Where's Monica Goodling? She's the gofer between the DOJ and KArl Rove.

Is she out of town, or out of the country?

Well, thanks for getting all that down. I wish some of our major newspapers would make it that easy.

Some DOJers use (confirmed?) of gwb43.com, the RNC email server, in an apparent attempt to hide emails from the official record and thus public scrutiny? We haven't heard much more about this. What's the scoop? (PS, Google for gwb43.com, and all kinds of interesting stuff comes up, including domain reservation material etc.) BTW, has anyone told stories of emailing to the addresses revealed in stories about this, and what happened?

The reason they haven't come up with a plausible story is that the only plausible story is that they were firing the USAs for political reasons.

The funny thing is, they could have done this if they just wanted to be up front about it. No huhu. "Sorry, you're not in line with the President's policies, so we're letting you go."

But, like all Bush Republicans, they lie by first reflex. Then lie again. Then lie about lying.

Basically, they are liars, and now they've gone and lied to a Congress with teeth enough to call them on it.

Tony Snow can kiss my ass, too. Claiming the Congress has no oversight over the Executive branch is as close as you can get to claiming dictatorial powers. Actually, it IS claiming dictatorial powers. Bush is essentially unchecked in his formulation, and could dissolve Congress if he chose, and there would be nothing anybody could do about it.

Madness.

I hope especially that administration loyalists will help enlighten us who have concluded that the USAs were fired because they were investigating Republicans or failing to investigate Democrats, and that this fact explains the gap, the failure to answer the question why the firings, the eighteen-day gap, the inconsistencies, and the rest.

What may be missing from Drum's list is the possibility that Bush's chief political functionary is originator of the eight firings.

American Hawk:
What would a "bear minimum" be? A small grizzly?

I'm not sure whether American Hawk is serious or not. When asked directly on a Seattle talk show why the firings, Mr. Gonzales today or yesterday did NOT cite performance. (That dog was unleashed earlier and came home limping.) Instead, he simply would not say why, except to insist that the reasons why were not improper. Well, then, what were they? Why the 18-day gap? Why the backing off from assertions of bad performance? Why the high ratings given the fired attorneys?

American Hawk likes being lied to, and in fact insists that the lies are the only things to be believed.

American Hawk, what happened to AL?

Jeez, Hawk, the Attorney General himself has already admitted that performance wasn't the real reason. At least keep up with the winger talking points, OK?

Q: Tony Snow has said that the president was unaware of these discussions. But by statute, only the president can fire a US Attorney. That being the case, who "fired" them and where did he/she get the authority to do so?

Well done.
The "Clinton did it too" knee-jerk defense mechanism just isn't going to work any more. Especially with facts emerging that the US attorney firings and the lobbyist Abramoff email communications were sent from outside addresses, including the Republican National Committee, obviously to go around what is supposed to be a mandatory system for maintaining government records--bad move!!!!

This ever-evolving scandal is fascinating to research.

Put them all together, though, and you have to be a real dead-end loyalist to believe there's nothing fishy going on. Throw in #9 and even the dead-enders ought to be scratching their chins.

There you go using things like "reason" and "logic." Anyone still supporting Bush has clearly left the dimensions of time and space that any rational person occupies. They are now unreachable.

Why the coverup? It's the only question that matters now. Answer that, and everything else will fall into place. Including, I suspect, some heads falling into baskets. Even these guys, who turned bungling into a low art form, aren't stupid enough to bungle this badly. They are covering up something big.

Why are Democrats railing so long and so hard for attorneys who didn't meet the bear minimum requirements for a government job?

You mean, like a bear of very little brain?

This ever-evolving scandal is fascinating to research.

Which is what sets the two sides apart. They march to the drum of the talking point. We read the raw documents and the white papers of all sorts. Realizing the absurdity of rowing with one oar, of course.

I just about scream reading the reflexive republican talking points.
Kevin had a right-on reply to American Hawk, who flies in here with the parroting expected of an administration loyalist.

I haven't re-verified this but my understanding is that the 18 day gap also coincides with the period of time when Bush was out of the country twice with a Crawford Thanksgiving vacation sadwhiched in between.

So not only was the gap a key time for the execution, it was also a time when sign off from higher ups might be difficult to get because of more pressing foreign policy business - and clearing brush of course.

Perhaps the 18 days really was a lull as has been described by the DOJ and the truth is that the WH is in this deeper than we "know".

Five of the eight were either aggressively prosecuting Republicans or else failing to prosecute Democrats to the satisfaction of local politicians. Coincidence?

I count 6

Cummins --> Matt Blunt
Lam --> Cunningham, Lewis
Iglesias --> voter fraud, wouldn't indict dems before election
McKay --> voter fraud
Bogden --> Porter, Gibbons
Charlton --> Renzi
Ryan --> an embarrassment to DOJ
Chiara --> corrupt Republican politician or donor skating away unnoticed?

There was also the business with Frederick A. Black's demotion during an Abramoff investigation: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/

Plus now we know they're using unofficial email servers in apparent direct violation of the Presidential Records Act.

Americans had better be watchful. A cornered rat is the most dangerous animal in the world... and the Bush regime is being backed into a pretty tight corner.

Remember that Bush claims power of life and death over everyone on the planet [via premptive assination in the name of protecting 'America'] and believes he has been chosen by god to be president. If push comes to shove, this really isn't a very stable combination to have in command of the military.

Wonder what sort of odds Las Vegas is offering on war with Iran right now?

what about the less than stellar qualifications of the replacements? Apparently several, (many?) have little prosecutorial experience.

Is it just me, or does anyone else believe the coverup is for MUCH BIGGER reasons than just political firings? I hope I live long enough to find out exactly what those are.

#10. Bush won't let Rove and Miers testify publically and under oath about the matter.

#11. Gonzales has repeatedly lied about his role.

#12. Bush and Gonzales have repeatedly insisted ALL were fired for performance reasons, even though the DOJ has admitted Cummins wasn't.

#13. E-mails indicate an organized attempt to create a justification, not a review of reasons justifying the firings.

#14. Several individual justifications are contradicted by e-mails, performance reviews, and testimony.

#15. It is difficult to believe that the performance problems of eight USAs all occurred or were uncovered on the same timeline; i.e., why weren't they fired immediately upon refusing to comply with administration policy, such as Lam who, according to Rove, expressly refused to comply? Wait to fire them all at once, if not to try to cover political firings with some more justifiable ones?

#16. If Lam didn't refuse a direct order to pursue certain cases, and the administration has produced nothing to back up that claim, then Rove deliberately and very publicly lied about this, so why would he lie if there were innocent and justifiable reasons for her firing - why not just give those reasons?

#17. Why weren't the USAs told that they weren't meeting administration goals and given a chance to conform their behavior - no one gets fired for relatively minor departures from good performance without a second chance, particularly in the Bush administration - look how many second chances Rumsfeld got.

