Barack Obama

Obama Admin Backs Bushies On Missing Emails

Zachary Roth | February 23, 2009, 5:27PM

Change we can believe in? Maybe not so much.

The Obama administration is siding with the Bush administration in trying to kill a lawsuit brought by watchdog groups that seeks to gain access to Bush White House emails, reports the Associated Press.

At issue are emails from key periods of the Bush years, including the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak.

In response to the suit brought by two groups, CREW and the National Security Archive, the Bush White House recently said that it had found 14 million of the e-mails and had taken steps to archive others. But the plaintiffs called those steps inadequate.

Now the Obama Justice Department is seeking to have the suit dismissed, just as the Bush DOJ did.

"The new administration seems no more eager than the last" to deal with the issue, Anne Weismann of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told the Associated Press.

The AP adds:

Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government.

The Justice Department "apparently never got the message" from Obama, Blanton said.

Sounds about right.

George Bush

Quelle Surprise: Rove A No-Show, Again, For US Attorneys Testimony

Zachary Roth | February 23, 2009, 1:47PM

So today was the day that Karl Rove was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary committee to testify about the US Attorney firings. And of course, Rove didn't show.

That wasn't a surprise. After getting the deadline pushed back, Rove had already publicly indicated he didn't plan on being there, citing President Bush's claim of executive privilege. Rove's lawyer had then asked for a second postponement, a request that Judiciary chair John Conyers had declined to grant.

It's a bit unclear where things go now. The next key date is March 4th -- the new deadline for the Obama administration to weigh in on the Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten case, in which President Bush also asserted executive privilege. The new administration's stance on that case could well also determine how a judge would rule on the Rove case, should the issue go to court.

And given Rove's continuing failure to cooperate, it looks like that's where we're heading.

Barack Obama

Judge: Obama Admin Must Weigh In On US Attorneys Fight By Weds

Zachary Roth | February 19, 2009, 3:55PM

Are things finally coming to a head in the long-running effort to get testimony on the US Attorney firings from key Bush aides?

A federal court has said that the Obama administration must file its brief in the case of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten by next Wednesday, reports Politico.

The administration had asked to have until March 4th to get its position straight.

Miers and Bolten, both top aides to the Bush White House, were subpoenaed by Congress for testimony on the U.S. Attorney firings. President Bush had asserted executive privilege, sending the matter to the courts. Now the Obama administration must decide whether to back Bush's claim.

An executive order issued by the Obama White House on its first full day in office suggests it won't, in the view of some experts.

The issue of Karl Rove's testimony on the firings could also be at stake, since any ruling in the Miers-Bolten case could affect the stand-off over Rove. House Judiciary chair John Conyers has subpoenaed Rove, whose lawyer then kicked the issue over to the Obama White House.

Things are getting interesting...

Justice Department

The Big Stone Wall: Nine Bush-Era Officials Refused To Cooperate With DOJ Probes

Murray Waas | February 18, 2009, 11:41AM

At least nine Bush administration officials refused to cooperate with various Justice Department investigations during the final days of the Bush presidency, according to public records and interviews with federal law enforcement officials and many of the officials and their attorneys. In addition, two U.S. senators, a congresswoman, and the chief of staff to one of them, also refused to cooperate with the same investigations.

In large part because of that noncooperation, Justice Department officials sought criminal prosecutors in at least two cases so far to take over their investigations so that they can compel the testimony of many of those officials to testify through the use of a federal grand jury.

With the stakes now escalating for both sides -- the possibility of grand jury subpoenas for recalcitrant witnesses and the specter of senior government officials invoking their Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination -- it remains unclear whether and how many of them will continue to defy investigators.

Read more »

Alberto Gonzales

U.S. Attorney Firings Timeline: Now Better Than Ever!

Chris Black | February 18, 2009, 10:58AM

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.

Alaska

Justice Department Replaces Stevens Prosecution Team

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 5:03PM

Talk about ironic.

Amid concerns over the integrity of their work, the Justice Department has removed the head of the Public Integrity Section and several other prosecutors from the Ted Stevens trial, according to court filings examined by The Politico.

Late last week, the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, ruled that four of the prosecutors, including William Welch, the Public Integrity chief, were in contempt of court for failing to turn over documents as he'd ordered them to do.

The documents at issue relate to allegations by an FBI agent in the case that another agent had an improper relationship with a key government witness, and that the prosecution concealed this from the defense.

Along with Welch, the lead prosecutor on the case, Brenda Morris, as well as several other prosecutors, are being ousted. They're being replaced by Paul O'Brien, chief of the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, David Jaffe, the deputy chief of the Domestic Security Section, and William Stuckwisch, senior trial attorney in the Fraud Section.

