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" >>

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"" >>

Senator Leahy and the WH subpoenas

Sen. Leahy promised to fight the White House yesterday on Meet The Press (transcript):

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday he was ready to go to court if the White House resisted congressional subpoenas for information on the firing of federal prosecutors.

"If they don't cooperate, yes I'd go that far," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. He was asked in a broadcast interview whether he would seek a congressional vote on contempt citations if President Bush did not comply. That move would push the matter to court.

"They've chosen confrontation rather than compromise or cooperation," Leahy said. "The bottom line on this U.S. attorneys' investigation is that we have people manipulating law enforcement. Law enforcement can't be partisan."

Amen to that! Also in motion are subpoenas issued to the WH and the OVP "for documents related to the administration's legal basis for conducting warrant-free eavesdropping on people in the United States."

Leahy and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who heads the House Judiciary Committee, have demanded a White House explanation by July 9 as to its grounds for claiming executive privilege in refusing to turn over additional documents.

The two lawmakers say that regardless of whether the White House meets the deadline, they would begin acting to enforce the subpoenas as appropriate under the law.

To spurn the congressional subpoenas -- conveying a "Nixonian attitude" that the WH is above the law -- could mean the House and Senate would vote to bring contempt charges. If Leahy is as serious as I believe he is, and without full cooperation from the Bush Administration, he will press for contempt citations on the basis that executive privilege in this instance has no legal merit:

Over the years, Congress and the White House have avoided a full-blown court test. Under federal rules, lawmakers could vote to cite witnesses for contempt and refer the matter to the local U.S. attorney to bring before a grand jury. Since 1975, 10 senior administration officials have been cited, but the disputes were all resolved before getting to court.

Leahy proposed a reasonable solution to avoid a fight: WH officials can provide sworn testimony recorded into transcripts behind closed doors. However, the information would be made available to the public. That's how transparency in government works, something the secretive, deceptive, and criminal Bush-Cheney regime regularly and intentionally subverts.

Over in the Wingnutosphere at RedState.com, Mark Kilmer on Sunday whined that Leahy's oversight efforts were "repeated public harassment" of the WH (Waah! Boo-hoo-hoo!) and added that Leahy is "doing this, he said, because the American people care a lot."

Yes, we do care a lot -- 68% of us wanted WH officials to answer "all questions" and thought Congress "should issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath." The Bushies have transformed the DOJ into the political partisan arm of the GOP using our tax dollars, an enterprise that's unethical and illegal. Back in mid-April, two thirds of Americans, including a narrow majority of Republicans, realized the USA firings were politically motivated. The public isn't fooled by Bushie WH shenanigans. And we're pissed.

Victor Gold, the former Deputy Press Secretary to Barry Goldwater, expressed his disgust over the current DOJ situation during an interview with Bill Moyers:

I think it's a corrupted justice department. When I say "corrupted," I don't mean dollars and cents. I mean corrupted in terms of... our constitutional values. And I think you've heard some of the prosecuting attorneys who were fired speak out and the-- some of the investigation-- the investigations bringing out exactly what's going on up there. And when you corrupt the justice system, the Justice Department, that's the most important department of government in terms of protecting our constitutional values. One of the reasons I wanted the Democrats to win [in November] was because I knew the yo-yo Republicans on the Hill were not going to investigate even [though] they-- we-- we claim we are the constitutionalists. We are the ones concerned about the Constitution. We want strict constructionist judges. We don't want ...overreaching federal government. The fact is... I knew there would be investigations. And I-- I-- I want these investigations to go on 'cause they weren't going on when the Republicans were in control of Congress.

Next question: When will Congress crank up Cheney's impeachment?

And regarding Bush... ITMFA!

UPDATE: Seriously, it's time to put impeachment back on the table. Are you listening, Madam Speaker?

There's more: "Senator Leahy and the WH subpoenas" >>

Brett Kavanaugh Apparently Lied To The Senate Judiciary Committee -- Leahy Is Outraged

According to the official White House Announcement Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed on May 26, 2006, as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit hears appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and reviews the decisions of a number of administrative agencies.

He was sworn in on June 1, 2006. For Brett Kavanaugh life must have seemed good. A wonderful legal career. He had already passed one confirmation process. If one of those old geezers on the Supreme Court retired before the end of Bush's term, who knows. Yeh, Leahy had been a bit of a prick during the confirmation process when he asked all those questions about the President's detention policy. The same could be said of Durbin, but no worries.