#18. Where is the evidence that, for example, there was some substance to the voter fraud accusations that McKay refused to pursue - to date, no one in the administration has demonstrated by reference to evidence that investigation and prosecution of even a single voter fraud case would have been successful. If you really had a good argument that McKay was refusing to pursue legitimate voter fraud cases, why wouldn't you produce the evidence proving that to be the case?

#19. If it is merely a simple personnel matter about incompetence, why claim executive privilege? Routine personnel matters do not rise to the level of executive action that falls within the privilege, particularly if Bush himself was not involved in the details as the administration has claimed - if he wasn't involved in the details, he wasn't advised about the details, and therefore didn't even have any conversations with Rove and Miers about the firings that would be privileged.

#20. If the matter is privileged, then why are Bush, Gonzales, and Rove, contrary to the privilege, speaking about the reasons for firing that were discussed by the administration, thus revealing, supposedly, the substance of those discussions? If they can reveal the substance of the discussions, including details about why the attorneys were fired, then why can't they reveal other details? It doesn't seem right to selectively use the privilege to reveal only self-serving information while not under oath, information that may very well be false.

Another talking point scheme the Republicans and their minions have is to blame Democrats for a "partisan fishing expedition." How very Nixonesque of George Bush, claiming that....
it puts me in mind of their doublespeak attempts to repeatedly re-frame the thinking during the scandal involving Mark Foley--with the support of the conservative media, Republicans continually charged that the entire Foley affair was a plot by Democrats to adversely affect the G.O.P.'s (Greedy Old Predators) midterm election prospects.

It was about Lam. The others were chaff; camoflage. They couldn't be seen stopping her investigation and prosecution of the bribers and the bribed--an investigation which might well have reached into the oval office, so they asked her to resign in the company of others whom they may not have cared for either, but Carol Lam was the target.

It's not the firings, it's the hirings.

See the story at

KSTP-TV Minnesota

cited over at tpm.

Good stuff, Google_This.

"Why lie if there's an innocent explanation?"

Exactly. In fact, this is how some of us figured out before the war that Hussein didn't have WMD. If Bushco had really had evidence, they wouldn't have had to lie about aluminum tubes, bioweapon trailers, etc., etc.

Remember Rove's comment about the key states for 2008 - which are also more or less the states where the fired USAs were working.

Thank you B. I have been clamoring for Cummins to be added to that list of USA's investigating Republicans. There are lots of questions about son-of-Blunt.

This is from a post I wrote May 6, of last year:

Ronnie Earle may soon request the presence of young master Blunt in Austin to answer charges that his 2002 campaign for Secretary of State was the recipient of illegal funds that originated with the disgraced Tom DeLay.

There is the probe into his 2004 campaign for governor when he used $48,000 of the public funds to run ads to encourage the citizenry to go to the polls. This ploy gave Blunt an unfair edge over his opponents and allowed him to win by a nose.

As Secretary of State, Blunt instructed county election officials for lists of absentee voters, and then forwarded those names to Republican campaign operatives, and the GOP began cantacting those voters. (Some would call this tactic electioneering.)

And that's just off the top of my head.

Interesting analogy:

What was suspicious was not firing prosecutors per se but the timing of it. Likewise, when Delay decided to redistrict again in Texas, it wasn't that redistricting was inherently bad, it was that it usually only happened every 10 years.

#10 Alberto has alzheimer's.

AmericaHawk:

Here is just one of many examples of Gonzales backing off of the "poor job performance" explanations:

>Gonzales apologized to the prosecutors not for the firings but
>for their execution, including for inaccurate public statements
>about poor job performance, according to people familiar with
>the afternoon conference call.

There are numerous other examples like this, many related to the cases of a specific USA, but I don't have time to find them all for you right now.

But honestly, if you are really interested in this, go read the emails for yourself. There are so many instances of after the fact "good god we need to find an explanation, hey maybe this will work as an excuse" conversations that it is almost embarrassing. (Here's the media report of just one of many. Don't believe the media? Again, the docs are there for you to read on your own).

Also worth noting: the fired USA's were largely going along with this until the administration went public with its "performance related" claims. As their testimony before congress indicated, none of them had been told about performance problems, and many of them had recently had solid (and some even outstanding) performance reviews. The reason they stepped forward to complain was that their reputations were being trashed without either reason or warning. They complained. The DoJ was forced to admit that the USAs were right. And Gonzales, realizing that this episode was bound to damage morale among the remaining USAs, was forced to hold the aforementioned conference call where he told them all that "inaccurate public statements about poor job performance" should not have been made.

So... can we please now put that canard to rest?

Bebimbob asks: Where's Monica Goodling, the DOJ liaison to the White House?

She just went on "indefinite personal leave".

Add that to the "fishy" list.

I'm glad Kevin found himself something to chew on for the next year or so after the Plame thing finally gave up and died.

It was about Lam. The others were chaff; camoflage. They couldn't be seen stopping her investigation and prosecution of the bribers and the bribed--an investigation which might well have reached into the oval office, so they asked her to resign in the company of others whom they may not have cared for either, but Carol Lam was the target.

Credit where credit is due Corpus Juris at Watching Those We Chose gets props for being one of the very first to make the assertion that Lam was the primary target.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has pointed out another interesting ... um ... coincidence.

Briefly, it is that a protege of Karl Rove, who was the leader of the opposition research team for the Bush campaign was appointed as the US Attorney -- with concomitant indictment, investigation, and publicity powers -- in Arkansas, which happens to be Hillary Clinton's home state.

Hmm, a Karl Rove dirty-tricks operative at the head of Justice in Hillary's home turf? Well, probably not a problem. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along.

Karl Rove should be shot.

Bush deserves his own suffix...
He is so beyond 'gate'

As Reagan U.S. Attorney, former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) recently said--
"Here again the Judiciary Committees in both the House and the Senate have a pretty clear right to demand information that relates to the propriety of the running of the Department of Justice.

These, after all, are all people, whether Karl Rove or a U.S. Attorney or an attorney general, who are paid by the taxpayers with funds appropriated by the Congress.

And Congress has a right to assure itself that these funds are being used properly and that is consistent with the appropriate standards of justice and integrity at the Department of Justice..

It’s very unfortunate. You have political operatives both at the White House and at the Department of Justice drawing up lists of U.S. Attorneys and ranking them according to some criteria, and this is apparently being done by a person at the Department of Justice that himself had no experience.

I mean, for heaven’s sake, taking a renowned prosecutor like Peter [sic] Fitzgerald and this person Sampson at the Department of Justice, ranking him basically as unqualified, you know, that says more about the people making the list than it does certainly about the people who were the subject of the list.

I mean, these are very well thought out, very highly respected prosecutors — otherwise they would not have been appointed to these positions by Mr. Bush himself.

But I would certainly say, Mr. President, your predecessors in office, your father was under great pressure when I was U.S. Attorney General in Atlanta, Georgia, to take action against me for political reasons.

