On Monday in Los Angeles, David J. Bershad, a former partner at the huge class action law firm Milberg Weiss, until yesterday known as Milberg Weiss & Bershad, became the first principal of the firm to plead guilty in an investigation into kickbacks. Bershad, the law firm and another partner, Steven G. Schulman, were indicted last year. The investigation is continuing.

The 20-count indictment, which included conspiracy and other charges, detailed a scheme that began in the 1970s and continued as recently as 2005. In that scheme, lawyers inside Milberg Weiss paid $11 million in “secret and illegal kickbacks” to named plaintiffs in more than 150 class-action and other shareholder lawsuits. The lawsuits, according to the indictment, earned the firm more than $216 million.

Bershad, represented by Karl Rove lawyer Robert Luskin, pleaded guilty to conspiracy. He is cooperating with the Government.

Bershad could receive up to five years in prison. His sentencing date is set for June, 2008. Why is it so far away?

More...

I have an op-ed today in the Examiner newspapers taking to task those who criticized Live Earth, including Sir Bob Geldof, the British press and conservative bloggers. A snippet:

Yes, [Sir] Geldof, it was just a big pop concert. It won’t solve the energy crisis any more than your Live 8 concert ended poverty in Africa. But both are worthy endeavors.

Rock music is a great unifier. It transcends race, age, class and even politics. In today’s celebrity-driven culture, rock stars carry a lot of clout. To criticize them for using it to inspire positive change across society as they entertain us rings hollow.

The published piece omits the [Sir] which was in the version I submitted. I'm adding it back in here since I wouldn't have called Bob Geldof out only using his last name. Seems kind of rude.

Update: The AP Style people, Wikipdedia and commenters below point out that "Sir Geldof" would not be a correct appellation. I stand corrected, but again, I meant no disrespect to him.

The House Judiciary Committee has announced the list of witnesses for Wednesday's hearing on "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials.

Via TP Muckraker and Sentencing Law & Policy:

• Ambassador Joseph Wilson
• Roger Adams, US Department of Justice Pardon Attorney
• Douglas A. Berman, William B. Saxbe Designated Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
• Tom Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Middle District of North Carolina (Attorney for [sic] Vincent Rita, Rita v. US)
• David Rifkin, partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, former Justice Department official during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

TP Muckraker quotes Rep. John Conyers on the purpose of the hearing:

"Congress must now look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused. Taken to its extreme, and possibly in the case of the Libby clemency, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."

While I'm pleased Joe Wilson and Prof. Berman, who writes the excellent Sentencing Law & Policy blog are going to be witnesses, I'm concerned that the committee will not be hearing from anyone involved in the Libby commutation process.

There was no clemency petition, the Pardon Attorney was kept out of the loop and I just don't see how these witnesses will shed any light on whether Bush's motive for granting the clemency was proper or improper.

More...

Karl Rove was in Aspen this weekend for the Aspen Ideas Festival. He spoke and answered questions about a range of issues from Iraq to Guantanamo and the leak of former CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity. His role as Bush's water-carrier continues.

On Gitmo:

"It may not be Gitmo," Rove said about where the prisoners might go. "But it's going to be the brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Or it's going to be the Pitkin County Jail. Or the Florence, Colorado maximum-security facility. We've got to hold them somewhere. These are bad people. These are people who threatened the United States of America."

As Rove tells it, the biggest problem at Guantanamo is weight gain.

On his role in the CIA leak:

The briefs are in and both the Government and Team Libby, as well as White House Counsel Fred Fielding who submitted a letter, agree: Libby's two year term supervised release is valid and he should begin serving it immediately.

Fitz's brief is here (pdf), Libby's is here, and Fred Fielding's letter (which he sent to both sides and filed with the court even though neither side took Judge Walton up on his suggestion and asked for the White House's opinion) is here.

I'd say it's a done deal. Libby will be on supervised release before the week is out.

For what supervised release means for Libby, see my earlier post, Life on Supervised Release. For TalkLeft's analysis of the issue of the validity of the supervised release term in light of the commutation see Suggestions for Judge Walton on Libby's Supervised Release.

Say hello to Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers and Mike Lux' new blog, Open Left.

It already has a thumbs up from Digby and Jane Hamsher.

What's it about? Matt Stoller explains here.

