Why Forgiving the Crimes at Just-Us is Not Just Wrong, but Dangerous

When it comes to nailing the essential obscenity of the Smirky/Darth maldministration, no one does it better than the Rude Pundit. On the leniency given to criminals at the Department of Justice, he doesn't disappoint. (Warning: content at link is X-rated.)

Michael Mukasey Doesn't Care About the Security of Americans:
Here's what Mukasey said yesterday: not only is he not going to pursue charges against Monica Goodling et al for giving a political litmus test to candidates for ostensibly non-political jobs, but he thinks they've been punished enough ...

(SNIP)

See, as Mukasey explained, they didn't violate criminal laws, but civil service law, and he's right that that doesn't end up in criminal prosecution. But you know what is actionable in criminal law? Ordering people to violate civil service law. Conspiracy and all that shit.

(SNIP)

Yep, a systemic failure, one where others might be implicated, would seem to warrant action. But, see, that might require further investigation. And that might lead directly to Alberto Gonzales. And if people start to roll over, well, that way madness lies.

(More after the jump.)

Even more (c**t)ish was what was left out of Mukasey's remarks. He did say that those who were hired won't be fired because "it would be harmful to the Department and to the country." You remember back in the day when everything was related to security? When to support the extension of civil service benefits to workers at the Department of Homeland Security meant that you wanted Osama bin Laden to force America's sons to fellate his goats? When if a Democrat happened to mention that some action of the administration was a violation of civil rights, it meant that the Democrats were ready to hand the keys to the White House to Islamonazis or whatever the word was? Wait, wasn't that like last week or so? Anyway...

In that bullshit, overwrought context, what Mukasey left out was that the actions of Monica Goodling et al in Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department placed all of us in greater danger. If you're more concerned with whether or not Johnny or Jenny Civil Servant would take a bullet for aborted fetuses than if they have the skills to do the goddamn jobs at the goddamn Department of goddamn Justice, then you are saying that you don't give a happy monkey fuck about the security of the country.

(SNIP)

Mukasey's right that to fire people because the interview process was fucked is unfair, especially since the Rude Pundit would like to think that more than one of them stared for a moment when, in an interview for a job dealing with immigration, Goodling might ask them what they think about the homosexuals and their desire for marriage before answering in a lie that'd get them the job. (If the Rude Pundit had been asked, as Goodling did, "What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" he'd have answered, "He smells like lime and coca leaves.")

(SNIP)

No, Mr. Former Judge Attorney General Mukasey, as you say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." But you lead the fuckin' Justice Department. You know that to right a wrong means you might have to actually pursue justice. Or don't you give a damn about the safety of the United States?

George Bush, Dick Cheney, all their loyal minions, and wingnut freakazoid repugs in general: Always wrong, always harming the country, all the time.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Why Forgiving the Crimes at Just-Us is Not Just Wrong, but Dangerous" >>

BushCo hates bloggers in the name of national security

The Bush Administration strenuously opposes Sen. Arlen Specter’s media shield law. Why?

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the bill would erect roadblocks to gathering information “from anyone who can claim to be a journalist, including bloggers.”

The legislation gives an overly broad definition of journalists that “can include those linked to terrorists and criminals,” wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the nation would be more vulnerable to “adversaries’ counterintelligence efforts to recruit” those shielded by the bill.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

We know the real reason they’re saying this is the same reason Mukasey took top blog Talking Points Memo off the AG’s daily e-mail news summary mailing.

They hate bloggers.

Why?

TPM got former AG Alberto Gonzales canned over partisan firings of district attorneys.

Bloggers got House Democrats to stiffen up and pass a FISA bill without telco immunity.

Bloggers took Bush, Uncle Fester Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al to task on Iraq long before the mainstream media had a clue.

George W. Bush, for the remaining nine and a half months of his term (not starring Mickey Rourke as Bush) wants to spy on bloggers.

It’s that simple.

There's more: "BushCo hates bloggers in the name of national security" >>

Karl and Alberto Might Be Gone But The "Just Us" Department Is Still Doing Its Dirty Work In Pittsburg

Just when you begin to forget about the culture of partisan corruption that has swallowed the Justice Department, George H. W. Bush's former Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh tells a House subcommittee that the Federal case against his client, Dr. Cyril Wecht, is a collection of "nickel and dime transgressions" including use of the county coroner's office fax machine for personal business.