No worries that is until Wednesday when Chairman Patrick Leahy wrote a letter to Alberto Gonzales. It seems when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh testified that he was not aware of the Administration's legal justifications relating to the treatment of detainees until it became public in 2004.

In answering a direct question from Senator Leahy he said detainee policy "was not part of my docket, either in the counsel's office or as staff secretary." He gave similar answers to questions from Senator Durbin.

It turns out that this week an article in the Washington Post and a story on NPR dispute Kavenaugh's claim that detention policy wasn't part of his job. From Leahy's letter

According to a June 25,2007, article in the Washington Post and a June 26 report on National Public Radio, Mr. Kavanaugh took part in discussions by White House lawyers in 2002 about whether the Supreme Court would uphold the Administration's detention policies. Both reports confirm that Mr. Kavanaugh advised that Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had served as a law clerk, would reject presidential discretion to lock up U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without representation by counsel.

Leahy's letter concludes:

I take the inconsistency between these news reports and Mr. Kavanaugh's testimony very seriously. False testimony by any witness is troubling and undermines the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties on behalf of the American people. But my concern is heightened because the subject matter of the possibly false testimony was highly controversial and played a critical role in many Senators' consideration of Mr.Kavanaugh's nomination for a lifetime appointment to one of the courts most involved in reviewing those very same detention policies. For these reasons, I have no choice but to refer the matter to you for appropriate investigation and prosecutorial action.

Kavenaugh's Cadillac ride to the Supreme Court might have just suffered a blowout. It's probably time for the Judge to lawyer up.

This story expands on Gadfly's post from earlier in the week.

There's more: "Brett Kavanaugh Apparently Lied To The Senate Judiciary Committee -- Leahy Is Outraged" >>

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas White House, Cheney, DOJ & NSA on wiretapping

[updated 3:40 p.m. CDT]

AP is reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee has just subpoenaed the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney, the Justice Department and the National Security Council on the warrantless eavesdropping program.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal squabbles within the administration over the legality of the program, said a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity because the subpoenas had not been made public.

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony about the hospital-room pressure put on then AG John Ashcroft may well have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, AP says.

[1:30 p.m. update]

John at AMERICAblog makes the interesting point that this subpoena will probably force Cheney to claim executive privilege. This will force him to drop his silly argument that the vice president is the 4th branch of government. Of course, Cheney is already shifting his stand on that goofiness.

[3:40 p.m. update]

TPM has more details on the committee's action.

There's more: "BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenas White House, Cheney, DOJ & NSA on wiretapping" >>

This Week In Your Judiciary Committees

The coming week is relatively light. On Tuesday 6/19/2007 at 2:00 PM Eastern the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed Overseas. The witness list isn't up yet, but we will try to keep you informed. If you want to watch you can pick up a live webcast here. At 4:00 PM Tuesday 06/19/2007 the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law will hold a hearing on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives on Immigration Statistics." I don't think it is going to be webcast. On Thursday 06/21/2007 at 9:00 AM the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is holding a hearing on: "H.R. 558, the “African-American Farmers Benefits Relief Act of 2007” and H.R. 899, “Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007.” It will be webcast. At 12:00 PM Thursday the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will conduct a hearing on "The Continuing Investigation into the U.S. Attorneys Controversy and Related Matters". A live Webcast will be available.

Over in the Senate Judiciary Committee the action doesn't start until Wednesday. At 10:00 PM Eastern, the Full Committee will conduct a previously postponed hearing on "Rising Violent Crime in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. " The witnesses include The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu, United States Senator [D-LA], The Honorable David Vitter, United States Senator [R-LA],The Honorable James B. Letten, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, The Honorable David L. Bell, Chief Judge, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, New Orleans, LA, Robert A. Stellingworth, President & CEO, New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, New Orleans, LA, Anthony Cannatella, Deputy Police Commissioner, New Orleans, LA, and Hans Marticiuc, President Houston Police Officers’ Union, Houston, TX.

Senator Feinstein will preside over a hearing on “Judicial Nominations” starting at 2:30 PM.

Thursday the full Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing entitled "Civil Rights Division Oversight." The hearing is scheduled to start at 2:00 PM. Witnesses include Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC, Brian Landsberg, Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, CA, and Helen Norton, Visiting Assistant Professor School of Law, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.

