Obama Attorney General Holder A Threat To Carl Rove?

Updated January 28 at 10:58 AM CST

A day after Obama's inauguration Republicans forced at least a one week delay to the scheduled confirmation vote for Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s nominee for attorney general. Republican opposition towards the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General is being driven, it seems, by Karl Rove himself. [HuffPo14 Dec] In December Karl Rove appeared on the Today Show and signaled that Republicans ought to go after Mr. Holder. [Leahy Statement 12 Dec] U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said in December that he intended to slow the confirmation of Eric Holder for attorney general. [UPI 10 Dec]

Why? Because Karl Rove is under threat of prosecution for allegedly manipulating the Justice Department for political reasons.

On Jan. 28 the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended President Obama’s attorney general nominee Eric Holder to the full Senate for consideration by 17-2 vote. Six Republicans approved Holder, with Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John Cornyn (R-TX) as the only “nay” votes.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he would support Holder’s nomination, even though he had expressed reservations about the pick and forced Judiciary Committee to delay the vote by one week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the U.S. Attorneys scandal identified Karl Rove's involvement in firings of eight U.S. Attorneys because they allegedly would not bring false charges of voter and election fraud against prominent Democrats. The Justice Department’s Inspector General draws the same conclusion, but notes that it was thwarted from completing its investigation by the refusal of Karl Rove and those who worked for him to cooperate with the probe.

When the House Judiciary Committee of the 110th congress subpoenaed Rove to testify on the U.S. Attorney firings, and his role in the political prosecution of Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, Rove ignored multiple subpoenas and he did not testify. Political appointees in President Bush's Justice Department undermined those Congressional subpoenas and fought their enforcement through Bush's exertions of "executive privilege."

Bush's "executive privilege" assertion that anyone who'd ever worked for him was immune from answering questions from Congress, ever, was unprecedented and not supported by any existing case law. In August, the court agreed and ordered that Rove and others indeed must comply with congressional subpoenas. The order was stayed on appeal, but the DC Circuit Court of Appeals never took up the appeal, presumably because the subpoenas at the heart of the case were due to expire on January 3 with the end of the 110th congress.

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) had said that he had every intention of reissuing the subpoenas in the new Congress, and this time, President Bush will not be in office to reinforce and back up his claims of executive privilege through his DOJ's lawyers. This is why Republicans (seemingly at Rove's urging) stalled Holder's confirmation on Jan 21st.

On Jan. 26 House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) did indeed reissue the subpoenas former Bush Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove about his alleged involved in the political prosecution of an Alabama governor and the firings of nine US Attorneys. The subpoena, approved by an earlier vote of the House, was issued pursuant to "authority granted in H.R. 5 (111th Congress), and calls for Mr. Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009."

Specifically, it enjoins Rove "to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman."

Rove's Washington, D.C. lawyer, Robert Luskin, issued a statement published early morning Jan. 27 saying, "It's generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege as to matters occurring during their term. We'll solicit the views of the new White House counsel and, if there is a disagreement, assume that the matter will be resolved among the courts, the president and the former president."

While "the privilege belongs to the president who asserts it," President Obama and Attorney General Holder will have to decide whether or not to enforce President Bush's claim of executive privilege should Rove again refuse to testify. The Obama administration could take the side of Bush and Rove to defend the concept of executive privilege, however, it seems unlikely that the Obama Justice Department would take that position.

Rove and former president Bush could still fight new congressional subpoenas in the courts on their own, but what has Rove and Republicans worried is whether or not Holder will direct DOJ attorneys to argue against the "privilege" that Bush invoked to keep Rove out of the witness chair. They have good reason to worry; President Obama signed an Executive Order on Presidential Records at 1:22 pm EST on Wednesday concerning "who gets to assert executive privilege." On signing Obama stated,

"I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.

Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

The Executive Order on Presidential Records says that former presidents can claim privilege, but they have no automatic ability to prevent the release of their records if the current administration deems it to be in the national interest. Plus, President Barack Obama is already staffing his Justice Department with some of Bush's fiercest critics, among them lawyers who were fired by President Bush or who felt ethically compelled to quit his administration. “They have alarmingly narrow views of executive power,” said a former Bush aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. [Politico]

Clearly, Obama's Freedom of Information and Presidential Records Executive Orders and his initial DOJ staffing with Bush critics worries Rove and Republicans in general. The Senate’s Judiciary Committee was schedule to vote on Eric Holder’s nomination at 2:30 EST of the same day Obama signed the Presidential Records order. Within a half hour of Obama’s executive order, the Republicans, led by Texas Senator John Cornyn and Senator Spector, announced they would block Holder’s confirmation for at least a week and possibly longer.

Rove also could now face additional subpoenas and legal exposure on a number of other incidents—ranging from a Texas money laundering scandal to the Abramoff case. [Paul Alexander 26 Nov]

Cornyn himself may be concerned about here-to-fore "privileged" emails related to the Abramoff Scandal. Some speculate that these emails may mention not only Rove's name, but also Cornyn's name. Before Cornyn became a US Senator, he was a justice on the Supreme Court of Texas. In that role some allege that Cornyn may have had some involvement in Abramoff's scams on Native American Tribes in Texas. [OpEdNews]

Plus, Tom DeLay, Don Young, Karl Rove, Roy Blunt, John Ascroft, Dana Rorhabacher, Jerry Lewis and the countless other Republicans, who have been implicated in the Abramoff Scandal, are still awaiting action from the DOJ. Cornyn may also be worried that Holder will move the Abramoff prosecutions onto the front burner, which, if he was at all involve in the Native American scam, increases the possibility that his involvement would be made public. [dailykos]

Bush's executive privilege claim has blocked Congress and good-government groups seeking to get access to key Bush White House documents that might shed light on a range of subjects, from the level of White House involvement in the US Attorney firings, to the Valerie Plame leak probe, to the decision to invade Iraq to the Abramoff scams.

President Obama's new presidential records executive order combined with his memorandum reviving the Freedom of Information Act will likely make all of Bush's White House documents much more accessible, particularly when requested under subpoenas supported by Obama's Attorney General Holder.

By extension, Obama's executive order and memorandum likely signals that Rove, and others like Miers and Bolten, will no longer be personally shielded by a DOJ fighting to protect executive privilege either. Obama's DOJ, under Attorney General Holder, will likely argue just the opposite - that they are not protected by executive privilege.

This would quickly leave Rove, and others like Miers and Bolten, who ignored subpoenas from the 110th congress with the unpleasant option to appear under subpoena before the 111th congress to claim a fifth amendment right to not testify against themselves on every question asked or sit in jail on a contempt of congress charge. Memos, emails and all other documents authored by Bush Administration officials will likely be readily available upon request for congressional review.

Since the U.S. attorneys were fired allegedly because they would not bring false charges of voter and election fraud against prominent Democrats, Rove could be asked to back up his many claims of rampant voter and election fraud by Democrats, should he appear before congress. This might prove inconvenient timing for Republicans pushing to fight rampant voter fraud with restrictive voter photo id laws in states, like Texas, where they still control the legislature. Inconvenient because every investigation of this issue has found that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent; Rove has no facts to cite to support his claims.

Therefore, the more Rove and his followers can impugn the credibility of Holder and characterize him as a political flunky, the more "political" validity Rove and Republicans in general might find in claiming that attempts to hold him accountable constitutes little more than a witch hunt.

Related:

• Executive order on Presidential Records grants broader public access to the records of previous presidential administrations, reversing restrictions implemented by former President George W. Bush.
• Memorandum [PDF] calling for new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text] agency guidelines and a presumption of transparency.

Organizing for America In Collin County

On January 15th Barack Obama announced the formation of a new group known as Organizing for America as the "Obama 2.0" legacy successor to Obama's campaign organization.

While running to become the President of the United States, Barack Obama's campaign recruited millions of campaign supporters and contributors through online social networks. Over two million joined myBarackObama.com, a website fusing social networking with volunteer political organizing, while more than 5 million supported Obama's profile across other social websites like MySpace and Facebook. More than a million people asked for campaign text messages on their cell phones and yet more kept up with campaign information on Twitter. Most importantly, over 13 million voters signed up for regular e-mail fundraising pitches and other communications.

