The nation's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, speaking on the subject of politicized hiring at the DOJ:
But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime[.]
Given that the very definition of the word "crime" means a violation of the law, this is, to say the least, a curious thing for an AG to say.
Maybe Dem. Sen Chuck Schumer can explain it to us.
.
When President Bush tapped Michael B. Mukasey to lead the scandal-plagued Justice Department nine months ago, Senator Charles E. Schumer could not say enough good things about his fellow New Yorker. Mr. Schumer ran out of time in ticking off Mr. Mukasey’s accomplishments at his Senate hearing, and the senator’s vote of support ensured his confirmation as attorney general.[...]
Mr. Schumer was still fuming a short time later as he went to the Senate floor for a vote. “That was terrible,” Mr. Schumer told a colleague privately in assessing Mr. Mukasey’s performance, an official privy to the conversation said.
It's not like anyone tried to warn Chuck about Mukasey.
Idiot.
.
Gets stranger and more frightening:
Two jurors said Thursday they were unnerved by FBI requests for home visits to explain why they deadlocked in the federal public corruption trial of former Allegheny County coroner Cyril H. Wecht.Experts said the practice of using FBI agents to contact and interview jurors in their homes after mistrials was unusual, but the U.S. Attorney's Office in Pittsburgh characterized it as "commonplace."
"I thought it was kind of intimidating," the jury foreman said about the FBI phone call.
Said another juror, "I found it kind of unusual."
But no worries:
The FBI agents simply set up appointments for federal prosecutors, said Margaret Philbin, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.
I'm no expert but I've never heard of such a thing before and apparently those who are experts cll this "unusual".
But here is the likely point:
"If I'm a prospective juror in the second trial, and I'm hearing stories that if I don't agree with the government that I might get calls from the FBI, that could have a very, very deleterious impact," Ceraso said. "I would think that's very bothersome to have that happen."
Now, do you really think that the Bush justice department would engage in intimidation?
So do I.
And according to one person who was on the jury:
"That puzzled me," said the foreman, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of Schwab's request. "I was surprised at how quickly the government wanted to retry him, because they didn't seem to realize where we were as a jury when the case ended. I thought they would've at least polled us to see how close the counts were."I would hope that the government would have our best interests at heart, but I'm concerned about the costs of another trial. For us, it was a split jury and the majority found him 'not guilty.' "
The foreman also said that he came to believe that the prosecution was "political."
There is no doubt that there needs to be federal criminal trial - not for Wecht but for Mary Beth Buchanan and the other assorted Loyal Bushies.
ADDED: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers states:
I am deeply troubled by reports of FBI agents contacting former jurors who failed to convict Dr. Wecht. Whether reckless or intended, it is simply common sense that such contacts can have a chilling effect on future juries in this and other cases. When added to the troubling conduct of this prosecution, there is the appearance of a win at all costs mentality. The committee continues to investigate this matter.
.
Torture Yoo gets all passive-aggressive:
The House Judiciary Committee has asked John Yoo, a former OLC deputy who wrote many of the counterterrorism memos at issue, to testify at a hearing next month. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has indicated he would prefer not to appear.
Who does he think he is, Bartleby the Scrivener?
Meanwhile, AG Michael Mukasey tries to reassure Sen. Dianne Feinstein:
Under sharp questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at an Appropriations Committee hearing, Mukasey said that the "Fourth Amendment applies across the board, regardless of whether we're in wartime or in peacetime," even though the memo by the department's Office of Legal Counsel had concluded otherwise.
Experience dictates that one should assume that Mukasey is lying. It's what the whole rotten lot of them do.
And, yes, it's ironic that Feinstein was doing the questioning.
.
Meet Leslie Hagan:
Several people interviewed by the inspector general's staff described the case to NPR and said they came away with the impression that the Attorney General's office decided not to renew Leslie Hagen's contract because of the talk about her sexual orientation. Hagen received the highest possible ratings for her work as liaison between the Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys' committee on Native American issues. Her final job evaluation lists five categories for supervisors to rank her performance. For each category, a neat X fills the box marked, "Outstanding." And at the bottom of the page, under "overall rating level," she also got the top mark: Outstanding.The form is dated February 1, 2007. Several months before that evaluation, Hagen was told her contract would not be renewed
[...]
Sarah Brubaker, a tribal prosecutor in Michigan, said Hagen was "at the very top of any of the prosecutors I've ever worked with." Brubaker said it's very difficult "to find someone of her caliber, who is not only an excellent prosecutor, but also easy to work with — personable, professional."