Your father resisted those efforts. President Reagan, your supposed hero, resisted those efforts. Please do something to assure the American public that this is an open process, that it is not run on political considerations where the rubber meets the road and that’s with the United States Attorneys across this country. Work with the congress. and let’s see if we can work this out because there’s far more at stake here than either you or the attorney general proving who’s the toughest hombre in this dispute."

who was the leader of the opposition research team for the Bush campaign was appointed as the US Attorney

Oh yeah. Tim Griffin. He replaced the guy who was investigating son-of-Blunt.

He is also the one they wanted in the position that they knew wouldn't clear the Senate.

Great guy, he. Can we get a resignation petition going for this partisan asshole?

Who would fire a whole bunch of attorneys just to disguise the one or two that were the real targets? Other than Clinton.

Ah, Kevin.

I've got a few more for you:

[After content has been refuted repeatedly it is subject to deletion from the body of the comment by the moderators]

Lam:
Carol Lam for example, argued that even though illegal firearms are a top Justice Department priority, they're not an overwhelming problem in her district. There, she said, gun crimes are adequately handled by local authorities, using California's strong gun laws.

Nonetheless, her D.C. bosses cited a lack of gun prosecutions as one reason for her dismissal in 2006.
Bogus.

AmericanHawk: That's funny. I assume that you casually dismiss all anonymous sourcing like this? Even when it helps the case you are making? And if not, why not? What is your criteria for when to believe and when to reject "made up" sources? did you reject all of the pre-war articles about Iraqi WMD for the same reasons? If not, why not?

Anyway, back to the point at hand:

Here's an article detailing how Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty explicitly recanted "performance related concerns" for one of the 8, Bud Cummins.

And here's an article detailing a series of emails about Daniel G. Bogden's dismissal, including a key portion where Gonzales Chief of Staff admits that he was having second thoughts about Bogden because he hadn't "looked at his district's performance."

That's two of eight right there.

Again, its all right there for you if you dig into the emails yourself. Gather the evidence and then create your talking points, not vice versa.

Did you hear something? No? Me neither.

I think there may easily have been multiple motives here. Yes, they wanted Lam out. But they also wanted 'loyal Bushies' in critical 2008 states, where they could announce investigations and conduct voter fraud witchhunts to influence the outcome, as Rove has been doing since Texas. They probably also thought it would be good to have their oppo research guy in Arkansas with Clinton as a Dem front-runner. That Karl, he's a clever guy. Evil, but clever.

Kevin forgot about Carol Lam and her intended search warrent for that CIA person. Carol Lam also prosecuted GOP Rep. Randy “Duke� Cunningham.

She is the one who Bush could really get into trouble with as this news article mentions:

Feinstein, D-Calif. and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has since alleged that Lam's firing was connected to the corruption case centered on jailed former GOP Rep. Randy “Duke� Cunningham. Lam was prosecuting the ongoing case when she was dismissed last year along with seven other U.S. attorneys.

Justice Department officials deny the connection and point to concerns about Lam's record on immigration and gun violations.

The day after Seidel reported Feinstein's concerns to Justice officials including White House liaison Monica Goodling, Goodling fired off an e-mail to aides with the subject line “I hear there is a letter from Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago.�

“I need it ASAP. Can you pull from your system ASAP and e-mail to me?� says the e-mail.

It's not clear from the documents what letter Goodling was referring to. Aides sent her a Feinstein communication about an abduction case involving someone with Philippines citizenship, but Goodling replied, “This isn't the right letter. Please keep looking.�

Whatever letter Goodling was looking for does not appear in the documents, part of a batch released by the Justice Department late Friday.

In recent weeks, however, Justice Department and administration officials have repeatedly pointed to criticism of Lam that Feinstein herself raised in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last June 15 questioning apparently low prosecution rates in Lam's district.

Feinstein has said her concerns on that front were subsequently satisfied and that it's “bogus� to use her letter as evidence supporting Lam's dismissal.

A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to an e-mail message Saturday and phones were not being answered at the agency's press office.

Goodling has taken a leave of absence from the Justice Department, according to officials.

AND REMEMBER that josh Marshall said about MONICA GOODLING, and that she is the one on paid leave for an undisclosed amount of time.

Funnny how her name is MONICA? Ha, because she could be this administration undoing.

Sen. Leahy needs to subpoena Ms. Monica.

This is the case that COULD crack the ethical behavior thing and get little Bush and company all impeached. Must find more evidence on this stuff with Carol Lam.

We should move Patrick Fitzgerald to CA to follow up on Lam's investigation too. He be able to find something about Lam's firing. An air-tight reason to subpoena and impeach.

[After content has been refuted repeatedly it is subject to deletion from the body of the comment by the moderators]

:-)

You're being a moron, Kevin.

None of these things by themselves would of generated suspicion?

Jesus christ, what crap.

After content has been refuted repeatedly it is subject to deletion from the body of the comment by the moderators

Now that is a lovely, lovely statement. Would that it were true. If not, it is the most accurate and devastating piece of egbert parody I've yet seen.

those RNC/gwb email addresses---shouldn't the Plame case be reopened now that it's clear that the White House did not supply all requested materials? Isn't that a crime in itself?

Well, I see Kevin did mention something about Lam but everything.

On a similar note, the day after Carol Lam notified DOJ that she was planning to expand the Duke Cunningham investigation, Kyle Sampson emailed the White House and told William Kelly to call him so he could explain the "real reason" he wanted to get rid of Lam. What was the real reason that he didn't want to put in email?

American Hawk: "Why do you keep saying this??"

Bad Kevin! You hurt his feelings. Go to your room! There'll be no C-SPAN for you tonight! And another thing -- excuse me! Excuse me! -- but just where do you think you're going with that copy of the U.S. constitution? Don't you look at me like that, young man! Ooh, OK, that's it, you're going to really get it when your father gets home ...

AG^2 originally told Congress he never discussed the firings but left it ompletely up to Kyle and the rest of his staff. Now we learn he held a meeting to personally approve them. Why did he lie?

I agree with the multiple motives.

But I think the primary reason was to put very, very, very loyal Bushies with no moral scruples, or a ready willingness to rationalize their partisan behavior, into positions where they could limit damage to the president during the last two years and prevent any more bleeding by the GOP prior to the 2008 elections, while simultaneously damaging Democrats as much as possible.

Consider, as Josh Marshall has focused on, the Patriot Act reauthorization provision that started this whole mess. The normal process ensures that the replacement USA gets some scrutiny. So, even though we expect them to be partisan, they know people are watching them and they know the more their partisanship is revealed during confirmation, the more opposition party members and the press will be watching them once they take their positions. The end-run around this process created by the PA provision would have kept the appointments from receiving such scrutiny and the replacement USAs, absent the foolish manner of the firings, could have taken their positions with virtually no attention. This would have allowed them much more room to freely implement a very partisan agenda.

