It's hard enough to get the facts straight when allegations are made. But everything gets all the more complicated in the Bush Administration's hall of mirrors; it's all pots and kettles.

Consider this dust-up between the Office of Special Counsel and the Justice Department. In one corner, you have Special Counsel Scott Bloch, who heads an obscure little office that is charged with investigating whistleblower complaints, Hatch Act violations, and the like -- but who is himself being investigated for retaliating against whistleblowers and politicizing his office. Oh, and he used a tech service called Geeks on Call to scrub his hard drive at work (he says all the info was personal). In the other corner, you have the Justice Department, and well, you know all about that.

In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey last week, Bloch charged that the Department was blocking his probe of politicization in the DoJ, his investigation of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' firing (was it because of his Navy reserve service?), and a whistleblower complaint against former U.S. attorney Rachel Paulose. Eric Black, who reported on the letter last night, has helpfully posted a copy here (pdf).

In the letter, Bloch complains that 1) after the Justice Department launched its own internal investigation of the U.S. attorney firings and politicization in the Department last spring, they asked him to back off, and 2) the DoJ has refused to investigate a whistleblower complaint against Paulose.

Bloch's job, at least under the Bush administration, is to write investigatory reports which the White House will then ignore. Tellingly, Bloch complains in the letter that he's been trying to get White House counsel Fred Fielding on the phone for two months and had no luck.

Read more »

Congress is busy with some pretty weighty issues these days: the faltering economy, Iraq and government surveillance just to name a few. And it seems that no one's got the time to respond when the administration tells Congress to stick their subpoenas where the sun don't shine.

Last summer, former White House counsel Harriet Miers didn't even show up in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena for testimony related to the U.S. attorney firings. They got an empty chair (see above). The same went for Karl Rove in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both argued that executive privilege protected them from even appearing to invoke that privilege. The two committees also subpoenaed White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for documents and got nothing in return.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) promptly got a contempt citation passed in his committee for both Miers and Bolten in late July, shortly before the summer recess. But it's not official until passed by the full House. When Congress returned, though, nothing happened. Then a vote was supposedly imminent in November -- Conyers even issued a final warning to the White House. But then the vote didn't come (Iraq and FISA got in the way, top Dems said). Then it was supposed to come shortly after the winter recess. Now, well, you know:

Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, would “step on their message” of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks....

“Right now, we’re focused on working in a bipartisan fashion on [the] stimulus,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), indicating that the contempt vote is not expected for weeks, depending on how quickly the stimulus package moves....

“When we have the votes, we’ll go ahead with this. Right now, the votes are just not there,” said one top House Democratic insider, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Read more »

In March of last year, the Justice Department launched an internal probe of the U.S. attorney firings to be led by its inspector general, the widely-respected Glenn Fine, and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Ever since then, things have been pretty quiet, except when Fine would confirm to Congress that he'd widened his probe to include the general politicization of the Justice Department, whether Alberto Gonzales tried to coach his former aide Monica Goodling on her testimony to Congress, and other outgrowths of the scandal. He's still not done. And given the scope of his probe that's understandable. The report could serve as a comprehensive indictment of Gonzales' Justice Department. Fine has the option of referring his findings for a criminal investigation or investigations.

The Hill reported this morning that all indications are that the investigators have been following through, interviewing all nine of the fired U.S. attorneys and "scores of staffers." And although Fine has never said when the probe will wrap-up, the Hill cites "one source close to the investigation" who "expects the offices to issue a scathing report within the next three months." We'll see.

We here at TPM get hundreds of emails each day, ranging from reader emails to press releases. And it took me a while to notice that on October 10th of last year, the Justice Department stopped sending us their releases. We had been on their list for well more than a year.

Now, my immediate impulse was not to expect the worst. But suspicion is natural to a muckraker. Last spring and summer, we published countless posts related to malfeasance at the Department (actually, I count 682 posts under our U.S. Attorneys tag), coverage which several mainstream outlets have acknowledged. Not only that, but I had done a story enumerating the false statements that Brian Roehrkasse, the Department's Director of Public Affairs, had made in the course of the U.S. attorney scandal. (Bud Cummins, one of the fired U.S. attorneys, subsequently published his own piece calling Roehrkasse a "willing liar.") Perhaps someone had derived a certain petty satisfaction by knocking us off the list.

