White House attorneys were involved in discussing the CIA torture tapes

All that's missing are the inmate numbers

At least four White House attorneys were involved in discussions about the destruction of the CIA torture tapes.

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex. In interviews, several administration and intelligence officials provided conflicting accounts as to whether anyone at the White House expressed support for the idea that the tapes should be destroyed.

One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

[Keep reading...]

Other officials have maintained that no one at the White House made the case for destroying the case, but quickly add that no White House lawyer ever specifically advised that destroying the videos would violate the law.

The Department of Justice is (perfunctorily) mounting an internal investigation into the destruction of the tapes. Officials who spoke to the New York Times did so under conditions of anonymity because of that ongoing investigation.

Spokespersons for the president and the vice president, as well as the CIA, cited the investigation and declined to comment.

The new information was revealed on Tuesday when Federal Judge Henry Kennedy ordered the attorneys involved appear before him on Friday at 11:00 a.m. to answer questions about the destroyed videos. Kennedy was the judge that issued the order to preserve evidence, presumably that would include the tapes, as part of a lawsuit brought on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The tapes documented the "harsh treatment" (civilized folk call it what it is: torture) of two suspected al Qaeda terrorists in CIA custody. .

New details also emerged on Tuesday about the role of Jose (I smell a fall guy here...) Rodriguez Jr., who headed the clandestine branch and has thus far been fingered as the guy who gave the burn order. The anonymous officials said that prior to Rodriguez issuing a secret cable ordering the destruction, he was advised, in writing, by two CIA lawyers, Steven Hermes and Robert Eatinger, that he indeed had the authority to order the tapes be destroyed and that no laws would be violated.

The CIA refused to allow Mr. Eatinger or Mr. Hermes to comment.

The two agency lawyers did, however, inform the top lawyer at the CIA, John A. Rizzo, about the legal advice they had given Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez did not inform either Mr. Rizzo or the CIA director at that time, Porter Goss, before he issued the cable ordering the tapes be destroyed. “There was an expectation on the part of those providing legal guidance that additional bases would be touched,” said one government official with knowledge of the matter. “That didn’t happen.”

Robert Bennet, attorney for Mr. Rodriguez is adamant that his client was not a lose cannon who ordered evidence be destroyed on his whim. “He had a green light to destroy them,” Mr. Bennett insists.

The tapes were never sent back to Langley. Instead, they were kept in the safe in the bureau office in Thailand, where the interrogations took place. Senior officials in the clandestine service had been chomping at the bit to have the tapes destroyed, starting in 2003, citing concern that the budding Torquemada's on the tapes could face legal or physical jeopardy should the content of the tapes be leaked.

Prior to the revelations in the Times today, the only official previously reported to have been involved in discussions about the tapes was Harriet Meiers, who served as White House counsel after Alberto Gonzales became the Attorney General in 2005. Ms. Meiers' involvement is sketchy - some sources say she was not part of the discussions prior to 2005, but others insist she was in the loop as early as 2003.

The only thing we know for sure (besides the fact that this is the most corrupt and feckless administration in the history of the republic) is that the issue is not going away. In fact, it seems to be ramping up.

To which I say "Good! It's about damned time! Can we impeach Dick Cheney now?"

There's more: "White House attorneys were involved in discussing the CIA torture tapes" >>

Gonzo is still under the gun

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine announced today that his office is investigating outgoing disgraced attorney general Alberto Gonzales to determine if he should face charges of perjury for lying in his testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

In a letter today to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Fine said his office "has ongoing investigations" related to Gonzales's testimony on several key issues, including the prosecutor firings and allegations of improper hiring; the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program; the FBI's use of national security letters; and allegations that Gonzales sought to improperly influence a witness who was under investigation by Congress and the Justice Department.

Gonzales's often contradictory remarks and his repeated assertions that he could not recall key events drew fire from lawmakers of both parties and contributed to his dwindling support on Capitol Hill.

Prior to todays acknowledgment, Fine would only confirm that he was looking into allegations that the Attorney General sought to influence the testimony of Monica Goodling before she appeared before Congress.

Earlier this month Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy had requested Fine expand the scope of his investigation to include Gonzales contradictory testimony. Today, Fine indicated that he was already on it, and so was the Office of Professional Responsibility. The two offices are jointly conducting an investigation into the illegal politicization of Justice.

