermaster, NIN Co-Founder.

The NIN lobbyists are taking a positive, supportive approach toward Congress members who have already voiced their support for impeachment, she said. To date more than forty members of Congress have cosponsors of articles of impeachment or demanded immediate impeachment hearings.

During their first three days in D.C., members of the NIN delegation met with Representatives Mike Hinchey (D) New York, Dennis Kucinich (D) Ohio, John Conyers (D) Michigan, Robert Wexler (D) Florida, Lynn Woolsey (D) California and Walter Jones (R) North Carolina.

Following a Wednesday, July 9, afternoon meeting with Dennis Kucinich in which he said he was sending an announcement to members of Congress regarding the presentation of a new impeachment resolution, and after an hour-long early evening meeting with Judiciary Chairman, John Conyers, on Thursday morning Nancy Pelosi said “impeachment hearings may take place.”

One of the goals of the lobbying effort is to present “win-win” solutions,” she said. “They have considered the dilemma that Congressional Representatives find themselves in during this re-election season when most people are concerned about the economy, fuel prices, mortgages and health care.”

Democratic members are concerned that memories of the Clinton impeachment will create a negative backlash from their constituents. The group has offered to work with Congress, to educate and rally the people, and has assured them of support during the election if they stand up for impeachment.

The group offers evidence and reminders of the Nixon years and reminds people that House and Senate members took the first steps towards impeachment then and “have gone down in history.”

Also, a look at history shows that the party that starts impeachment wins the next election.

The National Impeachment Network is a non-partisan umbrella under which activist groups, businesses and individuals that support the impeachment process provided under the constitution can unite, coordinate, and expand the movement. Currently NIN reaches out to more than 40 coordinators and 160,000 activists who in turn reach out to more groups, friends and neighbors.

“Due to continuing education and outreach to members of Congress and the public the movement for impeachment is becoming louder,” the group says.

The next and greatest challenge, she said, is to getting the media to report on it.

For more information contact Cynthia Papermaster, Co-founder and NIN representative in Washington, D.C., at (510)333-6097, or Sandra Marshall in California at (805) 440-2547.

To learn more about the National Impeachment Network visit Nationalimpeachment.org.

Come to DC for this Historic Moment:
“Hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush”

July 22 – 24: “Impeachment Lobbying Days”
House of Representatives

July 25, 9 a.m.: “Choose the Constitution”
Press Conference and Rally
Rayburn Building, Independence Avenue

July 25, 10 a.m.: Hearing “The Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush”
House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn Bldg, Rm. 2141

“There are two panels being planned for the hearing. One consisting of Kucinich and four other members of Congress (Jane Harman, Walter Jones, Brad Miller, and Maurice Hinchey); the other consisting of five non-Congress Members (Elizabeth Holtzman, Bruce Fein, Frederick Schwartz, John Dean, and Bob Barr).”

As of Tuesday more than 87 thousand people have signed a petition asking the Judiciary Committee to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for ignoring a House subpoena and to send him to jail.

Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin asserted executive privilege as an excuse to ignore Congress; however, President Bush has not invoked the privilege, according to FireDogLake.com.

And why would he, since that would be an admission that the President sought advice on the politicization of the Department of Justice?

Furthermore, Rep. Linda Sanchez of the House Judiciary says absolute immunity only applies to current executive aides.

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was interviewed about the events and is quoted in this short video.