Lately, there's been rampant speculation that Bush administration officials might face prosecution under Obama for ordering or approving torture. But it looks like Alberto Gonzales isn't sweating it.

In an interview with NPR, written up by the Chicago Tribune, Gonzo was asked about the issue. His response:

I don't think that there's going to be a prosecution, quite frankly. Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.

In his confirmation hearings to be Attorney General, Eric Holder declared flatly that "water-boarding is torture," a determination that could leave key Bush officials, not least Gonzales, facing legal jeopardy -- though President Obama has expressed a desire to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

A special prosecutor ha also been appointed to look into whether DOJ officials committed crimes in connection with the US Attorney firings of 2006. And there have been some signs that the probe is circling Gonzo.

Ok, so that headline wasn't really on point. But now that you're reading...

In his questioning of Eric Holder this morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer really doubled down on the theme of politicization at DOJ under Alberto Gonzales -- a theme that, as we noted, has served as the constant backdrop to the hearings so far.

Schumer declared that "the likes of Alberto Gonzales and Bradley Schlozman sullied and demoralized a great legal institution, probably the finest civil service institution in the country, that they really dragged through the mud.

As for GOP efforts to suggest Holder could act similarly, Schumer called the comparisons "ludicrous," then initiated the following clever and enlightening exchange to demonstrate Holder's comparative independence:

Schumer: As I look at your background and your record, it's clear that you are less connected and less beholden to the new president than most attorneys general in the last fifty years. Let's review for the moment. I have a few quick questions for you.

Have you ever been President-Elect Obama's personal lawyer, like William French Smith had been for years for Ronald Reagan?

Holder: No, I have not.

Schumer: Have you ever been a staffer for Barack Obama, like Ed Meese had been for Reagan?

Holder: No, I have not, senator.

Schumer: Have you ever served as official counsel to Barack Obama, like Alberto Gonzales had for George Bush?

Holder: No, I have not, senator.

Schumer: And has Barack Obama ever dispatched you to the hospital room of a sick government official, to get him to authorize an illegal wiretap program?

Holder: No, he has not.

Schumer: Yeah I didn't think so. Alright, and I take it you're not a close relation to the new president, like Bobby Kennedy was to Jack Kennedy?

Holder: No, we're not related by blood though people to say we look alike.

Schumer: I don't think so. Although you're both very handsome.

Holder: I'd heard he's handsome and was going to try to draft on that.

Schumer: OK, let me ask you this, have you ever been a professional politician like John Ashcroft or Dick Thornburgh?

Holder: No, I've never run for office.

Here's the video of the exchange:

Not that it's likely, but Brad Schlozman may want to hope that Eric Holder's confirmation somehow gets derailed.

That's because Holder just told the Senate Judiciary committee that he wants to reconsider the Bush Justice Department's curious decision not to bring criminal charges against Schlozman, a former top department official who was found by a DOJ investigation to have politicized hiring decisions, then lied about it to Congress in an effort to cover it up.

Asked about the issue moments ago by Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- one of the lawmakers to whom Schlozman was found to have given an untruthful answer during testimony -- Holder declared: "I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges."

Here's his answer in full:

I understand that prosecutors in the US attorney's office in DC -- again, just based on the press reports, actually reviewed the report and then made a prosecutive determination.

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will indicate to you that I will review that determination. I don't know all the facts of the case, but given the findings in the Inspector General's report that are consistent with what you have said, I want to know why the determination was made not to pursue charges, criminal charges.

Asked by Feinstein about the report's findings more broadly, Holder responded:

I have not had a chance to read the report, Senator, and yet I have read the news accounts of it. What's contained in the report is very disturbing. The notion that the Justice Department would ever take into account a person's political affiliation or political beliefs in making hiring decisions is antithetical to everything the department stands for and everything I'm familiar with.

I served very proudly in the Justice Department, under Republican Attorneys General, Democratic Attorneys General, and it was never a thought given to what your party affiliation was, what your political beliefs were in hiring, in promotion decisions. What we have seen in that report I think is aberrant, but is also I think one of the major tasks the next Attorney General is going to have to do. You have to reverse that.

So we may not have seen the last word on this.

