But the Times also, to its credit, released Comey's emails in full, allowing us all to make our own judgments about what they show. And after a close look at the emails, it seems clear that the paper could have used them to write a very different story -- with a very different effect on the public debate.
We told you earlier today about Alberto Gonzales' apparent use of the nomination of the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice -- a distinction for which Gonzo himself was once a top candidate -- to rehabilitate his reputation.
But judging by the way that the ex-AG's name is being invoked today -- as a prime example of an unqualified political hack who was seen to be in the running for the top court thanks largely to his personal ties to the president -- that rehab campaign doesn't seem to be going so well.
Watch:
Amazing as it seems, there was a time not so long ago, when people were talking about a very different potential first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice: Alberto Gonzales. That never came to pass, of course. But it hasn't stopped Gonzo from using the Sotomayor nomination to get himself back in the media spotlight, making the rounds on cable news to discuss the historic moment.
Still, we can't help but feel there's a longer-term agenda behind the ex-AG's recent media tour. Call it the self-rehabilitation of Alberto Gonzales.
TPMmuckraker favorite Alberto Gonzales went on CNN this afternoon to talk Sotomayor.
But Wolf Blitzer also asked him about the ongoing torture debate. And it was interesting to see that Gonzo -- who was White House counsel at the time the torture policies were first formulated -- seemed eager to shift any blame onto the Justice Department he would later go on to lead.
Pressed by Blitzer about his role in approving torture, he first clarified that he wasn't at the Justice Department at the key time, and said "It's the responsibility of the Department of Justice to provide legal guidance on behalf of the executive branch."
In other words: blame Ashcroft, Yoo, and Bybee.
Of course, it's unclear how that stance lines up with a report that Gonzo, while at the White House, personally signed off on CIA requests to conduct torture.
Gonzo also assured Blitzer: "I stand by my record," and "I did my best to defend our country."
Watch:
For a while now, it's been clear that, as former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan testified earlier this month, Abu Zubaydah was tortured well before the Justice Department issued its first opinion approving enhanced interrogation techniques in August 2002.
So we've been wondering about the procedure by which that treatment was authorized. And it looks like a crucial new report from NPR may have offered an answer.
Did the people -- whoever they may be -- who leaked details about Rep. Jane Harman's wiretapped conversation with a suspected Israeli agent, break the law?
The law quite clearly prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of classified information "concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government." And Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy, confirmed to TPMmuckraker: "It seems crystal clear that if this was a FISA wiretap," as appears to be the case, "then whoever disclosed it committed a felony."
The Jane-Harman/AIPAC story is only getting more interesting.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert has gone on the record with information that suggests a broader effort than we'd yet been aware of by the Bush administration to keep secret the fact that it had wiretapped a member of Congress.
We've been wondering about something on this whole Jane-Harman/AIPAC story. (For the background, go here.)
When the Justice Department heard Harman on the wiretap, and as a result started to investigate her (a probe later reportedly shut down by Alberto Gonzales), what was the underlying crime she was suspected of, and how strong does the case against her appear to have been?
Another day, another advance by CQ's Jeff Stein on his Harman-AIPAC story...
Late last night, Stein reported that, after Alberto Gonzales quashed the FBI probe into Rep. Harman for political reasons, intelligence officials, angry about Gonzo's move, told Nancy Pelosi about the wiretap that had picked up Harman talking to a suspected Israeli agent -- defying the AG's order that Pelosi not be informed.
Some recent developments in the fast-moving Harman-AIPAC story to update you on...
- Nancy Pelosi told reporters that she was briefed "a few years ago" by the NSA that they had wiretapped Harman, but wasn't told what was found, and never alerted Harman.
We didn't have the chance to get to this earlier but CQ's Jeff Stein went on MSNBC's Countdown last night to talk about his now-famous report on Jane Harman and AIPAC*.
Among other things, Stein said that there are "several people who have known this for some time."
And interestingly, he adds that, according to his sources,the investigation into Harman that Time first reported on back in 2006 "never got started" because it was quashed by then-AG Alberto Gonzales.
The whole segment is worth watching...
