July 28, 2007
Leaning Towards Cover Up
In Refusal to Testify - Hubris or Cover-up?, I felt that the refusal of the White House to release documents on the firing of U.S. attorneys, and the no-show of Bolten and Miers, was probably equally hubris and cover up. After watch "Now" last night, I am shifting much more heavily towards cover up.
Image from Politico.com via Common Cause
The program discussed voter caging as well as an interview with David Iglesias who was one of the dismissed attorneys. Iglesias stated that he had been pressured to investigate possible "voting fraud" each election cycle. Ultimately when neither he nor the FBI found any, there was displeasure that he was not being aggressive enough and he was dismissed. He felt that the activities of the administration in caging and attempting to manipulate voting outcomes was criminally illegal, and this was like part of the memoranda and documentation that the White House was refusing to release. It should be noted that Iglesias is not some "flaming liberal," but a long time Republican.
Greg Palast was also interviewed. Palast has been on the vote manipulation issue since the 2000 election (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy). He was also on the story when Karl Rove's assistant, Timothy Griffin, was selected to replace the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin had been in charge of the Republican caging operation. This points the issue of illegal caging and the firing of U.S. attorneys directly into the heart of the White House. In other words, there is not just smoke but a raging fire behind all the bluff, denial, refusal, and spin.
Given this situation, it seems even more remarkable that Bolten and Miers would refuse a subpoena. They could certainly play the game that has become so standard from Bush loyalists - lousy memory - or failing that - executive privilege or national security. That would seem to be less of an egregious offense than simply not showing up. So perhaps there is a fair portion of hubris thrown into the mix. Perhaps it is a blatant statement of "we broke the law, are breaking the law, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it."
Posted by rowan at July 28, 2007 7:02 AM | [eMail this article!] |Well, they have been breaking the law and getting away with it even before they took office. Nobody and nothing has stopped them so I expect they will continue piling it on until they fall of their own weight and, I hope that is soon.
Remember "IMPEACHMENT is off the table" Reid, Pelosi et al
Posted by: bill at July 28, 2007 12:13 PMAnd hear the snore of the American public that simply just does not seem to recognize that the rules have not only been broken... but absolutely shattered with contempt and disregard for the constitution.
When one falls asleep at the wheel, they tend to crash... somewhere along the way.
Quote from Rowan's article: "Given this situation, it seems even more remarkable that Bolten and Miers would refuse a subpoena. They could certainly play the game that has become so standard from Bush loyalists - lousy memory - or failing that - executive privilege or national security. That would seem to be less of an egregious offense than simply not showing up. So perhaps there is a fair portion of hubris thrown into the mix. Perhaps it is a blatant statement of "we broke the law, are breaking the law, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it."
I totally agree...! Since the idea these two actually can blow a whistle is conveyed by this strong effort to keep them from testifying, I think it is probably not a waste of time to look somewhere else for the person or persons who actually know the truth, being hidden by such a ruse...! Not "Hubris," but "Hegemony!" Doesn't anyone but me watch Matlock twenty-four-seven?
Posted by: Ed at July 28, 2007 11:49 PM