There's more: "This Week In Your Judiciary Committees" >>

Schlozman to Senate---You Know What I Said, Sorry I Really Meant To Say Something Else.

Last week I reported that Bradley Schlozman wanted to revise his testimony concerning the decision to go forward with the ACORN indictments just days before the November, 2006, election.

Yesterday Mr. Schlozman sent a letter to Chairman Patrick Leahy attempting clarify his controversial testimony. This is Leahy’s response:

“It is deeply troubling that after weeks of preparation Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee and the public about his decision to file an election eve lawsuit in direct conflict with longstanding Justice Department policy. I asked him repeatedly about this case at the hearing because of concerns that it was done to use law enforcement power improperly to affect the outcome of the election, which is the reason the Department instituted the policy as a safeguard against such manipulation.

“This Justice Department and this Administration already suffer from a severe credibility crisis, and learning that yet another senior official was less than forthcoming during his testimony before Congress does little to restore any of the lost trust or eroding confidence in their leadership. It is difficult to get to the facts when Administration officials fail to come clean, but the Committee will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter.”

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Schlozman will be successful in his bald faced attempt to step back from his perjury. Not long ago the term "Senate lion" meant something. Now the Democratic majority are more like Senate sheep. Given the utter impotence displayed by the Senate Democrats the last few days, I wouldn't bet against Mr. Schlozman.

Think progress suggests I was mistaken in my original post. They say Schlozman used the word "directed" ten and not nine times.

There's more: "Schlozman to Senate---You Know What I Said, Sorry I Really Meant To Say Something Else." >>

The Schlozman Funny

Usually I post a funny video on Friday nights. Something political, but stupid. Tonight is no exception. Below is Josh Marshall's take on Bradley Schlozman's recent testimony. If you can ignore the seriousness of the subject matter, and just focus on the absurdity of Schlozman's answers you have to agree that Bradley instinctively grasps the fundamentals of dark comedy.

He also reminds me of one of the stock Veggitales characters. He sounds like one too.

Just pay close attention to the questions ask him by Senator Schumer near the end and tell me if he was clear about the direction he claims was given to him by Craig Donsanto.

My old drama professor used to say that comedy and tragedy are merely opposite sides of the same coin. In Schlozman's case the coin is exceedingly thin.

You might want to watch this after you have poured yourself a tall one.

Friday night's funny.



You have to find humor where you can. Otherwise the terrorists win.

There's more: "The Schlozman Funny" >>

Judiciary Committee Poised To Issue Subpoenas On Warrentless Wiretap Program

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a full dance card next Thursday. In addition to dealing with assorted bills, resolutions, and nominations, it is going to consider "Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation of Legal Basis for Warrantless Wiretap Program."

According to a Raw Story

"The warrantless wiretapping program has operated for over five years outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and without the approval of the FISA Court. The Committee has continued to ask for the legal justification for this sweeping and secret program, and has continually been rebuffed by inadequate and at times, misleading, responses from this Justice Department," said Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The information we have requested has been specific to the legal justification for this program and is firmly within the Committee’s oversight jurisdiction."

The Rules Committee on Wednesday for Hans Von Spakosky. Thurdsday, the Judiciary Committee considers warrentless wiretap subpoenas. I hope the Senate air conditioning is turned down low. Next week is going to be hot, hot, hot.

There's more: "Judiciary Committee Poised To Issue Subpoenas On Warrentless Wiretap Program" >>

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies

Brian York of the National Review has published an article entitled Alberto Gonzales’s Disastrous Day
focusing on Gonzales's pathetic non-responses to the "softball" questions of normally friendly Republican senators. He concludes: "(i)f Gonzales has lost the support of Sam Brownback and Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham and Tom Coburn and other Republicans on the committee, he might soon lose his support at the White House, too."

If central components of the mighty right wing Wurlitzer are giving Gonzales bad reviews, you know Fredo is in deep trouble. The longer Gonzales remains at Justice the more he damages the President. Alberto don't do what you know is right, just keep following George's directions. Dig in your heels George, dig in your heals. You are the decider. You might "decider" yourself into single digits. Keep it up. Dig in your heels.

There's more: "With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies" >>

Gonzales Before the Senate: First Impressions

The Senate grilling is over, but Leahy says they aren't through with this issue yet.