On election day, a staggering 25 percent of Obama voters were already directly linked to him--and one another--through these several socio-political network websites. Campaigns largely dissolve after elections, but Obama's campaign infrastructure, so far, remains largely intact and very active.

A spirited post-election debate broke out among top Obama campaign organizers over how to leverage the e-mail address book of 13 million entries and the national networks of motivated volunteers. If you think this sounds familiar, you're probably right; This was the same question faced by Howard Dean's "Blogosphere" of volunteers in the aftermath of his 2004 defeat. Dean's campaign operation ultimately became Democracy for America organization.

By the weekend of December 6th and 7th, hundreds of field staffers and some key volunteers had decided to get together in a closed-door summit at a Chicago hotel to exchange ideas face-to-face on how to evolve the Obama campaign structure into a post-election political force. In an effort to open the process campaign manager David Plouffe's also sent out an email in mid-December asking volunteers to host and attend house parties to discuss ideas on how to best leverage the Obama network in the months and years ahead.

Many Obama supporters across Collin County and in 2,000 cities around the U.S. attended local house parties to share organizing ideas and identify key issues they wished to support. Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, said the campaign had received about 500,000 responses to e-mail surveys and the house parties. On Dec 30, 2008 the Pew Internet & American Life Project released results of a post-election voter engagement survey that showed 62% of Obama voters overall expected to lobby others to support Obama administration policies over the next year. Almost half (46%) expected ongoing communication from Obama, whether via email, text message, or social networking sites.

According to a email sent to supporters by Plouffe to report the results of the mid-December house party meetings:

• People are excited to volunteer their active support of Obama's legislative agenda, particularly on key interest issues of education, the environment, health care, poverty, and the economy.
• 86 percent of respondents feel it's important to help Barack's administration pass legislation through grassroots support.
• 68 percent feel it's important to help elect state and local candidates who share the same vision for our country.
• And a staggering 10 percent of respondents indicated that they would be interested in running for elected office.

The most popular goal identified by the half a million Obama activist responses was to help the Obama administration pass legislation. If Obama’s initiatives stall in Congress, these activists will presumably back him by lobbying their elected representatives in the Senate and House. Combining the White House bully pulpit with constituent lobbying across the U.S. could have a dramatic effect on Obama’s presidency. Previous presidents have gone over the heads of Congress by appealing to the public, of course, but never with a parallel whip operation targeting Senators and Congressional District Representatives in their backyards.

On January 15th Barack Obama announced the formation of a new group known as "Organizing for America" that aims to continue the grassroots advocacy that supported his run for the presidency. "As President, I will need the help of all Americans to meet the challenges that lie ahead," Obama said in a video message, "That's why I'm asking people like you who fought for change during the campaign to continue fighting for change in your communities."

The key idea behind "Organizing for America" — is that the 20th century model of communicating with and motivating supporters has given way to a 21st century Internet media model of communication channels built around YouTube, Social Networking, Twittering, etc. — as was evident during his campaign and as is already evident in the White House’s media strategy. (see White House YouTube video channel bar in the right sidebar of this blog)

The new group will work within the Democratic National Committee, led by Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, to advance the Obama agenda. "President-elect Obama has laid the foundation to meet the great challenges facing our nation, but we can succeed only if we build grassroots support for the administration's agenda," said Kaine in a DNC release announcing the formation of Organizing for America.

Obama's networks of thousands of trained field organizers and tens of thousands of neighborhood coordinators can also provide valuable grassroots support for every Democratic Party candidate committed to, or thinking about, running for office in the 2010 mid-term and 2012 election cycles. And not just national and and state office candidates, but also local county and city office candidates - even in Republican strongholds like Collin County.

As in many counties around Texas and the U.S., Obama's network of trained field organizers and neighborhood coordinators in Collin County are already moving on to form a local "Organizing for America" coordinated campaign organization to field and/or support Democratic Candidates across Collin County in the 2010 mid-term and 2012 election cycles. The Collin County Coordinated Campaign organization will likely be modeled somewhat after the highly successful "Coordinated Campaign '08" group of Harris County Texas who closely cooperated with the Harris County Democratic Party.