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
* This sentence has been corrected from an earlier version that wrongly said Stein had appeared on Hardball.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) just appeared on MSNBC to give a guns blazing denial of the allegations in CQ's explosive report from yesterday.
The congresswoman, speaking to Andrea Mitchell, reiterated her claim that she didn't intervene with anyone -- not the Justice Department, or the White House -- in the AIPAC case. And she renewed her call for DOJ to disclose all the material associated with the investigation into her that, according to CQ's report, Alberto Gonzales helped stymie.
CQ's blockbuster story, about a wiretap that picked up Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) discussing the AIPAC spying case with a "suspected Israeli agent", picks up on a sequence of complex events from several years ago, and involves several moving pieces.
So we thought it would be worthwhile to put together a timeline of events laying out the major reported developments in this sprawling story.
Without further ado:
Here's what Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy during the Bush Administration, told the New York Times in response to the prospect of torture-related charges being brought against him in Spain:
I didn't even argue for the thing I understand they're objecting to.
Feith was, in the newspaper's words, "baffled by the allegations."
The case at issue has been sent to prosecutors for review by Baltasar Garzon, the activist Spanish judge who ordered the arrest of Augusto Pinochet in the late 1990s. The gist of the lengthy complaint is this: that six former Bush officials -- including Feith, Alberto Gonzales, and John Yoo -- created a legal framework that allowed for the torture of detainees at Guantanamo.
So is Feith right to be "baffled" by his name popping up among those facing potential charges? Let's go to the record:
Buried in a New York Times story today about the fallout for several former Bush lawyers who crafted the administration's war on terror policies, is the following gratifying nugget:
David S. Addington, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was a forceful voice in internal legal debates, is also said to still be looking for work.
As far as we know, Addington has not yet described himself as a "casualty of the war on terror", as Alberto Gonzales did recently in explaining his own failure to find a job.
The Bush years may be over, but the U.S. Attorney firings scandal isn't. In fact, Karl Rove and Congress are still locked in battle about whether he'll ever have to reveal, under oath, what he knows.
So you'll be excited to hear that we've updated our authoritative timeline of events in the years-long saga -- and given it a new look.
You can check it out here.
Those Bush lawyers who approved torture may not be in the clear just yet.
Newsweek reveals that a report into the integrity of opinions given by Bush DOJ attorneys, approving water-boarding and other harsh interrogation techniques, is sharply critical of several top officials, including John Yoo, the author of the infamous "torture memo".
A draft of the report -- which was authored Marshall Jarrett, the head of the department's Office of Professional Responsbility -- was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. But it looks like Bush's DOJ brass pushed back.
According to Newsweek's sources, former Attorney General Michel Mukasey, and his deputy Mark Filip, "strongly objected to the draft." Apparently, Filip wanted the report to include responses from the three DOJers most heavily criticized -- in addition to Yoo, that was Jay Bybee, another top department lawyer who wrote opinions authorizing harsh tactics, and Steven Bradbury, who ran the department's Office of Legal Counsel.
A spokesman for the Obama DOJ told Newsweek it's reviewing the matter.
It sounds like the report could contain be pretty hard-hitting. Newsweek says it's focusing on "whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted." According to one source, the investigators have obtained, in the magazine's words, "internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted."
But Yoo et al. may not be in much legal jeopardy. Newsweek adds that, at worst, the report "could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action".
It's also not clear we'll ever get to see the report. Jarrett told the Senate Judiciary committee last year that he'd inform them of his findings, but only that he's "consider" releasing a public version.
If this isn't an issue that deserves a full public airing, it's hard to know what would be.
Another development in the ongoing saga of Karl Rove's long-sought testimony on the US Attorney firings.
House Judiciary chair John Conyers has sent a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, enclosing a subpoena for Rove to appear before the committee February 23. That date had already been agreed to in a prior exchange of letters late last month.
But things are getting slippery again. Rove had originally been scheduled to appear February 2, but the two sides agreed to a delay, in part thanks to a scheduling conflict on Rove's part.
But apparently, Luskin, in the intervening time, had asked for a second delay. In addition, Rove had announced in a recent speech in California that he didn't intend to appear, citing an executive privilege claimed by President Bush.
