Download | play

Rep. John Conyers grilled former Bushie John Yoo, who was a major player in instituting torture as US policy today's hearing called: "Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties."

Watch Yoo stammer and stonewall Conyers repeated efforts to get him to admit what he said previously. That the president could torture whenever he thought it was just and he could do it in the most heinous way possible.

Conyers: It was reported that you were asked if a president could order a suspects child be tortured in a gruesome fashion and you responded that "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that. Is that accurate?

Yoo: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it's accurate because it took what I said out of context. (I see) The quote stopped right before I continued to explain the number of things which I appreciate the opportunity...

Conyers: So far what I read was accurate, but there was more?

Yoo: But it stops at mid sentence, I mean I finished the sentence during the debate but I didn't get a chance to...

Conyers: OK, thank you...Is there anything professor Yoo that the president can not order to be done to a suspect if he believed it necessary for national defense?

Yoo: Ahhh, Mr Chairman, I think it goes back to the quote you just read because..

Conyers: No, I'm just asking you the question, maybe it doesn't, but what do you think?

Yoo: I think it's the same question I was asked..

Conyers: Well, what's the answer?

Yoo: First, can I make clear I'm not talking about...

Continue reading »

The Department of Justice's inspector general has finally released its report (434 pg pdf) on the FBI's involvement in detainee interrogations in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Reuters reports that the "Bush administration's top security officials ignored FBI concerns" and that the "FBI, alarmed by interrogation techniques such as the use of snarling dogs and forced nudity, clashed with the Defense Department and CIA over their use." Please do dig into the document and let us know in the comments any parts that may merit more attention. Emptywheel noticed already that "this report does not and cannot discuss the issues that OLC, Condi Rice, and John Ashcroft apparently faced tells you what we need to know about torture." Hmmm?

Also, David Kurtz notes that:

The IG's report has been delayed in part because the Pentagon slow-rolled its review of the report for classified information.

FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress last month that he had "reached out" to the Pentagon and the Department of Justice "in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate -- let me put it that way." But it was clear from his testimony that the Justice Department's essentially unilateral legalization of torture had prevented the FBI from investigating the abuses its agents witnessed.

For those interested, here is Chairman Conyers' response (via email, after the jump)

Continue reading »

TPM Muckraker's Paul Kiel:

Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."

[...] Yesterday, in somewhat more diplomatic language, Conyers refused Rove's offer to testify in writing. ...(more)

Between Conyers here along with Rep. Robert Wexler's stance on Rove, Biden's literally calling BS on Bush, and the House's actually voting to cut off funding for Iraq and setting a plan to pull the troops out, it really has me wondering if there hasn't been some kind of a cosmic shift in the Democratic Party lately. Perhaps the third win over the GOP in red districts has lent them some confidence, but whatever it is, may we have some more of that, please?

It appears that despite record disapproval ratings and two failed occupations under his belt already, George Bush and his various mouthpieces are determined to beat the war drums to attack Iran.

Rep. John Conyers isn't having it:

As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President's well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs".6 As one legal expert has explained, your Administration's "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."7

Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president. 8

We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.

Please call your Congressperson at 202-224-3121 or e-mail them and ask them to sign on to this letter.

John Conyers is a man who authored the MLK Day Holiday Act:

Conyers says his biggest achievement has been the Martin Luther King Holiday Act of 1983. "[It's] by far and away the thing I am most proud of," he says of the 15-year struggle to make that dream a reality."

He was down in Memphis at the tribute today and blasted John McCain for voting against his bill in 1983 to make MLK day a National holiday. The MSNBC host as usual had to stick up for McCain by saying that he was there apologizing for that vote so all should be forgiven. That only infuriated Conyers.

Download | play Download | play (rough transcript)

Conyers: When John McCain was my colleague in the House and I introduced the Holiday bill, he voted against it in 1983...Now I believe in forgiveness, but it's incredible that all he can do is show up on April 4th and think that everything is OK. We're not just African Americans, but we're most people.

Host: Rep. Conyers I think in all fairness we should say , perhaps you did not hear it but certainly John McCain did offer an apology for that first vote in 1983 when you did put forward that bill.

You had not heard that? He did make that apology sir so that he regretted voting that way back then.

Conyers: Yea, well look. I'm happy. That was in 1983, he didn't make any apology, he didn't make any apologies in 1987, so I guess I'm thrilled and forgiving that finally when he's running for President he remembers to apologize. No, that's great. (satirically)

Host: Well, he has done so today and perhaps you'll take that as some sort of appeasement, but anyway...

Updated: Nice job the host did in trying to praise John McCain's phony apology today. Yea, just get appeased! I mean this is ridiculous. It's like her job to make excuses for John McCain's actions.

Good job by Conyers for calling McSame on it too. Conyers was obviously not buying her line of reasoning. If John McCain thinks he can go down to Memphis and throw out a few words to try and appease his actions, he's got another thing coming. Of course the media will paint him as a brave man, straight talking away his prior sins, but he was almost 50 years old when he joined the HOUSE of Representatives and voted down MLK Day.

Matt Stoller finds an interesting graphic. Rick Perlstein takes us down the Conservative memory lane with excerpts of Nixonland.

The Gavel:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. released the following statement to President Bush’s commitment to work on foreign surveillance legislation through the recess:

“The President’s efforts to cast blame on FISA, echoed by his allies in Congress, show an appalling disregard for the facts. He threatened to veto any extension of the Protect America Act and, following his lead, every single Republican in the House voted against the 21 day extension I sponsored in the House. The President and House Republicans cannot have it both ways, simultaneously arguing that the PAA is essential to national security and also engineering the defeat of an extension of it. The consequences for inaction are their responsibility.