Mostly, its "trying to bring progressive activists and professionals from 'inside' and 'outside' the political establishment into regular, thoughtful, and active connection with one another."

I'm all for that, go on over and check it out.

Paul Kiel goes through some of the basics with law professors Lederman and Turley.

First question, can Sara Taylor testify in spite of the WH's "direction" on executive privilege (note: I think the question is backwards, can Taylor NOT testify based on that direction. I say no.):

First, although the president has "directed" Sara Taylor, Karl Rove's former aide, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, not to testify, the decision is still up to them, both said. Although the traditional expectation is that aides will comply with determinations of executive privilege by the president, both could still refuse. It would be a "career ending move" to be sure, Turley added, but there is no legal impediment.

Honestly, I do not agree with the notion that a former aide can rely on a "direction," which seems to be the implication of Turley and seemingly, Lederman. I think the proper course is this:

Even if Taylor decided to defy the president's direction and testify, the White House would surely seek to bar her testimony in court through a restraining order, an injunction, or some other means, both experts agreed.

Precisely. It is up to the WH now to assert its privilege. Taylor has no privilege to assert. More.

Cheney's personal favorability rating according to NYTimes polling.

Honestly, I am skeptical. That number seems impossibly low.

In any event, if that is not exciting enough, watch me take on the Beltway Elite (not really, it's our friend Conn Carroll of the Blogometer) on all things Netroots, Iraq and politics.

Scott Lemieux:

Another upshot of this is that debates about impeachment are purely about the politics -- obviously there's no chance of 2/3 of the Senate voting to convict anyone. And here I also agree with Ezra that here McArdle is considerably more persuasive. It's hard to see how serious impeachment proceedings (as opposed to stepping up use of Congress' oversight powers in general) would strengthen the Democrats' political position.

And Ezra:

Incidentally, I actually agree that impeachment proceedings would be a Bad Idea . . .

But this part of Ezra's post really interests me:

The Democrats were elected on one of the clearest agendas in modern times: Drawing down the Iraq War, passing anti-corruption legislation, and instituting a series of popular, if small, pieces of economic populism (increase in the minimum wage, Medicare bargaining, etc). Bush has stymied every one. . .

On Iraq, it is the Democrats who can stymie Bush, if they will use their Constitutional authority. Will no one join me in urging the Congress to stymie Bush on Iraq?

Between Live Earth and blogging, I barely left the computer or the house all weekend. So, you're on your own today. This space is for you.

If you want to see me discuss politics with The Hotline's Blogometer's Conn Carroll, take a look here. - btd

Today, President Bush invoked executive privilege in answer to congressional subpoenas related to the US Attorney purge:

President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors. . . . In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.

At some point, if the Congress acts to enforce its subpoenas, the President will have to explain himself.

Retorted House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers[,] "Contrary what the White House may believe, it is the Congress and the courts that will decide whether an invocation of executive privilege is valid, not the White House unilaterally,"

The courts mentions Conyers. Presumably that means that Conyers is not considering either impeachment or inherent contempt proceedings at this time. This seems wise to me.

This nugget pleased me:

The privilege claim on testimony by former aides won't necessarily prevent them from appearing under oath this week, as scheduled. Leahy said that Taylor, Bush's former political director, may testify as scheduled before the Senate panel on Wednesday.

Very good Senator Leahy. Let the White House rush to court to quash the Taylor subpoena. And let Fielding see if he can NOT tell a court the basis of the President's claim of privilege.

This seems an obvious answer and it is - only the President can assert executive privilege. The context here is the statement by former White House staffer Sara Taylor's lawyer that:

Ms. Taylor expects to receive a letter from [White House Counsel Fred] Fielding on behalf of the President directing her not to comply with the Senate’s subpoena. . . . Absent the direction from the White House, Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. . . [Taylor] faces two untenable choices. She can follow the President’s direction and face the possibility of a contempt sanction by the Senate . . .

Actually, Ms. Taylor has no LEGAL choice in the matter. Executive privilege is not hers to assert. If the White House wishes to assert executive privilege, it must seek a court order quashing the Congressional subpoena on such grounds. The President has NO LEGAL POWER over Ms. Taylor. A Congressional subpoena is binding on Ms. Taylor unless quashed. To coin a phrase, Ms. Taylor has no STANDING to claim executive privilege.