That CRAAAAAAAAZY conspiracy theory: the mass firings of US Attorneys

[BrainGlutton]

Wait, there’s more:

White House officials conducted 20 private briefings on Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election for senior officials in at least 15 government agencies covered by federal restrictions on partisan political activity, a White House spokesman and other administration officials said yesterday.

The previously undisclosed briefings were part of what now appears to be a regular effort in which the White House sent senior political officials to brief top appointees in government agencies on which seats Republican candidates might win or lose, and how the election outcomes could affect the success of administration policies, the officials said.

The existence of one such briefing, at the headquarters of the General Services Administration in January, came to light last month, and the Office of Special Counsel began an investigation into whether the officials at the briefing felt coerced into steering federal activities to favor those Republican candidates cited as vulnerable.

Of course, regarding the Office of Special Counsel . . . see above . . . :rolleyes:

[MovieMogul]

More info emerging about (1) one USAtt. who, while investigating a CA Republican, was on the chopping block but managed to score a $1.5M bonus to join a law firm before the axe could fall, and (2) one USAtt. who may have been fired, in part, for pursuing a case to find the murderer of another USAtt., who was unpopular with the pro-gun lobby because of the cases he prioritized.

[BrainGlutton]

According to Newsweek, it appears Goodling herself tried to block the hiring of a prosecutor in the DC office for being a “liberal Democratic type.”

[Squink]

@BrainGlutton

According to Newsweek, it appears Goodling herself tried to block the hiring of a prosecutor in the DC office for being a “liberal Democratic type.”

You sir, are a big meanie! Ms. Goodling was in Tears; a Republican Woman in Tears over the prospect of maybe losing her job, yet you continue to hound her with these wild conspiracy theories. A decent man would let the Goodling matter drop, and go after the similar hiring bias story that surrounds Bradley Schlozman. There’s definite whiff of sulphur around this dude, and Leahy knows it.

[BrainGlutton]

Two of the fired U.S. Attorneys, John McKay and David Iglesias, said at a recent press conference they expect the firings investigation to result in criminal charges against high DOJ officials.

John McKay, the former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, also said they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired.

<snip>

“I think there will be a criminal case that will come out of this,” McKay said during his meeting with Times journalists. “This is going to get worse, not better.”

McKay cited ongoing investigations into the dismissals by the Senate and House Judiciary committees, and inquiries now under way by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility.

McKay said he believes obstruction-of-justice charges will be filed if investigators conclude that the dismissal of any of the eight prosecutors was motivated by an attempt to influence ongoing public-corruption or voter-fraud investigations.

Not sure what to make of that. These guys are no longer USAs so they have no say in who or what gets prosecuted. OTOH, they presumably have enough DOJ experience to know what they’re talking about.

But they’re actually putting the finger on Rove!

[BrainGlutton]

In other news, Goodling will testify! (Or, at least, the DOJ has announced it has no objections to her testifying.)

[MovieMogul]

Hey, what do you know? Turns out there was a 9th prosecutor forced to resign.

Here’s a great quote from John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:

"I am sure we agree – you and I – that any hint or indication that the department may not be acting fairly and impartially in enforcing the nation’s laws, or in choosing the nation’s law enforcers, has ramifications far beyond the department itself, and casts doubt upon every action or inaction your office and your employees take.

"So, when we learn that several U.S. attorneys were added to the termination list only after they decided to pursue criminal investigations involving Republican officials, or after complaints that they were not pursuing investigations against Democrats, we must insist that we understand exactly how this came into existence and how the list itself of those discharged came into existence.

"When we learn that most of the U.S. attorneys forced to resign were among the highest rated and most able in the nation, that they were told that they were being displaced to create a bigger Republican farm team while others were retained because they were ‘loyal Bushies,’ it creates the impression that the department has placed partisan interests above the public interest.

"When a respected former career attorney at the Civil Rights Division testifies that he has been directed to alter performance evaluations based on political considerations, when I receive an anonymous letter, apparently from Department of Justice employees, complaining that candidates for career positions have been subjected to political litmus tests, and when the attorney general has secretly delegated his authority to hire and fire non-civil service employees, this calls into question the department’s commitment to fair and impartial justice.