Thornburgh, who should know, says this case against Wecht is atypical for a Federal corruption prosecution, at least before this administration, because there is "no evidence of a bribe or kickback" and no evidence that Wecht traded on his position or engaged in a conflict of interest. The charges grew out of allegations that he used county equipment and staff to assist him in his private pathology practice. Wecht is a nationally known forensics expert used by prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country. Purely state court stuff, at best. More likely a juicy issue for his next Republican opponent. Hardly a Federal case.

Thornburgh believes that because Wecht is a high-profile Democrat, he is "an ideal target for a Republican U .S. Attorney trying to curry favor with a Department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance." The former AG pointed out that the U.S. Attorney handling the case, Pittsburgh's Mary Beth Buchanan, has prosecuted "not one" Republican, while prosecuting several Democrats in a "highly visible manner." Apparently all of her political prosecutions have been timed to influence elections. Watch TPM's video for the rest of the story.



More after the break.


First, Georgia Thompson and now this. Thornburgh thinks there is a pattern. Maybe the rest of us should take him seriously.

Again I ask how many more Georgia Thompsons are out there the victim of frivolous charges were brought by hyper partisan Republican U.S. Attorneys against members of Democrats in support of a craven effort to influence elections?

For more on yesterdays hearing you might want to read this editorial in the New York times.

There's more: "Karl and Alberto Might Be Gone But The "Just Us" Department Is Still Doing Its Dirty Work In Pittsburg" >>

Gonzo could be prosecuted for U.S. attorney firings

Yes, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may face federal charges over his canning U.S. attorneys for political reasons, with the fallout apparently disrupting a number of cases.

Fired former U.S. attorney for western Washington state John McKay said the Office of Inpector General for the Department of Justice interviewed him for eight hours in July. McKay said the IG could recommend legal action within a month.

Nobody this side of George W. Bush or Richard B. Cheney deserves an obstruction of justice charge more.

There's more: "Gonzo could be prosecuted for U.S. attorney firings" >>

Gone-zolas?

I wonder if Alberto will get the same media sendoff that Rove did.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, an official said on Monday, ending a controversial tenure as chief law enforcement officer that blemished the administration of President George W. Bush.

The official confirmed a Web site report of the resignation by The New York Times, telling Reuters an official announcement would be made later in the day.

I'm sure there's a Regnery book deal and maybe a fellowship in some wingnut welfare asylum in the works for Gonzales...

There's more: "Gone-zolas?" >>

Are Democrats being hypocritical on Gonzo?

Both Slate and the L.A. Times weigh in on the split-personality behavior of House and Senate Democrats pummeling Alberto Gonzales for his politicizing the Department of Justice and, in doing so, apparently perjuring himself, then turning around and giving him massive new powers to control National Security Agency spying.

Both articles suggest political considerations are at stake. To the degree that’s true, then Democrats stand guilty of letting our civil liberties, in the FISA expansion bill, be made hostage to politics.

First, Slate’s always-incisive Dahlia Lithwick:

Imagine that the Democrats had been hollering for the past six months that Gonzales was an out-of-control drunk. With their eavesdropping vote, they've handed him the keys to a school bus. Nobody was forcing these Democrats to impeach or censure the AG. But this warm pat on the back they have offered him is beyond incredible.

With this FISA vote, the Democrats have compromised the investigation into the U.S. attorney scandal. They've shown themselves either to be participating in an empty political witch hunt or curiously willing to surrender our civil liberties to someone who has shown — time and again — that he cannot be trusted to safeguard them. The image of Democrats hypocritically berating the attorney general with fingers crossed behind their backs is ultimately no less appalling than an attorney general swearing to uphold the Constitution with fingers crossed behind his own.

Then the Times:

Democrats are not winning the battle to force Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales from office, stymied by a legal system that gives the Bush administration wide discretion to block investigations of itself. And they are not getting the White House witnesses or records they have demanded in recent weeks.

But many Democrats are fine with that.

Although they may prove fruitless, the Democrats’ investigative efforts may help keep President Bush and his administration the center of attention in next year’s elections, even as the Republican Party chooses a new standard-bearer and tries to move on.

Now, a bone to pick with the Times. The legal system hasn’t “given” Bush any such power; instead, he has arbitrarily seized it, which makes Congress’ failure to do more even more inexcusable.

In any case, one Democratic strategist owns up to the idea.