The Texas Progressive Alliance selected the Harris County Democratic Coordinated Campaign as its “Texan of the Year” for 2008:

The Harris County Democratic Coordinated Campaign faced a daunting task in 2008: Take Texas' largest county, which hadn't elected a Democrat to any county wide office in over a decade and which went for George Bush by ten points in 2004, and turn it blue. And they had to do it amid the high expectations that followed Dallas' fabled blue sweep in 2006, with the Harris County GOP knowing they were being targeted. And they had to start from scratch, since there hadn't been any kind of effort like it in anyone's memory. Oh, and in the middle of it all they had to abandon their headquarters and move to a new location thanks to the damage that Hurricane Ike wrought [and creation of a Coordinated Campaign'08 website].

The key was strong leadership, starting with the vision of people like Party Chairman Gerry Birnberg and Dave Mathieeson, the operational know-how of Executive Director Jamaal Smith and Bill Kelly, and the coordination and hard work of many, many people. They developed a plan, matched it with a budget and coordinated with all the candidates. They opened branch offices all around the county and drew on the energy of Democrats new and old. They knocked on doors, made calls, sent mail, and spread the message of Democratic change everywhere.

And in the end, they succeeded, with Democrats winning 27 of 34 county wide races. They boosted turnout in the traditional Democratic areas, and improved performance all across the county. They relentlessly pushed an early-vote message, which translated into leads of 50,000 votes or more for most candidates going into Election Day. They stressed the importance of voting Democratic all the way down the ballot, which minimized under voting in the lower-profile races. They brought in new voters and brought back those who had given up hope, and got them all on the same page.

Add it all up, and the new year will bring new Democratic judges, a new Sheriff, a new County Attorney, a new District Clerk, and two new County Department of Education trustees. For that, and for the promise that 2010 will bring even more success and help pave the way towards turning all of Texas blue, the Texas Progressive Alliance is proud to name the Harris County Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign its Texan of the Year for 2008.

Related Postings:

• A Blue Collin Co
• Can Texas Go Blue Like Colorado?
• Republican Brand Growing Weak In Texas
• The Incredible Shrinking Republican Base
• Politics Is No Longer Local - It's Viral
• 
  
• Texas voters increasingly unhappy with GOP - DMN
• Poll's shocking SOS for Texas GOP - DMN

America's Dismal Health Care System

RawStory.Com A January 19 episode of BBC One's Panorama, the world's longest running television documentary show, tackles the dismal state of health care in the United States, the estimated 45 million uninsured citizens, the pharmaceutical industry's rigged pricing against the American patient, and the insurance industry's efforts to deny care whenever possible. Due to licensing restrictions, the episode, "What Now, Mr. President?," is only officially available to view online from connections within the United Kingdom. However, it has also been uploaded to YouTube, where it appears in three parts at left.

The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 47 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar.

Our health care system has come to the point where none of the many incremental reforms will work. The business model of insurance has failed, and we need to rebuild the system on a social insurance model.

• Premiums alone for private health insurance have grown by more than 100 percent since 2000, and are projected to consume all of average household income by 2025, clearly an impossibility way before then.

• According to the Milliman Medical Index, the typical American family of four spent $15,600 on total health care costs in 2008, fully one-quarter of the typical combined family income of $60,000; most consider 10 percent of family income to be the threshold of underinsurance.

• The administrative overhead of private insurers is five to nine times higher than not-for-profit Medicare (average for commercial carriers 19.9 percent, investor-owned Blues 26.5 percent, Medicare 3 percent).

• The inefficiency and bureaucracy of our 1,300 private insurers are not sustainable (e.g., according to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, there are 17,000 different hea1th plans in Chicago).

• Private insurers offer much less choice than traditional Medicare; there are near-monopolies in 95 percent of HMO/PPO metropolitan markets, enough to trigger anti-trust concerns by the United States Department of Justice.

• Because of costs, about 75 million Americans are either uninsured of underinsured, with large segments of the population forgoing necessary care and having worse health care outcomes; the United States now ranks nineteenth among nineteen industrialized countries in reducing preventable deaths from amenable causes.