"When the White House gives us a take-it-or-leave-it offer for a one-time, off-the-record interview, without transcripts, which I’ve referred to as ‘meet us at the pub for fish and chips so we can talk,’ which no self-respected investigator would accept, makes open-ended claims of executive privilege, and loses or destroys millions of e-mails relevant to our investigation, one asks whether the administration is trying to cover up two simple truths: who created the list and why.

“And when we learned this morning, page one, Washington Post, that another U.S. attorney in Missouri was forced out, contrary to repeated assurances that the eight U.S. attorneys whose circumstances we’ve been examining for the past few months were the entire list, it makes us wonder when we will get the entire report, a truthful report about this matter.”

[Cervaise]

[Fired U.S. Attorney John] McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country’s U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.

“His first speech to us was a ‘you work for the White House’ speech,” McKay recalled. " ‘I work for the White House, you work for the White House.’ "

McKay said he thought at the time, “He couldn’t have meant that speech,” given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. “It turns out he did.”

He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales’ remarks. “We were stunned at what he was saying.”

Holy shit.

[Merijeek]

@Cervaise

Holy shit.

What, again, is the purpose of confirmation hearings? That speech absolutely contradicts pretty much everything he said in his confirmation hearings.

If shit like this can’t be used to absolutely crucify someone for lying to Congress regarding their intentions for an office the should just quit bothering with the confirmation process.

-Joe

[MovieMogul]

Looks like more e-mails were withheld, and the AG’s relationship to the WH may be fraying:

Several of the e-mails that the Bush administration is withholding from Congress, as well as papers from the White House counsel’s office describing other withheld documents, were made available to National Journal by a senior executive branch official, who said that the administration has inappropriately kept many of them from Congress.

The senior official said that Gonzales, in preparing for testimony before Congress, has personally reviewed the withheld records and has a responsibility to make public any information he has about efforts by his former chief of staff, other department aides, and White House officials to conceal Rove’s role.

“If [Gonzales] didn’t know everything that was going on when it went down, that is one thing,” this official said. “But he knows and understands chapter and verse. If there was an effort within Justice and the White House to mislead Congress, it is his duty to disclose that to Congress. As the country’s chief law enforcement official, he has a higher duty to disclose than to protect himself or the administration.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto denied that the White House was withholding records in the Justice Department’s possession, and he said that Gonzales could make many of them public at any time. “The White House is neither guiding nor directing the Justice Department’s decisions on privileged documents,” Fratto said. “They make those decisions on their own.”

Two senior administration officials told National Journal they were frustrated with decisions by Gonzales not to release some of the documents held by the Justice Department. One of the officials charged that “Gonzales is doing this to save his own neck,” at the expense of the administration. The same official said that senior aides to Gonzales have been refusing to turn over many relevant documents to Congress, and that the attorney general’s top aides have been selectively leaking portions of them to the media to portray themselves in a favorable light.

[BrainGlutton]

@ArchiveGuy

Looks like more e-mails were withheld, and the AG’s relationship to the WH may be fraying:

Very interesting . . . the first paragraph of the linked article says the e-mails in question put the finger on Rove!

This just gets . . . well, “better and better” would not be the right way to describe it . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Gonzalez gave his second round of testimony today. No new revelations.

[MovieMogul]

From Today. Unbelievable…

Wexler: If I understand it correctly, you testified that Karl Rove talked to you about voter fraud in New Mexico in fall 2006.

Gonzales: Yes, New Mexico and two other jurisdictions. That’s correct.

Wexler: Mr. Iglesias is selected for the termination list in early November 2006?

Gonzales: I think on Election Day – well, I don’t remember when he was selected. I wasn’t involved in that process …

Wexler: And it’s your testimony [that] you did not select Mr. Iglesias to be put on the list, correct?

Gonzales: His name was brought forward to me, recommended along with others.

Wexler: Right. You did not select him? Did Mr. [Kyle] Sampson select him?

Gonzales: Mr. Sampson was charged with coordinating this effort.

Wexler: He didn’t select him?

