by hilzoy
(1) (Via TPM): Murray Waas has a new story out:
“The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked together to conceal the role of Karl Rove in installing Timothy Griffin, a protégé of Rove’s, as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.”
Part of it concerns a flat-out lie that I flagged here. (Shameless self-promotion.)
(2) Remember Murray Waas’ last story, the one about Gonzales delegating hiring and firing decisions to Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling? Marty Lederman, who used to work in the DoJ, has an excellent post explaining what it all means. Excerpt:
“The problem is not that political, policy and “loyalty” considerations would be brought to bear on high-level employment decisions at DOJ — that has always been the case. The White House — and the Goodlings and Sampsons of the Department — have always been involved in such decisionmaking. The problem here — the real radical shift — is that under the new AG Order, the decisions are left entirely to such persons, so that the decisions are completely politicized — anyone with any institutional or professional judgment or experience is cut out of the loop.“
And:
“There would be nothing inherently problematic about transferring this responsibility away from the DAG to, say, other experienced professionals with law enforcement experience and judgment. The problem here is that this important function has now been delegated to persons having virtually no tie to the cadre of professionals in the Department — young attorneys who had no background, experience or qualification to evaluate candidates for senior law enforcement positions except their political connections and loyalty to the White House. But the fact that the DAG’s traditional responsibility was transferred lock, stock and barrel to these two people, of all the officials in the Department, makes clear that the only relevant considerations for hiring were to be partisan political considerations, not performance. “
(3) Josh Marshall found a ninth fired US Attorney: Todd Graves of Missouri. Curiously, in all the time the US Attorneys scandal has been under investigation, no one from DoJ has mentioned this fact. From Graves’ statement about why he resigned:
“I was an elected state prosecutor before I was appointed US Attorney. As a prosecutor I was always fiercely independent–I just called balls and strikes. For instance, when I gave now Senator Claire McCaskill her non-prosecution letter in 2004, I didn’t ask for permission, I just did the right thing. I thought that was my job.
When I first interviewed in 2001 with the United States Attorney screening committee at DOJ, I was asked to give the panel one attribute that describes me. I said independent. Apparently, that was the wrong attribute.
Public office is not an entitlement. I served nearly 12 years as a public prosecutor. It was a privilege. I loved every minute, but it is far better to take a graceful exit than to do something that you should be ashamed of.”
Here’s TPMMuckraker’s coverage of his replacement, Bradley Schlozman. It’s pretty depressing.
Listening to today’s hearing, I’m surprised how much the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are supporting Gonzales and Bush. I’d have expected at this stage to see a few of them harshly denouncing Gonzales like some of the Republican senators did last month, but instead it’s just a flood of bogus defenses (“Clinton did it too!”) and suggestions that just having the hearing is damaging the Justice Department and politicizing things, so we should pack up and go home and forget about oversight.
I guess they’re betting that the worst of this storm is over now.
KC,
I suspect that the difference between the reactions of the House and Senate Republicans is based upon their different constituencies. House members of both parties often have sufficiently safe districts that they need to watch their extremist flanks more than the moderate ones, which affects their posture. For example, see the difference between House and Senate Republicans during Iran-Contra (which I had the hearings on as background noise while I studied for my bar exams).
True, Dan. I was trying to remember what the earlier House Judiciary Committee hearing was like, but it probably wasn’t so different. Surely there are a few House Republicans who can’t rely completely on the flaming wingnut 28-percenters for their reelections.
And it seemed for while there as if even the 28-percenters were getting ready to write off Gonzales.
Bush Administration Withheld Emails About Rove’s Involvement in Attorneygate
Fucking hell. Is there a single soul in the entire multiverse who could possibly be surprised by this? The Bush administration has withheld a series of e-mails from Congress showing that senior White House and Justice Department officials worked togeth…
It’s pretty clear that there are more than the eight, and that they include Los Angeles district US Attorney Yang, the one investigating Rep. Lewis (R-defense slush fund). She was offered, with an enormous ‘signing bonus’, a job in the firm defending Lewis.
The Minnesota USA who was replaced by the right-wing fundamentalist ditz is also pretty obviously one of the victims of the purge.
She was offered, with an enormous ‘signing bonus’, a job in the firm defending Lewis.
