Forget Gonzo, let's tie Rove to criminals more firmly, shall we?

In 2002, GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff was secretly lobbying on behalf of the Guam Superior Court against a judicial reform bill pending in the U.S. Congress. Abramoff won this contract by telling Court officials he had access to then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and other Republican leaders. Perhaps due to Abramoff's lobbying, the judicial reform bill died at the end of the 107th Congress in 2002. Instead of paying Abramoff directly, the Court funneled its payments through 36 separate $9,000 checks made out to a lawyer named Howard Hills in Laguna Beach, California.

In November 2002, a grand jury in Guam began investigating the secret lobbying arrangement. The day after the grand jury issued subpoenas, the Bush Administration demoted the U.S. prosecutor in charge of the investigation, Frederick Black, who had been the acting U.S. attorney in Guam for 12 years. Black was replaced by Leonardo Rapadas, an attorney recommended to Karl Rove by the Guam Republican Party, and barred from investigating public corruption cases.

Scroll down to page 104. Goddess Bless Louise! Public Campaign Action has more:

The story of the eight US Attorneys who were involved in public corruption investigations centered on elected officials and subsequently fired has ensnared Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and New Mexico Reps. Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson -- now, as details resurface about the 2002 firing of a US Attorney investigating lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the trail leads to the office of Karl Rove.

According to the Associated Press, New Mexico Republican Party Chair Allen Weh complained to Rove about the activities US Attorney David Iglesias, who has said he received pressure from Reps. Domenici and Wilson to accelerate his investigation of Democrats in advance of the 2006 elections. Weh claims he then received assurances from Rove that Iglesias would be dismissed.

It would appear this was not an isolated incident, indeed the White House now says "presidential adviser Karl Rove served as a conduit for complaints about federal prosecutors." So, let's head back to 2002, when a US Attorney leading up a grand jury investigation into the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff in Guam was removed from his position the day after he issued subpoenas in connection with the investigation.

His dismissal -- and replacement by Leonardo Rapadas who came highly recommended to Rove by the Guam Republican Party -- effectively ended the investigation of Abramoff, which dealt with a secret contract he held with Guam's Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill; work for which he was paid by checks shuttled through a California lawyer's office.

At the time this was going on, Karl Rove's assistant was a woman named Susan Ralston, who had previously worked for Jack Abramoff.

If Karl Rove serves as the "conduit" for complaints about attorneys heading up public corruption investigations, and many of those attorneys are dismissed in the middle of those investigations, does this constitute a pattern of abuse wherein attorneys investigating elected officials are punished for attempting to enforce accountability among lawmakers?

We're concerned that US Attorneys are not sufficiently insulated against partisan politics, and that their essential investigations of public corruption are being hampered by political maneuvering. Click here to write Congress and demand they do more to protect US Attorneys working for the public good.

Surely there's got to be a law against this sort of thing? Democrats? Legalists? Anyone?

I'm in no way surprised, it completely fits the authoritarian pattern of "in all things, be concered with the political agenda first" that we've seen from the Bush Administration from day one. "An impartial Justice system? Natch!" But still, tampering with ongoing investigations, for people who are later proven to be criminals? That just can't be legal.

But I would not be a proper Correntian doomsayer if I didn't share with you a little bet I took with the mighty TRex:

I had a long conversation with a fellow blogger today about whether or not we will ever see justice served up, hot or cold, to any of the thugs in the BushCo junta. My friend is one of those people who can be crushingly cynical, but who also has an irritating habit of being right. She says no, that executive priilege will protect them to the limits of their terms in office and beyond.

I don't remember putting it as "executive privilege" exactly but the point stands. Democrats have plenty of time to prove me wrong, and that blatant abuse of power is a crime serious enough to warrant their attention. They could set in motion those wheels of justice they control, fund and oversee. But I don't think they will. I think the general attitude will remain, "hold some embarrassing hearings to make our candidates look better in 08, and when we take back the White House and gain seats in Congress, we'll forget all about the dark days of the Bush administration and focus on our major corporate donor's own issues.

The lesson of the Nixon gang still hasn't sunk in. There is one, and only one response to corruption and abuse of power: indictments. There are many ways to make them happen, many pressures that can be applied, investigations that can lead to charges, putting criminals under oath in front of committees, etc. We're seeing some of this now, but I bet the tyranosaurus two of my finest American dollars that Rove and Gonzo will walk free. What do you think?

Update: Chuck wants Karl in the Chair.

In light of recent revelations, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to hear from Karl Rove. And today, he asked the committee to call on Rove to testify.

He explained in a statement:

“The more we learn, the more it seems that people at high levels in the White House have been involved in the U.S. Attorney purge... Recent disclosures reveal that Rove talked to the NM State Party Chair Allen Weh before any public announcement of the firing was made and that Rove talked about Mr. Igleisas to the Attorney General and the White House Counsel. While the White House states not incorrectly that someone in Karl Rove’s position might get complaints about U.S. Attorneys, it is almost unheard of for a U.S. Attorney to be fired shortly after such discussions occur, when that US Attorney had received highly favorable reviews and ratings.”
The House Judiciary Committee has also declared a desire to hear from Rove.

It would be funny if Chuck were the guy responsible for my loss of this bet. "Under oath," ok, Chuck?