Gonzales: I have not spoken with Mr. Sampson about this.

Wexler: Right. Did former Deputy Attorney General [James] Comey – did he select them?

Gonzales: … He wasn’t in the department at that time, so …

Wexler: So he didn’t select them.

Gonzales: I don’t think he selected them.

Wexler: That’s right. Did Mr. [Paul] McNulty select them?

Gonzales: I haven’t spoken – I haven’t asked that question to Mr. McNulty.

Wexler: Mr. McNulty told us he didn’t select them. Did Mr. [David] Margolis select them?

Gonzales: Again, I haven’t spoken with Mr. Margolis.

Wexler: He didn’t select them. We’ve talked a lot about the president’s authority to have who he wants where. Did the president select Mr. Iglesias to be put on the termination list?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: No, the president didn’t select him. Did the vice president select him to put him, Mr. Iglesias, on the termination list?

Gonzales: No.

Wexler: No. OK. So the president didn’t, the vice president didn’t, you, the attorney general, didn’t. All of the assistant and former deputy attorney generals didn’t put Mr. Iglesias on the termination list. So who did?

Gonzales: Well, what’s important, Congressman, is that there was a consensus recommendation made to me. How he got on the list was less …

Wexler: So a group of people put him on the list?

Gonzales: What’s less important is that I accepted a recommendation and I made the decision. I accept responsibility for the decision.

Wexler: No, no, you made a decision, according to yourself, as to accepting the termination list. But you’ve also said you didn’t put him on the list. So somebody else, other than you, other than the president, other than the vice president, other than every deputy attorney general that’s come to this committee, put him on the list. But with all due respect, Mr. Attorney General, you won’t tell the American people who put Mr. Iglesias on the list to be fired. It’s a national secret, isn’t it?

Gonzales: Congressman, if I knew the answer to that question I would provide you the answer. I have not spoken with the individuals involved …

Wexler: So you don’t know who put [Iglesias on the list]. Why was Mr. Iglesias put on the list by this mystery person?

Gonzales: Well, again, I wasn’t surprised to see Mr. Iglesias’ name recommended to me based upon conversations that I had had with the senior senator from New Mexico. He had lost confidence in Mr. Iglesias. Let me just say, Mr. Iglesias’ story is a great one, it’s the American dream, and there are many good things about his performance, and I very much admire him as a person.

Wexler: But you won’t tell the American people who put him on a list to terminate his employment.

Gonzales: I accept responsibility for …

Wexler: You accept responsibility for making the decision ultimately to accept the termination list, but you will not come forth and tell the American people who put Mr. Iglesias on the list to be fired.

Gonzales: Out of respect for the integrity of this investigation and the investigations occurring at the Department of Justice, I have not made that inquiry with respect to other fact witnesses.

Wexler: But you were OK with firing them, but you won’t tell us who made the recommendation to fire them.

Gonzales: I think I was justified in relying upon the senior leadership in the department … Let me just say this: I did not make the decision with respect to Mr. Iglesias …

Wexler: I know. You haven’t made any decision … You have been very clear about that.

Gonzales: I accept full responsibility for this.

Wexler: But you won’t tell us who put Mr. Iglesias on that list?

Gonzales: You would have a better opportunity to access …

Wexler: I would?

Gonzales: The committee would, the Congress.

Wexler: Are you the attorney general? Do you run the Department of Justice?

Gonzales: I do. And it has been frustrating to me to not be able to ask these kinds of questions. But I want to respect the integrity of this investigation, and the investigations going on within the department. If we all came up here … and had the same testimony about events that occurred over two years, you would look at that with great suspicion. You would wonder … “Have you guys talked to each other about facts?”

…and Pathetic.

[Merijeek]

Well, “I’m a deaf blind nobody whose underlings did everything without my knowledge” worked for ol’ Ronnie.

-Joe

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@ArchiveGuy

From Today. Unbelievable…and Pathetic.

HOLY FUCKING NO WAY SHIT. Does Gonzales have no shred whatever of decency and pride in him?