But the White House got greedy, and mad (we know that a leading characteristic of the type of conservative supporting and serving Bush is utterly ruthless vindictiveness) at a few USAs for not being as viciously partisan as they are and for bringing down loyal (but corrupt) GOPers and saw it as a chance to both clean house and put in the loyalists. And they had to do it all at once because of the unanticipated, when the process first started, sweeping victory of the Democrats taking both the House AND the Senate, that left Bush in an unexpectedly vulnerable position over his last two years and a more immediate need to use unscrupulous methods to try to reverse the GOP's political fortunes that were nose-diving.

John McKay looked into allegations of voter fraud against Democrats during the hotly contested Washington state governor's race in 2004. He said that later, when top Bush aides interviewed him for a federal judgeship, he was asked to respond to criticism of his inquiry in which no charges were brought. He didn't get the judgeship.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico has said he thought "the voter-fraud issue was the foundation" for his firing and that complaints about his failure to pursue corruption matters involving Democrats were "the icing on the cake."
from seattle times

Bill Mozzarella, Deputy Assistant AG, originally said he worked up the plan for the firings alone, without any knowledge by AG^2 or other senior DOJ officials. Now we learn that the firings were orchestrated by top Gonzales aides in coordination with White House operatives. Why did he lie?

Josh Marshall says it better:

This isn't about the AG's lies. It's not about the attempted cover-up. It's not about executive privilege and investigative process mumbojumbo.

This is about using US Attorneys to damage Democrats and protect Republicans, using the Department of Justice as a partisan cudgel in the war for national political dominance. All the secrecy and lies, the blundering and covering-up stems from this one central fact.

Would that it were true.

[It were true.]

Kyle Sampson says publicly there was never any intention of evading the Senate approval process for any of their replacement USA nominees. Yet in emails he proposed "gumming it to death" amd used scare quotes around the words "good faith" when outlining their strategy for confirmation. Which one was a lie?

If the USAs were really being replaced for "performance" reasons, why did the Bush administration propose a replacement nomimee whose law license had been suspended (Rick White)?

"With all the minutiae about subpoenas and bluster about executive privilege now flooding the zone in the U.S. attorney purge story, it’s important to return to the basics of what we know and why it’s important. The president fired U.S. attorneys to stymie investigations of Republicans and punish U.S. attorneys who didn’t harass Democrats with bogus voter-fraud prosecutions. In the former instance, the evidence remains circumstantial. But in the latter the evidence is clear, overwhelming and undeniable."

— Josh Marshall, The Hill, "It’s How They Do Business," March 23, 2007

"You're being a moron, Kevin. None of these things by themselves would of generated suspicion? Jesus christ, what crap."

I disagree.

Kevin is simply noting that such incidents, had they each been isolated occurrences separated by significant lengths of time -- and not integral elements of a spectacular and rapidly cascading series of hubris-driven political misjudgments -- might not have roused general suspicions on their own.

I would further posit that the replacement USAs are by themselves illegal--the Patriot Act provision was meant as an emergency measure only. The Senate should rescind their appointment immediately. The "clever" insertion of these hacks is itself yet another crime. No mystery in that one. And don't bother about American Hawk, he is just a tab to scroll through.

Mod Squad: Nice to know you moderate for this kind of thing. By the evidence, posters are given pretty generous latitude before having that particular sanction levied against them.

But in any case it gave me a chuckle seeing it slapped across egbert's richly deserving chops.

The firings probably have everything to do with diabolical political strategist Karl Rove's goal
to ensure a Republican victory in 2008.

Chickenliver: "It's already been explained that it's performance-based issues..."

You really are a fucking moron, aren´t you? The AG himself has recanted on this, and now you know better than him?

I hereby challenge you, Al, and Bedwetter to say one thing each to indicate that you are actual human beings and not paid shills, here to distract people who actually care aout the country, or spoofs designed to make trolls look as stupid as you? Well, we´re waiting.

Did anyone read this: My National Security Letter Gag Order

The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power.

A while back on PBS Newshour, they had a librarian who also got one of those letters and had to file suit with the help of ACLU. No legality, no FISA court seal, just Bush getting nasty to a bunch of Americans everywhere with unlawful gag orders, without any due process. Bush broke his oath of office.

Dems really need to look into this? I mean, 140,000 letters, letters that Verizon and AT&T just followed in stride, never questioning a damn thing.

We need to put pressure on Verizon and AT&T to open a class-action suit against the Bushies. At this point, it might appear to be a no-lose proposition to companies competing for cusatomers, not that the paper tiger is shrivelling in the harsh light of day.

Is it just me or is anyone else experiencing that 'Watergate Summer' deja vu all over again?

Is it just me or is anyone else experiencing that 'Watergate Summer' deja vu all over again?

Yeah, but is this going to finally make that whole angry white man thing come full circle?

The plan went into affect after the election. I figure Rove is trying to get the democrats to over reach so we can wait for the inevitible backlash.

Others have probably mentioned this, but Cummin's outser had nothing to do with Blunt, and everything to do with setting up Griffin to protect Huckabee and harass Clinton.

The Blunt angle was icing, if anything.

Ms. Lam had to be removed because an investigation into manipulation of the "black budgets" could not be allowed to go forward and reveal the corrupt activities that are occurring.

The political advantage for the 2008 election cycle of replacing the others was a side benefit.

Follow the money, ALWAYS follow the money.

"No place is so strongly fortified that money could not capture it." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cheryl: Kevin forgot about Carol Lam and her intended search warrent for that CIA person.

Dusty Foggo...

Lam notified the Justice Department on May 10, 2006, that she planned to serve search warrants on Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, who'd resigned two days earlier as the No. 3 official at the CIA.

On May 11, 2006, Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales' chief of staff, sent an e-mail to deputy White House counsel William Kelley, asking Kelley to call to discuss "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

Ken Silverstein reports at Harper's blog on the spreading Cunningham-Wade-Wilkes prostitute scandal. He says more lawmakers, past and present, are being investigated. Sounds like he thinks House Intel Chair-turned-CIA Director Porter Goss is one of them:

I've learned from a highly-connected source that those under intense scrutiny by the FBI are current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence comittees -- including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post. [emphasis added]

...Remember that Goss is the one who plucked one of Wilkes' old San Diego friends, the unusual and colorful Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, out of CIA middle-management obscurity to be his #3 at the agency. At the time of Foggo's appointment, no one could figure out where he came from, or how Goss knew him.

But if Goss was at the [Watergate hooker/poker] "parties," I wonder, was Foggo there too? ...

Porter Goss said Saturday that his surprise resignation as CIA director is "just one of those mysteries," offering no other explanation for his sudden departure after almost two years on the job.

According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat [at $140,000] had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract [for $140,000] was signed.

To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.

Yep. I wrote a few days ago that I had a feeling that it's gonna be a long hot summer hinting at that very "deja vu" ...but since I live in the South, maybe my remark was too subtle. But I would have to agree with John Dean's updated take on this WH... it's much worse than Watergate.

