Comments (55)

Robin Boerner wrote on March 23, 2007 7:34 PM:

"But the probe was shut down when Bush denied investigators the security clearances necessary for the investigation. Such a denial was unprecedented and arbitrary. "

The FBI investigates for clearances, even for military clearances. FBI is part of the DOJ. WHO exactly GRANTS the clearances for USA's? Is it the FBI itself or some little Bushie holed up in the Whitehouse?

In other words...how close can this be placed to Bush himself?

charlie Henske wrote on March 23, 2007 7:36 PM:

does this mean that Murray Waas is wrong? I think it does.

foggylady wrote on March 23, 2007 8:25 PM:

This is tooo rich ! We knew all along there was a reason behind Gonzo's reaction to AttorneyGate, that he was hiding something worse.
And now he deftly sidesteps Bush's attempt to throw him under the bus, leaving Bush metaphorically naked in the dspotlight.
Sorry..did not mean to ruin anyone's dinner with THAT image.

CaseyL wrote on March 23, 2007 8:43 PM:

Is there any reason shutting down the probe would not be a clear case of obstruction of justice?

And is that not clearly an impeachable offense?

Gonzales seems to think so. Though why he thinks giving in to WH pressure would mean he wasn't also guilty is a mystery.

HermanNewticks wrote on March 23, 2007 8:46 PM:

If you were Bush trying to protect your AG, you would prefer him to look emasculated than to appear to have behaved in the way Waas describes. Bush has nothing to lose, personally. He still thinks he's invulnerable in his role as unitary exec. So, he takes the hit (his approval can't slip any more anyway) to protect his buddy. Really, the Associate AG's story doesn't make any sense. How could Gonzales NOT know the probe would touch him? He was involved, and the very competent OPR would find out. This is a no-brainer.

AZ Cowboy wrote on March 23, 2007 8:48 PM:

Why is anyone surprised Gonzalez didn't stand up to Bush? The relationship between Bush and Gonzo has always been that of client and personal attorney.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 23, 2007 8:56 PM:

Forgive me but Gonzales' reasoning is full of shit. It is the Attorney's General's job to enforce the law . . . Especially if the individual doing the criminal action is the President of United States of America.

THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS FAILURE BEGINS AND ENDS WITH HIM.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 23, 2007 8:57 PM:

Forgive me but Gonzales' reasoning is full of shit. It is the Attorney's General's job to enforce the law . . . Especially if the individual doing the criminal action is the President of United States of America.

THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS FAILURE BEGINS AND ENDS WITH HIM.

Jack wrote on March 23, 2007 9:23 PM:

Since they were NSA wiretaps, they would have to get NSA clearances. Gonzales wouldn't have the option to give them the clearance. They would have been denied by Bush himself or the Defense Department. If Gonzales were a legitimate Attorney General, he would have refused to go along with the Bush Administration's defacto suspension of the Bill of Rights. Anyone worth their salt would have resigned their office and gone public rather than help tear up the US Constitution. Hopefully each and every individual responsible for illegal wiretaps, illegal searches, and illegal seizures will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law once a responsible Attorney General takes office. To do otherwise would send a clear signal that America is clearly sliding towards being a police state.

Libby was Cheney's fall guy for Plamegate and Gonzales is starting to look like Bush amd Rove's fall guy for the most blatant political corruption of the Justice Department in its history.

Adam wrote on March 23, 2007 9:26 PM:

AG has show poor judgment and not done the job he agreed to do, and we as tax payers, are shelling out the cash. Bush does not have a strong history of being honest and ethical. His family has more money in the Saudi Arabian Royal Trust than in the U.S, were their money is in oil, and oil did what in the past six years? More than Doubled! Ineffective at their jobs (both of them), those two have the power, and therefore, make the rules.

What else can I say?

Al in Austex wrote on March 23, 2007 9:35 PM:

The career employees in Foggy Bottom , from OSD to Interior are all in right now in open revolt against BushCo.
Which senior DOJ official sent that letter -perhaps someone associated with former Assitant AG Comey.
Dubya &Cheney will both be impeached -and if there are enough predicates laid down - Dubya & Cheney will both be convicted in the Senate.
The predicates are all about the corrupt Money that allows the corrupt denial of our civill liberties- it all ties togather follow the MONEY .
USA Lam was following the money she got fired .
BushCo must be resisted by any and all means necessary.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself .
How many predicates you reckon Leahy & Conyer already have without the testimony of the Evil Minions ?

Disgusted wrote on March 23, 2007 9:41 PM:

How much more of these gangsters must we endure? When will the media start covering these stories on a regular basis. It's just sickening.