• Wall Street is already questioning the future prospects of the private insurance industry; as of November 18, 2008, the average share prices of the top five private insurers were down by between 60 percent and 77 percent, compared to the Standard and Poor’s 42 percent.

* Physicians for a National Health Program

Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. The Physicians' Proposal endorses a fundamental change in America's health care - the creation of a comprehensive National Health Insurance (NHI) Program. Such a program - which in essence would be an expanded and improved version of Medicare - would cover every American for all necessary medical care.

• Click here to learn more about single-payer national health insurance
• Click here to read the entire proposal (pdf)

Americans should not have to turn 65 years old or become disabled to have access to a public health care program that controls overhead costs, provides broad, affordable access to care and protects patients against big bills. By almost every measure, Medicare is cheaper and more effective than private plans, according to government and academic research. Medicare spends 2% on overhead; private insurers typically spend 25% to 27% for overhead and profit.

A recent Congressional Budget Office report comparing health care reform options found that allowing Americans to buy into Medicare before turning 65 would lead to more people with coverage at lower costs. A UC Berkeley study last month found that a public option like Medicare could result in $1 trillion in national savings over 10 years by driving down costs, improving efficiencies and fostering innovation. [LATimes]

Big health insurance corporations and too many Democratic lawmakers do not agree; Democratic House Whip: "health care is off the table for 2009"
TheHill.com - Posted: 01/25/09 04:05 PM

A prominent House Democrat said he doesn't expect a comprehensive health care reform bill to pass Congress in 2009, saying an incremental approach to covering the uninsured would be better "than to go out and just bite something you can't chew." House Majority Whip James Clyburn's (D-S.C.) time line on tackling health care is at odds with the timetable proposed by Senate Democrats [and President Obama] and could represent a major shift in the House Democrats' strategy of dealing with the uninsured. During an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program that aired on Sunday, Clyburn said he doesn't anticipate that comprehensive health care legislation will be approved in 2009.

No one should be very surprised at congressional foot dragging on this issue; 533 members of Congress, out of 535, have received campaign contributions from within the health sector and lobbyists are putting their money to work to prevent reforms from taking place.
RawStory.Com

"We plan on mounting a national campaign," warned health insurance industry lobbyist Angela Hunter, "and what we hope to do is to, number one, get some articles in the newspaper explaining what the problems are that we see with the plan. Two: Educate lawmakers, people who are members of our organizations, their clients--to go and lobby members of Congress--call them on the phone, visit them in their offices, and to just do everything that we can possibly do to preserve the freedom of choice for individuals in health care in America."

Write, call or email both U.S. Senate and U.S. House leadership and tell them to pass a single payer national health insurance program this year.

You can find the contact information for the U.S. House and Senate at the following links:
U.S. Senate	U.S. House

Note: U.S. Senators for Texas, John Cornyn (R) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) as well as Collin County's Texas 3rd district Republican Congressman, Sam Johnson, and 4rd district Republican Congressman, Ralph Hall, are on record as being adamantly opposed to any national health care program. (3rd and 4th districts: Map)

Related Links:

• Dems pull the Healthcare football again

Democrats Better for the Economy Than GOP

The Washington Post reports that Bush presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency, while the New York Times reports his historic failures in GDP growth, job stagnation and stock market performance. As it turns out, Bush is just the latest Republican to confirm the maxim that the economy overall performs better under the Democratic Party. The New York Times also reported in October that governance under the Democratic Party has more successfully promoted American capitalism as a whole. The last eight years shows as myth that Republican Conservative governance yields superior stewardship over the American economy. Now, in 2009, in the aftermath of eight years of Republican Conservative governance, investors gear up for a deluge of weak earnings and the biggest plunge in GDP in 26 years.

Related Postings:

• The Economy Crumbled
• For the GOP It's 1933 Déjà vu All Over Again
• FDR's New Deal
• Reconstituting Conservative Ideology As Good Governance

Related Links:

• Global outlook to be slashed - again
• Earnings, economy - here comes 'terrible'
• FDIC closes 1st Centennial Bank
• Bigger bank bailouts coming?