BGRS: Can we get a resignation petition going for this partisan asshole [Tim Griffin]?

Sounds like a fine idea. Sign me up.

BTW, Kevin...excellent summary. Fishiness...yes, indeedy.

These points aren't all accurate.

Why the 18-day gap?

Ahh, let's fudge it just a bit and call it the "18 1/2 day gap."

Sounds more Nixonian that way.

It all sounds Nixonian, every step of the way--only Nixon never would have gone this far.
This is going to go down as The Gang That Tried to Steal America.

I can't wait to see the administration excusing the 18 day gap by claiming it was caused by Rose Mary Woods' accidentally erasing it. (What is it with Republicans and this number 18?)

Repack Rider: Q: Tony Snow has said that the president was unaware of these discussions. But by statute, only the president can fire a US Attorney. That being the case, who "fired" them and where did he/she get the authority to do so?

Most excellent questions and let's hope the judiciary committees ask them.

Steppen: Why the coverup? It's the only question that matters now. Answer that, and everything else will fall into place. Including, I suspect, some heads falling into baskets. Even these guys, who turned bungling into a low art form, aren't stupid enough to bungle this badly. They are covering up something big.

I would agree. Another question is how good have they been at shredding documents and scrubbing an electronic trail?

Don't forget the way they practiced this in Guam (protecting Abramoff in the process) to see if it would work, before canning eight US attorneys on the mainland.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/

Can't we just pass a special prosecutor law and get to the bottom of this, as well as insure that Lam et al, or at least SOMEONE can finish the work Abu G tried to cut short?

I am so sick of hearing how the President has the right to appoint this and that and Congress gets to do nothing but rubber stamp his choices. If that really is the case, it needs to end. We shouldn't have so damn much power invested in one person. We didn't fix this problem after Nixon, and Bush has outdone Nixon 100 times. If we don't fix it now, we are done for the next time Republicans take over (that is, if we're not done for this time). The attorney general should be elected separately from the President, and should have strong oversight by Congress and the public to keep its activiy nonpolitical.

Patterico, thanks to your pointing out ambiguities and minor errors regarding tertiary issues and minutae about the ongoing controversy in Kevin Drum's blog post (not to mention a typo), I have no other choice but to conclude that Bush's firing of the eight USAs is completely aboveboard. You've done the nation a real service.

Kevin likes statistics, so this should be added to the list:

From Krugman via TMP:
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats.

As noted by Digby: Karl Rove gave a speech to the xxxx in which he named 11 states that he said could be pivotal in 2008. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005.

xxxx above equals "Republican National Lawyers Association". I was using the xxxx as a place-marker and forgot to replace it.

Eyebrows Are Raised in Mich. Over Reasons for Prosecutor's Firing by Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, March 25, 2007; A04:

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- In the aftermath of the surprise firing of U.S. Attorney Margaret M. Chiara, questions outnumber answers. Was she dismissed for political reasons? For poor performance? To make way for someone else? Western Michigan's legal community does not know what to think.

The Justice Department initially announced that the reasons were "performance-related," an explanation at odds with the current consensus in Grand Rapids. The chief federal judge firmly disputed it, as did Chiara, who said she was told her resignation was needed to clear the way for a political favorite.

Some defense lawyers speculate that Chiara, who once trained to be a nun, fell out of favor with the Bush administration over her personal opposition to the death penalty....

...Amid the competing theories, most everyone seems to agree that Chiara's forced resignation after five years, in the middle of a presidential term, is puzzling and that the administration's handling of the firing and its aftermath did a disservice to the 63-year-old career lawyer.

"I see no evidence of any poor performance at all," said Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, a Reagan appointee, adding that his fellow judges concur. "She hired very competent people. She's a person of high integrity. She has this strong moral sense about her, of rectitude."

...Several lawyers who practice in the green and white brick Grand Rapids federal courthouse question the agency's assertion that management problems were so severe that they merited Chiara's ouster. In the estimation of one lawyer with detailed knowledge, the ups and downs were no more serious than the frustrations of typical office politics.

Another lawyer, Geoffrey A. Fields, head of the local chapter of the Federal Bar Association, said, "I think I would've heard an assistant U.S. attorney grumble or someone point out that something didn't seem right." Defense lawyer Lawrence Phelan, who sometimes goes jogging with prosecutors, agreed.

"They're really good guys and I think professional," Phelan said. "They're not going to expose dirty laundry. But I never heard anything about her that was negative from any assistant U.S. attorney."

patrick: "xxxx above equals "Republican National Lawyers Association". I was using the xxxx as a place-marker and forgot to replace it."

No problem. "XXXX" was perfectly appropriate, since the Republican National Lawyers Association is analogous to legalized political pornography.

Patterico's pontifications--haranges that make no sense? Not the "gotcha moment' he had desired.
This blogger answers his reader by saying "I have just written a post debunking several items" (of Kevin's post)
This is wishful thinking. At one point Patterico says "I'm not citing this (under his weak strike 3) as a factual error, because you could quibble over (Kevin's) word 'virtually.'
Oh, and he cited the tiresome, reflexive talking point that 'Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys'--failing to mention this occurred at the start of Clinton's first term, not during the second, and certainly not--as more reasonable thinkers realize-- as prosecutors' investigations were ongoing--a phrase the administration itself just loves to use when disingenuously declining to comment on issues related to probable involvement by their white house staff. Sadly, another "Clinton did it" defense mechanism from administration apologists that just isn't going to work this time.

In fact, I wish I had still been up when Patterico made his post at 2:53 a.m.
I would have said "Let us not speak falsely now, the hour is getting late..."
unforgettable words of Mr. Bob Dylan.
Smoking guns, Mr. Patterico--1)Sampson's email makes it clear Lam's replacement is to come from outside her office. 2)And the emailers conspired to use an immigration charge--hoping to pin it on at least three prosecutors targeted for firing.
A pattern is evident in the emails of the document dump that cannot be ignored or minimized.
Concrete thinking, in the hopes of defending an indefensible decision by the administration,
tends to limit one's take on reality, wouldn't you say?
This is not how a reasonable person would approach this! An apologist would certainly approach it in the manner to which you aspire.
Bottom line: Behind the firings is a coordinated effort to obstruct-- since the prosecutors were investigating corruption-- and as Jonathan Turley recently noted, the administration was obstructing their own investigations.

So what do you think explains the failure of the MSM to cover the purge scandal for so long? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and then said they were going to come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn't be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn't talk about it. The media sure doesn't measure up to their responsibilities, and they sure haven't especially over the last five years.

Thomas Jefferson said, "Information is the currency of democracy."

Question: Will President award Gonazles with the Medal of Freedom before or after he is forced to resign?