Osiris wrote on March 23, 2007 9:47 PM:

I wonder how Gonzo is gonna dodge this...no link on the docs though...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2978026

TSUMBRA wrote on March 23, 2007 9:50 PM:

"GEORGE W AND HIS MBW DISORDER"
WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.COM/VIEWPOEM.ASP?ID=91584
DISCOVER JUST WHAT THE 'W' REALLY STANDS FOR?

bob wrote on March 23, 2007 9:55 PM:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/us.attorneys.firings/index.html

Interesting:

"Dick Armey, the Republican former House majority leader who now is chairman of the conservative activist "Freedom Works" organization in Washington, said Thursday that President Bush is on "thin ice" in claiming executive privilege.

He added that it is "hard for me to imagine that Karl Rove has any matters of information that are so important to the nation's security or its ability to conduct the business of our government that there's any reason he shouldn't testify."

Even former Republican conresspersons are coming out against the exec privelege argument.

They must have burned all the records and disappeared the IT people at the RNC already.

Link Lady wrote on March 23, 2007 9:56 PM:

I pasted the link to the ABC News story below.

Does the fact that Gonzales held a meeting in November 2006 and approved the purge mean that he lied to Congress?

Hank Essay wrote on March 23, 2007 9:57 PM:

Um, guys...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released documents show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, contrary to claims he was not closely involved in
the dismissals.

Friday Night Dump wrote on March 23, 2007 10:16 PM:

Attorney General of the United States Alberto Gonzales on 3/1/307:

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general.""

ABC News on 3/23/07:

"...The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it..."

The people in the Bush administration have brass balls thinking they could get away with this one.

Did Gonzales expect five of his top aides to lie for him?

I bet the only reason the WH came clean is that Kyle Sampson is afraid of going to jail.

The Oracle wrote on March 23, 2007 10:17 PM:

Exactly what did Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales know, and when did they know it, concerning Mark Foley, a fellow neo-con Republican, who had a sexual predilection for young House pages?

And what did and when did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney know?

(Note: in early 2006, Karl Rove "talked" Mark Foley (R-FL) into running for another term in office, even as the House Republican leadership was covering for Mark Foley's sexual predatory practices, as they'd been doing for years)

And did Alberto Gonzales, after Foleygate broke with a fury into pre-election news last October, use his position as Attorney General to get as many Republican-appointed federal prosecutors as possible to bring bogus voter fraud cases against Democrats in an attempt to replace negative news coverage of Foleygate with negative news coverage of alleged Democratic improprieties?

Is this why the Gonzales-controlled Justice Department is stonewalling (obstructing justice?) in not releasing all the emails related to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys last December, two months after Foleygate severely hurt Republican chances in the November elections?

And how does Alberto Gonzales resolve the contradiction between his statement the other day that he wants to keep his job so he can go on protecting the kids, when the FACT is, he and Karl Rove, being chief White House political strategists, MUST have known about Mark Foley's sexual predatory practices long before the late September 2006 revelations about his activities?

So many questions, and so few answers...so far.

Punchy wrote on March 23, 2007 10:24 PM:

Still convinced this wont get him canned. Bush could not POSSIBLY find a new AG as loyal, crooked, and unethical as this guy.

Instead, this'll harden Bush's resolve to blow this case up. Like a petchulant child, when Bush is about to be punished, he'll throw a tantrum first. Bet on it.

Bye Bye Bertie wrote on March 23, 2007 10:29 PM:

Holy Guacamole! The Little Latin Liar could be sent packing before Karl Rove Jr. testifies.

"..Asked to explain the difference between Gonzales' comments and his schedule, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse largely sidestepped the question by saying the attorney general had relied on Sampson to draw up the plans on the firings.

"The attorney general has made clear that he charged Mr. Sampson with directing a plan to replace U.S. attorneys where for one reason or another the department believed that we could do better," Roehrkasse said. "He was not, however, involved at the levels of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced."

Gonzales this week directed the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, officials said. The department's inspector general also will participate in that investigation..."

Is Roehrkasse saying that Gonzales ordered Sampson to fire the USAs?

If Gonzales directed the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, did Gonzales order an investigation of himself?

The wording here is a bit tricky: "He was not, however, involved at the levels of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced."

What does "levels" mean?

kissy wrote on March 23, 2007 10:34 PM:

F***ers!!!