Late Update:
Here's video of the exchange between Feinstein and Holder about Schlozman:

"I want to assure you and the American people that I will be an independent Attorney General. I will be the people's lawyer," Eric Holder told the Senate judiciary committee moments ago, in response to a question form Sen. Herb Kohl.

Holder's answer suggests the extent to which the shadow of Alberto Gonzales hangs over the curent nominee's confirmation, which began this morning. Much of Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy's opening statement was an argument that Holder is the man to fix the problems of politicization at DOJ under Gonzales that we've chronicled at TPMmuckraker over the last two years.

Said Leahy, after noting the department's report, released Tuesday, into politicized hiring under Gonzales:

Americans must be able to trust their Justice Department. That trust must not be squandered or taken for granted. We need leaders who are prepared to take the laboring oars of a Justice Department whose dedicated law enforcement professionals have been misused and demoralized. Eric Holder is such a leader.

Just as revealingly, Republicans have centered their opposition to Holder on the claim, without much evidence, that, in fact, he's likely to be a second Gonzo. Earlier this month in a speech on the Senate floor, ranking GOPer Arlen Specter laid out the argument:

Mr. Gonzales left office accused of politicizing the Justice Department, failing to restrain Executive overreaching, and being less than forthcoming with Congress ... I am convinced that many of Attorney General Gonzales' missteps were caused by his eagerness to please the White House. Similarly, when Mr. Holder was serving as DAG to President Clinton, some of his actions raised concerns about his ability to maintain his independence from the president.

As their main exhibits in this case, Specter and other GOPers have cited Holder's 2001 pardon, as a top DOJ official in the Clinton administration, of the fugitive financier Marc Rich, which it appeared was supported by the president. GOPers have also condemned Holder's support for clemency for members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican nationalist group, at a time when Hillary Clinton was seeking a Senate seat in New York, which has a large Puerto Rican population.

Already this morning, Specter has grilled Holder on these issues, declaring, in reference to Rich: "The indicators are that you were very heavily involved and yet you testified that you were only casually involved. So there's a question of candor there."

Holder responded:

I made mistakes ... in the Rich matter. I've accepted the responsibility of making those mistakes...I should have made sure that all the prosecutors in that case were informed of what was going on. I made assumptions that turned out not to be true ... I've learned from that experience. I think that, as perverse as this might sound, I will be a better Attorney General should I be confirmed, having had the Marc Rich experience.

It's great that Holder has learned from his mistakes. But, Specter's grandstanding notwithstanding, the entire attack is pretty bogus to begin with.

There's just not much of a comparison between the level of politicization that DOJ saw under Gonzales -- when US Attorneys were removed for not bringing cases that reflected the White House's political priorities, and officials actively sought to avoid hiring liberals -- and Holder's sins during the last administration. And that excludes the numerous examples, cited by Leahy and other Holder supporters in recent weeks, of Holder acting in ways counter to the president's interest while at DOJ.

But leaving aside the minor political theater over Holder, the prominence of Gonzales' record in these hearings, as a negative marker against which to measure Holder, is perhaps the strongest testament to the unprecedented damage that the former Attorney General, and the president, did to the department.

It sounds like Sen. Pat Leahy isn't too happy about the US Attorney's office's decision not to prosecute Bradley Schlozman for making false statements to Leahy's Judiciary committee.

In a speech on the Senate floor this morning, Leahy left no doubt that he disagrees with the US Attorney's office's decision, and declared: "When somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime."

You can watch the speech here, but here's the entire relevant excerpt:

I really wish that the current U.S. attorney's office appointed by this administration had prosecuted. I think that the only way you stop such blatant criminal violations by people who know better, people who are sworn to uphold the law, (unint.) that they know they'll go to jail for breaking the law. That's what should have been done. And just because they broke the law in the Bush administration and the Bush administration did not, or deemed not to prosecute, I think that raises real questions. Prosecution should be done no matter who breaks the law. I think about one of the people who testified that same investigation and said that, uh, "we swear an oath to President George Bush." I said, "no, you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That constitution is the constitution you're sworn to uphold and I'm sworn to uphold and it's the constitution that reflects all Americans."

...