Stevens the Republican former Alaska senator, was convicted last fall of failing to report gifts on his Senate disclosure form. But defense lawyers have appealed, questioning the legitimacy of those proceedings, citing, among other things, the claim of withheld evidence.

Allen Stanford

Is Allen Stanford The 21st Century's Jay Gatsby?

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 4:25PM

It looks like Allen Stanford, the billionaire Texan banker whose investment firm is being probed by the Feds, has a positively Gatsbyesque yearning to be accepted into high society.

As we knew, Stanford calls himself "Sir" Allen Stanford, on account of a knighthood he was awarded by the former prime minister of Antigua, where his business is based. But it looks like maybe that wasn't quite good enough for Stanford, since until recently he was claiming, falsely, that the knighthood was presented by the British Royal family.

Check out this report (via Nexis), from last November in the Mail on Sunday of London:

Texan-born billionaire Sir Allen Stanford's corporate website claims that, after he became a citizen of the Commonwealth territory of Antigua, it appointed him a 'Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of the Nation'.

'He was presented [with] this honour by His Royal Highness Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex,' states the website.

However, The Mail on Sunday has learned that the Prince had nothing to do with the honour and that it was not approved by the Queen.

...

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said it was a coincidence that the knighthood ceremony, conducted by an Antiguan political appointee, took place during a celebration of the island's independence, at which Prince Edward was a guest.

'It is incorrect to say that the Earl of Wessex knighted this person while in Antigua,' said the spokesman.

Stanford's personal web site now says only that the Earl of Wessex attended the ceremony at which the "royal knighthood" was bestowed. (Though the "royal" part still seem dubious, since Buckingham Palace has disavowed any role in the proceeding.)

The whole tale is reminiscent of Stanford's claim to be descended from the founder of Stanford University. The school has denied the link.

Indeed, even the awarding of Stanford's title by the Antiguan government appears to have been pretty irregular. The paper explains:

His knighthood was bestowed in 2006 under an Antiguan law that allows its politicians to draw up an annual honours list.

But the decision to honour Stanford has caused an outcry on the island, where his ownership of a £1billion financial and property empire has made him a divisive figure. Critics deride the award as a 'mockery' and have gone to court to challenge the legislation.

Antigua's National Honours Act authorises the granting of titles to distinguished citizens, who are screened by a bipartisan committee.

But Stanford was knighted under a 2000 amendment to the act, which permits the island's most powerful politicians to allow their candidates to bypass the vetting procedure.

Phillip Abbott, a businessman who is descended from the island's first settlers, has contested in the Antiguan High Court that the amendment is invalid. 'The spectacle of Allen Stanford being knighted got up my nose,' he said. 'This amendment permits politicians to nominate anyone for a title without going through the vetting required by law.'

As we said, Gatsbyesque.

New details have also emerged about Stanford's business, and what might have tipped off regulators that something fishy was going on.

Reuters reports:

According to US regulatory filings, Stanford owns more than 10 percent stakes in three companies trading below $2 per share on the Bulletin Board or Pink Sheets: eLandia International Inc, a Coral Gables, Florida technology company.

Forefront Holdings Inc, a Brentwood, Tennessee provider of golf supplies; and Health Systems Solutions Inc, a New York technology and services company. "These were not exactly blue chip companies," said Bob Parrish, an accountant in Longboat Key, Florida, whose clients pulled roughly $500,000 out of Stanford last year.

The high rates for certificates of deposit, long considered safe short-term investments, seem to have caught the attention of U.S. regulators who began probing the company in mid-2008.

The wire service adds that the Texas Attorney General's office, and the Florida Office of Financial Regulations are also probing the company.

Torture

Dem Senators To DOJ: How's That Report On Torture Opinions Coming?

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 2:36PM

Looks like it's not just journalists who are interested in the progress of that DOJ report into whether Bush administration lawyers shaded their opinions on the legality of harsh interrogation methods in order to please the White House.

In the wake of Newsweek's story from over the weekend that a draft of the report criticizes several top Bush officials, including John Yoo, Democratic senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of whom sit on the Judiciary committee, have sent a letter to Marshall Jarrett, who heads the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility and is overseeing the report.

In the letter, the senators, who wrote to Jarrett last year requesting the investigation, note that, according to Newsweek, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. They ask for an update on the status of Jarrett's probe by February 23.

They also suggest that they'll take action if the evidence shows that DOJ lawyers shaped their opinions to conform to the White House's views, writing:

Our intelligence professionals should be able to rely in good faith on the Justice Department's legal advice. This good faith is undermined when Justice Department attorneys provide legal advice so misguided that it damages America's image around the world and the Justice Department is forced to repudiate it. If the officials who provide such advice fail to comply with professional standards, they must be held accountable in order to maintain the faith of the intelligence community and the American people in the Justice Department."