“This becomes a piece of the race,” said David E. Bonior, a former Michigan congressman who is managing Democrat John Edwards’ presidential campaign. By highlighting Bush’s allegiance to Gonzales, Democrats hope to make a point about how a Democratic administration would be different, drawing “the contrast of what we have and what we could have,” Bonior said.

The Times article goes on to point out that Democrats have already cut “linkage” campaign ads against New Mexico GOP Congresswoman Heather Wilson.

So, expect no escalation of attempts to get Gonzo out of office; the FISA expansion clearly indicates that, as Lithwick notes. And, expect no Democratic campaign contributions from people like Skippy and me.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly.

There's more: "Are Democrats being hypocritical on Gonzo?" >>

FISA court ruling behind Bush attempt to expand wiretaps

According to Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, that’s why Bush is asking for expanded powers:

(House Minority Leader John) Boehner’s description of the scope of the ruling appears to focus on one key feature of the surveillance program—the large-scale tapping without warrants of telecommunications "switches" located in the United States; they are used to rout international calls even when both parties are overseas. But there are indications the ruling has in some instances interfered with the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls where one of the parties is in the United States, as well.

Under President Bush's original executive order creating the surveillance program after the September 11 attacks, the NSA eavesdropped on such calls (including those with at least one party inside the country) without seeking specific warrants from the FISA court. …

At some point after the new program began, one of the FISA judges—who, by rotation, was assigned to review the program for periodic updates — concluded that some aspects of the warrantless eavesdropping program exceeded the NSA's authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. … The judge refused to reauthorize the complete program in the way it had been previously approved by at least one earlier FISA judge, the lawyer said, adding that the secret decision was a "big deal" for the administration.

Congressional aides said that Democratic and Republican leaders of the intelligence committees met until late Tuesday night trying to reach an agreement on a short-term measure that would grant some of the enhanced authority — including the ability to tap telecommunications switches without warrants — that the administration is seeking.

The even bigger problem, though, is that Bush wants Attorney General Alberto (V-05) Gonzales to have an oversight role. But, given his partisan hackery, there’s no guarantee he won’t try to use data mining from this program for political purposes. Given his perjury before Congress, there’s no guarantee he wouldn’t lie about having done that.

It’s good that Congress is resisting the expansion of NSA power on this ground. But, with this administration in place, I still say it should be resisting any expansion of NSA power, period.

Again, whatever restrictions BushCo is worried about didn’t seem to unduly restrict the Clinton Administration, and Congress needs to remember that.

Yet more on the ruling is in the L.A. Times and Washington Post.

The Times provides more detail on the court ruling:

(Some) officials said the ruling's reach was broader, affecting cases “where one end is foreign and you don't know where the other is” — meaning warrants would be required even when it was unclear whether communications were crossing the United States or involved a person in the United States.

One official said the issue centered on a ruling in which a FISA court judge rejected a government application for a “basket warrant” — a term that refers to court approval for surveillance activity encompassing multiple targets, rather than warrants issued on a case-by-case basis for surveillance of specific terrorism suspects.

The precise effect of the ruling is unclear, but a second official said that it “reduced the amount of intelligence we were collecting” on overseas terrorism suspects.

According to the Post, it sounds like Democrats are already ready to give away the store, with the exception of the Gonzo oversight issue:

Congressional Democrats outlined a temporary plan yesterday that would expand the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.

The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue broad orders approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. To issue an order, the court would not need to identify a particular target overseas, but it would have to determine that those being targeted are “likely,” in fact, overseas.

If a foreign target’s communications to a person inside the United States reaches a “significant” number, then an court order based on probable cause would be required. It is unclear how “significant” would be defined.

It is truly both scary and fubar that Congressional Democrats would approve a FISA expansion with a blank check line item like failure to define “significant.”

At least a few Democrats still have their wits about them. From the Post story:

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said that the proposal, while better than the administration's, “does not have adequate safeguards to protect Americans’ privacy.”

It’s clear, and the Post makes it clear, this could significantly expand e-mail and phone snooping on American citizens and companies.

I also can’t believe that the Democrats don’t recognize that, through executive order or signing statement, Bush will try to make permanent any new provisions enacted in a temporary bill. I don’t care if the bill has a six-month “sunset” provision; I expect Bush would try to ignore that in any way possible.