Fredo Fucked Up! wrote on March 23, 2007 10:46 PM:

This is the best Friday Night Happy Hour ever!

yeah wrote on March 23, 2007 11:07 PM:

It's a real shame to bring Gonzo down for this, which must appear to him to be a trivial matter compared to okaying torture and being a party to warrantless wiretapping. We all know obstructing justice is a serious matter, but Gonzo is not very bright. He actually went before Congress and said that habeas corpus is not bestowed on anyone by the Constitution, that it merely says that habeas corpus may not be suspended except during revolt or invasion. Even Arlen Specter had to laugh at that. Bye bye Al.

greenbird wrote on March 23, 2007 11:31 PM:

uh-oh...they're revolting and we're being invaded. should i get an attorney, too?

Danno wrote on March 24, 2007 12:02 AM:

They're all scumbags and we have known this for 6 years(or longer)now. The Repugs have been trying this stuff since Reagan. The only group to have NO idea what's trully going (at least repotage wise) is the National Media. Let's stay on our toes everyone and keep this on the boil.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 12:06 AM:

To paraphrase Conan Doyle, "I draw your attention to the curious incident of the bees in the night-time." "The bees did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident."

AgriBusiness Giants like ADM have made huge donations to BushCheney. They have made an equally huge bet on genetically modified crops.

Now, research suggest that AgriBusiness giants’ genetically modified crops - such as those that contain foreign genes that result in crops killing pests that usually feed on them - may inadvertently be killing thousands of bee HIVES, especially on the US East and West coasts. Also in Europe.

No bees. No crops. No food. No joke. Google it. Compare, especially, the differential bee deaths in the US v. Europe, which plants a tiny fraction of the GM crops allowed in the US.

Jon J Caton wrote on March 24, 2007 12:17 AM:

McClatchy has the PDFs

mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 12:19 AM:

Bee warning cited earlier by other bloggers. I've repeated it after having read the materials cited in them. This could be more urgent than global warming, because it could take effect within a much shorter time.

It is worth repeating because of the huge influence of AgriBusiness lobbying, the huge bet they've made on GM crops, and the existing PR machinery - which rivals big tobacco - that AgriBusiness already has on hand, and which routinely pokes fun at "those nuts" who oppose their "sound food science".

We can't get the Bushies to acknowledge the science about global warming, or the even more basic science of ergonomics, which Justice Scalia's son has made a career of ruthlessly dissing.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 12:31 AM:

When the going gets tough - Monica Goodling takes a leave of absence. I guess that's to be expected from an alumnus of Pat Robertson's law school. Wimp!

From the NYT story Josh linked to:

"...Department officials said that the participants at the only formal meeting known to have been held to discuss the firings included Mr. Gonzales; Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general; Mr. Sampson; Monica Goodling, the department liaison to the White House; William Moschella, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs; and Michael A. Battle, then head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. Mr. Battle has since resigned, and Ms. Goodling has taken a temporary leave of absence."

ahem wrote on March 24, 2007 1:01 AM:

From the doc-dump, it looks like Daniel P. Collins, now at Munger, Tolles & Olson and a co-blogger at ProteinWisdom.com, was the guy who came up with the legal 'fix' back in 2003/4 that got slipped into the PATRIOT reauth and allowed the purge to happen.

I'm sure he'd respond to interview requests on his role.

Security Code 'fire'. Heh.

nobody wrote on March 24, 2007 1:02 AM:

The primary reason for not allowing an investigation into BushCo's illegal wiretapping is that it is being used against citizens for partisan political purposes -- national security IS partisan politics for these criminals. That they might catch a genuine threat against the nation is nothing more than icing on the cake -- and an excellent excuse they can play up in the decidedly partisan MSM.

Osiris wrote on March 24, 2007 1:09 AM:

Here's the link to the docs...have fun...

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16964237.htm

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 24, 2007 1:14 AM:

Thanks, Osris. I pasted the link into my url.

On second thought, Monica Goodling may have been told to take a leave of absence. She is the DOJ liason to the WH.

By being MIA, Goodling avoids anwering questions from the Office of Professional Responsibility.

ahem wrote on March 24, 2007 1:35 AM:

Also, we see more from Scott 'gwb43.com' Jennings, but only from an email copied in a reply. No original emails. I now get the distinctfeeling that "Karl's shop" may have done all of its emailing on outside servers. The Dems in the judiciary committees may have to think carefully about what recourse they have to get documents that haven't been archived, as required by law.

Monica Goodling's departure is interesting: the only active role we see from the doc-dump is a degree of background/oppo workup on Feinstein re: Lam, though the 'intel' report (PDF 8) might be damaging once Senators see the unredacted bits.

Perhaps she got canned for archiving her email, since lots of doc-dump stuff appears to be from messages CC:d to her.

