Article: Leaning Towards Cover Up

In "Refusal to Testify - Hubris or Cover-up?," I felt that the refusal of the White House to release documents on the firing of U.S. attorneys, and the no-show of Bolten and Miers, was probably equally hubris and cover up. After watch "Now" last night, I am shifting much more heavily towards cover up.

(Image by Unknown Owner) Details DMCA

Image from Politico.com via Common Cause The program discussed voter caging as well as an interview with David Iglesias who was one of the dismissed attorneys. Iglesias stated that he had been pressured to investigate possible "voting fraud" each election cycle. Ultimately when neither he nor the FBI found any, there was displeasure that he was not being aggressive enough and he was dismissed. He felt that the activities of the administration in caging and attempting to manipulate voting outcomes was criminally illegal, and this was like part of the memoranda and documentation that the White House was refusing to release. It should be noted that Iglesias is not some "flaming liberal," but a long time Republican. Greg Palast was also interviewed. Palast has been on the vote manipulation issue since the 2000 election (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy). He was also on the story when Karl Rove's assistant, Timothy Griffin, was selected to replace the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin had been in charge of the Republican caging operation. This points the issue of illegal caging and the firing of U.S. attorneys directly into the heart of the White House. In other words, there is not just smoke but a raging fire behind all the bluff, denial, refusal, and spin. Given this situation, it seems even more remarkable that Bolten and Miers would refuse a subpoena. They could certainly play the game that has become so standard from Bush loyalists - lousy memory - or failing that - executive privilege or national security. That would seem to be less of an egregious offense than simply not showing up. So perhaps there is a fair portion of hubris thrown into the mix. Perhaps it is a blatant statement of "we broke the law, are breaking the law, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it."