Leahy issues a statement that he was "pleased" that Gonzales was being investigated, but indicated that the Congress would continue investigating Gonzales as well. "The current Attorney General is leaving, but these questions remain," Leahy said. "It is appropriate that the Inspector General will examine whether the Attorney General was honest with this and other Congressional committees about these crucial issues."

There's more: "Gonzo is still under the gun" >>

Impeachment Lies

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a 26-year veteran of Capitol Hill and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, shared some concerns about the Attorney General. (via BooMan and Steve Benen)

One audience member wanted to know if Specter might vote to impeach Gonzales…. Specter described himself as on a “one-man crusade” against Gonzales, but an impeachment, he said, would tie up both houses of Congress and be “a big distraction.

“I think we have ways of getting rid of (Gonzales) otherwise,” he said.

One audience member pressed the Republican senator about opening investigations into whether the government played a role in staging the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or allowed them to happen.

Specter said he had seen the FBI reports and believes the U.S. government played no role in the attacks, but added, “I don’t question the reason for your skepticism. Government does a lot of things.” And, he added, “Alberto Gonzales does a lot of things.”

Spectre will back off; he always does. There is no reason that opening an impeachment investigation of Gonzales would tie up both houses of Congress. This is complete BS. House committee makes a simple vote to open an investigation, House floor makes a simple majority vote. If they can eviscerate the Fourth Amendment in about one full day’s worth of business, there is no reason this should take any longer. After that, you have staff counsel and members, plus some people brought in to assist, run the investigation until a report is ready to be voted on. In the meantime, the House conducts it’s business, and the Senate is not even involved until the House votes out Articles of Impeachment after receipt of the impeachment report and a determination that Articles are warranted. This is the same BS argument the Democratic leaders are hiding behind and it is a flat out lie.

There's more: "Impeachment Lies" >>

Gonzo's Lament

Abu G finds himself further and further separated from Republicans and more and more refuse to defend him. We proudly present the first Watching Those We Chose production, "Gonzo's Lament."




[All names and quotes are real. There are no innocents to protect.]

There's more: "Gonzo's Lament" >>

Specter Strikes a Tough Pose

The Hill is reporting that Arlen Specter left a White House briefing late Monday, having given the Bush administration 18 hours to resolve the contradictions in Alberto Gonzales’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. His aides released a statement late in the day that indicated something big is in the offing for Tuesday.

“Given the difficulty of discussing classified matters in public, I think it is preferable to have a letter addressing that question [of Gonzales’ veracity] from the administration … by noon tomorrow, which will be made available to the news media,” Specter wrote in the statement. “The administration has committed to producing such a letter.”

Specter expects the letter clarifying the attorney general’s testimony to be addressed to himself and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who declined to comment on the matter.

Specter was equally cagey, telling reporters to wait until Tuesday for any further comment from him.

When asked whether Gonzales should be forced to resign, Specter said any such speculation would be "premature to consider." He said other senators were present for the administration briefing, which was given by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and others, but declined to identify them.

In last week’s testimony, Gonzalez appeared to perjure himself last week when he disputed the testimony of James Comey, Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft. Gonzales insisted that the legality of the Bush administrations propensity for and policy of spying on American citizens had never been at issue in the Justice Department.

The bald-faced lying led many Democrats to call for a Special Prosecutor to investigate illegality inside the Justice Department and the chief law enforcement officer in the land for perjury. The clamoring of Democrats prompted Specter to request the classified briefing on Monday.

Remember, it was only last Thursday that Specter openly flouted the president on Air Force One, first by mingling with the press corps, and then by dissing the president. Pretty bold. There are only two rules for politicians traveling with the president – don’t mingle with the press corps and don’t trash-talk the pres or his team. Specter broke both “rules.” Before take-off.

So what does Specter have planned for tomorrow? And does it involve Karl and Harriet?

There's more: "Specter Strikes a Tough Pose" >>

Gonzo's Greatest Hits

I first posted this on my own blog Feb. 8, 2006. With AGAG so much in the news I thought it worth another look. Perhaps one of these was the electronic surveillance program Fredo wanted to discuss in the hospital with John Ashcroft.



During Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into Bush's illegal domestic spying program, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated:

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."

In honor of Presidents' Day, I offer these long-lost images of Washington and Lincoln explaining their domestic electronic surveillance programs.

There's more: "Gonzo's Greatest Hits" >>

Alberto, Abandoned

[Updated @ 6:30 p.m. to include video]

For someone who never had a glove laid on him in that grilling last week, Abu G. sure is without defenders. Even Fox News Opinion Sunday could find no one willing to carry the banner for AG².

In fact, Newt Gingrich openly refused to defend him from accusations that he perjured himself in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. “It’s very damaging…we badly need an attorney general who is above any question.” said Gingrich. “Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it’s a liability for the president. More importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America.”

Later in the broadcast, Chris Wallace admitted that no conservative would willingly come on the program to defend the Attorney General to the administration-friendly Fox viewers. “We invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales,” said Wallace. “We had no takers.”

Will the president still stubbornly maintain that his consigliore has his full confidence?

If so, aren’t we well over the “fitness to serve” line?

There's more: "Alberto, Abandoned" >>

What Really Happened in Ashcroft's Room

In his testimony Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that when James Comey raised objections to the administration’s spying program, he was referring to “other intelligence activities,” not the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush has confirmed. Gonzales also denied that he and former White House chief of staff Andy Card tried during to pressure a hospitalized Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft was in an intensive care unit recovering from gall bladder surgery and Gonzales was Bush’s White House legal counsel. Ashcroft had transferred the powers of his office to Deputy Attorney General James Comey.

Comey testified in May that he thought Gonzales and Card tried to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general.

I've discovered a previously unknown video of the entire event. Below is a snippet:

There's more: "What Really Happened in Ashcroft's Room" >>

Abu G Went Up the Hill to Carry Bushie's Water

Alberto went back up the Hill today and once more faced a stern and scowling Senate Judiciary Committee. By the time it was all said and done, Senator Leahy was hinting at perjury charges and Senator Specter raised the specter of a special prosecutor.

Noting aWol’s unprecedented invocation of executive privilege, Specter observed that “the president’s word stands and the constitutional authority and responsibility for congressional oversight is gone.” He went on to voice that one of the alternatives he has been kicking around is the appointment of a special prosecutor. “The attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor,” said Specter. “You’re recused, but somebody else could do it. You’re recused because you know all of the principals. You have a conflict of interest. But doesn’t the president have an identical conflict of interest?”

The AG did not disappoint those of us who have come to expect the very worst from his pathetic, pathological appearances.

He disputed charges that morale in the Justice Department has plummeted under his leadership, saying that morale can best be measured by "output." The department's output in the last six months has been "outstanding," he asserted.

"I've decided to stay and fix the problems," he said in response to a question.

Senator Leahy was decidedly not buying what Gonzo was selling:

But Gonzales came under withering criticism from the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), and from its top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.)

"The attorney general has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people," Leahy said. He said the administration "has squandered our trust" and told Gonzales bluntly, "I don't trust you."

And Senator Specter seemed to blast the hapless Gonzo with both barrels:

Specter said there was "evidence of low morale" at the Justice Department and blasted what he described as Gonzales's lack of "personal credibility." He called the department "dysfunctional." Specter raised the prospect of calling for a special prosecutor to press a potential contempt-of-Congress citation over the White House's refusal to provide certain documents and sworn testimony regarding the firing of nine federal prosecutors last year. He denounced the Bush administration's stand that it would prohibit the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia from pursuing a contempt citation.

"Now if that forecloses a determination of whether executive privilege has been properly imposed, then the president in that manner can stymie congressional oversight by simply saying there is executive privilege," Specter said. That would spell the end of congressional oversight and take the controversy "to a really incredible level," he said.

"Now we've been exploring some alternatives," Specter said, noting that "the attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor." He told Gonzales, "You're recused, but somebody else could do it."

Specter added, "We also have the alternative of convening the Senate and having a contempt citation and trying it in the Senate."

Gonzo’s pledge to stay on and roll up his sleeves and get to work setting the department back right is simply staggering. WTF???

There is no confidence in the Attorney General from the rank-and-file in the Justice Department. They are despondent and have zero confidence in their compromised, beleaguered “leader.”