A former U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, Tom Heffelfinger, recruited Hagen in October 2005 to come to Washington from Michigan, where she won awards for her work as a federal prosecutor.
"I felt at the time she was the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job," says Heffelfinger. "I was never consulted about her performance as liaison to the Native American Issues Committee, and I never heard any criticism of her performance from any other component within the department."
What makes this story truly fun is an appearance by on old friend:
So, what was Goodling's problem with Hagen?The Justice Department's inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian.
As one Republican source put it, "To some people, that's even worse than being a Democrat."
Yes, that would be Monica "Law Degree From Pat Robertson" Goodling.
Speaking of rumors, is it irresponsible to speculate that Our Fair Monica's impending nuptials are a cover for some secret that she finds shameful? It is irresponsible not to.*
See, rumor-mongering can be fun and productive!
*Formulation ©Peggy Noonan
[Via Paul Kiel.]
.
It's as bad as we thought:
In a sweeping legal brief written in March 2003, when the Pentagon was struggling to determine the appropriate limits for its interrogators, the Justice Department gave the Pentagon much of the same authority it had provided to the Central Intelligence Agency in a memorandum months earlier. Both memorandums were later rescinded by the Justice Department.The disclosure of the 2003 document, a detailed 81-page opinion written by John C. Yoo, who at the time was the second-ranking official at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, is likely to fuel the already intense debate about legal boundaries in the face of a continuing terrorist threat.
The NYT repeatedly uses the terms "harsh" and "extreme" to describe the authorized "interrogation methods." Honest, sentient people simply call it "torture."
Perhaps more importantly:
“This is a monument to executive supremacy and the imperial presidency,” said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School and the Washington College of Law at American University. “It’s also a road map for the Pentagon for fending off any prosecutions.”
The "Unitary Executive" rears its ugly head.
One after another, complex questions of constitutional law are dispatched as if there's no cause for any debate. The president has all the war making power. Congress has none. The president's commander-in-chief powers extend to interrogations (no matter how far in space and time from the battlefield they take place). Guantanamo Bay and enemy aliens enjoy no constitutional protections. And then the pages Jack points us to, which include "Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield." In other words, Congress cannot prohibit any sort of treatment that the president chooses to allow. No wonder Jack Goldsmith thought Yoo was reaching far beyond where he needed to go, not to mention what the state of the law would actually support. And yet he brooks no doubt.
If there are no checks on presidential power - Congressional, Judicial, Constitutional - then the president can simply rule by fiat. There's a word for this: Dictatorship. And that is exactly what sociopaths like John Yoo are arguing for.
Interrogators who harmed a prisoner would be protected by a "national and international version of the right to self-defense," Yoo wrote. He also articulated a definition of illegal conduct in interrogations -- that it must "shock the conscience" -- that the Bush administration advocated for years."Whether conduct is conscience-shocking turns in part on whether it is without any justification," Yoo wrote, explaining, for example, that it would have to be inspired by malice or sadism before it could be prosecuted.
What amazes is that Yoo can't get his mind around the fact that torture is by definition "malicious" and "sadistic" - in short, a "shock to the conscience."
The "sadistic" part of me wants to see Yoo (and George and Dick and Don and Condi and...) undergo "harsh interrogation methods" so they can maybe understand what they are. But that's not going to happen and the reasonable, justifiable alternative - prison - isn't going to happen either.
And they have 292 more days in which to lead us into the abyss.
.
While not excusing his actions it appears the now-former New York Guv Elliot Spitzer WAS targeted by the Republicans.
Had Spitzer not handed them the gun I'd call this a classic Republican ratfuck.
The irony, of course, is that Roger Stone is behind this.
.
As if the radio and advertising mammoth wasn't rightwing enough:
The proposed buyout by Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners, which was announced more than a year ago, has already received approval from the Federal Communications Commission, which gave its stamp of approval last month on the condition that the company sell some radio assets.
Bain Capital having been co-founded by Romney.
As usual, the government is assisting the concentration of corporate power into fewer and fewer hands.
Now Willard will have platforms to broadcast his "Democrats are Muslimonaziliberal terrorists!" message on an endless loop.
Yaaaay Capitalism!
.
Bush: Questions to Mukasey on torture "unfair"
Well, if that's the case then I suggest George withdraw Mukasey's nomination in order to spare his feelings further hurt.
