"Why can't Karl Rove just put his hand on the Bible and tell the f**king truth?"
-- Jon Stewart on The Daily Show March 21, 2007, as seen at Bartcop.com.
"He had arrived at the point where presently the illusions would cease and he would have entered upon the realities of life, and God help the man that has arrived at that point."
-- Mark Twain, "Joan of Arc."
"The specter of Karl Rove under the 'klieglights' would be political poison to Bush -- and to the GOP. So he's digging in. And the hole could get a lot deeper."
-- Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic.
"Monkeys, warm with envious spite, their most obliging friends will bite."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack.
First off, the solons of the MSM and right-wing media keep repeating the mantra that there was 'no underlying crime' to Bush dismissing eight federal prosecutors since they 'served at the pleasure of the president.' This is partial nonsense and entirely confusing. While the attorneys may be dismissed by the president for poor performance, they can't be fired for pursuing investigations that may involve criminal activity by the president's party; they take their oath of office, as does every employee of the federal government, to uphold the Constitution and serve the law of the land, not the president. Every case they bring is headed 'The United States vs. ...' not 'George W. Bush vs. ...' They are not personal lawyers for the president, and, if it can be proven that they were fired because they pursued political corruption cases -- which is part of their job -- there might very well be an underlying crime here. The White House cannot instruct the Justice Department to prosecute some cases favorable to its political prospects and ignore others, as Richard Nixon found out. If some of those on the right think that the president should be able to fire any attorney who doesn't 'serve at the president's pleasure' then, as the quote below advises, let George W. Bush pay their salaries from now on instead of the taxpayers. I'd also be interested to hear the opinions of the neocons if a President Bill Clinton had targeted and fired US attorneys who were prosecuting Democrats for corruption. Would there have been an 'underlying crime' then?
"Fine -- if all of the Justice Department's federal prosecutors 'serve at the pleasure of the president' and not on behalf of the people, then the president can damn well pay them out of his own pocket."
-- Max Publico
"To put it charitably, the Bush administration already has a reputation for being less than truthful on a wide range of matters -- and now we have a high-ranking Justice Department official [Monica Goodling], the legal liaison between Gonzales and the White House, opting to clam up. Even for many conservatives, this is too much."
-- Dick Polman, March 2007.
As the burgeoning mess in 'Fredo' Gonzales' Justice Department gradually unravels, an astute friend pointed out the other night that now Bush has his own 'Monicagate,' the Monica this time around being Gonzales' senior aide Monica Goodling. In one of the most twisted, illogical and laughable excuses I've heard since the Final Days of Tricky Dick, Goodling's lawyer John Dowd told the media that his client will take the Fifth like some sleazy mob boss rather than testify before Congress because "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real." (Wow -- this is better than the Twinkie defense.)
What are these horrible circumstances that might cause her potential legal jeopardy? Well, the Democrats who are now a majority in Congress may ask tough questions and hold her accountable for her answers. It's called the American system of justice.
"The Attorney General and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons."
-- George W. Bush, March 20, 2007.
"Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will 'decline to answer any and all questions' about the firings because she faces 'a perilous environment in which to testify.'"
-- The Washington Post, March 26, 2007.
"Poor little Monica -- if she testified truthfully she would be forced to lie and then those mean Democrats might charge her with perjury like Scooter Libby. It's all just so unfair!"
-- Elizabeth P. Scott
While I realize that Ms. Goodling graduated from something called Messiah College in Pennsylvania (bet it teaches a whizbang course in Creationism), and took her law degree from Pat Robertson's Regent University, this sturdy little DOJ satrap still should understand the basic concept of our legal system -- it's called 'adversarial' for the reason that two sides, a prosecution and a defense, present conflicting views in open court in order to get at the truth, and sometimes things can get rough; in fact, they are designed to get rough. Yes, if you're lying through your teeth, you might perceive such an environment as 'perilous.' Millions of muggers, murderers, con artists and other criminals have certainly felt that way. Of course, if Monica's telling the truth, then she should have no problem testifying openly -- isn't that what the neocons always tell us: If you have nothing to hide than there's no reason to take the Fifth?
So, what's Monica hiding if this is all just about the routine firing of some attorneys and there is 'no underlying crime'?
After all, the university where she got her law degree is dedicated to disgorging "Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world." Do they plan on changing the world through the Christian act of deception?
Hearkening back to the Clinton analogy in the first paragraph, what would be the reaction of the right if a senior Justice official in a Democratic administration had said they were taking the Fifth in a similar situation?
It should be remembered that Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky involved no criminal activity, except perhaps to connoisseurs of fine cigars. However unsavory or immoral some thought his affair with an intern it was legal; he was impeached by the Republican-majority Congress for lying under oath. The first Monicagate did not cost us a dime (except in Ken Starr's rabid puritanical prosecution) and hid no corruption; in the final analysis, it was no more important to the health and wealth of the nation than the winner of American Idol.
This Monicagate is different; the image of Karl Rove sitting in the White House directing through underlings DOJ firings for purely partisan reasons -- essentially having taxpayers, even those who can't stand George W. Bush, finance Rove's fantasy of a permanent Republican majority -- is a revelation of the cheesy corruption and cheapjack political schemes that have trumped all other concerns in this administration, even national security, and the White House has been gutted open, its ugly innards running out in plain view.
Pay close attention to this Monicagate; her taking the Fifth is the loose brick that will ultimately bring down the wall that Rove built, along with Karl himself.
"Time discovers truth."
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca
No comments:
Post a Comment