There's more: "FISA court ruling behind Bush attempt to expand wiretaps" >>

Ben Chandler dips a toe in the Impeachment Pond

Rats. Looks like Ben Chandler, Kentucky's Sixth District Congressman, is not the utter coward I took him for.

From MediaCzech at BlueGrassRoots and DitchMitch:

"Tomorrow (Tuesday) at 2:00, six Congressmen, all former prosecutors, are holding a press conference to announce their resolution for the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached.

The resolution is sponsored by Jay Inslee (D-WA) and co-sponsored by Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Michael A. Arcuri (D-NY), Dennis Moore (D-KS) and Bruce Braley (D-IA) and, I'm proud to say, our own Rep. Ben Chandler.

It's good to see Ben stand up for the rule of law and against the mockery that the Bush administration has made of our Justice Department."

There's more: "Ben Chandler dips a toe in the Impeachment Pond" >>

A Sneering Alberto Gonzales To John Conyers--I Won't Let My Boy, John Tanner, Talk , See, And You Can't Make Me

Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler postponed a scheduled oversight hearing on the Justice Department's Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division because the Department refused to make Voting Section Chief John Tanner available to testify. The hearing had been scheduled for July 17 at 10 A.M.

As usual Conyers, this time joined by Nadler, sat right down and wrote Alberto a letter.

The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties scheduled an oversight hearing on the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division (CRT) for July 17th. We received an e-mail message on July 12th from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs informing the Committee of the Department’s decision to send a Deputy Assistant Attorney General to testify instead of John Tanner, the Voting Section Chief, whom we requested.

We are disappointed by this decision. Brad Schlozman and Hans Von Spakovsky, both former senior Department of Justice officials who served in the CRT, recently testified before the Senate and stated that Mr. Tanner played a key role in the Department’s decision to approve the Georgia Photo Identification law. In addition, there have been numerous articles and letters discussing serious matters that came before the Voting Section under Mr. Tanner’s leadership.

Mr. Tanner’s testimony is important to the Committee’s efforts to understand the manner in which the Department has implemented its legislative mandate. As Chief of the Voting Section, Mr. Tanner is personally familiar with the facts surrounding the Department’s decisions in significant and controversial voting rights cases. We believe that his testimony is therefore necessary for the Committee to fulfill its oversight obligations.

We therefore ask that you make Mr. Tanner available to the Committee for testimony specifically concerning the activities of the Voting Section. We are postponing the July 17th hearing with the expectation that we will receive the full cooperation of the Department in this matter. We look forward to working with you to arrange a mutually agreeable time when Mr. Tanner can testify. Please contact the Judiciary Committee if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,



John Conyers, Jr. Jerrold Nadler
Chairman Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Committee on the Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties


cc: Hon. Trent Franks
Hon. Lamar Smith

I have been searching high and low, but so far I cannot find any legal justification for refusing to produce Tanner, a career civil servant who worked with Bradley Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky. One commenter suggested the DoJ must be scared spitless because Tanner, who is not a political appointee, might tell the truth. I'll keep looking for the DoJ's excuse, but I suspect the justification is simple: Alberto Gonzales holds John Conyers and the entire United States Congress in utter contempt.

You can read more about this latest outrage and recent Voting Rights Section controversies, many of them involving Tanner, at The Gavel, Nancy Pelosi's website.

There's more: "A Sneering Alberto Gonzales To John Conyers--I Won't Let My Boy, John Tanner, Talk , See, And You Can't Make Me" >>

If this isn’t grounds for a Congressional perjury charge against Gonzo, what is?

Corpus Juris has written on this subject; I wanted to add a little more.

As this Newsweek/Washington Post article spells out, Alberto V-05 clearly perjured himself before Congress. The details:

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, I can already tell you what the various reactions out of Gonzo’s mouth might be:
• “These were just procedural issues;
• “Trust me, nobody’s civil liberties were violated”
• “Mistakes were made”;

Already, DOJ spokesperson Brian Roehrkasse is seeking to “contextualize” Gonzo’s statements.

However, he and Gonzo are undercut, in the story, despite Roehrkasse’s attempt to spin that, as well:

Each of the violations cited in the reports copied to Gonzales was serious enough to require notification of the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, which helps police the government's surveillance activities. The format of each memo was similar, and none minced words.