Anonymous wrote on March 24, 2007 2:04 AM:

McClatchy has the most recent DOJ documents. Of interest: The Sampson/Miers firing plan from December 4th. (032307_3, p 29, 31, et seq.) It has the tone of a wargame exercise. Enormous thought and joint effort went into this plan. Yet, Mr. Gonzales was out of the loop?

The Sampson/Miers plan anticipates that the fired USA's might try to keep their jobs by mounting a vigorous defensive campaign in Washington. This is not the usual response of executives fired for performance reasons. Most want transition time, a soft landing, and control over statements made about why they "chose to resign". These attorneys did not know they were being let go, much less why. Until they got Battle's call on December 7th.

The plan anticipated that pushback from the USA's would include their calling mentors or contacts in Washington, including the Attorney General. Sampson emphasized that All, "Recipients of such 'appeals' must repond identically."

Yet, Sampson, Gonzales's chief of staff, left him out of the loop on a detailed plan he coordinated with Harriet Miers, who would have talked to Bush and Rove? Had that been true, Gonzales would have sacked Sampson on the spot, as would any CEO or department head in a similar circumstance. Instead, when the stuff hit the fan, Gonzales allowed Sampson to "resign", but only as his chief of staff, while finding another DOJ slot for him until the flack subsided.

Sampson was touted as an interim replacement for Bush's Brain. That reputation and his career made it vital that this plan succeed. Had he not consulted closely with Gonzales, the AG could have been blindsided by Bush, Rove or Miers, or failed to respond "identically" with all the other recipients of calls from the fired USA's. Sampson would never have put himself in such jeopardy. He kept Gonzales apprised. Or, gave him plausibe deniability by not disclosing details of a plan that Gonzales had already approved.

Gonzales intentionally deceived Congress via his testimony, regardless of whether he technically lied.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 2:10 AM:

The copy of the Sampson/Miers firing plan appended to the e-mail string of December 4th dictates that vetting of replacement USA's begin "as soon as possible in November 2006". It was either not updated when its implementation was delayed, or they had already started looking for replacements a month before telling the USA's they were out.

ewastud wrote on March 24, 2007 3:00 AM:

I wonder if Gonzo gave Monkeyboy a sly little wink after his recommendation that Bush not shut down the investigation by denying security clearances?

mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 3:07 AM:

Data released Friday, seems to appear in random order, as if the DOJ played fifty-two card pickup with it. Lots of dupes.

There is an often duplicated June 6, 2006, memo from Daniel Fridman to William Mercer that purports to analyze immigration cases by comparing caseloads in AZ, SoCA and NM. This appears to show SoCA caseload declining precipitously, which the memo explains by SoCA's purportedly restrictive guidelines for prosecuting these cases. A management problem laid at Carol Lam's door. Perhaps that's why there are so many copies of this memo.

I have not analyzed the underlying data Fridman is working with, but his discussion of it seems faulty.

Fridman starts by reminding Mercer that his report responds to questions raised by Cong. Issa, who had been provided a Border Patrol report that suggested Lam was not prosecuting enough immigration cases. Fridman fails to mention that the report was out of date and materially altered. [It now appears the report was leaked to Issa by someone in DHS.]

Fridman compares statistics among AZ, NM and SoCal. He briefly mentions differences among immigration crimes, from one-off walk-ins to "coyotes" bringing in small numbers, to large rings, but does not analyze them or compare differences among the three regions. He ignores differences in population, and human and physical geography. He touches briefly on staffing differences, but does not discuss budget differences. He fails to discuss any differences in the volume of competing, non-immigration crimes. San Diego is CA's second largest city, and has considerably more non-immigration crime than West Texas or the New Mexico border.

Fridman notes briefly that "there may be differences" that would affect the validity of his data comparison, but does not identify what they might be or how they might skew the data. He just launches into it, leaving the reader to assume that the differences, if any, are not material. If that's not true, this is a hatchet job.

Bubba wrote on March 24, 2007 3:13 AM:

You have to read the letter carefully. "Subject" and "target" are legal terms. Just because someone is not a "subject" or "target" of an investigation does not mean that their activities are not being investigated.

Furthermore, someone cannot become a "subject" or "target" of an investigation unless there is some evidence that links them to a crime. And the only way to find evidence that links someone to a crime is to investigate.