In today's letter issuing the subpoena, Conyers informs Luskin that he won't agree to the requested second delay. Conyers writes:
Given Mr. Rove's public statements that he does not intend to comply with the subpoena, I am puzzled as to why Mr. Rove needs a mutually convenient date to fail to appear.
Conyers also writes that he can't accept Luskin's request to have Rove's testimony be limited to the matter of the Don Siegelman case, meaning he would stay mum on the US Attorneys firings.
Next week, the Obama White House is scheduled to formally weigh in on the contempt proceedings currently being brought by Conyers' committee against two other former Bush aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, for their testimony on the firings. The position the White House takes could well determine whether Rove will ultimately be required to testify by a court -- which is where things seem to be heading.
So Miguel Tejada, the shortstop for the Houston Astros, has been charged with lying to Congressional investigators about the use of steroids in baseball.
That news put us in mind of someone two other people who are suspected of lying to Congress, but so far, unlike Tejada, have escaped legal jeopardy. We refer, of course, to Alberto Gonzales and Bradley Schlozman.
A report released last July by the Justice Department's inspector general indicated that Gonzales may have lied to Congress about politicization at the department. And there have also been credible suggestions, including from Senate Judiciary chair Pat Leahy, that Gonzales perjured himself during his testimony on the US Attorneys firings scandal. A special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, has been appointed to look into whether crimes were committed in connection with the firings, and the issue of Gonzales' possible perjury appears to be at the center of her probe. But as yet, Gonzales hasn't been charged (though he's certainly not in the clear).
As for Schlozman, a former top DOJ voting-rights official, another report by the department's IG, this one released last month, found that Schlozman lied to a Senate committee about his own role in politicizing hiring at the department. But the US Attorney's office for the District of Columbia declined to bring charges against Schlozman (a decision that Attorney General Eric Holder has said he will review.)
Meanwhile, Tejada is set to go before a DC judge tomorrow. And Roger Clemens is also under investigation for lying to Congress about steroids.
And consider this: Tejada isn't accused of lying about this own possible steroid use. Rather, prosecutors say he lied when he told Congressional investigators, during an interview in a Baltimore hotel room, that he didn't know about any other players using steroids. Gonzales and Schlozman, by contrast, are suspected of lying to conceal their own involvement in politicizing DOJ.
It's hard not to conclude that if federal investigators went after former DOJ officials as hard as they went after ball players, the world would be a better place.
Last night, Alberto Gonzales continued his failing effort to rehabilitate his reputation, talking to CNN's Campbell Brown about his record at DOJ.
Brown asked about the numerous findings that Gonzo had politicized the department, provoking the response from him that "you need to look at the overall record of the Department during my tenure."
But the lowest -- and saddest -- moment when he tried to explain his struggle to find a job since leaving government service.
He blamed the economy.
Watch the video:
Remember, this man was the Attorney General of the United States.
At last: Change We Can Believe In!
Remember Leslie Hagan, who last April was dismissed by Monica Goodling from the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys because she was rumored to be gay?
Well, the Obama administration has righted that wrong, giving Hagen her job back, reports NPR, which broke the original story of her dismissal.
Hagen served as the liaison between DOJ and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. In her performance evaluation, she received the highest possible ratings -- "outstanding" -- in each of five categories.
But Goodling, a Christian fundamentalist, heard a rumor that Hagen was gay. So it was curtains for her.
A report by the department's inspector general last, released last year, added new details to the saga.
NPR reports on how Hagen got her job back:
Last year, the Justice Department posted Hagen's old job again. The department conducted a national search. Applications came in from around the country. After several rounds of interviews, Hagen eventually won the job.
The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it's a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent.
Hagen still owes thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees, which the Bush DOJ refused to pay (though it took a different view of Alberto Gonzales' legal fees). But the new leadership may reverse that decision too. Here's hoping.
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:
TPM Media Sites
Talking Points Memo
TPMDC
TPMCafe
Approved Sites
Washington Independent
The Blotter
ThinkProgress
War&Piece
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Mother Jones
Sunlight Foundation
Harper's
POGO blog
PC Action Fund
Josh
Zachary