The oversight board, staffed with intelligence experts from inside and outside government, was established to report to the attorney general and president about civil liberties abuses or intelligence lapses. But Roehrkasse said the fact that a violation is reported to the board "does not mean that a USA Patriot violation exists or that an individual's civil liberties have been abused."

Looking beyond this spin, this revelation about Gonzo’s brazenness is not a tree falling in a people-deserted forest. Instead, it topples right in the midst of multiple House and Senate attempts to obtain new White House testimony on DOJ, its warrantless wiretapping, its politically-based firings of district attorneys, Vice President Cheney’s secretiveness and more.

Will Democrats do what they need to do and prefer charges against Gonzo? Will they push back? I, for one, am not holding my breath too long at this point.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly .

There's more: "If this isn’t grounds for a Congressional perjury charge against Gonzo, what is?" >>

Alberto Gonzales : "Civil Liberties Abuse? We Don't Know Nothing About No Stinking Civil Liberties Abuse"

People on the left regularly beat up poor old John Solomon. This morning, however, Solomon confirms in a Washington Post story that Alberto Gonzales engaged in full frontal lying on April 27, 2005, when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Patriot Act had not generated a single case of civil liberties abuse. According to Solomon

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

In an effort to be completely fair, Solomon does say it hasn't been confirmed that Alberto actually read any of the reports. Full frontal lying, Alberto Gonzales style.

There's more: "Alberto Gonzales : "Civil Liberties Abuse? We Don't Know Nothing About No Stinking Civil Liberties Abuse"" >>

On Darkness And Death Penalties

Today's Washington Post describes yet another aspect of the sick, septic core that is our Federal government; and yet another instance of the rot infesting the Department of Justice. The article by Amy Goldstein describes how the United States Attorney for Arizona, Paul Charlton, was fired for properly exercising his ethical prosecutorial discretion in relation to death penalty cases in his jurisdiction.

Justice Department officials had branded Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Phoenix, disloyal because he opposed the death penalty in that case. But Charlton testified yesterday that Gonzales has been so eager to expand the use of capital punishment that the attorney general has been inattentive to the quality of evidence in some cases -- or the views of the prosecutors most familiar with them.
.....
Charlton said he believed the case, which has not yet gone to trial, did not warrant the death penalty because police and prosecutors lacked forensic evidence -- including a gun, DNA or the victim's body. He said that the body was evidently buried in a landfill and that he asked Justice Department officials to pay $500,000 to $1 million for its exhumation.

The department refused, Charlton said. And without such evidence, he testified, the risk of putting the wrong person to death was too high.

Charlton said that in prior cases, Ashcroft's aides had given him the chance to discuss his recommendations against the death penalty, but that Gonzales's staff did not offer that opportunity. He instead received a letter, dated May 31, 2006, from Gonzales, simply directing him to seek the death penalty.

Charlton testified that he asked Justice officials to reconsider and had what he called a "memorable" conversation with Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty. Michael J. Elston, then McNulty's chief of staff, called Charlton to relay that the deputy had spent "a significant amount of time on this issue with the attorney general, perhaps as much as five to 10 minutes," and that Gonzales had not changed his mind. Charlton said he then asked to speak directly with Gonzales and was denied.

Last August, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, sent Elston a dismissive e-mail about the episode that said: "In the 'you won't believe this category,' Paul Charlton would like a few minutes of the AG's time." The next month, Charlton's name appeared on a list of prosecutors who should be fired, which Sampson sent to the White House.

As an attorney, it is hard to envision a more gross and complete dereliction of ethical and moral duties than described here on the part of Alberto Gonzales and his inexperienced, unfit senior staff. Every one of them should be disbarred for life. Hardly surprising though; after all, Alberto Gonzales earned his stripes finding ways for Bush to execute people in Texas. "Culture of life" my ass, these despicable, pathetic excuses for human beings don't give a damn about human life whether it is in the criminal justice system, the rotting aftermath of Katrina, the young American soldiers in Iraq or the citizens of that country perishing as a result of our invasion and occupation.

There is nothing but darkness in our Federal government, whether it is the Department of Justice scandals, the decimation of our Constitution, Cheney, Bush, our warmongering foreign policy or any other visible facet. It is a giant black hole sucking the essence of our country and the hopes of the world into a void of despair. And thus we come to the discussion engendered by my fellow bloggers here in the last few days regarding the value of the internet, and the ability of bloggers to freely and openly access it. The blogosphere, especially the progressive segment, is the growing ray of light that is the counter-force to the darkness. The main stream media is slowly coming around, and it is because of the forces generated by the blogosphere and determined activists and writers like the incredible contributors to Watching Those We Chose and so many other blogs.