"I believe the questions he's been asked are unfair," Bush said in an Oval Office session with reporters. "He's been asked to give opinions of a program -- or techniques of a program -- on which he has not been briefed."
Waterboarding has been around since at least the Middle Ages. I imagine that Mukasey knows what it is without needing to be briefed.
Of course, we all know what's going on here. If Mukasey says the obvious, that waterboarding is torture, then he would have to prosecute those that ordered its use. That means George and Dick, among others.
And we can't have that, can we?
.
If there's only one certainty in this era it's this: Given a choice between what's best and what's most provocative George will always go for provocative. Case in point:
The White House is closing in on a nominee to replace Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, with former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson considered one of the leading candidates, administration and Congressional officials said Tuesday.[...]
“Clearly if you made a list of consensus nominees, Olson wouldn’t appear on that list,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who led the Judiciary Committee effort to remove Mr. Gonzales. “My hope is that the White House would seek some kind of candidate who would be broadly acceptable.”
Schumer can hope all he wants but the history of the occupier of the Oval Office demonstrates clearly that decency and pragmatism don't figure in at all. Last April digby ran down Olson's participation in the "Arkansas Project" commenting, "what an excellent idea. De-politicize the Justice Department with one of the guys who ran the Clinton witch hunt." And let's not mention Olson's key role in the 2000 Florida recount battle.
Now here's the punchline:
Aides to Mr. Bush are calculating that Democrats, who spent months clamoring for Mr. Gonzales’s ouster, will pay a political price if they try to block confirmation of a new attorney general. The thinking inside the White House is that Democrats cannot call for new leadership at the Justice Department, then block it.
By defeating (or even filibustering) Olson's nomination the Democrats will pay absolutely no political price. But, and this is the point, the Democrats will go into the debate convinced of their political doom if they oppose the White House.
And the White House knows this.
.
...if you saw this coming:
Defense lawyers in a growing number of cases are raising questions about the motives of government lawyers who have brought charges against their clients. In court papers, they are citing the furor over the U.S. attorney dismissals as evidence that their cases may have been infected by politics.[...]
There has long been a presumption that, because they represented the Justice Department, prosecutors had no political agenda and their word could be trusted. But some legal experts say the controversy threatens to undermine their credibility.
"It provides defendants an opportunity to make an argument that would not have been made two years ago," said Daniel J. French, a former U.S. attorney in Albany, N.Y. "It has a tremendously corrosive effect."
Of course the politicization of US Attorneys has a "corrosive effect." Of course it gives even those who are actually guilty a new defense. And justifiably so.
When the Executive Branch turns the Justice Department into an arm of its political machine then of course every investigation, every prosecution, becomes questionable. What is questionable is how much of this was intentional. Were the Loyal Bushies simply so intent on agglomerating political power that the corruption of the entire criminal justice system was never considered? Or was that corruption part of the plan?
My guess is the former. I think they simply don't care what happens to the country so long as they get what they want. But I'm open to arguments on that.
.
Who knew what when?
Yesterday, promised that her testimony could not be used against her in a criminal prosecution, Monica M. Goodling, former senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, admitted to doing exactly that as she screened applicants for prosecutorial positions. "I know I took political considerations into account on some occasions . . . I know I crossed the line," Ms. Goodling said. This was, for the reasons Mr. Comey suggested, a sad moment for anyone who cares about the Justice Department.It was sad, as well, that so many Republican committee members chose to ignore this ugly fact and heap praise on Ms. Goodling. "I think you have . . . shown people who are here. . . . why people in the Justice Department thought you were worthy of your job," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.). "Millions of Americans now know a lot more about you, and they're proud to have somebody like you serving in government," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) Violating the law against politicizing the civil service is no grounds for pride.
[...]
In pushing prosecutors to investigate voter fraud and dumping ones who didn't perform, was the White House pursuing a legitimate prosecutorial priority or an avenue of partisan gain? The complaints from lawmakers that President Bush passed on to Mr. Gonzales and the similar involvement of Mr. Rove contain more than a whiff of political self-interest. That is a legitimate and important area for congressional inquiry, and it is looking increasingly as if the answers are to be found at the White House.
One of the most painful parts of listening to Monica's testimony yesterday were the House Republicans. One used his five minutes to attack John Murtha, who, of course, wasn't the subject of the hearing. And, as the WaPo notes, the rest were content to heap praise on our dear little Monica. In comparison, the Senate Repubs sound like veritable Ciceros.