Senior staff has resigned in unprecedented numbers. Candidates refuse employment with the department. At least half of the top jobs at Main Justice are unfilled and others are staffed with temps.

Legislative priorities are not being addressed, including revisions to the intelligence laws and anti-crime proposals. "It takes away from normal work," one recently departed Justice official said about the persistent controversy over Gonzales's role in the firings and the use of improper political considerations in hiring career employees. "It obviously has a serious impact," said the former official, who would discuss the department's internal workings only if not identified.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called on Gonzales to resign, but he has steadfastly refused, taking the slings and arrows of public and congressional outrage for his boss. He staunchly, stubbornly hangs on, knowing that his boss will never fire the firewall that stands between him and criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Senate has no confidence in him, and the vote indicates. No, it wasn’t sixty – but it wasn’t less than fifty, either. Remember that.

Let’s face it – without Gonzales, a competent attorney general would have to be installed. The Democratic-controlled Congress would not confirm a lackey like Gonzales. (Imagine Jack Danforth as AG…Oh, reverie…Not only would those Main Justice jobs get snapped up by well-qualified candidates, there would be resignations in the West Wing sufficient to stop the administration dead in its tracks.)

So make with the impeachment of this hapless, sad little man who feebly feigns a desire to do his job, now that it’s all come undone and he is exposed for what he is: a not-to-bright, ideologically driven, inept and compromised failure.

Let me finish with an installment of “What My Lawyer Said”

“This is precisely why I have been a raving lunatic for months … about the necessity of initiating an impeachment investigation, even if it is only as to Gonzales to start. Running out the clock in order to protect our majorities, gain some seats and install a Democratic administration does not cut it. That is akin to doing some public service announcements and hoping crime disappears in your community. The facts and extent of harm must be fleshed out in a formal investigation, the public must be allowed to understand the full nature and extent of what has occurred, and those responsible must be held to account. If not, the ugly beast continues to raise it’s ugly head with impunity in the future.”

Well said, Counselor.

There's more: "Abu G Went Up the Hill to Carry Bushie's Water" >>

We aren't letting go because we think Justice should be just and voters should be franchised

I realize that the right wing wishes we would just shut up about the Department of Justice scandals – "move along" they say, "there is nothing to see here – Hey! Look over there! A puppy!"

But the fact is, there seems to be a whole hell of a lot of there there. My background is clinical – and I can tell you that the deadliest cancers are often myriad little tumors, and that same pathology seems to be at work here. There is simply an overwhelming incidence of abject politicization of the very area of government that can least withstand that egregious offense.

Legal voters were disenfranchised. Black military personnel were targeted for disenfranchisement via a caging scheme. This much has been admitted to. How the defenders can continue to defend this Constitutional offense is beyond me. The actions of the Gonzales DoJ is an affront to decency.

The civil rights division was gutted under Schlozman before he came to Kansas City, where he pursued charges contrary to department policy with the intent to sway elections. In the second case, it might have worked. My candidate won the Mayors race, but I will always wonder – did that thin soup of a charge affected the outcome of the primary?

And now McClatchy tells us that it looks like the Federalist Society might have had a hand in selecting the attorneys who were fired and the candidates to replaced them.

WASHINGTON - A leader of an influential conservative legal group recommended a replacement candidate for the U.S. attorney in San Diego just days after the sitting prosecutor's name was secretly placed on a Justice Department firing list, according to a document released Wednesday.

The recommendation by the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, came before anyone outside of a tight group in the White House and Justice Department knew about a nascent strategy that ultimately led to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

It could not be determined whether a short e-mail, sent on March 7, 2005, making the recommendation meant that Leo knew of the plan to fire Carol Lam or whether his message was unsolicited and coincidental.

The subject line of Leo's e-mail to Mary Beth Buchanan, then-director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, says, "USA San Diego," indicating the top prosecutor job for the Southern District of California. Lam was on the job at the time and had no plans to step down. (emphasis added)

The text of the note reads, "You guys need a good candidate?" Leo goes on to say he would "strongly recommend" the Air Force's general counsel, Mary Walker.

Walker led a Pentagon working group in 2003, which critics said helped provide the administration with a rationale to circumvent the international Geneva Conventions banning torture in the interrogations of terrorism suspects. (emphasis added)

Leo, the Justice Department and Walker could not be reached for comment late Wednesday. Lam declined comment.