So, because of that suspicion, and knowing the difficulty of extracting a response from the Department, I asked one of our TPM research hounds, Andrew Berger, to call their Office of Public Affairs every day until we got back on their distribution list -- or until we got an explanation. He started his mission last Monday. Finally, today, we got our answer, one that will strike TPMm readers as vintage Bush DoJ. They just don't have room for our email address on the distribution list:

Mr. Berger,

I appreciated your desire to be in tune with DOJ press releases, however, unfortunately I am not able to add you to our distribution list. As you may realize we have a lot of requests to be put on our media lists and we simply are not able to put everyone on the list. We do however have all our press releases on our website and update them the minute they are released so I would suggest looking there. You can also always call us with press inquiries. Thanks again for your interest.

Sincerely,

Jamie Hais
Press Assistant
Office of Public Affairs
Department of Justice

For the record, this is the first time that any Congressional office or government agency has told us this.

We've since asked Ms. Hais for an explanation of the Department's criteria for inclusion. And we'll keep calling.

Things started out rough for Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

First he only managed confirmation by the skin of his teeth, because he refused to brand waterboarding as torture. Then he ticked everybody off when the Justice Department asked Congress to shut down their investigations of the CIA torture tapes' destruction until the DoJ finished up. And then there's the KBR rape case.

But Mukasey's a man with a big heart and big plans. Or something like that. Roll Call reports (sub. req.) that Mukasey "has shelved any animosity he might feel toward Democrats."

Among the signs of good will: occasionally consulting with members of Congress (with Alberto Gonzales as your predecessor, it's easy to impress). He's already reached out to a number, Roll Call reports, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), whose questions caused all that waterboarding-trouble, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). A Justice Department aide is quoted saying "The new attorney general’s view is whether we’re going to agree or disagree on the merits, I want to have a good personal relationship with Pat Leahy.”

That will be put to the test when Mukasey appears before the Senate Judicary Committee at the end of this month (Update: the hearing has been scheduled for January 30th). Leahy has promised to grill Mukasey about the CIA tapes investigation and his views on waterboarding. And a Leahy aide tells Roll Call that the proof is in the pudding: “The relationship between the attorney general and the Judiciary Committee is still developing, and there are outstanding requests from the chairman and others for information and cooperation.”

And about House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI)? He got a "courtesy call," before Mukasey was confirmed and though "they got along personally, Justice Department aides said, the House is particularly partisan." So it seems that the charm offensive won't be concentrating on the House.

From The Washington Post:

In its first couple of weeks after it returns tomorrow, the House is likely to take up contempt-of-Congress resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for their refusal to appear before Congress for questioning about the 2006 removal of nine U.S. attorneys, Democratic leadership aides said.

For those keeping track at home, it's been nearly six months since the House Judiciary Committee initially approved the contempt citations. As for what the timing might be on the Senate side, where the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved contempt citations for Karl Rove and Bolten, it's not yet clear.

From The Swamp:

Mukasey announced today that he's appointing Chicago federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to the Attorney General's advisory committee of U.S. attorneys.

Fitzgerald was on the committee from 2001 until 2005, but his appointment to it preceded his service as special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation....

Gonzales... did not re-appoint Fitzgerald to the advisory panel, which counsels the attorney general on law enforcement issues.

Out with the new, in with the old:

The Justice Department is replacing youth with experience, naming veteran prosecutor Frank Magill to take over for embattled Rachel Paulose as U.S. attorney for Minnesota.

Magill, 48, the first assistant U.S. attorney, will take over the position on Sunday, Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said. Under federal law, he can remain acting U.S. attorney for up to 210 days, Carr said.

Now, will Magill invite Paulose to his coronation?

Back in August, we pointed out that Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, unlike virtually the entire senior leadership at the Department, survived the U.S. attorney scandal. In fact, he more than survived it: Despite serving as Alberto Gonzales' attack dog (and giving statements that ranged from misleading to lies), he emerged with a promotion to director of public affairs at the DoJ.