And we know, even if we can't prove it yet, that this and other instances of corruption lead directly to the top. Former Republican Senator Howard Baker's famous question applies here: What did the president know and when did he know it?
.
At least we're now going to have other photos:
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
It's a shame Monica has such a poor memory.
.
Purged US Attorney David Iglesias writes:
WHAT HAPPENS in a presidential administration when loyalty, to borrow a phrase from "Star Trek," becomes the "prime directive"? What happens when its all-encompassing fog obscures all other values — such as fealty to the Constitution, the rule of law or simple humanity?What happens is that terrible decisions are made, repeated and then justified by this shibboleth. That's just one of the lessons that has emerged from the U.S. attorney scandal.
[...]
What has become clear already is that the "loyalty uber alles" mentality has infected a wide swath of the Bush administration. Simple notions like right and wrong are, in their eyes, matters of allegiance, not conscience.
[...]
All federal prosecutors take a public oath when they assume office. I personally swore in about 30 new federal prosecutors during my tenure as U.S. attorney for New Mexico. The oath is to the U.S. Constitution, not to the president or his Cabinet.
Somehow Goodling did not understand this keystone concept. She appears to have placed her loyalty to the Bush administration and the Republican Party above any allegiance to the Constitution — which may have led her to believe that Bush acolytes would make the best federal prosecutors. Paradoxically, she knew enough of the Constitution to claim the protections afforded by the 5th Amendment—the right against self-incrimination.
[...]
Will [Gonzales] "cowboy up," as we say in New Mexico — that is, find the courage to do the right thing? Or will he make the Senate go right up to the precipice of a no-confidence vote?
Abu? Doing the right thing? If the right thing is to protect and cater to George regardless of the cost (to the Constitution, among other minor things) then, yes.
Otherwise, no.
And when are we going to hear coherent excuses from Sen. Pete Dominici and Rep. "Halliburton Heather" Wilson about their participation?
.
Today's the day.
.
Our favorite rightwing editorial page editor seems to have lost the Faith:
No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president's willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible.[...]
"And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress," Mr. Bush assured the country yesterday, as he brushed off requests for a more detailed account. But this is exactly the point of contention. The administration, it appears from Mr. Comey's testimony, was willing to go forward, against legal advice, with a program that the Justice Department had concluded did not "honor the civil liberties of our people." Nor is it clear that Congress was adequately informed. The president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain. That cannot be allowed to happen.
If George has lost the Washington Post editorial board then maybe the worm truly has turned.
.
Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, who have led the investigation into the conduct of White House officials and Gonzales, said the attorney general has been too weakened to run the department. Just when such a vote might occur in the Senate was uncertain.
But as I keep saying, resignation or impeachment is the only proper remedy.
And George's opinion on the whole mess?
Asked twice during a news conference Thursday if he personally ordered Gonzales and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card to Ashcroft's hospital room, Bush refused to answer "There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen. I'm not going to talk about it," Bush said.
Says Atrios:
Back in those happy days in the 90s, if Clinton had refused to answer a question like this a shitstorm would've erupted. Ted Koppel would've put up a "17 days and still no answer" clock. Tweety would have had 37 blond conservative lawyers on every night to demand "accountability." etc... etc...
Yep.
The Liberal Media. Still not liberal.
.
The Justice Department said yesterday that it will not retract a sworn statement in 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest such a program.
So they're going to let the perjured statements stand.
Par for the course these days.
.
The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since last June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.
[...]
One memo sent to Sampson last November from Michael J. Elston, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, suggested firing Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, who supervised the nation's prosecutors for a year and now heads the Office on Violence Against Women, sources said.
[...]
Another prosecutor, Anna Mills Wagoner of Greensboro, N.C., is included on three lists. Documents show that Monica M. Goodling, a Gonzales aide set to testify next week in Congress, removed her from consideration because of her work prosecuting gun crimes.
So more evidence of perjury by Abu. And Monica, a dim twinkie from a fourth-rate law school, wanted to fire a USA for actually, y'know, prosecuting crimes.
I don't think we've yet seen the true dimensions of the crowd's corruption and moral depravity.
.
It's well past time to be sending polite letters. It's well past time to be setting new deadlines to comply with subpoenas. It's well past time to be politely questioning twinkies from fourth-rate law schools.
It's time for the House Judiciary Committee to consider Articles of Impeachment for Alberto Gonzales.
Enough is enough.
.