“Unfortunately, it is the same old tired rhetoric of fear that the country overwhelmingly rejected in the 2006 elections.

“From what I have seen from the Justice Department documents so far, there is no need to provide amnesty to telecommunication companies who are protected under current law, as long as they and the government are acting accordingly. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe, as the President seems to believe, that providing amnesty to these companies is a more compelling public interest than our Constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Chairman Silvestre Reyes of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also issued a statement challenging Bush to "put partisanship aside" on the FISA debate:

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down - not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

The Gavel:

Today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers testified before the Committee on Rules in support of statutory contempt and civil litigating authority resolutions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Text of Resolution as Introduced (pdf)

Recommending that the House cite someone for contempt of Congress is a step that the Committee, and I as Chairman, take with great reluctance. Unfortunately, it is a step that is clearly necessary to preserve the role and constitutional prerogatives of Congress as an institution, in addition to getting to the bottom of the U.S. Attorney controversy.[..]:

If the executive branch can disregard Congressional subpoenas in this way, we no longer have a system of checks and balances. That is the cornerstone of our democracy, and it is our bipartisan responsibility to protect it. As our former colleague, Republican Mickey Edwards, has explained, taking action is crucial in order to defend Congress “as a separate, independent, and completely equal branch of government.”

Because the White House has refused to reconsider its confrontational position, I believe we have no choice but to bring this contempt resolution to the floor promptly and to ask that this Committee adopt a rule to facilitate doing so.

The wheels of justice are grinding, ever so slowly, but grinding nonetheless.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tells WH Counsel Fred Fielding that Miers and Bolton need to come before Congress and be sworn under oath, or be held in Contempt of Congress. They've ignored eight such attempts in the past. I'd say that was pretty indicative of contempt, wouldn't you?

  AP Via Yahoo:

House Democrats on Monday targeted two of President Bush's longtime aides for criminal contempt citations, escalating a legal fight over executive privilege and access to White House deliberations on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his panel would vote Wednesday on citing White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers for contempt of Congress.

"It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter," Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement after being told again by their attorneys that Bolten and Miers would not comply with the committee's subpoenas.

The administration showed no signs of budging from its position that the president's current and former advisers are immune from congressional subpoenas and that any White House documents related to the dismissals are protected by executive privilege. Read more...

Via The Washington Post:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." Read more...

This should come as a shock to no one. King George is once again over reaching and claiming powers he does not have. Write your House Representatives and let them know how you feel. Inherent Contempt is the only option left for Rep. Conyers, tell your rep that you want to see Harriet Miers held to account for her unlawful behavior. Remember, be nice...

  The Gavel:

As noted earlier, Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Chairwoman Linda Sánchez ruled to reject the White House's privilege claims as a basis for refusing to comply with the Committee's subpoena for White House documents, and the ruling was upheld by the Subcommittee. Full Committee Chairman John Conyers has just written a letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding informing him of the ruling and warning of consequences to come should the White House not comply by 10 a.m. on Monday July 23, 2007.  Read the letter here...

Raw Story:

Fox News's Martha MacCallum did a second take of her apology to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) for mixing him up with indicted Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson in a Monday afternoon broadcast.[..]

The Live Desk host's 30-second apology for confusing Conyers with another African-American lawmaker came after an 8-second clip on Tuesday afternoon in which MacCallum failed to explain the particular error her production team had made.[..]

Fox pinned the error on a young staff member in an Associated Press report Tuesday night.

"Fox blamed the mistake on a 22-year-old production assistant hurriedly grabbing a wrong videotape. Fox's Washington bureau chief, Brian Wilson, said he was mortified by the error," the news service reported.

Monica Goodling is currently testifying, you can watch it on CSPAN 3.  Chat it up...

Christy is liveblogging the testimony at FDL here.

  Via TPMuckraker:

The House Judiciary Committee is prepared to use subpoenas to compel the testimony of Karl Rove and other White House officials, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcomittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) warned White House counsel Fred Fielding today.

"We are today writing to express our extreme disappointment in the White House's rebuff of efforts by the Judiciary Committee to obtain voluntary cooperation with our investigation concerning the firing of at least nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and related matters," they wrote. "We write to make one last appeal for such voluntary cooperation." You can read the letter here. Read more...  

If you haven't checked it out yet, in his new book, Armed Madhouse, Greg Palast claims to have procured some 500 of Rove's e-mails. You know, the ones he's refusing to turn over to the Judiciary Committee?  

Palast: I know because I have Karl Rove’s emails. No kidding. He and his team aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer. They sent copies of their plans to GeorgeWBush.ORG instead of GeorgeWBush.COM addresses — and, heh heh, they ended up in my in-box. Who says this job ain’t fun?

Via AMERICAblog :

Steny Hoyer and John Conyers just pulled a fast one on the GOP. The GOP has been refusing to support the hate crimes bill because it doesn't include members of the US Armed Forces and senior citizens. Conyers just rose and basically said, okay, I'll add them. The Republicans' response? Uh, no.

The Republicans have been railing for days about how this legislation doesn't cover our Armed Forces and senior citizens, and now that the Dems offer to put our Armed Forces and seniors in this legislation, the Republicans said no and affirmatively stopped the Democrats from doing it anyway.

That means the Republicans had no intent on helping our Armed Forces and seniors, on protecting them. It was just a stunt. The GOP leaders in Congress just got up and used our Armed Forces and seniors as political fodder when they had no intent on actually doing anything to help our Armed Forces and seniors.

Here's Nancy Pelosi speaking about the Hate Crimes Bill

The bill did eventually pass, although President Bush has vowed to veto this legislation. Let's look at this: inadequate equipment, extended tours, Walter Reed, no armor, and now he won't sign legislation against hate crimes that supports the troops. What up, Mr. President?