The awakening and change in attitude and direction being brought by the participants in this effort is palpable. An acceleration and re-doubling of the effort is critical. We are individually expendable; the ideals and values we fight for are not. I read with profound sadness the passing of our compatriot, the Mandarin. I did not have the pleasure of knowing the Mandarin, but I can sense the measure of his character, values and passions by his association with this blog. So let the Mandarin, and the values he lived for and passed with, continue on and flourish through our resolute efforts to restore light to the darkness that has encroached upon us.

There's more: "On Darkness And Death Penalties" >>

New Day, New Letter

Today is a new day. That means a new letter. Today's letter is from Henry Waxman, John Conyers and William Clay and it is addressed to Alberto Gonzales.

You might have thought that all this Dick Cheney is the 4th branch nonsense is brand new. Wrong, as WTWC's grape_crush pointed out a few days ago the Vice President has been making his 4th branch claim for years. It seems that On January 9,2007, J. William Leonard, Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, wrote to Alberto Gonzales requesting an interpretation as to whether the Office of the Vice President is bound by the executive order. According to the letter, Mr. Leonard's request was made pursuant to a provision in the executive order that requires the Attomey General to resolve legal questions in response to such inquiries. To date the Attorney General hasn't responded to Mr. Leonard's request. The very polite congressmen ask the Attorney General some questions

(1) What is the status of your department's response to the January 2007 request from the Archives?

a. When did the review commence?

b. Which individuals at the department have been assigned to review this matter?

c. Please produce all documents relating to your department's review of this matter, including without limitation all communications, analyses, memoranda. or other documents.

(2) Have officials from the Department of Justice ever communicated with officials from the White House, including the Office of the Vice President, concerning the request from the Archives or the issue of whether the executive order does or should apply to the Office of the Vice President?

a. If so, please identifu and explain the substance of any such
communication.

b. Please produce all documents relating to any such communication

(3) Has the Department of Justice ever taken a position on or analyzed the issue of the status or existence of the Vice President or the Office of the Vice President within the executive branch, the legislative branch, both, or neither?

a. If so, please identiff all instances in which the department has addressed this issue and explain the position, if any taken by the department.

b. Please produce all documents relating to this issue, including memoranda, legal briefs, communications, and any other documents.

(4) Have officials from the White House, including the Office of the Vice President, ever cofirmunicated with ofñcials from the Department of Justice conceming the status or existence of the Vice President or the Office of the Vice President within the executive branch, the legislative branch, both, or neither?

a. If so, please identiff and explain the substance of any such
communication.

b. Please produce all documents relating to any such communication.

(5) When you were serving as White House Counsel, were you or anyone in your office involved in any way with drafting, assessing, or otherwise reviewing proposed revisions to the Executive Order in 2003?

a. If so, please explain whether you have considered recusing yourself from consideration of this issue.

b. Ifyou have elected not to recuse yourself please explain the basis for your decision.

You might be wondering about the last question. Spencer Ackerman of TPMmuckraker has an idea

If he was involved in the 2003 revision to EO 12958 (which became EO 13292), then he'd be able to speak to the question of whether the order always intended for the veep to be exempt -- which would further raise the question of whether Gonzales accepted David Addington's theory that the vice presidency is outside the executive branch. After all, the White House's fallback line in the controversy has been that president never "intended" for EO 13292 to apply to Cheney, thereby begging the question of what legal ground that contention is based upon. As White House counsel when President Bush revised the EO, Gonzales or a deputy must have looked at it; if no one from the counsel's office did, that itself is scandalous.

Any thought whether and how the AG responds?

There's more: "New Day, New Letter" >>

Ashcroft Disputes Gonzales' Wiretap Testimony

The AP is reporting that John Ashcroft has confirmed there was a sharp division within the Administration over the constitutionality of some of the controversial provisions of the Bush Administration's warrentless wiretap program.

"It is very apparent to us that there was robust and enormous debate within the administration about the legal basis for the president's surveillance program," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, told reporters after a closed-door meeting with Ashcroft.