As we noted before, it's not clear that the report will ultimately be released to the public. But at least some in Congress appear to be taking it seriously.

Alberto Gonzales

Newsweek: Report Will Blast Bush Lawyers On Torture Opinions

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 12:27PM

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.

Justice Department

Judge To Stevens Prosecutors: "Isn't The Department of Justice Taking Court Orders Seriously These Days?"

Zachary Roth | February 13, 2009, 4:42PM

This just gets worse and worse...

Last week, as we told you, defense lawyers for Ted Stevens formally asked the judge in his case to hold the prosecution in contempt, after a string of incidents in which the government was found to have withheld information from the defense.

And now Judge Emmet Sullivan has done so, reports the Associated Press.

Last month, Sullivan ordered prosecutors to turn over FBI documents concerning a whistleblower complaint against the agent leading the investigation into the former Alaska senator.

But they didn't, provoking the wrath of Judge Sullivan:

"That was a court order," he bellowed. "That wasn't a request. I didn't ask for them out of the kindness of your hearts. ... Isn't the Department of Justice taking court orders seriously these days?"

He said he didn't want to get "sidetracked" by deciding a sanction immediately and would deal with their punishment later. But he ordered them to produce the material by the end of the day.

"That's outrageous for the Department of Justice -- the largest law firm on the planet," he said. "That is not acceptable in this court."

This is just the latest embarrassment for the Justice Department in the case. In late January, the head of the department's Public Integrity Section admitted in writing to Judge Sullivan that he erred when he said that a group of government employees, who were cited in the FBI agent's publicly-filed complaint wanted their story to be made public. Some didn't, it turned out.

Stevens, the former Alaska GOP senator, was convicted last fall of filing false disclosure reports to hide gifts from an oil-services contractor. He is appealing the conviction.

Alberto Gonzales

Conyers: No More Delays For Rove On US Attorneys Testimony

Zachary Roth | February 13, 2009, 12:22PM

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.

Justice Department

Domenici Subpoenaed In US Attorneys Probe

Zachary Roth | February 12, 2009, 9:02AM

Last week, TPMmuckraker reported that the investigation by prosecutor Nora Dannehy into the US Attorney firings was focusing on Pete Domenici.

And today, the Washington Post reports that Dannehy has issued a subpoena to the former New Mexico Republican senator.

The Post adds that Dannehy will interview Scott Jennings, who was a top White House deputy to Karl Rove, as early as today. Jennings' lawyer told the paper he will "cooperate to the best of his ability" and is not a target in the case.

A report by the Justice Department's inspector general found that Domenici several times complained to Bush administration officials about David Iglesias, then the US Attorney for New Mexico. Domenici wanted Iglesias to quicken the pace of prosecutions against Democratic office-holders in the state. The report concluded that Iglesias had been fired for political reasons*.

The report also recommended appointing a prosecutor to look into possible crimes in connection with the firings, and the Justice Department named Dannehy for that role.

* This paragraph has been corrected from an earlier version.

Alberto Gonzales

Lying To Congress: OK For DOJ Officials, Not So Much For Ballplayers

Zachary Roth | February 10, 2009, 2:48PM

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.

Ted Stevens

D'oh! Another Screwup By Stevens Prosecutors

Zachary Roth | February 6, 2009, 3:17PM

Those Ted Stevens prosecutors are just looking more and more clueless.

The Anchorage Daily News reports that William Welch, the head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, wrote a letter to the judge January 30, admitting that he erred when he said last month that a group of government employees, who were cited in an FBI agent's publicly-filed complaint, alleging improprieties by government officials, "want their story to be made public."

In the complaint, the FBI agent, Chad Joy, had accused a fellow agent and prosecutors of violating FBI policy and fair-trial rules. But Welch has now acknowledged that not all of the employees had agreed to have their names released.

This latest screwup comes on the heels of another slip, in which prosecutors have gone back and forth on whether Joy meets the technical definition of a protected government whistleblower.

As the ADN puts it

:
"Initially, when prosecutors sought to keep the complaint secret, they said he was a protected whistle-blower. When they sought to make the complaint public, they said he wasn't.

The defense has also filed a complaint alleging that a female FBI agent on the case had an improper personal relationship with one of the key witnesses for the prosecution, former oil-services exec Bill Allen.

And even before Stevens, the former Alaska GOP senator, was found guilty in late October of concealing gifts from Allen on his Senate disclosure form -- a conviction he is appealing -- prosecutors were reprimanded by the judge for not turning over key evidence to the defense.