Homer www.altara.blogspot.com

On Meet the Press, Russert is pointing out the disingenuous statements of Gonzales of 3/13.
Senator Durbin points it out as the AG's third contradiction. It raises the credibility question and the need for testimony under oath.
Senator Specter concludes there is a second critical element, if the AG has been candid, if the DOJ acted properly/improperly in the dismissals, and Kyle Sampson will be in Thursday, the AG later, and a lot of questions need answered. What has happened has had a chilling effect on the US attorneys across the nation.
He won't call the AG untruthful, always smooothing things for the administration, that Arlen Specter.
Sen. Durbin notes there are so many contradictions --McKay and Ignatius fell out of favor politically, and emails tell that story. Here in one felt swoop 8 attorneys dismissed. Durbin recently was stopped by an assistant attorney who said--help lift this cloud. And Durbin, not parsing his words, says it would be refreshing to bring in a new AG.
He mentioned Karl Rove--sadly, what has happened here raises questions--how many other US attorneys "played ball???"--if they dismissed eight for not playing ball??? It is a question that has to be asked to clear the air.
He alleges the White House is inconsistent and it is time to follow the process, bring witnesses to reasonable questions under oath. Why not an open hearing?
Specter allows the president is wrong not to have a transcript, an oath would be fine--he would prefer it public, as there is a great public concern. This is new for Specter, I believe, although he still would prefer accomodations, i.e., no subpoenas--and working it out with Counsel Fielding.

Iglesias and McKay spoke with Russert this morning and insist there must be oversight and that the DoJ's behavior is fishy. I want loyalists to start calling them liars without evidence. Go ahead defame them. They're attorneys. Please, defame them. Come on Rush, lie about their competence. I'm begging you.

Swan--I think the obvious inconsistencies in the adminstrations' own statements and stands-- both the president and the attorney general-- and the hearings with the dismissed prosecutors really made the difference in the mainstream media's advance with this, in addition to blogs such as Talking Points Memo and Fire Dog Lake, and other blogs too numerous to mention, taking the lead in the myriad of administration scandals.

This is all about protecting Karl Rove. Turdblossom wanted to turn the U.S. Attorneys into attack dogs for the GOP political machine. If the truth comes out, people will see the true sliminess of this bald-headed, puffy piece of human sewage. Karl Rove needs to die in prison.

I liked the way Russert went on the attack, saying that the AG's statement that he let the 8 go for performance reasons hardly squares with his claim that he had little involvement in all this. And Iglesias said that the very people who cited performance reasons agreed to serve as references for him.

As in the New Orleans debacle, we're seeing the extent not only of the Repugs' malice but also of their stupidity. We need smarter people protecting us from the terrorists.

One wishes one could be the fly on the wall in the WH and Justice Department just now. But is it enough just to know that a whole lot of Republicans are having a really, really bad weekend? Yes, it is.

For now.

"Eyebrows Are Raised in Mich. Over Reasons for Prosecutor's Firing"

It's now coming out that someone in Chiara's office leaked accusations of bribery against her chief deputy, who had been nominated to be US Attorney for the Southern district of Illinois:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-35/1174661607308580.xml&coll=6&thispage=1

What this means in terms of politics is hard to tell--for what its worth, the deputy doesn't seem to have been actually guilty of taking a bribe.

Meanwhile: IMF to urge further depreciation in dollar - Reuters

As Marriner Eccles, the legendary Fed chairman during the Great Depression, noted, "The economy is like a poker game where only a few people control the chips and the other fellows must borrow to stay in the game. But the moment the borrowing stops, the game is over."

Patterico on March 25, 2007 at 2:53 AM:

These points aren't all accurate.

Another case of projection from a apologist. Patterico's the one striking out.

....

On a navel-gazing note (hopefully a good one), it's a good thing that not only are pieces of this story being identified and uncovered, but that various persons are stringing these pieces together into a narrative. Doing this is important, because, as Kevin rightly states, each dismissal or the subsequent actions taken by the DOJ and Bush administration individually would be nowhere near as noticible. It's the story that makes people take notice, not the collection of individual events and actions.

If Lam's case was going in the direction of Titan Corporation and its owners--particularly a failed hedge fund which the SEC has failed to prosecute for several years, it would be easy to understand why Bush Administration would fire eight attorneys to get rid of her and her alone.

Getting rid of the others at the same time sends a strong message to the remaining US attorneys: play ball or else.

What cases are currently wending themselves through the justice system that have the capability to seriously damage the administration?

What about that failed hedge fund, for starters?

How could Senator Pete D of NM have been soooo wrong? - Mentoring a rising Hispanic Republican star, only to have him "betray" Pete in not publicly hanging that Dem in question. Ah, the pathos of Pete D, Doc Hastings and Issa.

Ms MisNThorpe, you are really trying to goad rdw - Geez, it will cost him more and more in Euros to visit his beloved France and attack Muslims. If you don't fight them in the suburbs of Paris, you will have to fend them off in Drexel Hill when they storm your three car garage.

Here is the link to the news story to which Patrick refers upthread, h/t Digby: Karl Rove Speech to Republican Lawyers' Association.

This goes to motive, of course. The text below is taken from the linked news account.

"Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired."

Careful, Shortstop

Shrub and Shrubette Alberto keep "Raid" cans very handy. Relieves a lot of their tension.

I think it's important to remember that it isn't just Democrats a US Attorney could lean on, it's anyone a hooked up Republican might want to squeeze.

If you don't fight them in the suburbs of Paris, you will have to fend them off in Drexel Hill when they storm your three car garage.
Posted by: thethirdPaul

Now there's a fine image.

*snort*

even though five of the eight had previously received reviews placing them in the top third of all USAs.

Another thing it's important to remember is that Republicans resent competence.

If you're good at anything that isn't bullying or squeezing money out of something, you're not getting the joke, you're not a team player.

American ChickenShit Moron is obviously a brain dead bozo.

This is a serious and growing problem.

1) They fired the ones who didn't cooperate.

2) Ergo, the ones not fired did cooperate.

3) What prosecutions and persecutions that they participated in (those not fired) were transparently political? We KNOW that the Menendez prosecution (before the election) was an attempt to steal a Senate seat. We also know that the bungled prosecution of that corrupt RNC official was deliberately bungled, so that a review of the case would overturn it.

What else is out there?

I have a question that I haven't seen answered anywhere: will the interim USA's now go through a Senate confirmation process? I know that nefarious little provision has been excised from the Patriot Act (the one allowing the Administration to avoid the Senate), but is it retroactive? If not, then hasn't Rove won by installing loyal Bushies in those slots, who will most certainly gin up voter fraud allegations in 2008? We need to keep our eye on the ball, as well as the pitcher.

Amway Chicken Hawk's "bear minimum"

Dang, does Jasper Fforde realize this twit is reading his novels?

There's a Former Sec of HUD under Clinton who'd be glad to tell you what some of those other USAs having been doing...

Now, I'm picturing a remake of 'The Russians are coming...' starring our own Rightist DimWit. Paul, have your people call my people.