Mr. Comey's vivid depiction, worthy of a Hollywood script, showed the lengths to which the administration and the man who is now attorney general were willing to go to pursue the surveillance program. First, they tried to coerce a man in intensive care -- a man so sick he had transferred the reins of power to Mr. Comey -- to grant them legal approval. Having failed, they were willing to defy the conclusions of the nation's chief law enforcement officer and pursue the surveillance without Justice's authorization. Only in the face of the prospect of mass resignations -- Mr. Comey, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and most likely Mr. Ashcroft himself -- did the president back down.[...]
Now, it emerges, they were willing to override Justice if need be. That Mr. Gonzales is now in charge of the department he tried to steamroll may be most disturbing of all.
Maybe this will help WaPo editorial page editor Fred Hiatt realize that his slavish devotion to BushCo™ is, shall we say, a bit misguided.
Naaah.
.
Think Progress reports:
Earlier this month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) subpoenaed Alberto Gonzales to turn over all e-mails to or from Karl Rove in connection U.S. attorney scandal. The committee gave the attorney general until 2 PM today to comply. That deadline has passed.
Wouldn't this be called "obstruction of justice"? At the very least, we're talking contempt of Congress.
Dispatch the Sergeant-at-Arms with manacles!
.
Once again, It's always someone else's fault:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that his deputy, who is resigning, was the most important player in the controversial decision about which U.S. attorneys should be fired last year.[...]
"The one person I would care about would be the views of the deputy attorney general, because the deputy attorney general is the direct supervisor of the United States attorneys," Gonzales said.
Gonzales said he was reassured by McNulty as recently as March that the firings all were justified.
Be careful, Abu, McNulty just might decide to sing. And what fun that would be! (Well, for those of us who aren't Loyal Bushies, at least.)
Poor Abu and poor George, it's so hard to find good help anymore.
.
Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty announced his resignation today, saying he is leaving the Justice Department later this summer to enter the private sector, officials said.[...]McNulty is the latest senior Justice official to announce his departure amid the swirl of controversy over the firings last year of nine U.S. attorneys. Three other top aides to Gonzales have quit in recent months.
From McNulty's resignation letter (pdf):
This is to advise you of my intention to step down from my position as Deputy Attorney General on a date to be determined in the late summer. The financial realities of college-age children and two decades of public service lead me to a long overdue transition in my career.
Ah, yes, the old "spend more time with my family" excuse. (Does anyone actually buy that rationale anymore?)
.
One that perhaps will be answered soon: Why was this twit given such power?
“You have a Monica problem,” Ms. Ashton was told, according to several Justice Department officials. Referring to Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, “She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.”Ms. Ashton’s ouster — she left the Executive Office for United States Attorneys for another Justice Department post two weeks later — was a critical early step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine United States attorneys last year.
It appears that Monica's true calling is that of a music critic:
She joined the department in the press office. Soon after, two lawyers said, Ms. Goodling complained that staff members in Puerto Rico had used rap music in a public service announcement intended to discourage gun crime.“That is just outrageous,” she told one department lawyer. “How could they use government money for an ad that featured rap music? That kind of music glorifies violence.”
No doubt, when Monica wants to get funky she listens to Percy Faith.
Then again, Monica could offer herself up as an expert in race relations:
In one case, Ms. Goodling told a federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia that she was not signing off on an applicant who had graduated from Howard University Law School, and then worked at the Environmental Protection Agency. [Link added.]“He appeared, based on his résumé, to be a liberal Democrat,” Ms. Goodling told Jeffrey A. Taylor, the acting United States attorney in Washington, according to two of the department employees who asked not to be named. “That wasn’t what she was looking for.”
Monica the historian:
“Which Supreme Court justice do you most admire and why? Which legislator do you most admire and why? And which president do you most admire and why?” Mr. Nicholson was asked by Ms. Goodling, according to Ms. Chiara and the other lawyer, who asked not to be named.
Correct answers: Antonin Scalia, Joseph McCarthy, and George W. Bush.
Monica the Grand Inquisitor:
In another instance, two Justice Department officials said, Ms. Goodling decided she did not like the applicants for one prestigious posting at department headquarters and decided to offer the job to David C. Woll Jr., a young lawyer who she knew was a Republican. In the interview, a department official said, she asked Mr. Woll if he had ever cheated on his wife. Mr. Woll declined to comment for this article.
Even John Mitchell would have been embarrassed by this dope.
.
Lawyers for Monica Goodling, who had served as the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, said she would appear before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.[...]
A hearing date was not immediately set.