It's all too much for former U.S. Attorney for Little Rock Bud Cummins, who often found himself on the wrong end of Roehrkasse's spin, to bear. So in this issue of the Washington Monthly, he takes aim, calling on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to fire Roehrkasse.

After noting some of hiss biggest whoppers, he observes that the "pattern of deception employed by this young man is deeply unsettling to me....

Now, I don't have any way of knowing how Brian Roehrkasse came to make so many dubious or misleading statements. I've never met the man or communicated with him directly. For all I know, his superiors were writing them, and he was simply reading them. But once you realize you are being repeatedly marched out to say untrue things, integrity dictates that you push back or resign before you do it again. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me over a dozen times, I'm a willing liar."

Read more »

Earlier we noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted to approve contempt resolutions against Karl Rove and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for failing to comply with subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney firings probe.

The final vote tally was 12-7, with two Republicans, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) Chuck Grassley (R-IA) crossing over.

Now, it's up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) as to when (or whether) he'll scheduled a vote on the Senate floor. When we asked a Reid aide last week about it, we were told the Reid would consult with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about it when the time came.

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee's contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Bolten have been sitting on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) desk since July. After much delay, Dem House leadership aides said last month that the vote had again been delayed to December. So now's the time. Perhaps the Senate and House will team up and schedule both votes before the New Year, sending the White House contempt citations against Rove, Miers, and Bolten as a Christmas gift. Or maybe nothing will happen. Stay tuned.

This just in:

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to hold two top aides to President Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors.

On a largely party-line vote of 11-7, the Democratic-led panel sent contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to the full Senate for consideration.

As with many of Bush's battles with the Democratic-led Senate, the president may ultimately prevail since his fellow Republicans may be able to block the citations with a procedural hurdle.

Bush has claimed executive privilege to protect aides from complying with congressional subpoenas demanding documents or testimony in an investigation into the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys. The committee has rejected his privilege claim as unfounded.

One year after eight U.S. attorneys were fired without explanation, The Los Angeles Times checks in to see how they're doing. It turns out, pretty well:

A year later, most have landed on their feet, in law partnerships or private-sector jobs where their compensation dwarfs government pay. Some carry scars from the experience. Six of the attorneys marked the anniversary of their firings at a private dinner in San Diego 10 days ago, where they toasted one another for persevering.

"The great irony of this is, it has hardly tarnished any of our reputations," said Paul Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Phoenix, who hosted the reunion.

Charlton, now a partner in a Phoenix law firm, says that as a group, the attorneys have fared much better than the department officials who orchestrated their demise.

Earlier today, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) took to the Senate floor to explain why he thinks it's important to actively counteract the administration's continual exertions of executive power. A telling illustration of that continual effort is what they do "when they think no one is looking," he said.

He then went on:

For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them. Sitting in that secure room, as a lawyer, as a former U.S. Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and State Attorney General, I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on.

To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Those three principles, he said, boiled down to:

1. “I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”

2. “I get to determine what my own powers are.”

3. “The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”

You can read the entirety of his remarks here.

Karl Rove is gone, but not forgotten.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy has scheduled a vote tomorrow on whether to issue contempt citations to Rove and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for ignoring Congressional subpoenas from the U.S. attorneys investigation. Of course, Republicans might defer the vote for another week. But at the latest, the citations would be sent to the Senate floor next Thursday.

And then it's up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). His counterparts in the House leadership have delayed a vote for contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Bolten since July. We've got a question in to see whether Reid will be speedier. We'll let you know what we hear.

Update: A Reid aide responds that "after the Committee acts on this issue, Senator Reid will consult with Senator Leahy about how to move forward on it." Maybe things will be clearer next week.

And for those who didn't catch our interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) about the contempt citations earlier this week, check it out.

Some senators are queasy over a potential contempt-of-Congress showdown with the Bush administration over the U.S. attorney firings. Not Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who sat down with TPMmuckraker in his Senate offices this morning.

Whitehouse said that the Bush administration has "redrawn the line" for a reasonable exercise of executive privilege. And that's why he supports Senator Patrick Leahy's efforts to hold current and former White House officials in contempt for not complying with Congressional subpoenas from the firings investigation. Leahy ruled last week that the administration's assertions of privilege this summer in response to the subpoenas were invalid, a step towards issuing a contempt citation.