Ashcroft's confirmation is in stark contrast to the previous testimony of Alberto Gonzales that there had been no significant disagreement within the administration over the program. Clearly this story is developing.

Of course, it might be possible to harmonize their positions by assuming that Gonzales was talking about the administration after Ashcroft, James Comey and all the other dissidents had been purged.

There's more: "Ashcroft Disputes Gonzales' Wiretap Testimony" >>

High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee

Paul J. McNulty, the former number 2 at the DoJ will be the only witness appearing before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law later today. The hearing is scheduled to start at 12:00 PM. You can find the live webcast here.

You might recall that Monica Goodling essentially called McNulty a liar during her testimony last month. If he sticks to his prepared remarks, McNulty has apparently decided not to hit back.

I hope they ask him probing questions like why did they really fire the Gonzales 8? You know questions that the DoJ has never truthfully answered. In his remarks McNulty says

It is important for this Committee and the public to know that when it comes to enforcing the law, Justice Department employees are blind to partisan politics. It plays no role in the Department’s actions.

I believe he has stated how the DoJ is supposed to operate, but after Bradley Schlozman's testimony about the Acorn 4 and all the rest can anyone really believe that is the way the DoJ has been run by Karl Rove, er Alberto Gonzales.

Pardon the Acorn 4.

There's more: "High Noon At The House Judiciary Committee" >>

RNC--Karl Rove Emails

Remember the RNC email accounts that according to Dana Perino were issued to a handful of White House employees. Well it turns out that Dana was a little on the low side. It seems the RNC was essentially functioning as an internet service provider for about 88 White House employees all in violation of the law.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has just released a report (pdf) on the RNC email accounts used by various White House officials. Among other things the report finds

* The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed. In March 2007, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said that only a “handful of officials” had RNC e-mail accounts. In later statements, her estimate rose to “50 over the course of the administration.” In fact, the Committee has learned from the RNC that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. The officials with RNC e-mail accounts include Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

* White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC has preserved 140,216 e-mails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these e-mails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official “.gov” e-mail accounts. Other heavy users of RNC e-mail accounts include former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.

* There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC e-mail accounts, the RNC has preserved no e-mails for 51 officials. In a deposition, Susan Ralston, Mr. Rove’s former executive assistant, testified that many of the White House officials for whom the RNC has no e-mail records were regular users of their RNC e-mail accounts. Although the RNC has preserved no e-mail records for Ken Mehlman, the former Director of Political Affairs, Ms. Ralston testified that Mr. Mehlman used his account “frequently, daily.” In addition, there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Mr. Rove during President Bush’s first term and no e-mails sent by Mr. Rove prior to November 2003. For many other White House officials, the RNC has no e-mails from before the fall of 2006.

* There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records. In her deposition, Ms. Ralston testified that she searched Mr. Rove’s RNC e-mail account in response to an Enron-related investigation in 2001 and the investigation of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later in the Administration. According to Ms. Ralston, the White House Counsel’s office knew about these e-mails because “all of the documents we collected were then turned over to the White House Counsel’s office.” There is no evidence, however, that White House Counsel Gonzales initiated any action to ensure the preservation of the e-mail records that were destroyed by the RNC.

I guess Karl Rove and company figured The Presidential Records Act was just a guideline. Don't we have enough to impeach Alberto yet?

There's more: "RNC--Karl Rove Emails" >>

Gonzo INCREASES politicization of DOJ

Impeachment is the only option. Wake UP, Senators.

From Think Progress, here’s Alberto V-05’s latest outrage latest outrage:

Gonzales described what he delicately calls "a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process" for annually evaluating prosecutors. What that means, as he explained it, is hauling in every U.S. attorney for a meeting to hear, among other things, politicians' beefs against the prosecutor.

If that should happen, expect the fair-mindedness and independence Americans still count on from their Justice Department to slip.

In testimony to Congress and comments at the National Press Club, Gonzales framed the meetings as a way of improving communications. But it also looks a lot like a way to remind recalcitrant U.S. attorneys what the home team expects.

I think the Trib writer forgot the word “further” after “slip.” Of course, a word like “crumble” would have been even better in the first place.

Again, nothing short of impeachment is going to stop this. So what if the no-confidence vote failed of cloture. Bring impeachment to the floor. Put some GOP Senators up for re-election this year very strongly on the spot.