And when somebody deliberately, purposely sets out to subvert the constitution of the United States, and then lies about it, lies about it, Mr. President, I find that a heinous crime. We will see some kid who steals a car, they'll be prosecuted as they probably should. But when you have a key member of the DoJ lie about it under oath, who subverts the consitution of the United States, all the more reason to prosecute that person. Mr. President what Mr. Schlozman did was reprehensible, it was disgusting, it was wrong, goes at the very core of America's principles. The distinguished presiding officer, like me, had the great opportunity to serve as a prosecutor, and I have every reason to believe that he did not show fear of favor when he brought prosecution, as I did, as I did not, I did not show fear of favor, most prosecutors do not. And when you have somebody who is part of the Justice Department lie under oath, and do it in a way to cover up subverting the laws that protect all of us, the civil rights laws protect all of us, white, black, brown, no matter what our race, our creed, it protects all of us. And what has marked this country since the time I was a young lawyer in the sixties, is our adherence to the civil rights laws. You can't go back to a time where they're enforced for some but not for others.

On a conference call this morning, Sen. Pat Leahy was asked about his ongoing spat with ranking GOPer Arlen Specter over the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General -- which Leahy supports and Specter has expressed extreme skepticism about.

In response, Leahy upped the rhetoric, saying of Specter:

It may be coincidence that his positions have been those of Karl Rove. I suspect it is coincidence.

Leahy added:

He was a lead supporter in the US Senate of Alberto Gonzales. I disagreed with him on Alberto Gonzales. If he could support Gonzales, who turned out to be a disaster as Attorney General and was eventually forced out by President Bush, I would think that he would be very happy to support Eric Holder.

Given that the DOJ Inspector General's report found that Bradley Schlozman broke the law in making politicized hiring decisions, and lied about it to Congress, why and how did the US Attorney's office make the decision to decline to bring criminal charges?

We got a bit more information on that question from Patricia Riley, special counsel to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, which conducted the investigation.

Riley told TPMmuckraker that her office was only asked by the Inspector General's office to look into the possible perjury charges stemming from Schlozman's congressional testimony, rather than the underlying hiring decisions. She said that six career prosecutors, with between 10 and 21 years experience, conducted the investigation, reporting to Assistant US Attorney Channing Phillips (US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor recused himself from the probe).

The investigation continued until last Friday, said Riley, and included interviews with witnesses who were not contacted by the IG's report. Based on that investigation, a decision was made not to bring criminal charges.

Riley declined to say what specific information uncovered in that probe determined the decision.

We also asked the office of Sen. Pat Leahy, when they first learned that the OIG report had found that Schlozman lied to Leahy's committee. A spokeswoman responded in an email:

We received this IG report this morning, shortly in advance of the hearing, as is the usual practice of the IG's office.

Here's another great Schlozman line from the report:

For example, in an e-mail on July 15, 2003, to a former colleague, Schlozman wrote, "I too get to work with mold spores, but here in Civil Rights, we call them Voting Section attorneys."

As part of the same e-mail exchange, on July 16, 2003, Schlozman wrote, "My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs rights out of the section."

In case you were wondering about why the Schlozman report is dated July 2 2008 but was only released today, see this excerpt from page one:

We referred the findings from our investigation to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia in March 2008. We completed this written report of investigation in July 2008.

The U.S. Attorney's Office informed us on January 9, 2009, of its decision to decline prosecution of Schlozman. The Interim U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, was recused from the matter and the decision.

We are now releasing our July 2008 report of investigation...

In other words, although the report found that Schlozman broke the law and lied to the Senate about it, he won't face criminal charges.

We've called the US Attorney's office to find out more about that decision.

Here's a voicemail message Schlozman left in February 2006 for a colleague:

[W]hen we start asking about, "what is your commitment to civil rights?" . . . . [H]ow do you prove that? Usually by membership in some crazy liberal organization or by some participation in some crazy cause. . . . Look, look at my résumé - I didn't have any demonstrated commitment, but I care about the issues. So, I mean, I just want to make sure we don't start confining ourselves to, you know, politburo members because they happen to be a member of some, you know, psychopathic left-wing organization designed to overthrow the government.