Too much of Gonzales saying, "I don't recall", "It wasn't my job", and not ever being able to answer specifically why those eight US Attorneys were fired...The closest he got to explaining the latter regarded Carol Lam, and Feinstein eviscerated him on the weak points he tried to raise. Not much on the other USAs, or why Wisconsin's USA was removed from the list of those to be dismissed. One of the more damning parts of the testimony concerned exactly how and who decided what USAs were to be placed on that list...

The strongest and most suprising condemnation of Gonzales came from Republican John Cornyn, who stated that Gonzales needed to resign. The other Republicans on the committee lobbed mostly softballs at Gonzales, with most using their sessions to discuss unrelated issues like campus security and internet gambling.

After today, Gonzales is a laughingstock; however I hope that he doesn't step down or stops pleasuring the president...for two reasons:

- Cripes, he makes this administration look bad. I mean bad.
- I don't want his exit from the DoJ to act as a firewall between the White House and this particlar issue...There were (too few) questions about the roles Harriet Miers and Karl Rove played in this issue, along with the larger issue of this administration's politicization of government institutions...

Update: Changed my mind. Gonzales should go. Now. There's plenty of investigating to do to find out how deep that rabbit hole is; the AG won't ever give up anything useful, as evidenced today.

There's more: "Gonzales Before the Senate: First Impressions" >>

Immunity for Goodling?

Could be. The House Judiciary Committee is considering it, and might be able to get the requisite 2/3 of the congress persons who hold seats on the committee to agree. It would mean that four Republicans would have to vote with the Democrats who control the Congress (and therefore the committees). Given the lack of support for the Attorney General, it is not unthinkable that four would stand up and defy the White House. (If your congressperson is on the committee, avail yourself of the contact information we provide in the sidebar and drop him or her a line.)

They know, and so does the White House that in 2008 we are selecting a different president no matter what. But every single congressperson is up for re-election every two years. They virtually never stop running for office. And for the first time in any of their careers Americans suddenly seem to be paying attention to absolutely everything. In this climate of heightened awareness among the electorate, the Republicans on the committee might be a bit reluctant to be seen as carrying water for this feckless president and his mendacious minions.

Americans are more than a little bit put off about the fact that an innocent woman spent four months in prison for doing her job in a Democratic administration. (We like to think of political prisoners as a big part of the reason we engaged in that 50-year ideological struggle with the USSR. Remember? I for one didn’t show up for duty during the Cold War just to pave the way for a worse brand of authoritarianism to take over at home. Just sayin.’)

Monica Goodling threw a change-up that had the White House swinging wildly when she announced preemptively that she would be “taking the Fifth” when testifying before Congress (she at one point indicated she wouldn’t even appear. That contemptuous talk was stifled quickly).

Conyers cited Goodling's dual role as Gonzales's aide and the Justice Department's liaison to the White House for the unusual immunity offer, saying she could "clear up the many inconsistencies and gaps surrounding this matter."

"Ms. Goodling clearly has much to contribute to the committee's understanding of the surrounding circumstances," Conyers said.

If the Committee grants immunity to Goodling, the only way the Justice Department could mount any objections would be if it could show objectively that an ongoing criminal investigation would be jeopardized by the arrangement. The Purge has sparked no criminal probes, but the department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility are exercising caution and conducting reviews to determine if any policies were violated.

Immunity would compel Goodling to answer questions in exchange for the promise that she would not face criminal prosecution based on evidence obtained by her testimony. (The Fifth guarantees a protection against self-incrimination).

The White House is anxious about any testimony she might offer – she was the liaison between Justice and Karl Rove. They do not want her to testimony under oath, and have been quite insistent about it. That they are so eager to keep her quiet is reason enough to grant her immunity and compel her testimony. And if she still balks, let her sit in a cell on contempt charges for a couple of days. I have a feeling a few days shock time would loosen her tongue right up.

[Cross posted to Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Immunity for Goodling?" >>

The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them

There has been much written and discussed of late on the roiling scandals permeating the US Department of Justice. Much of it, and rightfully so, is being driven by the Democratic left. Our own Corpus Juris has been both eloquent and dogged on these issues, and deserves our commendation and thanks. Although I have seen absolutely no evidence of this from CJ, or any other contributor here, there are many of our brothers and sisters out there among the political activists and blogosphere that are, unfortunately, viewing this set of issues as but another political battle to be played for maximum advantage against the Republicans. Such a view cannot, and must not, be our tact.