If this is true Gonzolez would have had to sign off it. Prosectuors jumping to defense is not that uncommon, but to do so with a major case pending and the firm on the other side is a huge no-no legal ethics wise
If this is true Gonzolez would have had to sign off it. Prosectuors jumping to defense is not that uncommon, but to do so with a major case pending and the firm on the other side is a huge no-no legal ethics wise
Probably not true…but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were…and they finessed it by getting her a job to another branch of the firm, unconnected to the case or clients…
Probably not true…
Actually, if it isn’t in this case, it should have been.
When attorneys change firms, and their new employers have cases that would be a conflict, they’re supposed to erect a “Chinese wall” or “firewall” between the new attorney and those cases.
That is simple, basic legal ethics.
Now, when we’re talking about Bush law, “simple basic legal ethics” probably don’t apply.
Here is when this b.s. will end:
When some of these folks do real, hard time.
Congress has subpoena power. Call your reps and senators and tell them to use it.
Impeachment and jail. Consequences with teeth. Other than that, we can all expect to continue to get the royal finger from this crew.
Yes, I sound like a broken record.
Thanks
Wait, I thought the right-wing fundamentalist ditz was Monica Goodling. You’re going to have to be more specific. Besides, aren’t ditzes supposed to be blonde?
Thanks, KC, I should be more specific; I’m referring to Rachel Paulose. I was wrong about her being a fundamentalist like Monica Goodling — she’s just an ambitious ideologue — but she’s also a ditz:
She’s the one who caused four career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office to resign en masse.
Bush officials now just openly lie, and the sycophants read the talking points to obfuscate the point. Gonzalez has lied his way through several hearings, and that is just how they do things.
Just like Iraq War, WMD, Valerie Plame, Medicaire Bill, and on and on.
What amazes me is how enabling the Republican Party is to this corruption. The Bushies don’t keep a calendar after 2008, but the rest of the crew? The 2008 elections are probably going to bury the Republicans.
There is not a whole lot the Democrats can do over the next to years except constantly airing how corrupt the “Party of Ideas” is.
At least partially related:
Pentagon restricts testimony to congress
There is not a whole lot the Democrats can do over the next to years except constantly airing how corrupt the “Party of Ideas” is.
The only thing I see, if impeachment of Gonzales is a no-go, is for the Democrats to make clear that in 2009 the entire GOP will be treated like organized crime, and give Republicans some motivation.
Gonzo can’t leave because that would mean a big nomination fight over his successor. Bush is in no position to have such a fight, and if he appoints someone satisfactory to the Democrats the result will be major investigations of his political allies.
Togolosh, there’s no nomination fight if Bush uses a recess appointment, and he’s not shy about using them. Of course that would anger Congress, but how much angrier can the Democrats be, and would it really be enough to get the Republicans to stop saluting Our Leader and going along with whatever he says?
Another way to avoid a confirmation fight would be to appoint a Republican senator (or Lieberman), but I don’t think any of them are quite sycophantic enough for Bush to risk it (and not many would want the job).
And what senator would give up his incumbency for that ejection seat?
Btw, how would a successor for that senator be determined (or is that dependent on the state)? The GOP c/would not risk to lose another one just now.
The successor would be appointed by the state’s governor and generally serve until the next national election (not necessarily the whole remainder of the term), though the details depend on state law. A few states require that the replacement be from the same party as the senator being replaced, but most don’t.
There have been rumors that Hatch is interested in the AG job, but it’s hard to understand why.
There have been rumors that Hatch is interested in the AG job, but it’s hard to understand why.
maybe he’s run out of ways to be weasely as a Senator and thinks he can do more damage as AG.
Dahlia Lithwick is awesome today:
It’s an ingenious strategy. Instead of letting the president throw him under the bus to protect Karl Rove, Gonzales just lies down in the road, then giggles as the bus runs over his head.
Well, I’m trying to avoid saying negative things about Hatch and Lieberman at the moment, since they’re cosponsoring the Senate version of the DC voting rights bill. If any of you fortunate enough to have senators want to bring partial democracy to the nation’s capital, you can use the Free and Equal DC site (or contact your senators directly, of course).
This is utterly off-topic. My apologies.
Following Ugh’s link to Slate, I couldn’t help but read the article on Kirk Cameron’s debate with atheists. Of the atheists was written the following:
The two have received enough death threats from the lambs of Jesus that they find it wise to obscure their surnames.