Peter Carr, a DOJ spokesman, released the following statement in response to the report on politicized hiring:

Today's report describes troubling conduct by a former supervisor in the Civil Rights Division prior to his departure from the Division nearly three years ago. The mission of the Justice Department is the evenhanded application of the Constitution and the laws enacted under it, and that mission has to start with the evenhanded application of the laws within our own Department. As today's report makes clear, Mr. Schlozman deviated from that strict standard.

The Department agrees with the recommendations outlined in the report and has already taken steps to implement them. In addition, the Civil Rights Division has taken additional steps to update its own hiring policies and to increase the role of career employees in its hiring process. As a result of these reforms, and the procedures already in place for evaluating the work and conduct of lawyers throughout the Department, we are confident that the institutional problems identified in today's report no longer exist and will not recur.

Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, just put out the following statement on the DOJ report into politicized hiring:

Today's report confirms some of our worst fears about the Bush administration's political corruption of the Justice Department. Not only did senior Republican appointees violate the law in hiring based on politics in the Civil Rights Division, they also lied about it when called to explain themselves to Congress.

I am particularly disturbed about the findings that a senior Justice Department appointee, Bradley Schlozmann, made false statements under oath when appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent government. Not only did he lie to me and the Committee, but he then refused to cooperate with Justice Department's internal oversight offices' investigation into illegal hiring practices in the Department's Civil Rights Division. The clear determination that he broke the law corrodes our trust in our system of justice and in the nation's top law enforcement agency. His actions in fact undermine the very mission of the Department's Civil Rights Division, which is charged with enforcing federal law prohibiting discrimination.

A strong and independent Civil Rights Division has long been crucial to the enforcement of our precious civil rights laws, and experienced and committed career attorneys have always been the heart and soul of that Division. Contrary to those traditions, however, this report details troubling revelations of political appointees who marginalize and force out career lawyers because of ideology, and, corrupt the hiring process for career positions. It should come as no surprise that the result, and of course the intent, of this political makeover of the Civil Rights Division has been a dismal civil rights enforcement record.

This report is just one of the final chapters in the regrettable legacy of the Bush administration at Main Justice, and it reinforces the need for new leadership. Now more than ever, it is necessary to confirm a new team to lead the Justice Department, starting with Attorney General designee Eric Holder.

Here's the key excerpt, finding that Schlozman broke the law by considering political affiliations in making hiring decisions, and made false statement about it to the Senate:

The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law - the Civil Service Reform Act - and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct. The evidence also showed that Division managers failed to exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that Schlozman did not engage in inappropriate hiring and personnel practices.

Moreover, Schlozman made false statements about whether he considered political and ideological affiliations when he gave sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and in his written responses to supplemental questions from the Committee. Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the
future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.

The Justice Department's Inspector General has just released a report on politicized hiring at the Civil Rights division, focused on TPMmuckraker favorite Bradley Schlozman.

It's here.

More soon...

We're not sure whether this counts as a positive thing ... but Eric Holder, Barack Obama's nominee for Attorney General, has won the support of a former DOJ official who was seriously tainted by the US Attorney firings scandal.

In a letter obtained by Politico, former deputy AG Paul McNulty wrote that despite the issues raised by some GOPers about Holder's tenure at DOJ under Bill Clinton, he nonetheless deserved support:

When Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General, he encountered a daily barrage of complex issues and demands," McNulty wrote. "His challenge was to exercise sound judgment, often within severely limited time constraints. As a result, it should come as no surprise that Eric can now look back and wish that he had handled some things differently. What is important, however, is that he remains the same person of high integrity, and through it all, he is far better prepared to lead the Department of Justice.

While serving as deputy AG under Alberto Gonzales, McNulty was involved in an effort to keep details of the US Attorneys firing scheme from Congress. And his chief of staff, Michael Elston, told IG investigators for a separate inquiry that he looked for GOP or conservative credentials when making hiring decisions for McNulty's office.

So McNulty's endorsement may not be the one of which Holder is most proud. Still, Pat Leahy's comment to TPM that, depsite Arlen Specter's anti-Holder crusade, there was in fact significant Republican support for Holder's nomination, appears to be being borne out.

The Bush DOJ may not usually be inclined to hold its own members accountable for criminal wrongdoing. But when the alleged wrong-doing consists of embarrassing the administration by revealing the existence of a program that was illegally spying on the American people, the wheels of justice seem to start turning.