The cracking of the Justice Department scandals must be a goal of justice and the rule of law, not a political goal. Quite frankly, adherence to steadfast political goals, albeit it on the other side, is what got us to this point in the first place. The actions of the investigating Congressional committees should not be to advance political goals, they should be to advance the principle of justice irrespective of whether the benefit inures to the Democratic or Republican side. To act otherwise puts the result above the process; the foundation of American law, and indeed American democracy itself, is the primacy of a fair and impartial process not the guarantee of any particular result or goal.

There has been a long and slow degradation of the understanding of this fundamental premise by both the American public and their elected leaders. When either side decides that "political goals" are primary, that inherently places results above the process. I have practiced law in the governmental misconduct and criminal areas for twenty years, and the phenomenon I describe is quite evident in the halls of justice. A lot of the circumstances and problems we are focused on today are the festering mature result of the primordial decisions of one party, the Republicans, to serve "political goals" by declaring themselves the "law and order party" and spreading fear of isolated and ultimately inconsequential, yet publically hyped and discussed, results in criminal cases. If a particular criminal defendant went free because the police or prosecution had substantially violated fundamental Constitutional protections, they screamed and bellowed "Hide the women and children, those liberals have freed this heinous criminal on a technicality to roam your streets and rob, rape and murder again".

So it began with characterizing hideous and substantive Fourth Amendment violations of fundamental search and seizure law as "mere technicalities". Soon judges and prosecutors, usually being elected officials themselves, started shading their duties and principles under the law to find creative ways around Constitutional protections in order to avoid results that would be unpopular. Then the officials ran again for election proudly proclaiming how they had protected the "law and order for the citizens" by "clamping down on criminals" and "elimianting the criminal's use of technicalities". The more they talked the talk, the more they walked the walk.

The sad result over time is the situation we now find ourselves in where technicalities (read: the Constitution) be damned, the government and justice system is to be used as just another partisan tool. The Attorney General of the United States dismissively brands the Genevea Conventions as "quaint" and inconsequential. The President of the United States belligerently ignores the Constitution screaming that "it's just a damn piece of paper". The Executive Branch acts, and thinks, like Article II of the Constitution (the one delineating and defining the Executive Branch) is the only portion that exists. This is what happens when political goals (the results) trump adherence to the principles of the system (the process). There is no way to excise politics completely because it is inherent in the process at hand; however, it must not be the guiding intent. If the fundamental process can be restored and borne out, our victory will flow therefrom automatically.

There's more: "The Justice Department Investigations Must Not Be Portrayed As Us Versus Them" >>

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" >>

Folded like a cheap suit...

Thankfully, Swift Boat Liars are not a fortified bunch.

In the face of questioning by the man he helped malign, St. Louis businessman Sam Fox has had his specious nomination as Ambassador to Belgium withdrawn.

But the genie is out of the bottle, and both senators from Missouri need to be accountable for their support of this creep.

A feckless, mendacious jackal is a feckless, mendacious jackal, and I don't care whether he's a home-town boy or not.

There's more: "Folded like a cheap suit..." >>

Hello--I am the new kid in town.

Blue Girl has asked me to follow the doings of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the 110th congress.

The Senate Committee got off to a fast start yesterday with a background hearing on "Balancing Privacy and Security: The Privacy Implications of Government Data Mining Programs. "

The second witness, Jim Harper of the Cato Institute gave a very good summary of the issues involved in data mining in the fight on terror. It seems data mining is the worst of all possible worlds. It wastes a lot of resources creating false positives and every false positive is a potential source of problems for the poor American falsely targetted. According to Harper:

(D)ata mining is not, and cannot be, a useful tool in the anti-terror arsenal. The incidence of terrorism and terrorism planning is too low for there to be statistically sound modeling of terrorist activity.

Interesting. If that is the case, why do we mine data? This is a topic we will revisit during the coming congress.

The house judiciary committee doesn't have a hearing scheduled until next week. On 11/15/2006 - Representative Conyer and his collegues will consider "Legislation Cracking Down on Caller ID Spoofing." Not the same as data mining, but important to people who have been spoofed.

Now if I can just figure out how all this HTML stuff works.

There's more: "Hello--I am the new kid in town." >>