I just needed to share that little nugget.
I am curious about yesterday’s hearing.
It was if a strange mood had settled on everyone that was taking part. The Republicans appeared to have the only coherent strategy – simply to reaffirm their confidence in Gonzales in denial of all that they have seen and witnessed over the last few weeks.
Waxman seemed preoccupied, as if he knew that there was little to come out of the day and that the real work was being done behind the scenes but that the a coup de grace had yet to be found.
The Democrats appeared uncoordinated and without focus. Their anger was clear but wasted.
Strangest of all was Gonzales, who appeared unaffected by all that has transpired and almost delusional in his confidence about events. It was as if the re-affirmed love of his master had finally given the nonentity of his presence at last some greater identity than he could ever hoped to have achieved without this whole scandal.
It was interesting to read the live blogging on Daily Kos and the mounting frustration with the lack of a knock-out punch from any of their representatives. The most redeeming feature of this otherwise unthinking response was their total rejection of the highly inappropriate demonstration by the increasingly isolated Code Pink demonstrators.
Whilst bits of new revelations emerge, I am beginning to wonder how much mileage remains in this affair in the absence of a truly cathartic email revelation.
The Democrats have earned considerable political mileage from what has happened to date and some of it will have penetrated to the electorate. It would be a pity to lose it to the sort of frustrated boredom that could be seen merging even amongst the most enthusiastic followers of these hearings yesterday.
A clear vote of no confidence in the man, and let those who support him explain it away to their electorate, may be the swiftest end to all of this, unless Waxman truly has a smoking gun available to his team of investigators.
An anti-climatic end maybe, but one that is perhaps fitting for a man of such small and insignificant stature.
Welshman, the story is still developing, so I wouldn’t be recommending that the Democrats pack up their investigations and give up quite yet. And public humiliation may sometimes be punishment enough, but that certainly doesn’t apply when the malefactors are incapable of shame.
What you’re advising is that the Democrats effectively give a green light to whatever corruption the administration wants to commit, since trying to hold people accountable will cause some sort of backlash from a public concerned about unfairness to those innocent Bushies.
What you’re advising is that the Democrats effectively give a green light to whatever corruption the administration wants to commit, since trying to hold people accountable will cause some sort of backlash from a public concerned about unfairness to those innocent Bushies.
It seems his point is that there are plenty of other fish to fry, and this fish may be reaching the overcooked phase.
I tend to agree with you — that there is still pink flesh to seer on the purge scandal, but the basic point is valid. Humiliation of Bush figures may be the only end product, but that is still a very useful product provided it is not overdone.
I have always thought it doubtful that Gonzalez would be forced out. Bush just doesn’t operate that way. He values loyalty over competence, and from his own selfish point of view, cannot do better than Gonzalez in the AG post anyway.
Bearing on the question of just how many pushed-out prosecutors there really are, Mary Beth Williams at Wampum has put together an illuminating chart of current US Attorneys vs. those holding the job in 2004.
Many more than eight have not as of this date been confirmed by the Senate, and even some of those who were are clear examples of putting Bushbots in to replace qualified professionals (e.g. Paulose in MN).
their total rejection of the highly inappropriate demonstration by the increasingly isolated Code Pink demonstrators
I didn’t see the hearings, but did go have a look at the live blogs to see what you were referring to. Sounds as if someone from Code Pink held up a sign that said, ‘Resign.’
“Highly inappropriate”?
(“Their total rejection”= two commenters reacting negatively, two others just asking and answering a question about it. “Increasingly isolated”: Sounds like someone grinding an ax.)
This, from yesterday’s NYT, is worth a moment’s reflection:
Mr. Comey said that if the accusations about Ms. Goodling’s partisan actions were true, the damage was deep and real.
“I don’t know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our A.U.S.A.s (Assistant United States Attorneys) for political reasons,” he said at a House hearing this month. “I don’t know that there’s any window you can go to to get the department’s reputation back if that kind of stuff is going on.”
Has anyone written a “New Yorker-style” the-story-so-far piece that paints a more or less comprehensive picture of the whole DOJ scandal? I’m having trouble keeping all of the various pieces together in my mind…
And by “I’m having trouble keeping all of the various pieces together in my mind” I mean “I have totally lost track of what the hell is going on” 🙂