Last month, as we noted at the time, Newsweek unmasked the man, Thomas Tamm, who leaked to the New York Times the news that the NSA had been conducting a secret wiretapping program that was being concealed from the FISA court.

And as the magazine reported, Tamm, who spoke on the record to Newsweek for its story, has been in federal law enforcement's sights thanks to his fateful decision.

Now, DOJ has written a letter to his lawyer -- obtained by Salon's Glenn Greenwald -- asking whether, in light of his decision to speak to Newsweek, Tamm "is willing to reconsider his prior refusal to speak with agents of the FBI and/or to testify before the Grand Jury regarding his knowledge of and/or participation in the disclosure of TSP-related information to [James] Risen, Mr. Lichtblau and others."

(Risen and Lichtblau, of course, are the New York Times reporters who first reported on the program, based on Tamm's leak.)

The letter, signed by Steven Tyrrell, the chief of DOJ's fraud section, continues with what appears to be a veiled threat to subpoeana Tamm:

if I do not hear from you by [January 7], I will assume that Mr. Tamm is not interested in submitting to a voluntary interview or testifying before the Grand Jury.

In its report last month, Newsweek wrote that federal agents have "pursued [Tamm] relentlessly for the past two and a half years ... raided his house, hauled away personal possessions and grilled his wife, a teenage daughter and a grown son. More recently, they've been questioning Tamm's friends and associates about nearly every aspect of his life."

That pursuit appears to be continuing -- even as the department declines to bring charges against anyone in connection with the illegal program itself that Tamm revealed.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave his sendoff speech yesterday, and, after the usual boilerplate -- "pleasure to work alongside a group of the most talented legal professionals anyone could ever hope to work with..." -- he made reference to the department's politicization under the Bush administration.

From Mukasey's prepared remarks:

As I suggested a few moments ago, not all of the news over the last 14 months was good news. We heard allegations, and saw revelations, of politically influenced functioning within the Department, principally in hiring, and of other deviations from established procedures and acceptable professional standards. Thankfully, we can draw a measure of satisfaction even from these painful episodes. After all, many of the revelations and solutions came from within the Department itself. And, in those cases where investigations have been warranted, the Department has shown that it is capable of conducting the necessary review of the conduct and practices of its own people and of others.

We have also responded to these troubling allegations by changing policies and procedures. We instituted rules that limit contact between the Department and the White House on ongoing cases; we restored the role of career lawyers in making hiring decisions in the Honors and Summer Law Intern Programs; and we took steps to ensure that hiring and recruitment decisions throughout the Department take place on the merits, and without regard for any improper consideration, be it politics, age, race or sexual orientation.

It's true that Mukasey's tenure hasn't seen the kind of blatant politicization in hiring that we saw under Alberto Gonzales -- and Mukasey's decision to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether criminal wrongdoing occurred in regard to the US Attorneys firings may help us finally get to the bottom of that issue. But on crucial issues of the day like torture and warrantless wiretapping, he's been far from the model of independence that the Attorney General is supposed to represent.

One sidenote: The press release containing Mukasey's comments was dated: "TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2008" Two mistakes by DOJ in one attempt to render today's date! Really gives you confidence in our federal law enforcement system.

The bad blood between Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy, and ranking Republican Arlen Specter, over Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, shows no signs of abating.

Yesterday, Specter pointedly questioned Holder's record of independence, even comparing Holder to Alberto Gonzales -- a low blow by any measure.

Leahy, who supports Holder's confirmation, seems to have taken exception. His office today released the following statement in his name -- which tries to turn the Gonzo precedent back on Specter:

We need the new Attorney General to be a person of experience and independence. Eric Holder's long record of public service has earned him strong support from law enforcement organizations, civil rights groups, victims' rights advocates, former Reagan and Bush administration officials, and others. Any effort to question his character is unfounded. Every Republican voted for Alberto Gonzales, and felt his character merited confirmation. Certainly Eric Holder greatly exceeds that test.

Oh snap.

For weeks, Leahy and Specter have been bickering over the nomination. Specter prevailed on his opposite number to delay the confirmation hearings, citing a need to look more closely at Holder's record, in particular his role in the pardon of Marc Rich