.
Fired USA David Iglesias:
And while he says it's not his place to call for the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, he says Gonzales failed to protect the eight fired U.S. attorneys from political fallout. Things would have been different, Iglesias says, under Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft."He was a tough old bird."
I've noticed the irony of Ashcroft having more integrity than Abu Gonzales.
"I think all roads lead to Rove," Iglesias says. "I think that's why the president is circling some pretty major wagons around him to keep him from testifying under oath, which subjects him to criminal prosecution."
[Via CREW.]
And as wonderful bit of synconicity Murray Waas today reports:
The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove's, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.[...]
The withheld e-mails show that Sampson's draft was forwarded for review to Chris Oprison, an associate White House counsel, who approved the language saying that Justice was not aware of Rove having played any role in supporting Griffin. But an earlier e-mail from Sampson to Oprison that has already been made public indicates that the two men discussed Rove and then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers as being at the forefront of Griffin's nomination.
[...]
The senior official said that Gonzales, in preparing for testimony before Congress, has personally reviewed the withheld records and has a responsibility to make public any information he has about efforts by his former chief of staff, other department aides, and White House officials to conceal Rove's role.
"If [Gonzales] didn't know everything that was going on when it went down, that is one thing," this official said. "But he knows and understands chapter and verse. If there was an effort within Justice and the White House to mislead Congress, it is his duty to disclose that to Congress. As the country's chief law enforcement official, he has a higher duty to disclose than to protect himself or the administration."
Where there's sleaze there's Karl.
.
An aide to Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) urged the White House to replace the U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo., months before Todd P. Graves's name was included on a Justice Department list of federal prosecutors the Bush administration was thinking of pushing out of their jobs.[...]
Graves's name was included on a January 2006 memo, drafted by the then-chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, that recommended to the White House seven U.S. attorneys who "might be considered for removal and replacement," according to administration and legislative sources. Two months later, on March 10, 2006, Graves resigned.
Graves is the second U.S. attorney whose ouster is known to have been encouraged by the office of a Republican senator. Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) complained last October about New Mexico's David C. Iglesias, who was later fired.
[...]
Last night, Graves issued a statement that said: "This would be humorous if we were not talking about the United States Department of Justice. First, you tell me that DOJ staffers were making secret hit lists and my name was on one of them. Then, you tell me that a staffer for Missouri's senior senator had a hit list so secret that not even the senator knew about it."
So, who will be revealed as the tenth USA to have been sacked for not being a "Loyal Bushie?"
Abu Gonzales testifies before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Any bets on how any times he says "I don't recall" or variants thereof?
JMM has more.
.
The Muck From the National Journal (not online):
Psst! Sources tell us that none other than Monica Goodling, former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, was responsible for draping over the ample bosoms of the Art Deco statues in the Justice Department's Great Hall during the reign of the prim John Ashcroft. The coverings were removed, accompanied by a sigh from an appreciative public, in 2005 ...
That scamp!
The offending statue:
(Just to be clear: The offending statue is the one in the background.)
In more Monica news, the DoJ isn't going to stand in the way of Goodling getting immunity.
I smell a rat.
.
We're supposed to be impressed?
The Justice Department has launched an internal investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's former White House liaison illegally took party affiliation into account in hiring career federal prosecutors, officials said yesterday.The allegations against Monica M. Goodling represent a potential violation of federal law and signal that a joint probe begun in March by the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility has expanded beyond the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
Another internal investigation. As virtually nobody thinks the DoJ has any credibility why even bother?
The investigation of Goodling complicates efforts by the House Judiciary Committee to offer her immunity in exchange for testimony. Goodling quit as Gonzales's senior counselor last month and has invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions from Congress about the prosecutor firings.Goodling's attorney, John M. Dowd, said yesterday that Goodling would agree to testify under such a deal. But the Justice Department must approve the immunity and certify that the move would not interfere with current or possible criminal prosecutions.
Ah, that explains it: Stonewalling. That's what I expect from this crew.
Can we impeach to lot of them now?
.
The pride of Pat Robertson is granted immunity.
However:
It is likely to be weeks before the committee actually gets to interview Goodling. That's because the law requires that the Justice Department be allowed an opportunity to provide its views on immunity -- i.e. whether it might interfere with an existing or possible investigation. If the DoJ objects to giving Goodling immunity, then the committee would be forced to consider whether to defer or delay conferring immunity. And regardless of what the DoJ says, the local federal court has to approve giving Goodling immunity. All this is likely to take several weeks.