The Justice Department turned over the e-mail to Congress as part of a probe into last year's firings of U.S. attorneys.

While the Justice Department has given no direct reason for Lam's firing, officials criticized her handling of immigration and gun cases. Nonetheless, Lam drew positive job evaluations and has testified that she was given no notice of any concerns.

Democrats have questioned whether her firing was connected to her office's high-profile corruption prosecutions implicating Republicans.

Lam's name first appeared on what is believed to have been the Justice Department's earliest target list of prosecutors in late February 2005.

I am sorry, but this is just too much. Now it appears that the Federalist Society had a say in replacing the supremely competent and accomplished Carol Lam (of course, Carol Lam was also the one who shot down Duke Cunningham) and hand-picking a Dominatrix with a J.D. to replace her before she could take down any more corrupt republicans.

Nice.

There's more: "We aren't letting go because we think Justice should be just and voters should be franchised" >>

Making the case to abandon the Gonzalez-Yoo Torture Doctrine

In today’s Washington Post, two retired Marine Four-Stars make an airtight case against torture and Tenet, and by extension Gonzalez and Yoo.

We must abandon any call to do “whatever is necessary” because there is no slope to slide down…with the very first act, you have stepped off a cliff.

But these men, a former CENTCOM Commander and a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, say it better than I can. I do not often reproduce an entire column on this blog. I should hope that the fact it is being posted in it’s entirety speaks to it’s import.

Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.

Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.

These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

As the Senate deliberates the fitness of the Attorney General next week in advance of the scheduled “No Confidence” vote – send an email to both of your senators, denouncing the doctrine of torture that Alberto Gonzales orchestrated.

It violates the very ideals that make us America.

Remind them that you remember.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Making the case to abandon the Gonzalez-Yoo Torture Doctrine" >>

How much longer do we have to abide this joker?

Of course we know why AGAG is still on the job...Anyone Bush found acceptable would not get past the confirmation process, and anyone the Democratically controlled congress would confirm...would burn the Bush maladministration to the ground.

It sure looks to me like the Attorney General of the United States should face perjury charges for lying to the House Judiciary Committee last week when he told the committee that the firing of U.S. Attorneys for political purposes was limited to the eight attorneys in the original inquiry.

The Washington Post reports this morning that he was lyin’ like a rug when he told that (tall) tale. It turns out that fully 25% of the U.S Attorneys were considered for dismissal.

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.

In fact, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, considered more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said.

They amounted to more than a quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys. Thirteen of those known to have been targeted are still in their posts.

I can’t see Representative Conyers having much of a sense of humor about it all. Senator Schumer does not appear to be mollified. "When you start firing people for invalid reasons, just about anyone can end up on a list," he said. "It looks like the process was out of control, and if it hadn't been discovered, more would have been fired."

At least one of the targeted attorneys is not going to be placated by platitudes. Christopher J. Christie, U.S. Attorney for New Jersey and a major GOP fundraiser, is steamed about his name appearing on Mr. Sampson’s hit list.

He has a stellar record and is not accepting apologies. "I was completely shocked. No one had ever told me that my performance had been anything but good," Christie said. "I specifically asked him why he put my name on the list. He said he couldn't give me an explanation." (Because there was no legal one to offer, perhaps?)

Have we seen enough of this guy yet? Good lord – just this week we have learned about more than enough stuff to meet the burden of proof to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General.

The removal of Gonzales from his post is mandatory if we are to restore the concept of justice to Justice.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "How much longer do we have to abide this joker?" >>

Where did this story go?

Why didn’t this story get more traction? What the hell? In last Wednesday’s Washington Post, Dan Eggen had a blow-the-lid-off story on Alberto Gonzales lying to a Federal Judge about the legality of a US Attorney living outside the district served – in this case living in Washington D.C. and representing Montana – and then, later that very day, slipping a provision into…wait for it…you know it’s coming…drumroll please…The PATRIOT Act!!!