Third, if the investigation had been carried out and information was discovered that Gonzales was likely to become the "subject" or "target" of an investigation, the work by OPR would immediately have to stop and they would need to make some referrals. First, they would need to notify the AG, such that he would have to recuse himself from the investigation. Secondly, an independent prosecutor would need to be appointed to complete the investigation and determine if crimes were indeed commited and what legal consequences would follow.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 3:16 AM:

Correction. The Fridman memo looks at AZ, CA, NM and TX border areas, not just the first three.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 24, 2007 3:22 AM:

Bubba, it appears that that procedure may have been swept under the DOJ rug, along with much else. It reminds me that Fitzgerald was appoined to deal with the Libby case only because Comey was temporarily in charge while Ashcroft was out sick.

jack moss wrote on March 24, 2007 11:55 AM:

More than meets the eye

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/03/24/im-holding-fire-on-on-the-newest-gonzales-memo/

james wrote on March 24, 2007 3:22 PM:

It doesn't mean Waas was wrong, it means the revisionism has started in an effort to make Fredo look less like a criminal participant in an ongoing criminal enterprise, to wit: the conspiracy to which Bush. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, and Fredo are all party to defraud the US government, misuse treasury funds, accept bribes from military contractors, and lie to the American people.

Fredo did not meet with Bush to move the investigation along, he met with him to show him the dangers inherent in letting it go forward and to show him how to stop it.

Fredo needs to be impeached if he isn't fired and does not resign.

scribe wrote on March 24, 2007 5:19 PM:

Everyone's all ranting and raving about this latest outrage, but no one seems to have noticed that they just waived executive privilege by sentences two, three and four of the quoted statement:

The Attomey General was not told that he was a subject or target of the OPR investigation, nor did he believe himself to be. The Attorney General did not ask the President to shut down or otherwise impede the OPR investigation. The Attorney General recommended to the President that OPR be granted security clearances to the Terrorist Sur\~eillance Program. The President made the decision not to grant the requested security clearances.

Sentence one is a bald-faced attempt by Gonzo to (try to) avoid obstruction of justice charges against Gonzo - "I didn't know the investigation was coming my way, so I couldn't be the guy obstructing it". Not likely to succeed - this was just too controversial and too close to Gonzo (it ran through his office, dammit) for him to get away with that crap.

Sentence two describes a communication between presidential advisor (or consigliere/attorney - take your pick) surely made in and with the expectation of confidence (what do we hear every time about the NSA program - that it's confidential)(and, what do we hear about the executive branch - that everything going on there is confidential) and about a matter of state. Now, a spokesmodel is coming out and, as an official pronouncement, saying what the communication was about, the general substance of it, and who said (and didn't say) what to whom. Textbook waiver of executive (or any other) privilege.

Sentence three is a combination of the two purposes - I told the President to give them the clearances and let the investigation go forward (i.e., I didn't impede it, regardless of who was the subject/target) and this is the "confidential" stuff we talked about (waiver of privilege).

Sentence four is Gonzo laying the blame squarely on the President. HE obstructed the investigation. And, it's a further revelation and waiver of the allegedly privileged information.

No. This is not the WH throwing Gonzo under the bus. This is Gonzo lashing himself to the President in the hope the so-called "Unitary Executive" theory will stand up in court. If it succeeds, it will be because The President Can Do No Wrong. If it fails, it will bring down Bush.

az5762 wrote on March 24, 2007 9:35 PM:

IS this BIGGER than the Lam thing? Sorry for a stupid question but I'm getting confused. How many different obstructions of justice have gone down? And, won't Bush just pardon everyone on the way to the airport to catch his plane to Riyadh? Do we have an extradition treaty with them?

JD wrote on March 25, 2007 8:30 AM:

The NSA wiretapping was done in part to spy on political enemies without the need of a warrant.

The politicization of USA's was done in part to intimidate & prosecute democratic candidates & officeholders.

Combine the two, and you have a method for the former to feed the latter.

bill@hotmail.com wrote on April 27, 2007 12:05 AM:

penis institute

tonny@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:03 PM:

hello

margaret@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 6:37 AM:

hello

William Hendrix wrote on May 5, 2007 12:50 AM:

The President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution.

kriss@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 5:00 PM:

hello

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on November 13, 2007 7:16 PM:

Didn't we already know this.
The non-memory man was only doing what his owner demanded.

DallasNE wrote on November 13, 2007 7:37 PM:

This has the look and feel of Nixon ordering Richardson to fire Cox for not accepting the edited transcripts Nixon offered to Cox. This act was the beginning of the end for Nixon and Bush overriding his Attorney General should by all rights be the beginning of the end for Bush.

dave wrote on November 14, 2007 8:43 AM:

yup... check the date March 23, 2007

so why is this being re-posted?

dave
seattle