Would the DoJ be so obstructionist as to object?
Of course.
.
Two of the terminated prosecutors said they had received positive feedback from their superiors as well as from Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the former director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, which helps put together teams that review U.S. attorneys.[...]
When he asked if his job performance had anything to do with his termination, Mr. Bogden said he was told that it never even entered into the equation.
[...]
That's why, when Justice Department officials started releasing information to the media that the firings were performance related, Mr. Cummins and Mr. Bogden were shocked and disappointed.
[...]
Ms. Buchanan would not comment for this story.
All of which leads to:
"There's not much to argue here because my team keeps handing [Democrats] legitimate issues to beat the White House and Republicans over the head," Mr. Cummins continued. "It's just been surreal how many mistakes have been made in a row here."
Uh, Bud? There might be a clue there. Your "team" just isn't ethical or honest.
.
(REUTERS/Jason Reed)
"And I'm gonna keep holding my breath until you stop being mean to me!"
.
It's pretty clear that even the Republicans aren't all that eager to save Gonzales. Abu G is coming off as slimy and petulant, like a low-rent Sammy Glick.
And given the sheer number of lies he's been caught in if he doesn't resign then his ass should be impeached.
As I've said before, if this is where BushCheney want to make their last stand then sit back and watch them all go down together.
---
ADDED: Christy is liveblogging the hearings over at the Lake.
ADDED II: JMM:
What a sorry, pathetic figure. Now AG Gonzales is claiming that the criticism of his behavior is damaging the DOJ and making it harder for DOJ employees to do their job.
.
Many people think of democracy as free elections, some other basic rights (like free speech) and not much more. But really, that's only the beginning. There are plenty of countries that have free and fair elections and yet are clearly not democratic because their ruling parties have a permanent, immovable hammerlock on power.One key thing that separates strong democracies (such as the United States) from weak democracies (such as Russia) is that the latter use the police power of the state as a tool of the ruling party. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin doesn't mind throwing his enemies in jail or sending out the police to break up protests.
I realize that the United States is not becoming Russia. But isn't this behavior, in a sense, what the Bush administration stands accused of? If true, it's an incredibly serious violation.
[...]
It would be very easy to overreact to all these things and conclude that our democracy is imperiled or that Republicans are wannabe Putins. But almost nobody seems to be overreacting.
Most people are under-reacting. Allowing the security apparatus of the state to help tilt elections is an extremely grave precedent. When the line of acceptable behavior can be moved without much protest, it often can be moved further the next time.
No, we're not becoming Russia. But becoming just a little bit like Russia still ought to be considered a major scandal.
Well said.
.
By now it's well known that eight US attorneys refused to do the White House's bidding by persecuting Democrats and protecting Republicans. One of the big questions left unanswered is just how many of the attorneys did carry out that bit of political corruption. House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers thinks Pittsburgh's US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan - who saved the nation from the horrible criminal Tommy Chong - might have some answers:
House Judiciary Committee members have asked to interview U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, believing that she may have been consulted about preparing the list of eight federal prosecutors who were fired late last year.Her name is one of several listed in a letter requesting voluntary interviews with U.S. attorneys -- including two prosecutors who have recently come under fire -- and with officials in the Department of Justice and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.
[...]
Ms. Buchanan, a strong supporter of the Bush administration who has been appointed to several positions within the Department of Justice during her tenure, became the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania in September 2001.
[...]
Mr. Sampson told the investigators that Ms. Buchanan was one of the senior Justice Department officials he consulted on which U.S. attorneys should be asked to resign, according to a senior Democratic aide who has seen a transcript of the interview.
[...]
Ms. Buchanan also has earned favor within the administration by following the path of many Bush insiders as a member of the Federalist Society.
That was among the criteria in a set of Justice Department documents, released last week to the Judiciary Committee, listing the qualifications of U.S. attorneys.
While it's worth pointing out that Pittsburgh is dominated by Democrats and Buchanan has prosecuted some there are more than a few Republicans with clouds over their heads - Republicans who seem to be blessed:
But allegations of wrongdoing have also come up against some Republicans here over the years. Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum was heavily criticized for saying that his family lived in Penn Hills -- requiring the school district there to pay the cost for his children to attend a cyber school -- while they were really in Virginia.An employee of U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, was fired after alleging that congressional staff and resources were being used for campaign work.
And local charges were filed against then-state Rep. Jeff Habay, R-Shaler, for ordering his staff to do campaign work on public time.