What's more, Whitehouse welcomes the Constitutional showdown that would result. "I'm astounded at the breadth and the scope of the privilege that they claim," the first-term senator said. "I actually hope that it comes to a point where we end up litigating it and getting a court decision and settling this question."

Asked if he was going further than other senators, who'd use a possible contempt finding as a mechanism to compel the document disclosure, Whitehouse said the Bush administration has gone so far in "grading its own papers" -- that is, deciding for itself what Congress is entitled to receive from the executive -- that it's time to return to Constitutional first principles. "I'd rather get it done," he said:

"There has not been a lot of case law on this subject. We've been going on for a long time off of Department of Justice [attorney general] opinions, and a certain amount of tradition, and how settlements and agreements in the past have shaken out. But the Bush administration has shown why it's actually important that there be a legal line drawn to hold them to, because they've redrawn all the executive lines. I think it'd be good for the process to get a court decision for once and for all on the subject so everybody knows where we stand. It'll eliminate a lot of the back and forth in the future."

Read more »

No, he hasn't forgotten. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) took a step today towards contempt proceedings against Karl Rove, two of his former aides, and White House chief of staff Josh Bolten for not complying with subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney firings.

There hasn't been much movement since this summer, when Leahy issued the subpoenas. The administration claimed executive privilege for all documents and testimony sought, and said that Rove didn't need to even show up for a hearing. Rove's aides Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings appeared, but refused to discuss the firings. A subpoena for documents was sent to Bolten, and the White House refused.

Today, Leahy ruled that the claims of executive privilege and immunity were not legally valid, a necessary step toward issuing contempt citations in the committee. He didn't say when he might do that.

The timing for this might have something to do with what's going on in the House, where leaders have said they plan to schedule a floor vote to find former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Bolten in contempt for ignoring subpoenas there. That vote has been repeatedly delayed and is currently expected to take place next month.

How did Alberto Gonzales' $40,000 speech to University of Florida students go last night? The front page of The Alligator tells the story:

Next stop: Wash U.!

So what provoked U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Rachel Paulose's sudden move back to Washington? The Washington Post reports that Paulose's interview with the National Review might have something to do with it. In the interview, a response to the variety of employee complaints against her, she decried the "McCarthyite hysteria that permits the anonymous smearing of any public servant who is now, or ever may have been, a member of the Federalist Society; a person of faith; and/or a conservative (especially a young, conservative woman of color)."

From the Post:

The brief interview provoked some of Paulose's staff, according to her predecessor as Minnesota U.S. attorney, Thomas W. Heffelfinger. He said in an interview last night that "at least one and as many as three of her current staff managers either had resigned or were threatening to resign today."

Such defections would have been the second in Paulose's office in less than a year. This spring, her top assistant and two other senior prosecutors stepped down from their management responsibilities, saying they no longer could work with her.

"Last week she was talking about staying, and today she is leaving," said Heffelfinger, a state and federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years before he resigned last year to enter private practice. "So something happened."

Her departure "was a mutual decision" between Paulose and officials in Justice's headquarters, said one source familiar with the decision, speaking about a personnel matter on the condition of anonymity.

That's one way of solving the problem. Just breaking now from the AP:

Rachel Paulose, the embattled U.S. attorney for Minnesota, will be leaving the post to take a position at the Justice Department in Washington, according to a Bush administration official and congressional aide.

What position? We'll have more when we know more.

No matter what position it is, it's hard to see it as anything other than a way of defusing the problems with the 34 year-old Paulose. She was the focus of an Office of Special Counsel investigation into whether she'd discriminated against office employees, including allegedly using the words “fat,” “black,” “lazy” and “ass” in remarks to one employee.

And that was after four top attorneys in the office voluntarily demoted themselves in protest of Paulose's Bible-quoting management style.

Update: The Star Tribune reports:

U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose has quit her job in Minnesota and will return to Washington, D.C., in January to take a job as a legal policy adviser to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy....