Dang, does Jasper Fforde realize this twit is reading his novels?
Posted by: thethirdPaul

Never in a million years.

From a practical standpoint, aren't the performance reviews the indication of whether the President is "pleased" or not? If they serve at the "pleasure" of the President, it appears that at least 5 of the eight met that criteria.

Also, if W was not in the loop on all of this, how do they know he was not "pleased?" Are they suggesting that they also serve at the "pleasure" of Alberto Gonzales? How about the people that work for him, and the people that work for them? If so, then pretty much the lowest level supervisor can fire any clerk for any or no reason. This just is not good logic.

Kyle Sampson didn't practice law very long before plunging into politics full time. Perhaps he didn't enjoy standing in front of a judge, ON THE RECORD, explaining accurately (you know, one version) the reason for his position.

Assessing Rove in a fair and balanced way, one must conclude that he is at least capable of trying to put in place U.S. Attorneys more likely to help him with well-timed if poorly justified investigations, and other mischief. Audioanimitronic Fred Barnes-style Bush defenders miss the evil plot being hatched here. Of course U.S. Attorneys are appointed in a political process. (So are judges.) Of course U.S. Attorneys are expected to focus on the priorities of the Justice Department. The actual work they do on each and every case, however, is not supposed to be political in any way. They are not supposed to be muscled by members of Congress, for example, however subtly those members think they are accomplishing the task.

If the evidence points elsewhere, that's where I'll go. So far, Rove is the one guy, if I could only choose one, whose truthful explanation I'd like to hear.

From MYDD--just to reinterate>>>>>>>deliberate obstruction???? Not mentioned on any of the Sunday talk shows I happened to watch.

"...Justice Department Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson from J. Scott Jennings, White House Deputy Political Director, uses an email account, SJennings@gwb43.com, on a server owned by the Republican National Committee...
A number of other emails from Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's former assistant Susan Ralston to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff document Ms. Ralston's use of THREE outside domains: rnchq.com (used for the headquarters of the Republican National Committee), georgebush.com and aol.com.

In many of these emails Ms. Ralston is communicating inside White House information to Mr. Abramoff in response to Mr. Abramoff's efforts to broker deals for his clients and place specified individuals in positions within the administration.

The Center for Responsiblity and Ethics in Government has learned that to fulfill its statutory obligations under the Presidential Records Act, the White House email system automatically copies all messages created by staff and sends them to the White House Office of Records Management for archiving. It appears that the White House deliberately bypassed the automatic archiving function of its own email system that was designed to ensure compliance with the PRA.
...To use the classic refrain employed by countless pro-warrantless wiretapping Republicans: Why avoid e-mail if you have nothing to hide?
Could it really be that Bush, Gonzales, Rice, Chertoff and Rumsfeld are each so technologically illiterate that they can't master a simple e-mail application? Or could it be something else entirely? ...

To wit: A coordinated administration effort to avoid accountability at all costs, from bosses shielded from accumulating an electronic paper trail to staffers conducting official business on decidedly unofficial e-mail accounts.
One wonders how many other administration officials either refuse to use e-mail or use non-governmental addresses to conduct official business..."

Whoever is enagaging in scandle mongering should be immediatley sent to Gitmo.

FWG,

More treadmill work - Less Fox News

from DaCasdadian @2:03am:

Ms. Lam had to be removed because an investigation into manipulation of the "black budgets" could not be allowed to go forward and reveal the corrupt activities that are occurring.

Ah, the crux of the matter! And now about that hedge fund...

Egbert needs to focus on the actual record that is emerging, and the need therefore to develop the record further. If he's honestly buying (and/or selling) the "this is just politics" line, he doesn't understand the role of a U.S. Attorney in our system, or how political actions can constitute a serious attack on the integrity of the justice system for partisan purposes, or why, therefore, yes, even as we fight the war on terror (however stupidly under Bush), we must rescue our democracy from the Rovian idea (not his originally) that it's all right to corrupt institutions of government to elect the people he wants to elect.

Calling people "leftists" who want answers, instead of lies, degrades the quality of the conversation. For example, for over thirty years I've been, and remain, a registered if unenthusiastic Republican. I have been a prosecutor for most of my career. I'm no leftist by any rational explanation of that term.

I have also been, all my life, a fascinated observor of extreme political philosophies and ideologies. I went to high school in the early and mid 60's in Northern California, and spent a lot of time in the John Birch Society "American Opinion Book Stores," I think they were called. (I wasn't blinded, just terribly interested.) From there, as with so many in my generation, I wound up on an activist college campus and experienced, well, other political and social influences.

I do admit to admiring the explanations of that notorious leftist, Isaiah Berlin, as to why fundamental political issues cannot be reconciled philosophically into working solutions for all problems. Political struggles, waged the right way in our democracy, among other things require respect for vulnerable institutions of government. Prosecutors in court every day, for example, when they do it right, teach everybody including themselves the proper way to proceed. Because of their vast power, including their power to gather information and conceal it from others, prosecutors also have the ability to do a lot of mischief. Everyone in the criminal justice system knows that. That's why the integrity of the U.S. Attorney, and the importance of everyone keeping one's distance with respect to any particular investigation or prosecution, is so important.

Those who attribute concerns about the firings to politics strike me as deluded by ideology, or just partisan.

>Bill Clinton fired 93 USAs at once...

Incomplete. Expand the scope of presidents.

Example: President Ronald Reagan did it as well, early 1980's, first term.

Clinton was following example set by Reagan.

a fish rots from the head down [traditional saying]

This isn't a mystery. It is only a mystery if you haven't been listening to Karl Rove and the RNC for the last 6 years. They want a permanent majority GOP Congress and WH control as well. They are willing to subvert the electoral and legal systems to obtain this goal.

By now, it may be too late to ever completely answer how the plan was enacted in detail - since the use of 'outside the government' email system, meetings, and phone conversations will be lost to the process. Only an immediate swoop of FBI agents on the first hint of misdeeds, with truly global warrants for seizure of records could have made the whole trail visible, accompanied by sworn statements from all the potential parties. Doing that is only possible under the Terrorism laws.

It stinks. But the smell is enough to hold those responsible. This is more than the appearance of misdoing.

The goal itself, as Rove has repeatedly stated it, is the problem. When anything is 'fair game', and the President has unleashed this subversion of democracy, then truly the head is rotten and must be removed from the body politic.

The correction on #6 is still wrong.

Sampson didn't say he wanted to *explain* the "real problem" with Lam on the phone. He said he wanted to *discuss* it.

These are not minor issues. The issue of immigration had come up repeatedly in previous e-mails. Assume you have been discussing an issue with someone, and have extensively set forth reasons for a proposed action. If you subsequently say, "Call me so I can explain the real reason" or even "Call me so I can explain the real problem we have," that implies that the problem is different from the one you have been discussing. If you say, "Call me to discuss the real problem we have," that is consistent with the notion that the problem you have been discussing constitutes a real problem -- i.e., a major one that needs to be addressed.