None of those cases resulted in criminal charges in federal court, and Ms. Buchanan would not comment on whether there were any investigations.
So there are plenty of questions for Ms. Buchanan. Now it's time for some answers.
The Conyers letter here (pdf).
dayvoe has more.
.
Over at The Muck, Paul Kiel profiles Toby Moore, formerly a redistricting expert with the DoJ's Civil Rights Division:
A few weeks later, Moore said, he and all three of his colleagues were called in one by one to speak with voting section chief John Tanner. All four were criticized for their performance on the Georgia I.D. memo.In the private meeting, Moore said that Tanner criticized him for his performance -- for not adequately analyzing the evidence -- and for his behavior. "I was accused of mistreating the Republican-hired attorney, because I criticized some of the things he said and did," Moore told me, adding that there had been frequent disagreements between the lawyer, Joshua Rogers, and the others on the team. "He was just out of law school and had only been in the section a few months. He was saying things and writing things in his memos that we believed were incorrect... We had some very sharp disagreements with him."
Moore said that instead of meeting with Tanner like the others, Rogers was "called over to main Justice and commended for his work on the case." Rogers, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association, is still with the section.
[...]
But Moore had had enough. Worried about the likelihood of receiving a poor performance review from his superiors, he left in April of last year. "I felt very much retaliated against," he said. "It happened to a lot of us who disagreed."
It's all about power. The accumulated (and accumulating) evidence clearly demonstrates that the so-called "conservatives" who took over in 2001 not only have no respect for things like the law, morality, and ethics, they believe those things are to be sneered at.
To repeat myself, these are very bad people.
.
The Justice Department misses the deadline set by the House Judiciary Committee to turn over subpoenaed documents in the USA purge.
Committee Chairman John Conyers:
(Washington, DC)- Today, U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued the following statement in response to the Justice Department’s failure to comply with the Committee’s subpoena response deadline of 2 p.m. today. The subpoena seeks information the Department has continued to refuse to provide or has provided only in redacted form.“We are disappointed that the Justice Department failed to produce the documents and other materials for which we issued a subpoena last week. While we understand that the Department considers this effort a priority and we plan to continue working with them, we will review all available legal options to secure compliance with the subpoena.”
.
NPR now has new information about that plan. According to someone who's had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of. Documents show the plan was eventually dismissed as impractical.[...]
Sources tell NPR that Fielding actually wants to negotiate with Congress about how the interviews will take place. But Fielding has not been able to persuade President Bush to go along.
The depressing thing is that any other president would have been impeached and convicted by now. You have to give George this: He leads a charmed life.
[Via JMM.]
.
...in calling out lies:
President Bush's aides are lying about White House e-mails sent on a Republican account that might have been lost, a powerful Senate chairman said Thursday, vowing to subpoena those documents if the administration fails to cough them up.[...]
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said there is no effort to purposely keep the e-mails under wraps, and that the counsel's office is doing everything it can to recover any that were lost.
"The purpose of our review is to make every reasonable effort to recover potentially lost e-mails, and that is why we've been in contact with forensic experts," he said.
Leahy scoffed.
"I've got a teenage kid in my neighborhood that can go get 'em for them," he told reporters later.
This is good. More Dems need to start calling a lie a lie. Use the actual word. Get it into circulation.
ADDED: think Progress has the vid.
.
Because even I have my limits on dealing with stupid people I'll leave it to watertiger to deal with the wankerific Richard Cohen.
.
A half-dozen sitting U.S. attorneys also serve as aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales or are assigned other Washington postings, performing tasks that take them away from regular duties in their districts for months or even years at a time, according to officials and department records.Acting Associate Attorney General William W. Mercer, for example, has been effectively absent from his job as U.S. attorney in Montana for nearly two years -- prompting the chief federal judge in Billings to demand his removal and call Mercer's office "a mess."
[...]
"I can't think of a time when there's been this many U.S. attorneys doing double duty at one time," said Dennis Boyd, executive director of the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, which represents current federal prosecutors.
[...]
Mercer has figured prominently in the U.S. attorney firings, in part because he told prosecutors in Arizona and Nevada they were being removed to make way for new Republican loyalists.
I know I sound like the proverbial broken record but the number of years - decades, maybe - that will be needed to clean up after this bunch staggers the mind.
And as their terms in office wind down they'll likely try to lock in their "changes." The country simply can't afford another 20 months of this.
.