Stevens' defense team has already filed a motion that the charges be dismissed, on account of government misconduct. And in a new filing made yesterday, they went further, arguing that the government should be held in contempt.

"The government still does not get it. Over and over again, it has been caught red-handed making false representations to the Court and the defense," defense attorney Robert Cary wrote.

Alberto Gonzales

Gonzo Blames "Tough Economy" For Struggle To Find A Job

Zachary Roth | February 4, 2009, 10:57AM

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.

Alberto Gonzales

DOJer, Fired Amid Gay Rumors, Gets Job Back

Zachary Roth | February 3, 2009, 5:35PM

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.

Barbara Comstock

GOP Attack Dog Launches New Career -- Running For Office

Zachary Roth | February 3, 2009, 4:05PM

The conservative movement may be dead -- but one of its key Washington lieutenants is launching a career in electoral politics.

Barbara Comstock, who ran oppo research for the RNC and chaired Scooter Libby's defense fund, is running for the Virginia House of Delegates, from the Washington DC suburbs, according to a website set up by "Friends of Barbara Comstock".

A staffer at the Fairfax County GOP headquarters confirmed to TPMmuckraker that Comstock will challenge incumbent Democrat Margi Vanderhye.

Comstock's resume as a GOP knife-fighter is beyond impressive.

She served as a lead investigator for the notoriously partisan House Government Reform committee during the 90s, chaired by GOP congressman Dan Burton.

In his 2002 book, Blinded By The Right, David Brock painted a vivid picture of Comstock's obsessive zeal to bring down the Clintons:

Late night calls from Barbara Comstock were not unusual. She often telephoned with the latest tidbit she had dug up in the thousands and thousands of pages of administration records she pored through frantically as if she were looking for a winning lottery ticket she had somehow mislaid ... She once dropped by my house to watch the rerun of a dreadfully dull Whitewater hearing she had sat through all day. Comstock sat on the edge of her chair shaking, and screaming over and over again, "Liars!" As Constock's leads failed to pan out, and she was unable to catch anyone in a lie, the Republican aide confided that the Clinton scandals were driving her to distraction, to the unfortunate point that she was ignoring the needs of her own family. A very smart lawyer by training and the main breadwinner for her charismatic, happy-go-lucky husband and kids, Comstock remarked that maybe she couldn't get Hillary's sins off her brain because "Hillary reminds me of me. I am Hillary." In this admission, a vivid illustration of a much wider "Hillary" phenomenon can be seen. Comstock knew nothing about Hillary Clinton. Comstock's "Hillary" was imaginary, a construction composed entirely of the negative points in her own life.

Comstock may have mellowed a bit over the years, but her passion for trench warfare on behalf of the GOP never cooled.

During the 2000 election, she served as the head of the RNC's opposition research team, digging up dirt on Al Gore. "Al Gore kind of gave us the liar thing," she told The Atlantic in 2004. "He had a problem with the truth, and that could be tied to bigger things and bigger issues."

While at the RNC, she became a "close associate" of Monica Goodling, the Christian conservative lawyer and Muckraker favorite who later would help keep the Bush Justice Department stocked with good Republicans.

Comstock herself also moved to the Bush DOJ, in 2001, to run the department's public affairs operation -- doggedly stiffing reporters as they sought information on the administration's aggressive tactics in the War on Terror.

After leaving Justice, Comstock spent some time helping then-GOP Majority Leader Tom Delay play defense on a host of ethics problems.

Next, Comstock helped run Scooter Libby's legal defense fund, formed to help Libby fight charges that he illegally leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame for political purposes.

Later that year, she was off to run damage control for GOP Rep. Jerry Lewis, who was wrapped up in the Duke Cunningham scandal.

And months later, she teamed up with another GOP spin master, Mark Corallo, to form the crisis management firm Corallo Comstock Inc. The firm opened its doors just in time to help defend scandal-tarred Republicans facing scrutiny from the new Democratic administration. As Corallo put it to Roll Call: "Just in time for subpoena season."

Comstock didn't return a message left at her PR firm, seeking comment on her new career. But a reader reports seeing a volunteer passing out flyers promoting Comstock's statehouse run this morning at a special election site in Fairfax County, Virginia. So her campaign appears to be well underway.

Northern Virginia is turning blue at a rapid pace, so she should have her work cut out for her. But something tells us she'll be up for the challenge.

Eric Holder

Holder Confirmed...

Zachary Roth | February 2, 2009, 6:52PM

...as Attorney General by a vote of 75-21.

Said Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judicary committe:

[O]f the last four Attorneys General, Eric Holder has the largest 'aye' vote of any of them. I think it is a good sign for the country. It is a good sign for the Department of Justice.