[aliquot]

@Attorney General Gonzales

Gonzales: I do. And it has been frustrating to me to not be able to ask these kinds of questions. But I want to respect the integrity of this investigation, and the investigations going on within the department. If we all came up here … and had the same testimony about events that occurred over two years, you would look at that with great suspicion. You would wonder … “Have you guys talked to each other about facts?”

It took me a while to parse this, but what he seems to be saying is, “Look, if we all agreed on an answer, you’d know that we’d coordinated ahead of time what to say.” NOT “If we all had the same answers, it’s only because we’re all telling the truth.”

To me, this is analogous to the suspect on all the cop shows who volunteers to take a lie detector test. That suspect is always dirty, at least by cop show standards, because if you’re innocent, all you do is tell the truth and yell that you’re innocent over and over again. If you’re guilty, you talk about what you can do to clear your name, because you admit that it’s sullied. The innocent do not admit to this, do not even bring up anything that you’d associate with a criminal (like a polygraph test) because they know they’ve done nothing wrong and they will never shut up about it.

Isn’t Al acting exactly like a guilty man here? Instead of saying, “Look, I don’t remember, it sucks but it’s the truth and I’m sorry,” he’s stating something that only a guilty man would say. If Congress had subpoenaed me, all I’d do is shout that I had nothing to do with it. But Al, because he’s guilty of something dastardly and he knows it, is subconsciously couching what he says in the language of the guilty.

To try another analogy: when I was young, I ditched out of school early once to come home and play Nintendo. When my mom got home, she was in the kitchen and summoned me from my bedroom with a loud voice. Thinking I was in trouble, I stammered, “I didn’t ditch school!” My mom, only wanting to know how school went, could only reply, “Who said anything about ditching school?” She had me, of course, dead to rights.

[Captain_Carrot]

So he’s saying “I want to protect the integrity of this department, by not asking anybody any questions about anything.” Good God, sir! At least come up with something plausible!

[RTFirefly]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

HOLY FUCKING NO WAY SHIT. Does Gonzales have no shred whatever of decency and pride in him?

Alberto Gonzales, Zen Master by Dahlia Lithwick

as for Gonzales, he has made himself immortal by merely willing himself to be so. That must be what accounts for his Zenlike state 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.

Gonzales knows he can only lose his job if either Bush fires him (not likely to happen) or if Congress impeaches him (equally unlikely). So he’s got the perfect job: lots of power, six-figure salary, yet he can be a total fuckup and nothing bad will ever happen to him as a result.

[BrainGlutton]

@RTFirefly

Alberto Gonzales, Zen Master by Dahlia Lithwick

Gonzales knows he can only lose his job if either Bush fires him (not likely to happen) or if Congress impeaches him (equally unlikely). So he’s got the perfect job: lots of power, six-figure salary, yet he can be a total fuckup and nothing bad will ever happen to him as a result.

Even if his relationship to the WH is “fraying” (ArchiveGuy, post 370), it’s still unlikely AG AG will be fired – because that’s a post the president can’t just leave vacant, and any replacement would have to go through confirmation hearings in a Dem-controlled Congress and in a very, very different, a more hostile and skeptical, environment than Gonzalez had to endure.

[BrainGlutton]

From the NYT, more revelations on the DOJ’s “Monica Problem.”

WASHINGTON, May 11 — Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion was no longer hers.

“You have a Monica problem,” Ms. Ashton was told, according to several Justice Department officials. Referring to Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, “She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.”

Ms. Ashton’s ouster — she left the Executive Office for United States Attorneys for another Justice Department post two weeks later — was a critical early step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine United States attorneys last year.

Ms. Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs at Justice Department headquarters with questions that several United States attorneys said were inappropriate, like who was their favorite president and Supreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was even asked, “Have you ever cheated on your wife?”

Ms. Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan, two department officials said.

And she helped maintain lists of all the United States attorneys that graded their loyalty to the Bush administration, including work on past political campaigns, and noted if they were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

By the time Ms. Goodling resigned in April — after her role in the firing of the prosecutors became public and she had been promoted to the role of White House liaison — she and other senior department officials had revamped personnel practices affecting employees from the top of the agency to the bottom.

No wonder she tried to plead the Fifth.