Eggen writes: ".... [T]he episode, which received little notice at the time, provides another example in which Gonzales's statements appear to conflict with simultaneous actions by his aides in connection with U.S. attorney policies.... The measure also provides the second example in which the Justice Department sought to use the renewal of the Patriot Act antiterrorism law to assert tighter control over U.S. attorneys. Another provision sought by the Justice Department allowed Gonzales to appoint U.S. attorneys indefinitely without Senate input. Since repealed, it was central to the uproar over the prosecutor dismissals."

The Attorney General of the United States lied to a Federal Judge. That is reprehensible. It’s despicable. It’s akin to treason to so undermine a coequal branch of government.

It is another deliberate abuse of the "Patriot Act." This slipping in of clauses looks as if it was becomign routine. Both clauses served to consolidate unprecedented, unchecked power in the hands of the Justice Department that Karl Rove might use it as a tool of the RNC.

We have long since passed the point where Mr. Gonzales has any hope of redeeming himself, and Justice can simply not be considered just so long as he retains his post.

Seriously – if he does not resign, and the President does not ask for his resignation, Congress needs to impeach him.

And the very next day, after he is dealt with and ousted from office, they need to start the process to repeal that apostasy known as the "Patriot Act" that hasn't made us safer, but has instead been a political tool used to abrogate the rule of law and allow a Republican partisan political operative, in the form of one Karl Rove to take control of the Department of Freakin' Justice.

Why the hell aren't we in the streets with pitchforks and torches over this?

There's more: "Where did this story go?" >>

Mr. Comey Returns to Washington

A former deputy attorney general lavished praise yesterday on most of the eight U.S. attorneys who were fired after he left the job, testifying that only one of them had serious performance problems.

James B. Comey, former deputy attorney general and second in command at the Justice Department from 2003 until August 2005, appeared before a House Judiciary subcommittee today. NPR described his testimony as “sliding a knife between the Attorney General’s ribs, and slowly twisting.”

Comey was a highly regarded prosecutor and now is chief council for Lockheed Martin. Never in his testimony did he so much as raise his voice. He didn’t need to. He came to tell the truth, apparently, and it looks like that is exactly what he did. His testimony was widely seen as undermining the Attorney Generals claims that nothing unusual occurred, the prosecutors had been fired for performance problems. His testimony also underscored the degree to which the firings, which originated in the White House, were handled outside the normal channels at main Justice.

In his testimony, he averred that although he was the direct supervisor in charge of all U.S. Attorneys, he was never informed about the planned purge of U.S. Attorneys that began in early 2005.

"My experience with the U.S. attorneys just listed was very positive," Comey said, referring to six of the former prosecutors who testified in Congress in March. He added that the reasons given for their firings "have not been consistent with my experience" and that "I had very positive encounters with these folks."

I guess “positive encounters” is apt – if not understated…

He described Paul K. Charlton of Arizona as "one of the best," said he had a "very positive view" of David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, and called Daniel G. Bogden of Las Vegas "straight as a Nevada highway and a fired-up guy." Of John McKay of Seattle, Comey said: "I was inspired by him."

Perhaps most damaging to the Justice Department was Comey's description of Carol C. Lam of San Diego as "a fine U.S. attorney." He acknowledged that he was concerned about Lam's record on firearms cases but said he had discussed the issue with her and did not see it as a firing offense.

Comey said that while he was deputy attorney general he did not have much interaction with fired prosecutor Bud Cummins of Little Rock. But he called Cummins a "good man" in a recent e-mail exchange released yesterday, adding that he "will not sit by and watch good people smeared."

Comey’s appearance followed by one day the revelation that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into former Gonzales aide aide , Monica Goodling to determine if she applied an illegal political test when considering applicants for Justice Department jobs.

Goodling has resigned her position and refused to testify before congress (although I seriously doubt that tack works out so very well for her...)

Comey was visibly uneasy at the prospect of a political litmus test being applied to the hiring process of attorneys working for the Justice Department “very troubling.” He went on…"I don't know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our AUSAs for political reasons.”

There's more: "Mr. Comey Returns to Washington" >>

An open letter to my congressional delegation...

I have emailed the following letter to my Congressman and Senators demanding the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. I encourage you to do the same. If you don't have time to write your own letter, use this one, just cut out the second, third and fourth paragraphs. Unless you live in Kansas City, of course.

