Sorry for the long hiatus. I recently moved from the suburbs of Chicago to NW Arkansas, right in the middle of the Ozarks. As you can imagine, it's been hectic. Posting may still be light, but I wanted to get back into it.
The other day, the "illustrious" (that is, infamous) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, longtime leftist Democrat Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, did a document dump in his never ending fruitless attempt to nail Karl Rove on something, in this case for the dismissal of several U.S. Attorneys during the tenure of the Bush administration. Being one of the more partisan Democrats, Conyers sees that his party is in real trouble with the American public over the attempts by President Obama and the "leadership" of the Congressional Democrats to shove their horrible budget-busting health care "reform", and Conyers, being a "good" Democrat, seems to want to distract the American people with his inane vendetta against the Bush administration. Irony can certainly be ironic; Conyers, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is responsible for oversight of federal law enforcement and the judiciary, yet he didn't bother with any of this oversight in his own household as his wife, former Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers (another Democrat), is on her way to prison for violating federal law.
Back to the issue at hand, Rove and the U.S. Attorneys.
Democrats have long wanted to get Rove into prison, but haven't managed to make anything stick. First it was the Plame fiasco, which saw "Scooter" Libby convicted for obstructing justice, but nothing on Rove. Then there was Conyers' attempt to tie Rove to what the Democrat called a political witch hunt against fellow Democrat and former Alabama governor Don Siegelman; the only problem is that Siegelman was convicted of his crimes, and a recent appeal by Siegelman upheld the conviction of most of the charges.
With the issue of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys, Conyers and the Democrats have been trying to make it out as something political. The only problem with Conyers' assertion is the actual law regarding the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. Subsection (c) of 18 U.S.C. § 541 states the following:
Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
There isn't anything there about what reason the President needs to provide to justify a U.S. Attorney being removed, just that the removal can be done at any time.
As we can see, Chairman Conyers doesn't seem to care about the law. The House Judiciary Committee released a statement to go along with the dump of documents. The statement purportedly shows a slew of new "evidence" that really isn't evidence at all. Here's the key section:
"I have provided a copy of the materials released today to special U.S. Attorney Nora Dannehy to assist in her effort to determine whether federal criminal charges are appropriate and to pursue any such charges," said Conyers.
Conyers doesn't even know what laws were potentially violated. The New York Times piece I linked to earlier expands on what Conyers said:
A federal prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, is continuing to investigate the firings, including whether officials gave false or misleading statements to Congress.
But a paragraph earlier, it looks like the officials possibly giving false or misleading statements to Congress don't include Rove:
Even so, the Justice Department in February 2007 told members of Congress in a letter as the controversy was unfolding that it was “not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.” Both Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers distanced themselves from the letter in their Congressional testimony, saying the Justice Department’s statements were incomplete and in some cases inaccurate.
So if no law was violated in how the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed, the only laws Rove might have a problem with are those having to do with lying to Congress. Yet, the Times acknowledges this didn't happen. So the question remains, what is the purpose of the continuing investigation of Karl Rove since it doesn't look like he violated any laws.
But that doesn't matter to the "master" of the law of the land, Chairman Conyers, who can't seem to master the law in his own house. In fact, Conyers hasn't seemed to bother about the IG-Gate scandal where several Inspectors General have been fired by the Obama administration without the prompt notification to Congress of the reasons as is required by the law (subsection (b) of 5a U.S.C. § 3; Robert Stacy McCain has been all over this, as has Byron York of the Washington Examiner).
And of course, there is the case of the decision of current Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department dismissing an already won case against the New Black Panther Party for that group's illegal voter suppression activities in Philadelphia last year. The U.S. Commission of Civil Rights sent not only a first, but a second letter to the Department seeking an explanation for the dismissing of those charges. Where has Conyers been in all this? The last we hear from him on this was a month ago:
Wolf, [ed. note--- Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)] ranking member of the House Judiciary subcommittee that funds Justice, has called on Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) to hold a hearing into the matter. He said one of the Black Panther members was allegedly carrying a local Democratic committee card.
In a letter to Conyers, Wolf wrote that Justice’s inaction ‘merits congressional attention, if only to force the department to explain its decision to dismiss this case.”
He noted that Conyers held 70-hearings on the political firings of several U.S. Attorneys under former Bush.
Conyers has not ruled out holding an investigative hearing but wants to take the situation “one-step at a time,” Democratic committee sources said.
These sources said Conyers told Holder to respond to the GOP request for answers after speaking with Wolf about the matter on Thursday.
And has Holder complied? Eh...no, at least not as of the end of last month. Like I said, Conyers hasn't been heard from on this in the last month.
Conyers and the Democrats, along with their ridiculous leftists puppets, whined for years about how the Bush administration politicized justice, using this government office for partisan political purposes. How have they responded? By using government offices for partisan political purposes, especially Conyers. As I mentioned, Conyers, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is responsible for oversight of federal law enforcement and the judiciary, yet he didn't bother with any of this oversight in his own household as his wife is on her way to prison for violating federal law. And as can be seen, he doesn't seem to be bothered with any oversight when it comes to members of his own party being in the White House. Who actually has politicized justice? You know the answer.