Drum's mischaracterization of the e-mail, even now, makes it seem inconsistent with the notion that immigration was really the issue with Lam. But the actual e-mail is quite consistent with that notion.

Patterico adds yet another reason for subpoenas. We have other business to conduct and we need the truth without further delay. By their pitiful efforts to deceive, Bush officials lost any benefit of the doubt to which they may otherwise have been entitled; had they been, in other words, honest managers of the apparatus known as the executive branch of government.

Question: Will President award Gonazles with the Medal of Freedom before or after he is forced to resign?

Before, presumably. After President Bush is forced to resign, he won't be able to give anyone the Medal of Freedom.

Or did I misunderstand the question?

Frank Rich's article is significant and I am re-posting my comment.
Administration apologists attempting to justify the Carol Lam dismissal, please note:

"...To see what Mr. Rove might be trying to cover up, look instead at what Ms. Lam was up to in May, just as the Justice Department e-mails indicate she was being earmarked for removal. Building on the Cunningham case, she was closing in on Dusty Foggo, the C.I.A.’s No. 3 official and the director of its daily operations. Mr. Foggo had been installed in this high intelligence position by Mr. Bush’s handpicked successor to George Tenet as C.I.A. director, Porter Goss.

Ms. Lam’s pursuit sped Mr. Foggo’s abrupt resignation; Mr. Goss was out too after serving less than two years. Nine months later — just as Ms. Lam stepped down from her job in February — Mr. Foggo and a defense contractor who raised more than $100,000 for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign were indicted by a grand jury on 11 counts of conspiracy and money laundering in what The Washington Post called "one of the first criminal cases to reach into the C.I.A.’s clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East."
Because the allegations include the compromising of classified information that remains classified, we don’t know the full extent of the damage to an agency and a nation at war..."

Posted by: consider wisely

mhr: "The Justice department is in big trouble." And Homeland Security is in big trouble. And the national economy is in big trouble. And unions are in big trouble. And the poor are in big trouble. And ... Just the way the left likes it.

Days the color-coded federal terror alert system has been in place: 1,833

Days spent at terror alert level Blue or Green: 0

Patterico failed in his attempt to call three strikes on the batter Kevin Drum.
Those adding comments to his board were not fawning over Patterico as I had expected.
Kevin +3
Patterico -1

cmdicely: Or did I misunderstand the question?

Maybe. But your interpretation is getting me really hot.

Patterico: These points aren't all accurate.

You are lying.

They are accurate, but maybe not precise.

Get a dictionary.

In any event, Clinton fired 89 of the USAs, I believe, not 93, so you've lied far more than Kevin has done by alleging a absolute and undeniable factual falsehood.

And "real reason" is a fair synonymous term for "real problem," which shows your arguments against Kevin's points are not simply nitpicking, but the same type of definitional denial that causes conservatives to deny that Bush said the danger from Iraq wasn't imminent because he didn't use that exact word, despite using words that meant the same thing.

Again, get a dictionary and look up the word "synonymous."

It would do you good to get "edumacated," as your hero Bush might say.

Patterico: These points aren't all accurate.

You are lying.

They are accurate, but maybe not precise.

Get a dictionary.

In any event, Clinton fired 89 of the USAs, I believe, not 93, so you've lied far more than Kevin has done by alleging a absolute and undeniable factual falsehood.

And "real reason" is a fair synonymous term for "real problem," which shows your arguments against Kevin's points are not simply nitpicking, but the same type of definitional denial that causes conservatives to deny that Bush said the danger from Iraq wasn't imminent because he didn't use that exact word, despite using words that meant the same thing.

Again, get a dictionary and look up the word "synonymous."

It would do you good to get "edumacated," as your hero Bush might say.

Patterico: These points aren't all accurate.

You are lying.

They are accurate, but maybe not precise.

Get a dictionary.

In any event, Clinton fired 89 of the USAs, I believe, not 93, so you've lied far more than Kevin has done by alleging a absolute and undeniable factual falsehood.

And "real reason" is a fair synonymous term for "real problem," which shows your arguments against Kevin's points are not simply nitpicking, but the same type of definitional denial that causes conservatives to deny that Bush said the danger from Iraq wasn't imminent because he didn't use that exact word, despite using words that meant the same thing.

Again, get a dictionary and look up the word "synonymous."

It would do you good to get "edumacated," as your hero Bush might say.

MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him. . . .

Q Just to follow, did you say, again for the record, that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about any of this?

MR. SNOW: Yes, the removal — yes, that is correct.

Indeed, Snow went as far as to assert that this was "a decision that was made at the U.S. Department of Justice."

Here's the problem, though. As Marty Lederman points out, the relevant statute–28 U.S.C. 541(c)–vests the power to remove U.S. Attorneys with the president ("Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.") As we've repeatedly been told, U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President–not the pleasure of the Attorney General (and certainly not the pleasure of the Attorney General's chief of staff). The decision to fire a U.S. Attorney–much less eight of them–is unquestionably one for the president to make, so if President Bush was truly out of the loop on this, that's a problem in and of itself.

One point you missed is what impact the Mark Foley sex scandal in October may have had on the U.S. Attorney firings in December.

Think about it.

Karl Rove lost control of "the message" just before last November's elections. Foleygate dominated the headlines for weeks on end. Republicans were losing credibility as the "moral majority" party. The ongoing Cunningham scandal was not helping. Nor was Patrick Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation into the outing of a covert CIA officer.

Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales, two major neo-con Republican strategists, would have pushed back, even going so far as to draft Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys (USAs) into the effort of deflecting American voters attention with false claims of Democratic voter fraud. Rove's and Gonzales' plan failed. Republicans lost big in November.

So, Rove's and Gonzales' attention would have turned to the next big "presidential" election in November 2008. Any "low performing" USAs (i.e., not partisan enough USAs) would have to be replaced so more "loyal" Republicans could be installed...and the sooner the better after the disastrous (to Republicans) November elections last year. And the Mark Foley sex scandal played a pivotal role in this Republican disaster.

So, where are the White House and DOJ emails discussing the Mark Foley sex scandal?

This is why having Monica Goodling, the DOJ's White House liaison, testify under oath before the U.S. Congress is so critical to finding out what was really going on. Where is she? Has she skipped the country? As the DOJ's White House liaison, she was in a central position to know everything. The USA firings in December 2006? How Rove and Gonzales reacted to the Mark Foley scandal in October? Who were all the people involved in inserting the provision into the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill in early 2006 that stripped senatorial oversight from USA hirings?

Where is Monica? And if she is found, served with a subpoena and does testify under oath before Congress, will she (and her family) have to go into the witness protection program afterward? Hell, if she tells the truth to Congress and following what happened to Valerie Plame-Wilson, she'll need protection.

Oops. Typo.

Should've read:

" . . . causes conservatives to deny that Bush said the danger from Iraq WAS imminent . . ."