Dear Senators Bond & McCaskill; and Congressman Cleaver;

The time has come to take decisive action to restore justice to the Department of Justice and impeach the Attorney General. He has sullied the office and disgraced the department. He has failed to realize that the AG is not the President’s lawyer, but is instead the people’s lawyer. If the surgeon general politicizes the post, innocent people do not go to prison. Justice politicized is not just, and when Justice is not just, our Republic is in grave peril.

I take this all very personally. I live in Kansas City, and I have been paying attention since Todd Graves got his first headline. I watched in horror as Schlozman abused the office. I had my first hissy-fit about the lack of confirmation and Patriot Act abuses when he blew into town unconfirmed and reeking of Rove. (By the way, in the future read the bills that you are voting on when my civil liberties are at stake! That's what I pay you for. Claire, you of course get a pass here, you were not in the Senate yet.)

I further believe that charges were filed by USA Schlozman in an attempt to influence Missouri elections. Specifically, I believe that the electoral process was manipulated in an attempt to retain the Class I seat Senator McCaskill won in November for the Republican incumbent; and I believe that there is reason to investigate the charges filed against Kathryn Shields before the mayoral primary.

Senator Bond, your cousin is in the position now. I have hope that things in the Kansas City office will improve under his leadership.

But the fact remains that what has happened to the Department of Justice under Alberto Gonzales is an utter apostasy and an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law. Those things mean something to me, and I hope they do to you as well.

On Monday we learned that the Attorney General abdicated his responsibility and delegated unprecedented authority over staffing decisions to two aides, Mr. Sampson and Ms. Goodling. Every day there is a new outrage. The more we learn, the more outrageous Mr. Gonzales stubbornly clinging to his post appears. The Resident stubbornly insisting Mr. Gonzales has his full faith and confidence quite frankly crosses the line from absurd to disturbing.

Enough already. The fecklessness, mendacity and perfidy are manifest, and the incompetence is staggering in scope. We, the People, simply can no longer abide it, and the time is nigh for the impeachment of the Attorney General. If he will not resign, and the President will not ask for his resignation, then Congress must intervene and remove him from his post.

Congressman, I encourage you to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Alberto Gonzales today. And Senators, I hope that you will vote to convict when the case comes before the Senate.

Respectfully;

All congressional contact information is available on the sidebar. Please use it.

There's more: "An open letter to my congressional delegation..." >>

So THAT'S why Mark Pryor Wants Gonzo Gone So Bad...

Well now. This article from the Saturday Washington post sure sheds a bit of light as to the nature of the specific burr Mark Pryor has had under his saddle where the Attorney General is concerned. I would be just a wee bit steamed my own self if I were him…In fact, no amount of groveling or ass-kissing by the feckless loser currently calling himself the attorney general would have swayed me under these circumstances, either.

Turns out that When Bud Cummins, the U.S. Attorney for Arkansas was being considered for termination by Main Justice for not being quite the Loyal Bushie that the Administration had in mind, the White House called Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.) "and pretty much told him what they are doing with this appointment and how they are going about it,"

The message indicates that Bush administration officials told Boozman about their plans to fire Cummins at the same time that Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and other Democrats say they were being stonewalled.

Pryor has accused Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other Justice officials of lying to him about the firing of Cummins, who was replaced by Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide and an opposition researcher at the Republican National Committee.

Boozman said that when he spoke with Justice officials last summer, they told him Griffin would be subject to Senate confirmation. However, Gonzales appointed Griffin as interim U.S. attorney, using authority that has since been repealed by Congress.

To Boozman’s credit, he objected strenuously to the plan, citing Cummins professional reputation in the legal and political communities in and around Little Rock. His objections were overruled, but he does get credit for protesting the injustice emanating outward from Main Justice.

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "So THAT'S why Mark Pryor Wants Gonzo Gone So Bad..." >>

Sandbagging at the DoJ

The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, is preparing subpoenas for hundreds of pages of documents relating to the firings of eight U.S. attorneys that have been withheld from committee investigators. Those investigators have been allowed to view the documents in question, but they have not been issued the copies requested by the committee.

As this latest clash between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Gonzales DoJ unfolds, the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, cancelled a long-scheduled appearance by AG Gonzoles.