According to a press release issued by her office this afternoon, in her new job Paulose will advise the assistant attorney general for legal policy, who serves as the primary policy adviser to Mukasey and his deputy.

So it sounds like she's returning to essentially the same job she had before she was appointed U.S. attorney for Minnesota. Before that appointment, she was "senior counsel to then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in Washington, D.C., where she was also a special counsel for health care fraud." It's not a promotion -- it's a way out.

Update: Here's Paulose's resignation letter.

So just like that, another symbol of the Gonzales years is outta there.

Now that someone else is saddled with the job of salvaging the department he damaged, Alberto Gonzales is free to speak to the nation's youth. It's a whistle-stop tour to spread the good news of cronyism, mismanagement, and politicization, to tell tales from his years as the administration's doormat at the Department of Justice. He's already scheduled a couple of speaking engagements.

But Gonzo doesn't come cheap. It's costing the University of Florida $40,000 for his appearance tonight. And Washington University in St. Louis is looking to pay him $30,000 for a speech in February (plus $5,000 for the necessary security). The student paper, Student Life, reports that "The decision to bring Gonzales to campus comes as part of a larger effort on the part of [the Student Union] to bring well-known and controversial speakers to campus." He fits the bill.

For those who can't mount the funds necessary to bring Gonzales to campus, remember: you can always give to his defense fund.

There are rare moments when you, the citizen, can feel like you've really made a difference.

Not since Scooter Libby has a devoted, loyal public servant been in such need of your help. Alberto Gonzales was set upon by hordes of journalists and Democrats and finally stepped down for the good of his beloved Justice Department. But his ordeal is not over. Because his enemies misrepresented certain carefully-chosen phrasings as lies, he is being investigated by that same department. "But what can I do?" you ask?

Contribute to the Alberto R. Gonzales Legal Expense Trust:

David G. Leitch, a Gonzales friend and general counsel at the Ford Motor Co., wrote in an e-mail solicitation to potential contributors last month that Gonzales is "innocent of any wrongdoing" but does not have the means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent mostly in public service.

"In the hyper-politicized atmosphere that has descended on Washington, an innocent man cannot simply trust that the truth will out," Leitch wrote. "He must engage highly competent legal counsel to represent him. That costs money, money that Al Gonzales doesn't have."

Leitch also wrote that Gonzales's attorney, George J. Terwilliger III of White & Case in Washington, "has substantially reduced his fees to represent Al Gonzales, but the costs will likely be high nonetheless." A contribution form asking for donations to the Alberto R. Gonzales Legal Expense Trust suggests amounts from $500 to $5,000.

Sure, the business elite, former administration officials and ambassadors (and then finally the President) came through for Scooter Libby. But Gonzales is still exposed to the forces of injustice. Won't you do your part?

You might never have a similar chance again. The Washington Post notes that "legal defense funds are common in Washington, but not for attorneys general." So act now!

December: a time of carols, sleigh bells, and contempt citations.

The House Democrats were set to hold a vote this Friday on whether to find White House officials in contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney firings investigation, The Politico reports. But no more. The vote, already delayed since July, has been pushed to December, at the earliest. The reason? The Politico quotes a "top House Democratic leadership aide": "[Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-NY)] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it will step on our message on Iraq and FISA."

So at least former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who refused to even show up for a House Judiciary Committee hearing, can enjoy her Thanksgiving. Happy feasting, Harriet!

A new bill introduced by Democrats in the Senate today would make Republican attempts to challenge voters' eligibility based on the time-tested technique of using returned mail illegal.

The voter suppression technique, which has come to be known as "caging," has been practiced by Republicans for decades, but received additional attention for its role in the U.S. attorney firings scandal. Timothy Griffin, the former aide to Karl Rove who replaced one of the fired prosecutors in Arkansas, was forced to defend his role in an alleged 2004 caging scheme when he worked for the Republican National Committee. (We ran down the evidence that Griffin was involved in a 2004 scheme to block African-Americans in Florida from voting in a story this June.) Those questions, along with the circumstances of Griffin's appointment, eventually led to his resignation.

The Caging Prohibition Act was co-sponsored by 12 Dem senators, including Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Kerry (D-MA), and presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL).

Read more »