There's more: "Gonzo INCREASES politicization of DOJ" >>

DOJ's Elston resigns

Another senior DOJ official, Michael Elston, has resigned. According to a DOJ anonymous source, Elston has accepted a job at a Washington law firm and his last day at the scandal-laden DOJ is next Friday.

McClatchy Washington Bureau:

Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, became the fifth department official to leave his post since the controversy over the firings rocked the nation's top law enforcement agency....

... Elston's name first surfaced when one of the fired U.S. attorneys, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, disclosed in March that Elston had phoned him to suggest that senior department officials would retaliate against the prosecutors if they discussed their firings publicly.

In an e-mail written to five of the ousted U.S. attorneys minutes after the Elston call, Cummins said of the conversation: "I was tempted to challenge him and say something movie-like such as `are you threatening ME???'"

The department denied that Elston was trying to intimidate or silence the dismissed U.S. attorneys.

Elston's name also showed up on numerous e-mails in which department officials weighed which U.S. attorneys to fire. In one e-mail, he was informed about how the department would deal with the fallout from the firings.

In recent testimony, the former interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Bradley Schlozman, disclosed that he sought approval from Elston before bringing indictments for voter-registration fraud against four workers for a liberal-leaning group [ACORN] just days before the 2006 election. Department policy discourages such prosecutions on the eve of elections.

Elston's boss, McNulty, announced recently that he would leave his job at the end of the summer.

Paul Kiel itemizes some of Elston's "hit jobs" at the DOJ :

-- He allegedly called three of the fired U.S. attorneys [Charlton, McKay, and Cummins] and made an implicit threat that the Justice Department would detail the reasons for their firings if they didn't stay quiet.

-- He allegedly rejected a large number of applicants to Justice Department positions because they were Democrats.

-- When Carol Lam, the former U.S. attorney for San Diego, asked to stay on the job longer in order to deal with some outstanding prosecutions (the expanding Duke Cunningham case among them), Elston told her not to think about her cases, that she should be gone in "weeks, not months" and said "these instructions were 'coming from the very highest levels of the government.'"

-- He called around to the U.S. attorneys whom he had placed on one of the draft firing lists to apologize when he discovered that his list would be turned over to Congress.

Let me get this straight: Schlozman fingered Elston in getting approval for the ACORN indictments by going over Craig Donsanto's head. As Corpus Juris explained, "...everyone agrees the indictments flew in the face of Donsanto's own manual, DoJ rules and long standing tradition." And now Elston plans to leave the DOJ. Uh-huh.

The rats are deserting the sinking ship at the Bush Administration's DOJ. Now if only the WH firewall, er, I mean AG Gonzales would resign. But don't hold your breath.

POSTSCRIPT: Background on the ACORN indictments are here and here and here.

UPDATE: WaPo adds a few details and a statement from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

"Alberto Gonzales appears to be the last man standing, but he should have been the first to go," Schumer said. "Almost every official involved in the U.S. attorney firings is gone, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the buck stops with the attorney general."

Indeed.

There's more: "DOJ's Elston resigns" >>

Tony Snow v. Tony Snow

Tony Snow argues with himself about the US Attorney scandal. Don't these guys realize we tape all this stuff. Enjoy.



Jon Stewart, June 14, 2007

There's more: "Tony Snow v. Tony Snow" >>

Gonzales Thumbs Nose At Congress

Rawstory is reporting that

In a Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting Thursday morning, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revealed that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once again used an interim appointment authority at the heart of the US Attorneys controversy that Congress banned in a bill sent to the President for signature on June 4.

"Senator Feinstein’s U.S. Attorney bill....repeals that portion of the Patriot Act Reauthorization that had allowed the Attorney General to circumvent advice and consent with respect to U.S. Attorneys. That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the President’s desk since June 4. It seems he just cannot bring himself to sign it. Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the Attorney General has used the power that we have voted to repeal, again," said Senator Leahy, the committee's chairman.

According to Senator Leahy's spokesperson

It just so happens the committee got notice yesterday, that on June 16, George Cardona's 210 days as Acting U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California will have run out and the Attorney General will appoint him as an interim U.S. Attorney at that time. (i.e. still using the end-run authority because Bush has slow-walked signing the bill)."

Given the utter contempt in which Bush, Gonzales, Karl Rove's band of voter suppression bandits, and Gonzales' "senior aides" have held the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are we surprised?

There's more: "Gonzales Thumbs Nose At Congress" >>