Mikulski cited a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the DoJ, and will not consider a requested increase in the departments operating budget until the matter of the improperly fired U.S. Attorney’s is resolved. Mikulski’s decision to cancel the hearing denies the AG a chance to “test drive” his cover story for a Senate Committee before his scheduled April 17 appearance before the Judiciary Committee.

The subpoenas are scheduled to be served on Thursday of next week, and the House Judiciary Committee has already approved subpoenas for the same withheld documents.

The revelation of these withheld documents has led Sen. Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York to renew his call for Gonzales to resign, questioning his ability to lead under the circumstances he has created and a department in shambles. "He cannot talk about the funding and functioning of the Justice Department until he clears the air on U.S. attorneys," Schumer said.

Trust in Gonzales ability to lead his department is non-existent among the Democrats on Capitol Hill who hold the majority in both chambers.

This instance of withheld documents is fuel on the fire, in the wake of last weeks testimony by former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson, who implicated the AG in several lies with his sworn testimony last week.

The next two weeks are going to be interesting for us political wonks, to say the least.

There's more: "Sandbagging at the DoJ" >>

Support for Gonzalez Continues to Erode

The drumbeat for Gonzalez to resign grew louder today when five-term GOP Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska abandoned his support for the embattled Attorney General. "My views were was that this was Democrat(ic) posturing and a witch hunt," Terry said. "My trust in him in that position has taken a hit because of these contradictory statements by him." He went on "Frankly, until these statements came out that contradicted his first statement, I was backing him, saying that he shouldn't resign. Now I think that he should."

What I have been noticing is not so much a groundswell of Republicans crossing over to speak up and call for his resignation, but an utter lack of support from even the most stalwart GOP supporters. It's like even the true believers realize Gonzo is - well - Gonzo. All that is left is salvaging the Justice Department, so the true believers are just letting the AG stew in his own juices.

Off the record, the grumbling that he is sure taking his sweet time in shagging his sorry self up to the Hill and having a sit-down to explain his actions are getting louder. Lawmakers are non-plussed that he was called out by his former Chief of Staff and exposed as a liar; yet he plans to mosey on up to the hill on the 17th of April to clear the air - three weeks after Sampson's allegations under oath.

And those of us who learned by age ten that the ends don't justify the means are shaking our heads incredulously, wondering how the hell these people managed to get through life without going to prison young - let alone how they seized the levers of power for the nation.

There's more: "Support for Gonzalez Continues to Erode" >>

A little something for your irreverent side

A Mike Judge Cartoon that didn't make the Star's opinion-page cut...





But it sure made mine - especially given the light this blog has shined on Gonzo-rama and the Purge...

There's more: "A little something for your irreverent side" >>

Got Conspiracy? An indictment of Rove from the latest document dump

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. --Thomas Jefferson

Another document dump happened last night, and one of Josh Marshall’s astute Citizen Journalists flagged an email exchange that originated with Kyle Sampson to Harriet Meiers. Here is the link to the whole thing. (.pdf alert)

Here is the part I found damning:

Harriet/Bill, please see the attached. Please note (1) the plan, by its terms, would commence this week; (2) I have consulted with the DAG, but not yet informed others who would need to be brought into the loop………(nor have I informed anyone in Karl's shop, another pre-execution necessity I would recommend); and (3) I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result (see Step 3); if we start caving to complaining U.S. Attorneys or Senators then we shouldn't do it -- it'll be more trouble than it is worth. We'll stand by for a green light from you. Upon the green light, we'll (1) circulate the below plan to the list of folks in Step 3 (and ask that you circulate it to Karl's shop………

Damning evidence that Gonzalez abdicated his responsibility to the Department of Justice to a political hack like Rove.

The American people have the right to feel secure that federal prosecutions are not political in origin.

In fact, we spent money hand-over-fist for five decades because we were locked in an ideological battle against an authoritarian regime that engaged in political persecutions via prosecutions.

I was there for the Cold War. I am the definitive cold war brat – born six weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis, I married into the Strategic Air Command when I grew up.

I did not give my life over to the side of Democracy in the struggle against authoritarian ideology elsewhere to capitulate to a dogmatic authoritarianism at home. Even if it means the blood of patriots and tyrants must be spilled.

There's more: "Got Conspiracy? An indictment of Rove from the latest document dump" >>